WIXLIB

2GROUND-WATER RESOURCES, DAYTON AREA, OHIOWells in the Dayton area typically range in depth from 60 to 175 feet andcommonly yield 250-2,500 gallons per minute. As determined by pumping tests,the coefficient of permeability of the lower aquifer ranges from 1,000 to 2,500gpd (gallons per day) per sq ft, and its coefficient of transmissibility rangesfrom 40,000 to an estimated 250,000 gpd per ft. Where the till-rich zone isabsent, the transmissibility may be as high as 500,000 gpd per ft. Frompumping-test data, the leakage coefficient of the till zone at the municipal wellfield on Eohrers Island, in the Mad River valley, was computed as 0.001-0.012gpd per cu ft and the coefficient of vertical permeability of the till of this zoneas 0.03-0.13 gpd per sq ft.Ground-water recharge in the Dayton area occurs chiefly because pumpinginduces infiltration of streamfiow through the streambed into the upper aquifer.Thus, the availability of ground water depends not only on the physical properties of the aquifers but also on the character of the surface-water flow andthe rate at which water can percolate through streambeds under various conditions. Discharge measurements made at several points along the Mad andMiami Rivers on October 4, 1960, at a time of very low flow, showed that therate of infiltration through the streambeds averaged about 1.7 mgd per acre inartificially ponded areas on Rohrers Island and about 0.07 mgd per acre in thereach of the Miami River extending south from the Main Street Bridge in downtown Dayton to the city limits. The infiltration rate in this part of the MiamiRiver channel was probably at a minimum when the discharge measurementswere made. It is estimated to be much higher averaging about 0.75 mgdper acre when the discharge at the Main Street gage is equal to or greaterthan about 2,000 cfs (cubic feet per second). Flows of this magnitude occurabout 20 percent of the time, during which ground-water levels consistently risein this area.Ground water is extensively withdrawn in three general areas. One of theseareas is in the Mad River valley about 5 miles northeast of the center of town,in the vicinity of Rohrers Island. The other two areas are both in the MiamiRiver valley; one includes most of the central and southern parts of Dayton,and the other is about 2 miles south of Dayton and includes the plants of theFrigidaire Division of General Motors Corp. and the well fields of the Montgomery County Sanitary Department.Pumpage at the municipal well field on Rohrers Island averages nearly 35mgd, mostly from the upper aquifer. The supply is maintained artificially bydiverting river flow into specially constructed infiltration ditches and lagoonson Rohrers Island. These artificially flooded areas are drained periodicallyand dredged to remove the accumulated muck and silt so as to maintain a highrate of infiltration into the underlying aquifer. The Rohrers Island area hasreached the practical limit of large-scale development, and the city is presentlydrilling new wells and developing another ground-water supply in the MiamiRiver valley north of Dayton.Pumpage by industrial and commercial establishments in the central andsouthern parts of Dayton averages about 40 mgd. Ground-water levels in threeobservation wells in these areas at the Fourth Street Station of the DaytonPower & Light Co. (Mt-2), near the Stewart Street Bridge opposite the NationalCash Register Co. (Mt-3), and at the Municipal Building near the center of town(Mt-6) have been in fairly steady decline since the beginning of record. Somewells in this area have gone dry or have been deepened, and pumpage has beenreduced locally because of low water levels. Recharge conditions are poor inthe central and southern parts of Dayton, largely owing to the siltation of theriverbed and formation of a "channel seal," which retards the rate of stream

