MAJOR TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 - USGS · 2011-03-21 · MAJOR TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 BY TATE DALRYMPLE...

ANCH C. H, Pierc

If y»u do not need this report after it has served your purpose, please return it to the Geological Survey, using the official mailing label at the end

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORHarold L. Ickes, Secretary LIBRARY

WATER RESOURCES DIVK *C REPORTS SECTION

W. C. Mendenhall, Director

Water-Supply Paper 796 G

MAJOR TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935

BY

TATE DALRYMPLE AND OTHERS Q

Prepared in cooperation with the

TEXAS BOARD OF WATER ENGINEERS

Contributions to the hydrology of the United States, 1937 (Pages 223-290)

UNITED STATES

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1939

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C. Price 15 cents

WATER RESOURCES DIVISION REPORTS SECTION

CONTENTS

Page Abstract______________________________________ 223Introduction____________________________________________________ 224Definition of terms_---_____-__________________________ 227Administration and personnel______________________________ 227Acknowledgments-________________________________________________ 228Physical features of Texas as related to the general character of the streams. 22&Determination of flood discharges_________________________________ 229»May flood on Seco Creek____________________________ 232'

Precipitation_____________.________________________ 233;Maximum discharge-_______________-___.___________ 234Previous floods _______________________________________ 236'

June floods------_______________________________ 236-Precipitation____-_______________________________________ 237"Colorado River Basin__________________________ 239?

Colorado River flood_______ __________________ 239Llano River flood_________________________.-___ 241

Nueces River Basin._ __________________________________. 245Nueces River flood____________________________________ 245West Nueces River flood____________.____________-___ 249

Determination of discharge near Brackett ville_________ 252Frio River flood____________________________ 256Atascosa River flood_____-_________________________________ 256

Rio Grande Basin____-_-_-_ _________________________________ 257Stages and discharges of May and June floods __.-_ ______ 257

Colorado River near San Saba________________________________ 258Colorado River at Austin______ _ _____________ _ ____ 259"Colorado River at Smithville______________________ 26QColorado River near Eagle Lake_____________________________ 2621North Llano River near Junction.______________________________ 263;Llano River near Junction______________________________________ 264Llano River near Castell_______________________________________ 264'Pedernales River near Spicewood--___-------__--_---_---_-_____ 266Guadalupe River near Spring Branch_____-________-_____________ 266San Antonio River near Falls City__________________ ________ 267Cibolo Creek near Falls City_________________________ 267Nueces River at Laguna___________________ f _______________ 268Nueces River near Uvalde__--_______________-___-___-_-_-_-____ 269 1Nueces River at Cotulla________________________-____________-__ 270Nueces River near Three Rivers_______________________________ 272Frio River at Concan___________________________ _ ________ 273;Frio River near Derby________________________________-________ 274Frio River at Calliham_________________________________ 275-Atascosa River at Whitsett______________-__________________ 275

m

IV CONTENTS

Page December flood on Buffalo Bayou__.___-._____-__-_--_-_--_--_--_-._ 276

Precipitation__________________-_..._________ 276Maximum discharge------.---.----.__-__-.__-_--_------------__ 277Previous floods_______________._._______.____ 280

Summary of maximum discharges._________________________________ 282

ILLUSTKATIONS

Page PLATE 54. Map of Texas showing principal towns and streams mentioned

in the text-__________.___________________ 22455. Map of Texas showing major topographic divisions and major

drainage basins______________________________________ 22456. Llano River at Llano at about peak of flood of June 14, 1935- 24057. Bridges destroyed by flood of June 14, 1935: A, Llano River

on Mason-Fredericksburg highway; B, Nueces River on Uvalde-La Pryor highway_--____-_-___--__---------___- 240

58. Isohyetal map of the major part of the Colorado and NuecesRiver Basins and parts of adjacent river basins.___________ 240

59. Congress Avenue bridge, Colorado River, at Austin: A, Atabout peak of flood of June 15, 1935; B, At low water______ 240

60. A, Colorado River at Austin, looking north on Congress Avenue from right bank at about peak of flood of June 15, 1935; B, South Llano River at Junction, near peak of flood of June 14, 1935____________-___-__--___---_--_-_----_--__ 248

61. Nueces River on Uvalde-La Pryor highway: A, View from left bank at about 10 feet below peak stage on June 14, 1935; B, View from right bank made about 30 minutes before bridges were destroyed. ________________________________ 248

62. West Nueces River near Brackettville: A, Looking upstream from just below lower cross section; B, Looking toward right bank and upstream from about lower cross section.________ 249

FIGURE 34. Isohyetal map of the Seco Creek drainage basin aboveD'Hanis_________________________________ 235

35. Hydrographs of discharge, Colorado River near San Saba, at Austin, at Smithville, and near Eagle Lake, June 14-24, 1935______________________________________________ 242

36. Isohyetal map of the Llano River Basin_________________ 24437. Hydrographs of discharge, North Llano River near Junction,

Llano River near Junction, and Llano River near Castell, June 14-17, 1935__--_-_-__--_ ____.-___-__-_---_-__-_ 246

38. Hydrographs of discharge, Nueces River at Laguna, near Uvalde, at Cotulla, and near Three Rivers, June 14-27, 1935_ -_----___---____--__---_---_-_-_-_--____,.___ 248

39. Isohyetal map of the West Nueces River Basin____-_-_--_ 25140. Profiles of high-water marks and sections of slope-area reach

on the West Nueces River near Brackettville-_____.__-- 25341. Isohyetal map of the Buffalo Bayou Basin_______________ 27842. Hydrograph of discharge, Buffalo Bayou at Eureka Cutoff

railroad bridge at Houston, December 7-12, 1935_______ 27943. High-water and stream-bed profiles of Buffalo Bayou from

Post Oak Road to the turning basin at Houston__________ 281

CONTENTS "

TABLES

Page TABLE 1. Precipitation records for June 1-15, 1935__________________ 238

2. Altitude and average descent of the Colorado River from apoint near San Saba to the mouth_____________________ 240

3. Maximum discharge at river-measurement stations on the Colo rado and Pedernales Rivers, June 1935__________________ 241

4. Altitude and average descent of the North Llano, South Llano,and Llano Rivers from source to mouth.__________________ 243

5. Maximum discharge determined at places in the Llano RiverBasin, June 1935__ _ _ ___ ___________ ___ 245

6. Altitude and average descent of the Nueces River from sourceto mouth________-________________.____-____--___-_____ 247

7. Maximum discharge at river-measurement stations on theNueces River, June 1935______________________________ 249

8. Altitude and average descent of the West Nueces River fromsource to mouth_____________________________________ 250

9. Computations for slope-area determination of discharge of theWest Nueces River near Brackettville_____-.______--____ 252

10. Precipitation in Buffalo Bayou and adjacent drainage basins,December 6-8, 1935_____________________ __. 277

11. Maximum discharge, Buffalo Bayou and tributaries, at Hous ton, December 9, 1935_________.___________ 277

12. Run-off and discharge on Buffalo Bayou at Eureka CutoffBridge, Houston, December 7-12, 1935______________ 280

13. Crest stages, flood of December 9,1935, and stream-bed altitudesdetermined June 1929, Buffalo Bayou at Houston.. _______ 282

14. Maximum stages and discharges on certain streams in Texas.. 283


By TATE DALRYMPLE and others

ABSTRACT

In Texas in 1935 exceptional floods occurred in May on Seco Creek, in June on the Colorado and Nueces Rivers and their tributaries, and in December on Buffalo Bayou.

