Pond Boss Forums POND CONSTRUCTION Selecting a site Artesian well digging?

Mike and Pete,

My pump that is rated at 45 gpms is a 2 hp pump I believe. Keep in mind if you put in a well, and your static water level is close to the surface, even if you don't get much artesian flow, you can use a different kind of pump that draws water out and it would run much cheaper with less hp than a submerged well pump. I would contact Stoney Creek Equip. Company and ask for Steven Owingo the owner. He turned me on to this but unfortuantely my static water level is not high enough to make this kind of pump worthwhile. Not only does Steve sell equipment he has first hand knowledge of harnessing artesian flow over on his side of the state. He's in Grant Michigan north of Grand Rapids.

http://www.stoneycreekequip.com/

Sounds like you have the potential. You just need to figure out how to exploit it. I would hope you do it as effeciently as you can and take advantage of the artesian flow and gravity to move your water. Don't use power if you don't have to but if you do use as little as possible!

Thanks Cecil,

Yes we have a good opportunity with a new well to keep the costs down even with pumping water. The submerssible in sleeve pumps are not very efficient since they are restricted to a 3" vane for their pumping action. An out-of-the-well shallow well pump is much more efficient since the vanes are 8-9" in diameter. I have a similar 1 HP unit for my sprinkler system at my house and draw from a canal and at 1 HP I probably can get upwards of 50-60 gallons per minute flow. They are also alot cheaper to purchase.

You got that right! Glad to hear you know about these kind of pumps.

Pretty interesting topic and discussion.

Took a look at the geologic maps for your area and it appears that deposits in the low areas are descibed as lakebed clays from the last glaciation. The clays apparently form the impermable barrier. Rain falling on the more permeable upland region creates recharge and the head from this recharge drives flow beneath the clay which becomes overpressured. Wells drilled through the clay in the low areas are artesian because of the connection to the high heads in the upland area (its really just a simple siphon). In this area the glacial deposits are between 100-200 feet thick, so bedrock issues should not be a factor.

Interference effects from wells may occur but it depends on the capacity of the aquifer (Transmissivity). If the aquifer is extremely productive, you might not be able to measure any cumulative effect from small even relatively closely spaced wells. As Theo and Ewest point out, at least theoretically, each withdrawal will lower the head, its just a matter if the response is observable. The withdrawals also increase the groundwater flow velocity. It appears that this is a pretty large scale regional condition, so as pebaugh points out, it may only be a pinprick. I'm sure that there is probably some fair hydrogeological information regarding the capacity of the aquifer and DEQ probably has it.

I would be a little concerned about the sand in the well. This could be a sign that the well was poorly constructed when it was installed (screen size too coarse, filter pack incorrectly installed) or it could be that the screen has deteriorated. It may just be accumulation of sand over a long period of time. You could get a sand bailer and see if you can bail sand out of the screen. If the screen is partially filled with sand, this will produce more yield once it is cleaned out and in the best case scenario solve your problems. Considering the age of the well you might have several feet of sand in the screen. If it fills back in, you know there is a problem with the screen. We will occasionally use a special video camera to inspect well screens to trouble shoot. That's probably the best advice I could give you.

Here is a link to purchase the bailer. Don't substitute a plastic bailer, it won't work. Use a good rope and knot. I've occasionally lost bailers down wells then you have to get the snagging hooks out to retrieve them. When you get the bailer to the bottom you will need to surge the bailer up and down a number of times then pull it up and dump out the sand. Repeat until the sand is gone.

Link to bailer

I have learned alot about basic well construction and also found a pretty amazing MDEQ free on-line database in my search. It was commissioned by the MDEQ in cooperation with MSUutilizing what is called ARCIS software. GO to http://gwmap.rsgis.msu.edu/ and then click on the button called STart Viewer in the middle, far left side of screen. This service is incredible - anyone in MIchigan will find it amazing for research and learning!