INTRODUCTION3infiltration. Water-supply development in the area as a whole is near its practical limit unless the rate of recharge can be increased.Pumpage for industrial and public supply averages about 25 mgd in the thirdmajor area of concentrated pumpage, which centers at a point about 2 milessouth of Dayton. Ground-water levels have not been lowered excessively inthis area and additional large supplies can be developed. Favorable rechargeconditions result from a relatively high rate of stream infiltration and, to alesser extent, from the presence of permeable kame deposits, which form a groupof high hills along the east side of the valley and contribute much ground-waterrunoff to the valley-fill deposits.Ground water in the Dayton area, which is in a limestone terrane, is high incalcium and magnesium; the range of hardness as CaCOs of 44 samples analyzedis 269-516 ppm (parts per million). The iron content, 0-3.5 ppm in the samplesanalyzed, is troublesome. The iron problem is intensified by the presence ofiron-precipitating "bacteria" in many wells. Chlorine treatment usually is required for the control of such organisms.The demand for ground water in the Dayton area is estimated to rise fromthe 1958 total of 110 mgd to at least 140 mgd by 1975 and to at least 200 mgd bythe year 2000. This last quantity is more than can be developed in the areaunder natural conditions, and an increasing incidence of local water shortagesis forecast unless a comprehensive plan is evolved for conserving water andincreasing the rate of infiltration to the aquifers.INTRODUCTIONPURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATIONThe availability of ample supplies of water has been vital to thegrowth and industrial development of the Dayton area. Groundwater, because of its purity and low temperature, has been of specialvalue to industry, and comparatively few cities in Ohio are so abundantly endowed with ground-water resources as is Dayton. Nature'sprovidence is reflected in the fact that nearly one-fourth of the totalquantity of ground water used in Ohio is pumped from wells in theDayton area. The Dayton municipal water system is one of thelargest in the Nation where the entire supply is taken from wells.The use of ground water in the Dayton area has grown enormouslyin recent years. Figures compiled by the U.S. Geological Survey in1946 and by the Water Conservation Subdistrict of the Miami Conservancy District in 1954 reveal an increase in water use of about 40percent in the intervening 8-year period. Indications are that theuse of ground water for industrial and municipal purposes will continue to expand in future years. Forecasts by the Presidential Advisory Committee on Water indicate a probable doubling of the Nation's current demand for water for industrial use by 1975. Theincrease in water use at Dayton may be substantially above the national average if recent trends continue.Although the demand for water will almost certainly increase, thesupply is limited. Even prior to the drought of 1953-54, when com-

4GROUND-WATER RESOURCES, DAYTON AREA, OHIOparatively little attention was being paid to water supply, someobservers speculated that the growth of Dayton might be stuntedeventually by the difficulty of obtaining water economically. Theseobservers pointed to the fact that local shortages already had developed; some wells have been abandoned, and a few industrial plantsappeared to have reached the maximum practical development of theground-water resources in their respective areas. Fears of a widespread water shortage became more widespread during the ensuing2-year drought and were intensified as water levels in observationwells dropped to record lows. Public officials and representatives ofindustry alike became concerned. Various plans to conserve wateror to recharge aquifers were proposed; the principal plan called forthe construction of control dams and retarding basins in the headwaters of the major tributary streams to provide for increased dryweather flow in the Miami River. Increased riverflow during drought,it was asserted, would result in more recharge to the ground-waterreservoirs. Systematic dredging of the stream channels in areas ofheavy pumping also was proposed as a means of increasing the rateof infiltration to the underlying aquifers.Thus, alarm caused by the drought and concern for the futureresulted in the creation, in 1953, of the Water Conservation Subdistrict of the Miami Conservancy District, which was to study the feasibility of constructing control dams. The Subdistrict in 1956 retaineda board of consultants to ascertain the benefits or liabilities of theproposal. The consultants, after collecting basic hydrologic data andmaking several experiments with artificial recharge, reported thatincreasing the base flow of the Miami River would not appreciablyincrease ground-water recharge. On the contrary, they found thatreduction of the peak flows necessary to store water for augmentinglow flows would inhibit recharge, inasmuch as most infiltration occursduring floods. Thus if flood peaks are reduced, so is much of therecharge.In 1956 the Water Conservation Subdistrict entered into cooperation with the Branch of Ground Water of the U.S. Geological Surveyto conduct the investigation forming the basis of this report, whoseobjective is a comprehensive review of the problems of greater Dayton's ground-water supply, with particular emphasis on future waterrequirements and how they can best be met. The scope of the reportincludes a detailed study of the geology and hydrology of the principal aquifers, a history of ground-water pumpage as related to waterlevel trends, a review of the quality of ground water, and, not leastin importance, an estimate of Dayton's future water needs based ona continuation of present growth of population and industry.

