Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations Question about water pressure

I have been pondering whether or not to expand my pond. The water level is pretty close to the ground water level and it is fed by 4-5 springs. I didn't own the land when the pond was dug, but the previous owner said that the springs "shot out like a water hose" when they were struck. The deepest part of the pond is 16' when the water-table is at it's high average for the year, and was 13-14' during the dryest part of this past summer. I live in a rural farm area, so irrigation does come in to play with our water table.

I've spent a lot of time in the last month (since I found the forum) reading as much as I can, and I understand the possible advantages and disadvantages of a spring-fed pond and the possible issue of the spring acting as a drain when the pressure of the pond exceeds the pressure of the spring. My question, though, is this: since I live in a sandy soil area and my water level is at the mercy of the water table, am I at any more of a risk of draining if I expand the surface area of the pond? And, is water pressure only a factor of depth, or depth and area? For instance, if I expanded the surface area of the pond but kept the depth at an average of 9-10' would that put any more pressure upon the spring?

Expanding the pond in area wouldn't put any more pressure on existing springs inside the pond. But you might possibly run into new springs that don't take as much pressure to back flow. Adding heighth to the pond (dam) would increase the pressure on your springs.

Theo,

Additonaly is possible since there is enough hydralic pressure to push up the water to a higher piezometric level, that he doesn't have to worry about back flow due to the pond water pushing down? Most of the springs that I have heard cause problems in ponds just ooze up but don't have enough hydralic pressure to fight the downward pressue of the pond water. If his water literally shot up upon contact of excavation there must be a good amount of pressure there.

Artesian pond.

Yes it is. However will it backflow with enough pressure pushing down? I guess it depends on how much pressure is pushing up eh vs. how much is pushing down?

Thanks for the input, guys. I think that I am leaning towards not expanding. I would really like to have a larger pond, and the excavator is willing to trade work in exchange for leaving the black dirt that he excavated off the original dig for a longer time than originally negotiated, however, I really do not want to push my luck and be left with an empty hole.

Do guys possibly have any reference web pages you could point me in the direction of, that could further enhance my knowledge base on the subject? Thanks, again.

bbjr.

Do a google search on artesian wells etc. There is lots of info expecially from the USGS on the subject.

If it was me I'd expand. But then I'm a risk taker.

What are the wells like in your area? Are they free flowing artesian? If so why not put one in and let it flow into the pond to keep up the water level if that is a problem?

Thanks for the encouragement, Cecil. I am finding some great info, including the ground table atlas for my area. I've got a lot of stuff to go over, so I will report back later.

AFA, the wells in my area, most wells are shallow wells with sand points and external pumps. There are a few deep wells with submersible pumps, but no artesian wells that I am aware of. I will try contacting a few of the local well drillers this week and see if they know of any.