A very heavy rainstorm occurred early in the morning of May 31 over the Seco Creek Basin. The maximum rainfall reported was 22 to 24 inches in B% hours. This extremely heavy rain occurred at the Woodward ranch about 17 miles above D'Hanis and 50 miles west of San Antonio. The resulting flood in Seco Creek exceeded any previously known. A slope-area measurement of dis charge made in a reach about 11 miles above D'Hanis gave a peak discharge of 230,000 second-feet from a drainage area of 153 square miles, or 1,500 second-feet per square mile.

Heavy rains, amounting to probably 20 inches at some places, fell over the Colorado and Nueces drainage basins the first 2 weeks in June, causing floods greater than ever had been recorded in these basins. The greatest floods occurred on the Llano River, tributary to the Colorado, and the West Nueces River, tributary to the Nueces.

The South Llano and Llano Rivers reached the highest stages ever known, the former stream being 3 feet higher at Junction and the latter 8.6 feet higher near Castell than the previous highest stages, which occurred in 1889. The South Llano River near Telegraph had a peak discharge of 160,000 second-feet from a drainage area of 540 square miles, and the Llano River near Castell had a peak discharge of 388,000 second-feet from an area of 3,514 square miles.

The flood from the Llano River, when joined by a smaller flood from the Pedernales River, caused the Colorado River at Austin to reach a stage of 41.2 feet, which is 1 foot lower than the maximum stage of record, which occurred in 1869. The peak discharge of the Colorado River at Austin on June 15, 1935, was 481,000 second-feet from a drainage area of 26,350 square miles (excluding 11,800 square miles of noncontributing area). Below Austin there was little rain fall, and the flood peak decreased considerably.

The maximum discharge of the West Nueces River at a reach about 28 miles north of Brackettville was 580,000 second-feet from a drainage area of 402 square miles, which is equivalent to 1,440 second-feet per square mile. So far as known this is the highest discharge ever recorded from an area of like size.

The greatest recorded discharge on the Nueces River was near Uvalde, below the mouth of the West Nueces. At the river-measurement station at this place the peak discharge was determined as 616,000 second-feet; the drainage area is 1,930 square miles. The peak stage of 36.9 feet exceeded by 10.5 feet the pre vious maximum known stage, which occurred in June 1913.

223

224 CONTRIBUTIONS TO HYDROLOGY, 1937

A rain of 8 to more than 18 inches fell over the Sycamore Creek Basin, tribu tary to the Rio Grande a few miles below Del Rio, causing the greatest flood ever known on this stream.

From December 6 to 8 torrential rainfall in the Buffalo Bayou Basin, in Harris County, amounted to over 20 inches in some places. The resultant floods in the Buffalo Bayou and tributaries exceeded previously recorded stages and caused considerable damage in the city of Houston. The maximum discharge of Buffalo Bayou at Lockwood Drive Bridge, below the mouth of Whiteoak Bayou, was measured as 52,750 second-feet from the drainage area of 458 square miles, equivalent to 115 second-feet per square mile.

During the floods of May, June, and December, 1935, approximately 50,000 square miles of drainage area contributed extraordinarily high discharges and about 16,000 square miles contributed discharges greater than had been recorded previously.

The information in this report includes records of peak stages and discharges and of mean daily discharges during the flood periods at about 19 river-measure ment stations, results of 25 peak discharge determinations, hydrographs of dis charge at 12 river-measurement stations, records of rainfall at 108 places, 5 isohyetal maps showing rainfall over various areas, and other data pertinent to the Texas floods.

INTRODUCTION

Texas is peculiarly subject to floods resulting from intense precipi tation, commonly called cloudbursts, over relatively small areas. Such floods occur in many regions, as they have recently in New York,1 in California,2 in Nebraska and Kansas,3 and in other places, and they occur more frequently in some regions than in others. Eastern and central Texas and certain sections of neighboring States appear to be especially subject to such floods. Every year Texas has several floods of greater or lesser magnitude caused by rains of the cloudburst type.

Several exceptional floods, all associated with rainfall of unusual intensity, occurred in Texas in 1935. Out of this group, floods in five streams, caused by three distinct periods of high precipitation, have been chosen for presentation in this report, as follows: Seco Creek in May, the Llano, Colorado, and Nueces Elvers in June, and Buffalo Bayou in December. (See pi. 54.) There were other floods in the State in 1935, some of which may have been worthy of presentation if more facts had been available.

So-called cloudburst floods are peculiarly difficult to describe satisfactorily. The intense precipitation may and very frequently does occur in a region where there are no rain gages and almost always in a region where there is no recording rain gage that would yield reliable information as to the intensity of precipitation. The infor mation on precipitation must therefore be compiled from available

Johnson, Hollister, The New York State flood of July 1935: U. S. Oeol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 773-E, 1936.

'Troxell, H. C., and Feterson, J. Q., Flood in La Canada Valley, California, January 1, 1934: U. S, Qeol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 796-C, 1937.

* Follansbee, Robert, and Spiegel, J. B., Flood on Republican and Kansas Rivers, May and June 1935: U. S. Qeol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 796-B, 1937.

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

106°

WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 7S6 PLATE 51

94°

0 K L! A H 0

104° IOZ° 100° 96°

MAP OF TEXAS SHOWING PRINCIPAL TOWNS AND STREAMS MENTIONED IN THE TEXT.

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 796 PLATE 55

____________102"________________________IU

i ~l ~l 7 ~ r ~ 1~ ~

102° W0°

MAP OF TEXAS SHOWING MAJOR TOPOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS AND MAJOR DRAINAGE BASINS.

MAJOR TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 225

sources, and, although it may be reasonably reliable, it is generally not closely accurate in regard to total quantity and largely fails to show the intensity of precipitation for short periods. Similarly, information as to rates of flood run-off is also largely lacking. Gen erally, there is no river-measurement station on the stream most affected. Except on the largest streams a flood may come and go within a few minutes or, at most, a few hours. Usually no oppor tunity is afforded for direct and accurate measurements of stage or discharge. The rates and quantities of discharge must be computed by indirect methods, such as by formulas for flow over dams of different shapes of crest, by the draw-down at contracted openings, or, most commonly, by open-channel slope formulas, and all informa tion used in such computations is obtained, of course, after the floods have passed.