INTRODUCTION5No report is "final," inasmuch as ground-water requirements areconstantly changing and are difficult to predict. Thus by 1975 the entire problem may have changed, rendering the present interpretationas obsolete as the old Miami and Erie Canal. It is the authors' purpose to present first the facts, and second their interpretation. Whether or not time alters the validity of the interpretation, the facts standas a base for any future investigations.PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONSThe glacial-outwash aquifers of the Dayton area have been describedin several reports covering various phases of the geology and groundwater resources of western Ohio. Fuller and Clapp (1912) reportedon the Dayton area in their reconnaissance of the ground water ofsouthwestern Ohio. Foerste (1915) wrote about the geology of thearea and briefly mentioned the ground-water resources. Stout, VerSteeg, and Lamb (1943) included a chapter on Montgomery County intheir report on the geology of water in Ohio.The most complete investigation of water resources of the Daytonarea made prior to the present one was written by Norris, Cross, andGoldthwait (1948); it covers in much detail the geology of the consolidated rocks and of the glacial deposits and provides data on thehydraulic properties of the aquifers, yields of wells, water quality,and streamflow characteristics.Walton and Scudder (1960) studied the ground-water resources ofthe valley-train deposits in the Fairborn area, immediately east ofthe area of this report.Norris (1959) studied in detail the hydraulics and hydrology of thevally-fill deposits in the vicinity of the Dayton municipal well fieldon Eohrers Island, in the Mad River valley. His report, a byproductof the present investigation, describes the separation of the valley fillinto two aquifers by a clay-rich zone and gives the rate at which waterleaks through this semiconfining bed to the lower aquifer.Streamflow characteristics have been determined by a systematicstream-gaging program, maintained for nearly 50 years in the Daytonarea by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the MiamiConservancy District and Ohio Department of Natural Reasources,Division of Water. Flow characteristics have been tabulated and discussed by Cross (in Norris and others, 1948; Cross and Weber, 1950;Cross and Hedges, 1959). Cross (1950, p. 60-62) also gave a summary of the history of surface-water development, which centeredaround the Miami-Erie Canal system.The disastrous flood of March 1913 and the formation of the MiamiConservancy District and construction of five flood-control reservoirsin the Dayton area were described by Morgan (1951).

6GROUND-WATER RESOURCES, DAYTON AREA, OHIOPERSONNEL AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis investigation was made under the supervision of the senior author. Cooperating agencies were the Miami Conservancy District,represented by Max L. Mitchell, chief engineer, and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, represented by C. V.Youngquist, chief. All water analyses were made in the Columbuslaboratory of the Branch of Quality of Water, U.S. Geological Surveyunder the supervision of G. W. Whetstone, district chemist. Dataon streamflow were provided by the Branch of Surface Water, U.S.Geological Survey, represented by L. C. Crawford, district engineer.A seismic-refraction survey to determine depths to bedrock was madein the spring of 1960 by R. M. Hazlewood of the Denver office ofBranch of Geophysics, U.S. Geological Survey.Mr. Robert E. Reemelin of the Miami Conservancy District collected much of the basic data incorporated in this report and periodically assisted the authors in making water-level measurements.The authors regret that all the industrial and municipal representatives who furnished information for the report and cooperated in otherways cannot be mentioned here. The contributions of several, however,warrant special mention. Mr. John E. Eschliman of the Ralph L.Woolpert Co., Consulting Engineers of Dayton, furnished most ofthe information concerning the well fields of the Montgomery CountySanitary Department, including results of several pumping tests hisfirm had made. The firm of Schaefer & Walton, Consulting GroundWater Hydrologists, Columbus, made available all the basic data ofa pumping test at the Miami River well field of the city of Dayton.Messrs. W. T. Eiffert, director, and Robert Stout and Charles R.Stout, of the Dayton Water Department, supplied most of the information concerning the Dayton municipal well fields. Messrs. LoydC. Huffman, sanitary engineer, and Earl Riber and Kenneth Hilton, ofthe Montgomery County Sanitary Department, were most cooperativein providing information.Messrs. E. C. Webster, Glenn L. Herbst, and Gerald Doig of theDayton Power & Light Co., E. K. Weisser and N. E. Siders of theNational Cash Register Co, and G. E. Miller, E. R. Oda, and DoyleMummert of the Frigidaire Division of General Motors Corp. providedinformation regarding the use of ground water by their respectiveindustries. The authors are grateful to the many well drillers of theDayton area who made information available. G. M. Baker & Sons,Inc., Messrs. Clay P. Garrison, Elbert Hays, Lewis C. Harman, A. E.Lotts, the Layne-Ohio Co., Messrs. O. O. Pegg, and Donald J. Roewere among those drillers most frequently consulted. Mr. Roe, ofVandalia, Ohio, was especially helpful in providing several gamma-