Apparently, my county has the second most artesian wells in Indiana, with the highest count belonging to the county next door, according to this usgs document http://in.water.usgs.gov/datareport/datareport2002/pg519-561.pdf. Unfortunately (I think), the number of wells in my county is only 6. Here is the info from the nearest well to my location (about 3-4 miles west). It appears to be the best producer and the only one that has had its high water level above the land surface datum, however, it has a 16" diameter and is drilled down over 600'. Please help me make some sense of the info.
GROUND-WATER DATA
JASPER COUNTY
410322087163101. Local number, JP 11.
LOCATION.--Lat 41o03'22", long 87o16'31", in NW1⁄4NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 sec.18, T.30 N., R.7 W., Jasper County, Hydrologic Unit 07120002,
(FAIR OAKS, IN quadrangle), on Prudential Life Insurance Company of America property, 3.2 mi north of State Highway 14, and
1.5 mi southwest of Fair Oaks.
Owner: Prudential Insurance Company of America.
AQUIFER.--Limestone of Devonian age.
WELL CHARACTERISTICS.--Drilled artesian well, diameter 16 in., depth 630 ft, cased to 63 ft, open end.
INSTRUMENTATION.--Water-level recorder.
DATUM.--Elevation of land-surface datum is 697.50 ft above National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929. Measuring point: Top of
floor of shelter, 3.50 ft above land-surface datum.
REMARKS.--Water level affected by irrigation pumpage.
PERIOD OF RECORD.--March 1981 to current year.
EXTREMES FOR PERIOD OF RECORD.--Highest water level, 0.04 ft above land-surface datum, Apr. 3, 1982; lowest, 52.76 ft below
land-surface datum, Aug. 17, 2002.
HIGHEST WATER LEVEL, IN FEET BELOW LAND-SURFACE DATUM, WATER YEAR OCTOBER 2001 TO SEPTEMBER 2002
DAY OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
5 10.55 6.63 5.51 4.39 3.95 3.22 2.62 3.02 2.38 23.89 17.14 28.60
10 9.71 6.26 5.38 4.59 3.66 3.07 2.57 3.04 2.45 27.44 26.08 32.69
15 8.79 6.13 5.17 4.39 3.62 2.73 2.67 2.46 2.42 36.71 51.55 31.20
20 8.19 6.01 4.82 4.25 3.44 2.90 4.05 2.40 3.50 36.24 28.77 21.33
25 7.34 5.77 4.69 4.29 3.36 2.89 3.51 2.34 14.46 27.23 18.26 16.68
EOM 6.77 5.67 4.60 4.08 3.35 2.69 3.00 2.26 10.34 20.47 --- 14.32
MIN 6.77 5.67 4.46 4.08 3.31 2.65 2.29 2.26 2.29 11.20 --- ---
WTR YR 2002 HIGH 2.26 MAY 31
LOWEST WATER LEVEL, IN FEET BELOW LAND-SURFACE DATUM, WATER YEAR OCTOBER 2001 TO SEPTEMBER 2002
DAY OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
5 10.88 6.91 5.73 4.45 4.04 3.29 2.69 3.09 2.44 28.95 17.70 30.24
10 9.92 6.38 5.50 4.68 3.81 3.14 2.78 3.12 2.51 30.87 29.75 34.22
15 8.92 6.38 5.22 4.53 3.69 2.88 2.74 2.57 2.84 38.59 52.13 31.61
20 8.42 6.14 5.03 4.37 3.61 2.99 4.18 2.44 3.55 37.96 31.99 23.29
25 7.38 5.92 4.76 4.33 3.41 2.95 3.56 2.41 15.97 29.43 19.88 17.35
EOM 6.97 5.82 4.67 4.48 3.41 2.75 3.08 2.31 11.20 21.30 --- 14.71
MAX 11.39 6.98 5.77 4.70 4.22 3.50 4.23 3.12 16.06 44.70 --- ---
WTR YR 2002 LOW 52.76 AUG 17

bbjr,

Sorry can't help. Just don't have the expertise. Is that some kind of test well?

I am trying to find all the well records around me but msyteriously some of my neighbors aren't even listed. If I can afford it I will go with a consultant (see letter) to see if it's feasible for me to increase my flow with no danger of messing up my neighbors wells.

I did hear something reassuring about our state regarding ground water availability from an aquaculture colleague. There was a dispute between he and a Purdue professor whether Indiana or Lousianna is the top state for groundwater potential in the U.S.

Edit: Figured out why I can't find all the wells in my area on the state DNR well log website. You have to pay to be able to view all of the ones in your township and nearby townships. Wow! You pay taxes and then they have the nerve to charge you again for what you are paying your taxes for!

expanding area does not affect pressure

raising level increases pressure

Cecil,
I found a site yesterday that has all the test wells that the dnr has drilled in the state. It might be able to help you. I will try to find it and post the link. Also, how did you find out which aquifier you are using?

Oops, I almost missed your question. I think the wells that are in this document are working wells that the usgs monitors for whatever reason. I seen that one is owned by the dnr, one privately, and 3 are owned by Prudential Life (kinda strange). I found out some good news today, though. I talked to a well guy I know, he only water jets shallow wells but was still helpful, and he told me of atleast three other artesian wells that are in the county, but warned that artesian wells may be very high in sulfur.

BBjr,

I've been to that site and have all the books too. Got a response from the potential consultant today. Basically the cost is out of my ballpark (they would need to put in two test wells to monitor test pumping of my well and would really go into depth to cover themselves if I did end up causing problems. After all is said and done though I might not like their answer but I'd still be out the money.

The guy was really honest about it and basically said if he was me he would try and stay just below 70 gpm to stay just below the major water user classification so I would not be liable if there are any problems with my neighbor's wells. But he did comment that at my location he didn't see a problem up to 100 gpm. but of course don't bet the farm on that.

I am right at the edge of the Solomon Creek and Natural Lakes Moraine aquifer.

Here you go, Cecil, hopefully these can be of some help.

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/dv?referr...rm=introduction

http://www.state.in.us/dnr/water/ground_water/ground_water_avail/index.html

http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/gwle...iteria=state_cd

http://in.water.usgs.gov/atlasweb/

Sorry, we posted at the same time.

Is that 70 gpm per well, or total per individual/household?

I believe it's based on one well. At least I hope so! I've got a domestic household well on the property too!

I'm thinking I might be able to get by with 65 gpms to supply water to two trout ponds. I may alternate the flow or run more water into one than the other.

Now I just need to put some mullah away. A 65 gpm well pump may run as much as $2000.00 depending on the horsepower. I may wait until next fall.