Difficult though the conditions may be, and unsatisfactory though the resulting reports may be, any available information with respect to cloudburst floods is of great value, because such floods are especially disastrous in creeks and small rivers, in which they yield record stages and discharges. Because of the inherent difficulties there is at best relatively little reliable information as to either their frequency or their magnitude.

The Texas floods described in this report caused the loss of 30 lives and heavy property damage, amounting in the aggregate to over $28,500,000.* The greater part of the damage was caused by floods on the Colorado and Nueces Rivers and the area in Harris County tributary to Buffalo Bayou, including the city of Houston.

May 1935 was a month of unusually heavy rainfall at many places in Texas, and the precipitation was well distributed over the State, with the result that most of the rivers reached flood stages. In the Monthly Weather Review for May 1935, page 170, the following statement is made:

Except in the Rio Grande, where there was only a slight flood, there were moderate to severe floods in all the rivers of Texas which empty into the Gulf of Mexico. Ten persons were drowned.

Heavy rainfall over parts of northeastern, central, western, and southwestern Texas during a period of several days near the middle of June produced disastrous floods on the Colorado, Guadalupe, and Nueces Rivers and less severe floods on the Rio Grande, Trinity, and other rivers. The Monthly Weather Review for June 1935, page 200, contains the following statement:

There was a moderate flood in the upper Trinity River in Texas. This flood was most severe on the East Fork of the Trinity River, where levees were over topped and broken in many places.

4 See Monthly Weather Review, December 1935, pp. 364-365.

226 CONTRIBUTIONS TO HYDEOLOGY, 1937

The official in charge, Weather Bureau office, San Antonio, Tex., makes the following statements * * *:

"Heavy to excessive rains over the watersheds of the Colorado, Guadalupe, and Nueces Rivers from June 12 to 16 caused severe floods in these river systems. The highest stages known occurred at Marble Falls, Austin, and Smithville, on the Colorado, and at New Braunfels and Victoria, on the Guadalupe; also at Cotulla, on the Nueces.

"Timely warnings were issued for these floods, and large amounts of property saved thereby. * * * However, losses were heavy, especially to bridges and highways. Thousands of pecan trees were lost, and many farm buildings entirely disappeared. Eight people are known to have been drowned."

There were widespread rains on June 13 in the lower Rio Grande Valley. The heaviest 24-hour fall of record occurred at Del Rio, Tex., and a very rapid rise in the Rio Grande followed. The Rio Grande had previously reached the flood stage at Mercedes and Brownsville. The property damage was not heavy, but four persons were drowned when their home was washed away.

The flood on Buffalo Bayou at Houston in December is described in the Monthly Weather Review for December 1935, page 361, as follows:

The outstanding flood of December 1935 was the record-breaking overflow of Buffalo and Whiteoak Bayous at Houston, Tex., on the 8th and 9th. This destructive flood was caused by excessive rainfall over Harris County, Tex., during a 42-hour period on the 6th, 7th, and 8th, with amounts ranging from 5/4 inches at Houston to approximately 20 inches near the center of the 406 square mile watershed. The following report made by the Weather Bureau office at Houston, Tex., is of interest:

"Torrential rainfall over Harris County on December 6, 7, and 8 caused phe nomenal rises in Buffalo and Whiteoak Bayous. These streams have their courses almost entirely in Harris County, and their confluence is near the center of the wholesale district of the city of Houston. The Buffalo Bayou flows through the center of the city and enters into Galveston Bay. The lower course from the eastern part of the city to Galveston Bay has been deepened to form the Houston Ship Channel. There has been the usual encroachment on the channel through the city, and this operated to retard the flow of flood waters and caused excep tionally destructive flooding in the business district, as well as in some residential districts. More than 100 city residential blocks were flooded. Homes had to be abandoned, and much hardship followed. Fortunately, mild weather prevailed. Eight persons were drowned. The property loss is conservatively estimated at $2,500,000, consisting of damage to roads, bridges, buildings, and contents. Several buildings in the wholesale district were completely wrecked by the under mining of their foundations. Stocks of goods in several warehouses were ruined.

"The greatest 24-hour rainfall in Houston was 5.38 inches on the 7th and 8th, but the catch in a standard rain gage exposed at Satsuma, a pumping station of the Humble Oil Co., in the northwestern part of Harris County, was 16.49 inches, and catches of 21 inches were reported, but these were measured in improvised gages and cannot be accepted as entirely reliable.

"Levels run by the city engineer show a stage of 40.3 feet above mean tide level immediately below the confluence of the Buffalo and Whiteoak Bayous, as compared with 34.3 feet on May 31, 1929, and 34.3 feet in 1879 (date unknown). The crest passed in the early morning of December 9."

The determinations of discharge for the peak stages of these floods necessarily were made from field data collected subsequent to the

MAJOE TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 227

floods. In general the field data consisted of measurements of slopes and areas of cross sections corresponding to high-water marks and the determinations of proper values of the roughness factor n for use in the Kutter or Manning formula. The computations of discharge by slope formulas, using the best information obtainable for slopes, cross sections, and values of n, indicate that not only were these floods of unusual magnitude, but some of the rates of discharge in second-feet per square mile of drainage area were greater than any determinations previously made for areas of similar size in Texas or elsewhere in the United States.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

The volume of water flowing in a stream the "run-off" or "dis charge" is expressed in various terms, each of which has become associated with a certain class of work. These terms may be divided into two groups (1) those that represent a rate of flow, as second- feet, gallons a minute, miner's inches, and discharge in second-feet per square mile; and (2) those that represent the actual quantity of water, as run-off in inches of depth on the drainage basin, acre-feet, and millions of cubic feet. The principal terms used in this report are "second-feet," "second-feet per square mile," and "acre-feet." They may be denned as follows:

"Second-feet" is an abbreviation for "cubic feet per second." A second-foot is a rate of flow of 1 cubic foot per second, or the rate of discharge of water flowing in a channel when the cross-sectional area is 1 square foot and the average velocity is 1 foot per second. It is generally used as a fundamental unit from which others are computed.

"Second-feet per square mile" is the average number of cubic feet of water flowing per second from each square mile of area drained, on the assumption that the run-off is distributed uniformly as regards both time and area.

An ''acre-foot," equivalent to 43,560 cubic feet, is the quantity required to cover 1 acre to the depth of 1 foot. This term is com monly used in connection with storage for irrigation.

"Stage-discharge relation" is an abbreviation for the term "rela tion of gage height to discharge."

"Control" is a term used to designate the natural section, reach of the channel, or artificial structure below the gage, which determines the stage-discharge relation at the gage.