Steve: I have also talked with several "well men" and they indicated the almost 50 yr. old 2" steel pipe well currently running may have no screen at all. The well behavior is such that whenever we crank open the 2" ball valve we put on the side for drinking water (thermos fill up etc.) that a small handful of sand comes out for 3-5 seconds. When we had ratcheted back the flow in August for 2 months (while hte major excavation was being done we put a pipe reducer on the well and ran a garden hose 75 ft. outside the fence to the surrounding wetlands (to prevent flow into the pond during the big dig out). When we took the hose off and re-connected the 2" horizontal pvc pipe and let it flow fully, a hole bunch of sand came out for perhpas 3-5 MINUTES- very muddy looking (which had never happened before like this). It cleared up and was only sand, but lots of it. Another intersting test we did was to raise the garden hose up to actually test the height of the head- strangely enough, it stopped flowing completely at just 6 ft! Not was I hoped for, but consistent with the modest 15 gpm flow that been going on for almost 50 yrs. So, low pressure, but my guess is a fairly robust reservoir.

Another piece of the puzzle I just validated is that a well was dug in 2003 less than 1000 ft away
on our side of Dow Rd. (Hodgins Asphalt)and the record indicates a 40 ft. total depth AND it was a flowing well (artesian). FYI- the second to last layer on the nearby well was CLAY, just as you found and the final "layer" lsited as sand/water. With a pump they got 60 gpm for one hour with NO apparent drop in the aquifer. They ran the 60 gpm test for a whole hour, agin testifying that the aquifer is large. Better than that is that as this well was for a business, that torqued it back to about 10 gpm, thereby not draining more of the immedaite aquifer. The record doesn't show the unassisted flow- fyi (darn!)

On a related note, a driller mentioned he knew of a well 4 miles away that hot 1500 gpm in an artesian well- am I jealous or what??? We don't anticipate anything like that. They also ratcheted that well back to a modest low output in the end (no trout pond there)

THANKS for all of your help on this- your input has been very helpful!!

Mike:

Glad to hear you are making progress. The well driller may be right about the screen, they are a wealth of practical information. They do make their living selling wells. If it were me, I'd figure out if the existing well could be rejuvenated before spending money on a new one. The County may make you decomission the old well before issuing a permit for a new well. You might want to check into that anonymously first.

The REGIS system is pretty cool. If you view any one particular watershed the information available is only a fraction of what is needed to calibrate a detailed groundwater flow model. I used to work for the USGS office in Lansing that is helping to compile the data (used to work for the MDEQ too). It takes a team of hydrogeologists months and six figure budgets to prepare such models (very rare in the private sector).

It always makes me a little uneasy to go to a governmental site, zoom in on my property and learn everything about it in 5-minutes. Pretty soon you'll cut down a tree on the back forty and a summons will be delivered to your door three days later.

Steve:
Thanks for your thoughts- it's makes sense with your dep knowledge baswe that you have history with the DEQ and USGS. For a change I feel good about tax dollars being spent to serve the public!

My brother, pebaugh and I's conclusion is that it is time to plan for a long term replacement for the eventual collapse / dwindling function of the nearly 50 yr. old well. While it is still productive, Cecil made a solid point about the volume of water (15gpm) not being enough input for this size / volume of pond for trout (which is all we are interested in raising in there.

So, I guess ne way of the other, we have decided whether short term or long-term, relying on a rusting 50 yr. old steel pipe with likely no screen is living on borrowed time. FYI- 4 year's ago, we had to replace the horizontal section of 2" pipe going into the pond from this well as it was rusted through in half a dozen spots and leaking all over the ground. And the elbow joint simply broke apart in trying to remove it. That might give you a better picture of what we are dealing with.

On the MI well permit, I did notice anything requiring info. on an existing well, closure nor restrictions about that. If this becomes an issue, we will deal with it by directing attention to the small flow we currently have and that due to deteriorating equipment (rusting pipes) the flow has become insifficient for our current needs (the straight truth). PS it looks like the aerial photos are fairly old as the front property owner added building some eyars back and they don't show up- so I'm not that worried- but I get your point.