Environmental Earth Sciences

, Volume 68, Issue 7, pp 1955–1965 | Cite as

Multi-observation well aquifer test case study: is recovery coincident with the cessation of pumping?

  • Kyle E. MurrayEmail author
  • Landon S. Yosko
Original Article


Due to increases in water demand, the City of Kenedy, TX, USA must expand their small drinking water supply in the Gulf Coast aquifer system. Groundwater wells owned by the City of Kenedy, Karnes County, TX were examined to estimate properties for the Jasper aquifer. Conditions of four wells were assessed, after which two wells were rehabilitated and used as pumping wells in aquifer tests. Aquifer tests show that recovery in observation wells was not coincident with the cessation of pumping. Post-pumping data were selectively excluded so that only recovery data were used for analyses. Transmissivity for the Jasper aquifer ranges from 102 to 242 m2 d−1, and storativity ranges from 6.9E−05 to 3.3E−04. Transmissivity computed from recovery data was approximately 25 % higher than transmissivity computed from time-drawdown data. Field measured specific capacities and drawdowns were compared to theoretical specific capacities and drawdowns to calculate pumping well efficiencies in the range of 52.2–99.4 %. This study indicates that water demand for the City of Kenedy could be met by incorporating the tested wells into the water supply system. Future studies should be designed to estimate groundwater recharge rates and a complete water balance for computing a sustainable maximum annual yield.


Jasper aquifer Well rehabilitation Aquifer testing Sustainability USA 



We acknowledge the City of Kenedy for funding this research project, the Center for Water Research (CWR) at The University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA) for providing student and administrative support, Alsay Water Well Service (Alsay) for well rehabilitation services, Veolia Water for assisting with site access and water infrastructure operation, and GeoCam for partnering on borehole camera surveys. The authors acknowledge the time taken by various peer reviewers and thank them for their thoughtful comments.


  1. Chowdhury AH, Wade S, Mace RE, Ridgeway C (2004) Groundwater availability model of the central Gulf Coast aquifer system: numerical simulations through 1999. Texas Water Development Board, AustinGoogle Scholar
  2. Deeds N, Kelley V, Fryar D, Jones T (2003) Final report: groundwater availability model for the southern Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer. Texas Water Development Board, AustinGoogle Scholar
  3. Gates JB, Nicot JP, Scanlon BR, Reedy RC (2011) Arsenic enrichment in unconfined sections of the southern Gulf Coast aquifer system, Texas. Appl Geochem 26:421–431. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2011.01.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. George PG, Mace RE, Petrossian R (2011) Aquifers of Texas. Texas Water Development Board, AustinGoogle Scholar
  5. Hudak PF, Wachal DJ (2001) Effects of brine injection wells, dry holes, and plugged oil/gas wells on chloride, bromide, and barium concentrations in the Gulf Coast Aquifer, southeast Texas, USA. Environ Int 26:497–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kasmarek MC, Robinson JL (2004) Hydrogeology and simulation of ground-water flow and land-surface subsidence in the northern part of the Gulf Coast aquifer system, Texas. In: US Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5102, p 103Google Scholar
  7. Khorzad K (2006) City of Kenedy water study—Gulf Coast well field. Wetstone Consultants, AustinGoogle Scholar
  8. Kruseman GP, de Ridder NA (1990) Analysis and evaluation of pumping test data, 2nd edn. International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement, WagningenGoogle Scholar
  9. Loucks DP (2000) Sustainable water resources management. Water Int 25:3–10. doi: 10.1080/02508060008686793 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Murray KE, Yosko LS (2007) Technical report: assessment of water supply, water demand, and water resources planning needs for the City of Kenedy, Texas. UTSA Center for Water Research, San AntonioGoogle Scholar
  11. Murray KE, Yosko LS (2008) Water supply potential of existing wells, City of Kenedy, Texas. UTSA Center for Water Research, San AntonioGoogle Scholar
  12. NRS-Consulting-Engineers (2008) Preliminary engineering assessment, Kenedy brackish desalination plant Karnes County, TexasGoogle Scholar
  13. Razack M, Huntley D (1991) Assessing transmissivity from specific capacity in a large and heterogeneous alluvial aquifer. Ground Water 29:856–861. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.1991.tb00572.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. TDCJ (2012) Texas Department of Criminal Justice directory and statistics for correctional units. Cited 9 Jan 2012
  15. Theis CV (1935) The relation between the lowering of the piezometric surface and the rate and duration of discharge of a well using ground-water storage. Trans Amer Geophys Union 16:519–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. TWDB (2012a) City population projections in Texas. Cited 10 Jan 2012
  17. Waterstone (2001) Groundwater availability modeling [GAM] for the central Gulf Coast aquifer—preliminary conceptual model. Edna, TexasGoogle Scholar
  18. Yosko LS (2008) Hydrogeologic characterization and water supply assessment of gulf coast aquifer in the City of Kenedy, TX. M.S. Thesis, University of Texas at San AntonioGoogle Scholar
  19. Zheng L, Guo J-Q, Lei Y (2005) An improved straight-line fitting method for analyzing pumping test recovery data. Ground Water 43:939–942. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2005.00094.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oklahoma Geological SurveyThe University of OklahomaNormanUSA
  2. 2.Ashland Aqualon Functional IngredientsKenedyUSA

Personalised recommendations