"Isohyetals" or "isohyetal lines" are lines joining points on the earth's surface having equal depths of rainfall in a given interval of time.

ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL

The field and office work incident to the preparation of this report was performed by the water-resources branch of the Geological


Survey, under the general administrative direction of N. C. Grover, chief hydraulic engineer, and C. G. Paulsen, chief of the division of surface water. The field work and the collection and tabulation of the basic information with respect to stages and discharges were done by Tate Dalrymple and others, under the immediate direction of C. E. Ellsworth, district engineer. The general technical direction of the special work and assembling of the report was carried on under the division of water utilization, R. W. Davenport, chief.

ACKNO WLED GMENTS

The river-measurement work of the United States Geological Sur vey in Texas is carried on in cooperation with the State Board of Water Engineers, C. S. Clark (chairman), A. H. Dunlap, and John W. Pritchett.

Acknowledgment is made to the United States Weather Bureau for many of the data on rainfall and storms, and to M. J. McCall, of the county engineers' office, Harris County, and the engineering depart ment of the city of Houston for most of the data on the Houston flood.

Many miscellaneous rainfall records were obtained from local ob servers to whom no individual acknowledgment is made but to whom special credit is due, for these data have added very materially to the knowledge of the rainfall.

Information appearing in this report has been obtained from many supplemental sources, including individuals, corporations, and city officials. So far as practicable, acknowledgments for individual con tributions are given at appropriate places in the report.

PHYSICAL FEATURES OF TEXAS AS RELATED TO GENERAL CHARACTER OF THE STREAMS

Texas may be divided topographically into three general regions the Staked Plains, the Central Plateau, and the Coastal Plain. (See pi. 55.) The dividing lines between these sections are the Cap Rock and the Balcones fault zone, at each of which there is a pronounced change in the topographic character.

The Staked Plains extend from the Cap Rock to the northern and western boundaries of the State. This region is comparatively flat, ranges in altitude from 2,500 to 4,000 feet, has very few trees and not many streams, and receives a sparse rainfall. It contributes little if any run-off to the lower reaches of the river systems that head in it.

The Central Plateau ranges in altitude from 800 to 2,500 feet, consists mostly of low hills, is fairly well wooded, has a considerably greater rainfall than the Staked Plains, to the northwest, and the rain that falls on it feeds many streams. The southern and eastern edge of this region lies along the Balcones fault zone, which forms the boundary between the Central Plateau and the Coastal Plain. This


fault zone crosses the State from a point near Dallas through Waco, Austin, and San Antonio to the Rio Grande at Del Rio. The escarp ment along this fault is a rather prominent topographic feature from Waco to Del Rio. The rise from the Coastal Plain to the plateau ranges from 200 or 300 feet to over 1,000 feet and is rather abrupt over much of its course. This fault area is characterized by steep slopes and shallow rocky soil, with narrow flood plains along the streams.

The Coastal Plain region, extending from the Balcones fault zone to the Gulf of Mexico, consists mostly of rolling flat hills in the inland part and of relatively flat areas along the coast. A large part of the eastern section is covered with timber. Much of the Coastal Plain is devoted to farming and is more densely populated than the other sections of the State. The streams in this region are comparatively large and have wide overflow channels.

DETERMINATION OF FLOOD DISCHARGES

On the lower reaches of the streams the peak discharges for the floods of 1935 were determined by stage-discharge ratings based on current-meter measurements, but on the upper reaches peak discharges were obtained by slope-area methods. There are few opportunities on Texas rivers for computing flow over dams or falls or through contracted openings.

In selecting a site for a slope-area determination of discharge the following factors were considered and the best possible selections made: (1) Straightness of channel, (2) concentration of flow in uniformly deep, narrow channel, (3) adequate length of reach, (4) permanence of channel during flood, (5) absence of trees, brush, and other obstructions, (6) uniformity of cross sections and slope, (7) quality and quantity of high-water marks, (8) favorable approach and get-away conditions, (9) freedom from debris movement, and (10) uniformity of bed slope.

After the tentative selection of a site, levels were run to determine the altitude of the high-water line on both banks over the length of the reach selected. A profile of the high-water points so obtained was plotted in the field, and a study made of the uniformity of the indicated surface slopes. If a sufficiently long reach was found to have satisfactorily uniform slopes on both banks, two or more cross sections were surveyed in the reach. If the slopes were not uniform, another measuring site was selected and investigated in a like manner; this procedure was followed until a satisfactory reach was found. Photographs were made of the reach finally selected, enough views being taken to show the pertinent characteristics of the channel.

Close attention was paid to the evidence of debris carried by the stream. In some places a considerable quantity of gravel may have been moved by the stream in flood, but in this investigation no place


was found in which the quantity appeared sufficient to affect the accuracy of the measurement appreciably.

The computations for determining the discharges were made in the office after all field data had been obtained. For each slope-area measurement profiles of the altitude of the high-water marks were plotted, and the surface slopes were determined. The cross sections were also plotted, and the characteristics of each part of the channel were described by notes.

In computing flood discharge by the slope-area method the average velocity in feet per second was determined either from Manning's formula,

v=s 1.486 « n

or from Kutter's formula,

V=

0.00281 ,1.811

J

in both of which V= average velocity, in feet per second. n= coefficient of roughness.r=hydraulic radius, in feet, equivalent to area of

cross section divided by wetted perimeter (w. p.}.

s=slope of energy gradient.Originally Kutter's formula was used for determining discharges

by the slope-area method, but owing to its greater simplicity Mann ing's formula has been used for later determinations and for recompu- tations of previous slope-area measurements.

Guidance in the selection of values of n, the coefficient of roughness, has been obtained from figures computed from measurements of discharge by current meter and measurements of slopes. Such studies of the value of n have been made at various river-measurement stations over the State. The results have been compared and checked against the general experience in the use of this coefficient elsewhere in this country.

Cross sections of reaches of channel were divided into parts to provide for variation in the hydraulic radii and coefficients of rough ness in the different parts. Where a subdivided part of a channel was bounded by dense vegetation or trees, such boundary was treated as a part of the wetted perimeter.

At many points, owing to a difference in the area of the upstream and downstream cross sections, it was necessary to consider the velocity head and to correct the surface slope to a value representing


the energy grade line. Where the velocity at the downstream sec tion was less than at the upstream section, it was assumed that there was a 50-percent recovery of the theoretical kinetic-energy head.

The application of the slope-area method is shown by computa tions for discharge of the West Nueces River near Brackettville (table 9, p. 252).

The mean daily discharge and the volume of run-off were com puted at all gaging stations on the flooded streams. The discharge is treated as a function of the stage, or gage height. The discharge for an appropriate interval of time was found by taking the mean gage height for that interval and applying it to the rating curve. Rating curves were developed from discharge measurements at the station by plotting discharges as abscissas and gage heights as ordinates.