INTRODUCTION7ray logs of wells he had drilled and in giving information on pumpingtests he had made in the Dayton area.Mr. Wilbur Cotton, formerly executive secretary of the Miami Conservancy District, was instrumental in providing support for theinvestigation.Finally, the authors express appreciation to Mr. O. B. Reemelin,vice president of the Dayton Power & Light Co., whose untiringefforts as chairman of the Water Conservation Committee of theDayton Chamber of Commerce led to the formation of the WaterConservation Subdistrict of the Miami Conservancy District andultimately to the support for the present cooperative investigation.Mr. Reemelin has been instrumental in fostering and maintaininginterest in water conservation in the Dayton area. It is not an overstatement to say that his interest in Dayton's water problem was thelargest single factor in making this report possible.METHODS OF INVESTIGATIONDuring this investigation, records of 458 wells were collected andthese wells were located in the field. Comprehensive inventories ofground-water pumpage in the Dayton area were made in 1955 and1958. Water levels in about 60 observation wells were measured in1955 and twice annually in 1958, 1959, and 1960; and contour mapswere prepared of the piezometric surface of the lower aquifier. Theresults of seven pumping tests were analyzed, and chemical analysesof 44 water samples were made.The presence of widespread sheets of till interbedded with the valleytrain deposits led to the use of several specialized criteria for theirrecognition. These criteria are described in detail under the heading"Specialized Investigational Techniques."WELL-NUMBERING SYSTEMFor purposes of well numbering and the inventory of ground-waterpumpage, the Dayton area is divided into six districts. (See pi. 5.)Privately owned wells are assigned numbers by district according tothe following plan:DistrictWell Nos.Central1-100East 101-200North . 201-300West 301-400South Park . 401-500Moraine 501 and upAll privately owned wells inventoried in the preparation of thisreport are listed in the section "Records of Wells in the Dayton Area."

8GROUND-WATER RESOURCES, DAYTON AREA, OHIOPublic-supply wells retain the numbers originally designated bywaterworks officials. Wells of the Dayton Municipal Water Department are designated by the prefix C, wells of the Montgomery CountySanitary Department by the prefix M, and wells of the OakwoodWater Works by the prefix O. Test wells drilled by the Dayton Municipal Water Department are given their original number prefixed by theletter T. All public-supply wells inventoried in the preparation of thisreport are listed in the section "Records of Wells in the Dayton Area."Observation wells in Montgomery County whose

2 GROUND-WATER RESOURCES, DAYTON AREA, OHIO Wells in the Dayton area typically range in depth from 60 to 175 feet and commonly yield 250-2,500 gallons per minute. As determined by pumping tests, the coefficient of permeability of the lower aquifer ranges from 1,000 to 2,500 gpd (gallons per day) per sq ft, and its coefficient of .