Efforts were made to obtain sufficient data to determine the stages satisfactorily and to define the rating curves throughout the range of stages observed.

The stilling wells at several float-recorder stations were destroyed, and the chart records for the flood lost. At these stations careful inquiry was made of local residents as to the time of flood stages observed by them, and the altitudes in relation to the gage were determined by levels. Generally such stations were visited by an engineer within a day or two after being destroyed, while the details of the flood were still fresh in the minds of local residents. The gage-height records obtamed in this manner are subject to possible error but are the best obtainable under the circumstances. The figures of discharge computed at such stations were carefully com pared with records at other stations on the same or adjacent streams, in order to avoid large errors.

In constructing a rating curve from which the discharge is com puted, the curve must often be extended beyond the point defined by current-meter measurements to the point defined by the determination of peak discharge by some less reliable method. The logarithmic plotting of stage and discharge has been found helpful in drawing a rating curve. This method is especially helpful in interpolating or extrapolating a rating curve for any considerable range in stage. The graph of the relation thus developed usually tends to be a very flat curve or nearly a straight line, provided certain adjustments are made to the observed gage heights to make them conform to the physical conditions of the site. This adjustment consists of the ad dition or subtraction of some constant amount, which is determined by a study of such conditions. For example, at a river-measurement station with a riffle control of uniform depth to the bed across the channel, the gage height of zero flow should be subtracted from each observed gage reading. The straight line or flat curve usually produced


may be extended within appropriate limits without great error pro vided no marked changes take place in the cross section within the range of such extension. In a logarithmic extension the measure ment of peak discharge may not seem consistent with the relation indicated by lower measurements. In such circumstances, after a study of the control section or reach, the direction of the rating curve was usually changed at or near the gage heights corresponding to the stages at which the characteristics of the control changed. After the logarithmic rating curve was drawn it was transferred to rectangularcoordinates.

MAY FLOOD ON SECO CREEK

GENERAL FEATURES

Seco Creek rises in southwestern Bandera County at an altitude of about 2,000 feet, flows southeastward across Medina and Frio Coun ties, and at an altitude of about 600 feet joins Hondo Creek, a tribu tary of the Nueces River through the Frio River. Seco Creek is about 60 miles long. At D'Hanis (population 400), about 50 miles west of San Antonio and 20 miles above its mouth, the creek is crossed by the Southern Pacific Railroad. The creek crosses the Balcones fault zone a few miles above D'Hanis. Above the fault zone the country is hilly, sparsely wooded, and utilized mostly for ranching. For a dis tance of about 8 miles above D'Hanis Seco Creek is parallel to Parkers Creek, which is from 2 to 3 miles to the east. Between these two creeks the country is low, fairly level, and almost entirely cultivated. East of Parkers Creek and west of Seco Creek there are low hills.

A heavy rainfall over the Seco drainage basin above D'Hanis in the early morning of May 31 caused the creek to rise rapidly and reach a stage much greater than ever known before. About 6 miles above D'Hanis the stream overflowed and merged into Parkers Creek. Be tween this point and a point below D'Hanis Seco Creek covered the country between the two streams, with the concentration or main thread of the current swinging from side to side in the combined valleys and destroying houses, fences, crops, and livestock. A very small part, perhaps 2 percent, of this water came from Parkers Creek. The following account is quoted from an article by Miss Josie Rothe in the Hondo Anvil Herald of June 7, 1935:

In the business section [of D'Hanisl the water reached its highest stage about 10 a. m. [May 31], having risen rapidly for several hours. At 7 o'clock water was flowing into basements, and it continued to rise until it stood from 1 to 3 feet deep in the business houses. * * * Both the Seco and Parkers Creeks broke out along new courses, and near their banks homes that had never been in danger before were flooded at this time. * * * Hardly a house anywhere near the Seco escaped the overflow, which carried with it the homes of hundreds of Mexi cans, together with all their clothing and household goods. The greatest tragedy of the day was the loss of lives of four Mexican children. * * * About 1 mile of railroad track was washed out and the rails twisted beyond belief; a boxcar

MAJOK TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 233

floated away, * * * automobiles, fences, wash houses, car sheds, cattle, mules all were swept along by the terrific current. * * * A cyclone and severe electrical storm accompanied the rain, putting out telephone and telegraph lines and isolating the town for several hours.

The total amount of the damage done by the flood on Seco Creek is not known. Many houses, fences, roads, small bridges, and other improvements were destroyed. Crops were destroyed and livestock drowned. Household goods, merchandise, automobiles, and other personal goods were considerably damaged by submergence. The damages by this flood are included in the total shown for the Nueces River Basin for June on page 237. The damage to the Southern Pacific Railroad amounted to $32,500, and to the State highways $16,000. Four children and one woman were drowned.

PRECIPITATION

There are no United States Weather Bureau rainfall stations in the Seco Creek drainage basin, and comparatively little reliable infor mation as to precipitation is available for this storm. All receptacles ordinarily used for measuring rainfall ran over or were washed away. The following information was obtained:

1. Lutz ranch, 2% miles above D'Hanis: Mr. Lutz reported 12.5 inches of rain measured in a can; rained from 3:45 to 5:00 a. m. May 31.

2. A. Rothe ranch 11 miles by road above D'Hanis: Armin Rothe measured in a standard United States Weather Bureau type gage 9.56 inches of rain from 11:00 p. m. May 30 to 8:00 a. m. May 31 and 0.26 inch from 8:00 a. m. to noon May 31. Most of this rain probably fell between 5:00 and 8:00 a. m. May 31, but the gage was not read between 11:00 p. m. May 30 and 8:00 a. m. May 31, A record of rainfall has been obtained at this gage since 1880.

3. Woodward ranch, 17 miles by road above D'Hanis: Mr. Smith, ranch man ager, reported that 22 to 24 inches of rain fell in 3J^ hours, from 1:45 to 5:15 a. m. May 31. This estimate was based on measurements in a masonry trough and in a large paint can. Mr. Smith also furnished the following information obtained from different ranches: 16 inches of rain about 4 miles west of the Woodward ranch, 16 inches about 5 miles northwest of the Woodward ranch, 15 inches about 3 miles north of the Woodward ranch, 6.5 inches about 6 miles north of the Woodward ranch, 11 inches about 6 miles northeast of the Woodward ranch, and 6 to 7 inches about 8 miles west of the Woodward ranch.

4. Tarpley, about 23 miles due north of D'Hanis and just east of the Seco Creek drainage basin: C. G. Leighton measured 5.38 inches of rain on May 31 in a glass jar 12 inches deep, 7 inches in diameter, and flat on the bottom. He has kept a record of rainfall at Tarpley for many years.

5. D'Hanis: Various reports range from 12 to 14 inches; no actual measure ments made.

6. Sabinal, about 12 miles west of D'Hanis: 7.70 inches between 5:00 and 11:00 a. m. May 31, United States Weather Bureau station.

7. Hondo, about 9 miles east of D'Hanis: 9.15 inches between 5:00 a. m. and 11:00 a. m. May 31, United States Weather Bureau station.

58805 39 2


J. H. Jarboe, official in charge of the United States Weather Bureau office at San Antonio, made a survey of the area above D'Hanis and submitted the following report to the Geological Survey:

The number of rainfall measurements is too small to support a definite state ment of amounts. The circular tank at the Woodward ranch, cleaned and dry before the rain as affirmed by all, is the best measurement obtained. This tank holds 21.84 inches and ran over in less than 3 hours. Carbide can holds 11.50 inches, ran over at the Lutz ranch. All ranchmen state that rain fell in less than 3 hours. Using the high crest stages reached at the different ranches as part evidence, the following conclusions have been reached:

That apparently 20 inches or more rainfall occurred over a small area on the Seco Creek, approximately 12 miles above D'Hanis, and that 12 to 14 inches occurred at other points, with an average amount of more than 9 inches over the entire watershed of approximately 80 square miles,5 and that the time required for the rain was less than 3 hours.

Figure 34 shows the drainage area of Seco Creek above D'Hanis and isohyetal lines for the rain of May 31 as estimated from available information.

MAXIMUM DISCHARGE

A reach of Seco Creek at the Eothe ranch, about 11 miles above D'Hanis, was selected for making a discharge determination by the slope-area method. The right bank at this point was overflowed for a quarter to half a mile, but there was not much flow outside the chan nel, as the depth of water was not great and the velocities were low, as indicated by small erosion in fields and by statements of observers. The discharge in the overflow area was estimated as about 8 percent of the total. Slopes were determined over a length of about 1,800 feet by levels to high-water marks on the left bank, which indicated a uniform slope over a distance of about 1,100 feet. Two cross sec tions 700 feet apart were measured in the reach of uniform slope. As the lower cross section was about 21 percent smaller than the upper section, a velocity-head correction was applied. There was evidently some movement of gravel in the main channel during the flood, but the amount was not considered sufficient to affect the discharge appreci ably.

The peak discharge was computed as 230,000 second-feet. The drainage area above the slope reach, measured on the Hondo and Bandera topographic maps of the Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army, is 153 square miles, which indicates that the peak discharge per square mile was 1,500 second-feet.

There is no river-measurement station in the Seco Creek drainage basin at which continuous and systematic records of stages and dis charges are kept. Some indication of the quantity of water passing down the creek may be had from the records of mean daily discharge

6 Later measurement shows this area to be 153 square miles.


Number refers to discharge measurement station In table 14

Rainfall stations. May 31, I Lutz ranch 12.5 In.

A. Rothe ranch 9.82 In. Woodward ranch 22 to 24 In Tarpley 5.38 In. D'Hanis 12 to 14 In. Sabinal (TJ.S.W.B.) 7.70 In. Woodward ranch, 4 ml. W., 16 In Woodward ranch, 5 ml Woodward raiich, 3 ml Woodward ranch, 6 ml Woodward ranch, 6 ml. HE., 11 In

FIGURE 34. Isohyetal map of the Seco Creek drainage basin above D'Hanis, showing total rainfall, ininches, observed May 31,1935.


of the Frio River at Concan (p. 273) and near Derby (p. 274), river- measurement stations above and below the mouth of Seco Creek. However, the difference in the discharge of these two stations repre sents the discharge from some other streams in the intervening drain age area besides Seco Creek.

PREVIOUS FLOODS

The flood of July 1932 was the highest on Seco Creek for many years prior to that of May 31, 1935. F. H. Wolff, who lives in a rock house built in 1873 in the eastern part of D'Hanis just west of Parkers Creek, stated that the highest water between 1873 and May 1935 occurred in July 1932, when the water came to his doorstep. In May 1935 the water was more than waist deep inside the house. A slope- area measurement of the 1932 flood at the Lutz ranch, 2% miles above D'Hanis, gave a peak discharge of 35,800 second-feet, or 212 second- feet per square mile.

The following reference to a previous flood is quoted from the Hondo Anvil Herald for June 7, 1935:

Mr. Wolff is the son of a pioneer settler at D'Hanis and says that since the founding of D'Hanis in the late 40's there has never been a flood in the valley that approached this one [May 31]. He recalls, however, a conversation he had when a boy with an old frontiersman, who ranged over this country before perma nent white settlements had been attempted, in which the old man told him of seeing drift high up on the side of Cross Hill, and he warned him D'Hanis and the Seco Valley might some day see another such flood. His prophesy seems to have been fulfilled in the flood of May 31, 1935.

A section was cut from a live oak tree which was undermined and fell within the reach where the slope-area measurement was made, and 95 annual growth rings were counted. From the position of this tree in relation to the channel it was inferred as probable that no flood as great as that of May 31, 1935, had occurred in nearly a century.

A flood on July 24, 1935, less than 2 months after the flood of May 31, reached a stage at the Lutz ranch only 3 inches lower than that of July 1932. Eight or nine inches of rain was measured at the A. Rothe ranch, about the same as on May 31, but there was only a light rain in the basin above.

JUNE FLOODS

GENERAL FEATURES

Heavy rains over the Colorado and Nueces drainage basins caused floods in June 1935 that were greater than had been known before. The Llano Eiver, tributary to the Colorado, and the West Nueces River, tributary to the Nueces, experienced extraordinary floods. Although record-breaking stages occurred, none of the reported rain fall appeared to be particularly excessive or intense when compared


with other rains in Texas. There had been general rains in the region for 6 weeks before the flood, and all streams were above normal stage. Heavy rains, ranging between 4 and 12 inches, fell in the 24 hours before the floods. Fortunately the rapid rises and high stages did not result in loss of life, but great amounts of property were destroyed. The damages would have been far greater if there had been any cities within the flooded region.

Volume of run-off and maximum discharges for the flood period in June were computed for all river-measurement stations in the flooded region. At other places peak discharges were determined by the slope- area method, but data were insufficient for computing the volume of run-off.

There were few official rainfall records in the area, but unofficial records were compiled from many sources. There were no recording rain gages in the region of great precipitation, and consequently no records of intensity for short periods are available.

The Monthly Weather Review for December 1935, pages 362-365, gives the total losses for the year in the Colorado River Basin as $12,956,500 and in the Neuces River Basin as $9,345,000. These losses in the Colorado River Basin include $221,000 that was not due to the June flood, and those in the Neuces River Basin include the loss due to the flood of May 31 in Seco Creek. The total damage to railroads amounted to $444,390, and the damage to the highway sys tem as reported by the State Highway Department was $1,897,000. The State Highway Department estimated the loss caused by the destruction of major bridges as about $1,424,000.

Plate 56 presents views of the Llano River at Llano. One span of the highway bridge that fell into the river was found several miles downstream after the flood had subsided. Plate 57 gives views on the Llano and Nueces Rivers where bridges were destroyed.

PRECIPITATION

There were no standard rain gages in the West Nueces River Basin and few in other basins affected by the June floods. In the West Nueces area all cans, buckets, and other receptacles ordinarily used to measure rainfall were filled and running over, and some were washed away; in the upper part of the basin fairly reliable information was obtained from measurements made in rock tanks.

The total rainfall for the period June 1 to 8 and the daily and total rainfall from June 9 to 15 are given in table 1. Plate 58 is a map showing isohyetals for the area most affected by the storm for the period June 9 to 15. The available information in some regions was insufficient for a highly accurate determination of isohyetals.

There were several small areas on which the rainfall was greater than that indicated on plate 58, but no satisfactory records of the amounts


could be obtained. A heavy rain, probably 10 to 20 inches, fell in a- few hours on June 13-14 over the Barrons Creek Basin above Freder- icksburg. Considerable damage was done to highways and county roads, and several bridges were destroyed in that small basin. Creeks a short distance from Barrons Creek showed only moderate floods, indicating that the very heavy rain must have been confined to a comparatively small area. At Cleo, in Kimble County, a heavy rain is known to have fallen over a small area, but no information was obtained of the amount. Undoubtedly there were other similar localities of heavy rainfall of which information is lacking.

In the following table "T" indicates precipitation less than 0.01 inch, and "leaders" indicate zero precipitation.

TABLE 1. Precipitation, in inches, prior to floods of June 1935

1

1.. __ .. ....2- ____ ......

4 _____ . _ .5 ...........

6 ..... ... ...7 ........ ...8. __ . __ ...8 ... ........10 . -

11 12 . 13 _ ..14......... __ .15 _ ..... ...

16 . ...17 ... _ .....18 19 20 _ . ...

21 _ ... ...22 ...23 .24 25

26 .......27 ...28 29 ...30

31. _ ...32 ..... ...33 34......... _ ..35

36 .37 ..38 .39 .........40 . .....

41 . .....42. _ ..........43 . .....44. _ ..... __ .45 -

Weather Bureau records:

Big Wells. __ . ___ ...

Del Eio.... __ . __ ....

Dilley. ...

Eden.... _____ .....

Hallettsville

Rocksnrinss _ ....

1-8

4.105.151.322.571 «4

1.991.552.011.571.55

1.883.481.589 fvi

1.56

3.78.62

2.881.422.34

.621 Q1

.82

.631.04

1.42.31

2 fifi

.841.27

1.332.662 341.942.80

.762.301.331 OQ

2.18

.37

.401.211.261.60

9

T0.17

T

.07T

.71

.46

.18

TT

.98

.57

.41

.58

T.26

.86

10

1.14

.90

.29

.151.26

.06

.30

.05

.49

.06

.45

.151.30

T

.221.25.95

.34

.60

.68

.47

.04

.55OA

.11

.40

.11

.91

11

1.69T

.301.252.12

.26

.04

.62

2.06

.502.091.13.70.03

.011.25.22

T

1.77.04.76.10.48

.43

.65

.93

.16

.79

.68

.32

.03

.031.451.051.30

June

12

2.651.21.34.24.05

2.20.95.13.23

.71

.02

.21

.44

.24

.52

.40

.59

.44

1.01.06.61

2.70.10.40

9.75.12

.45

.53

.03

.02

1.25

.62

1.20

.821.041.021.25.50

13

0.33.96

1.42.19.27

1.42.91

1.00.55.33

.40

.90

1.788.79

1.39

.261.14.51

.991.152.751 34.90

.95

.70

.10

.251.79

.36

.56

.36

.752.15

1.671.60.20

3.621.13

1.273.80

.25

.75

14

0.28.04.33

.761.40.04.07.18

1.22

.32

.13

.04

.33

.19

.042.70

1.18

.66T

.931.506.00

2.47

.58

.45T

1.30

.151.001.122.055.92

.16T

.93

.539.50

15

1.89

.79

2.112.00

.08

.90

.09

.501.11

TT

1.10.37

1.33.43

.06

.05T

.574.90

T

3.90

.091.46

1.503.23

1.67

.67

.43

1.02.10

1.75

9-15

5.81'4.34-3.172.80'2.73

4.29'6.993. 29.83

2.32

.49-2.622.83.2.17

12.14

3.533.482.254.914.26-

1.724.835.16-2.061.51

7.26-7.248.81

11.689.44

1.90'2.602.873.256.86

3.654.273.288.829.11

3.705.343.406.60

12. 05-


TABLE 1. Precipitation, in inches, prior to floods of June 1935 Continued

46..............47..............48..............49..............50... ______ .....

51..............52..............53..............54..............55..............

56..............57..............58.. ___ .......59...... ........60 _ ........

61... _ ........62..............63..............64......... _ ..65...,. _ . __ .

66..... .........67.... ...68.......... _ .69 .

70.. .......

71

Sinton. _____ ... ....

Smithville. .............Substation 14. ..........TayJor. _____ . __ .

Temple- ________

Whitsett..... ...........

Supplementary records:

east ...................

1-8

1.041.771.042.12.46

.501.25.99

4.072.47

2.612.31.51.73

2.761.751.841.382.90

9 sn1 97

1.00

1.032.65

1.06

9

T

.42

.01

.73

.54

.25

.13

1.00

1.75

10

.55

.401.15

T.02

.02

.05

1.33.40.60

.25

(< )

.90

1.32.50

.88

11

.03

.60

.21

.03

.10

.17

.023.60

.44

.50

.881 10(a\

1.061.65

(«).32.75

1.08C)

.38

June

12

.771.202.18

.66

.40

.53

.83

.15

.301.27

2.57

2.001.00(a\

2.051.15

fa\

1.142.50

.772.65

1.38

13

5.461.252.00.85

3.17

1.25.08.60.31.39

.275.371.326.00.34

.06C).79.08

C).56.75

.28

14

.351.03.95

21

.012.32

T1.75.73

.64

.15

.20

.88

C).50

(a)

6.86.75

7.30

1.25

15

.10

.45

.38

.51

.59

2.95.16T

.89

1.20.04

2.31

4.97.05

7.50.30

1.33

.14

.88

9-15

6.914.257.372.314.69

1.786.051.615.862.01

2.117.634.427.143.16

6.322.255.104.454.78

7.5010.508.33

9.572.65

6.33

No. on pi. 58

72.........73..... _ .74.........75.........

76.. ...77.........78.........79. 80. ...

81.........82.........83.... __ .84. ____ .85.

86..... .87........88.........89... .

Locality

Carta Valley ________ .

Carta Valley. .... ......

north.

ISFoxville

Miscellaneous records

May, 4 inches; June 1-12, 6 inches; June 13-14, 10 inches.

Rainfall included in the next measurement.

COLORADO RIVER BASIN

COLORADO RIVER FLOOD

The upper part of the Colorado River drainage basin lies in eastern New Mexico near the Texas line, at an altitude of about 4,000 feet. The river flows southeastward across Texas and enters the Gulf of Mexico near Matagorda. Its total length is about 600 miles, and its


drainage area is 41,530 square miles.6 The head of the basin is in the semiarid plains, from which there is practically no run-off. Above Ballinger the river has a drainage area of 16,840 square miles,8 of which it is estimated that about 11,500 square miles probably con tributes no flow. Below Ballinger the river drains a mountainous country until it reaches the Coastal Plain at Austin. Below Austin the basin becomes comparatively narrow and has a maximum width of only about 35 miles.

The following table shows the altitude of the stream bed at various places and the average descent between those places from a point near San Saba to the mouth:

TABLE 2. Altitude and average descent of the Colorado Riverfront a point near SanSaba to the mouth

Place of determination

Marble Falls...... _. _._ ._ _ ....... __ ... __ ...

Eagle Lake, gaging station near ________________

Altitudeabove mean

sea level(feet)

1,0961,000

960800700590500422270140

0

River distance above

mouth(miles)

449417405373356331300264191770

Average descent between

points (feetper mile)

3.03.35.05.94.42.92.12.11.11.8

There was no flood of consequence on the Colorado River above the mouth of the Llano River when the Llano River flood of June 1935 reached the Colorado. The Pedernales River added its flow to the Colorado about halfway between the mouth of the Llano and Austin. The peaks from the two tributaries nearly joined in the Colorado. There was not much rain near or below Austin, and little flow was added below the mouth of the Pedernales.

Gaging stations are maintained on the Colorado River at Ballinger, near San Saba, at Austin, at Smithville, and near Eagle Lake, all of which are equipped with water-stage recorders. At Austin and Smithville the recorders were submerged, but a reliable gage-height record was obtained at each station from a partial recorder-graph record, engineer's gage readings, United States Weather Bureau readings, and levels to high-water marks.

A discharge measurement was made by current meter at Austin near the peak of the flood, and the maximum discharge was deter mined by a short extension of the rating curve. At Smithville the maximum discharge was computed by the slope-area method, using Kutter's formula. The maximum discharges of the Colorado River

8 Figures revised since publication In Water-Supply Paper 488, p. 29.

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATEK-SUPPLY PAPEK 796 PLATE 56

}

A. SECOND SPAN OF ORIGINALLY 4-SPAN BRIDGE FALLING INTO RIVER.

B. LOOKING JUST DOWNSTREAM FROM BRIDGE; STEEL SPAN IN CENTER OF PICTURE BEING CARRIED DOWNSTREAM.

LLANO RIVER AT LLANO AT ABOUT PEAK OF FLOOD OF JUNE 14, 1935.


1

A. LLANO RIVER ON MASON-FREDERICKSBURG HIGHWAY.

B. NUECES RIVER ON UVALDE-LA PKYOR HIGHWAY.

BRIDGES DESTROYED BY FLOOD OF JUNE 14, 1935.


87° 9S°

^ Numbers refer to dischargemeasurement stations In tables

39 Numbers refer to precipitation stations in table 1

ISOHYETAL MAP OF THE MAJOR PART OF THE COLORADO AND NUECES RIVER BASINS AND PARTS OF ADJACENT RIVER BASINS.

Shows rainfall, in inches, June 9-15, 1935.

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 796 PLATE

A. AT ABOUT PEAK OF FLOOD OF JUNE 15, 1935.

B. AT LOW WATER.

CONGRESS AVENUE BRIDGE, COLORADO RIVER, AT AUSTIN.


near San Saba and near Eagle Lake were determined from well- defined rating curves. The maximum discharge for the station on the Pedernales River near Spicewood was obtained from a rating curve defined principally by slope-area measurements of previous floods.

The mean daily discharges and the total run-off for the period of the June flood were computed for all river-measurement stations on the Colorado River below San Saba (see fig. 35), on the Llano River, and on the Pedernales River near Spicewood. These records are presented under "Stages and discharges" (pp. 258-266). At certain places in the Llano River Basin only the peak discharges were deter mined. Data on the Llano River are presented on pages 241-245.

The maximum discharges at stations on the Colorado and Peder nales Rivers are summarized in table 3. This table also gives the effective drainage area and discharge per square mile for each item.

TABLE 3. Maximum discharge at river-measurement stations on the Colorado and Pedernales Rivers, June 1935

No. on pi. 58

5.. .......6.. ....7.........8.........

14.. .......

Stream

Colorado River near San Saba ___

Colorado River near Eagle Lake.... Pedernales River near Spicewood...

Drainage area

(square miles)

"18,800 « 26, 350 « 27, 850 « 29, 140

1,294

Maximum discharge

Time

June 15, 2:45 p. m ..... June 15, 3:45 p. m _ June 16, 4:30 p. m. .... June 19, 2:30 a. m_. ...

Second feet

71, 000 481, 000 305, 000 177, 000 105,000

Second- feet per square mile

3.78 18.3 11.0 6.07

81.1

« 11,800 square miles deducted for noncontributing area.

Table 14 (p. 283) gives a summary of maximum discharges measured during the major floods of 1935; for comparison, the previous known maxima are given.

Plates 59, A, and 60, A, show the Colorado River at Austin at about the peak of the flood.

The peak stage at Austin in June 1935 is about 1 foot lower than the peak stage in July 1869, which was the highest stage known. Below Austin the flood of June 1935 was considerably lower than that of 1869. A record of previous high stages and discharges at Austin since the river-measurement station was established in 1898 is given in Water-Supply Paper 771, Floods in the United States, magnitude and frequency, page 335.

LI/ANO RIVER FLOOD

The Llano River is formed by the confluence of the North Llano and South Llano Rivers at the town of Junction. These rivers have

P

Cfq

500

400

300

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2414

15

16

FIG

URE

35.

Hyd

rogr

aphs

of d

isch

arge

, C

olor

ado

Riv

er n

ear

San

Saba

, at

Aus

tin,

at

Smith

ville

, an

d ne

ar E

agle

Lak

e, J

une

11-2

4,19

35.

S i

P

p.

el

Pa o

^

ED

4

ct-

p

_i

p_

,I '

£j.

COtO

et

-O

l C

Q

i_J *

p

P

co2

p -

"

r^

< -

o

ST P

fco bO H

O W

o fed

O

F

O

Q


Table 4 shows the altitude of the stream bed at various places on the North Llano, South Llano, and Llano Rivers from source to mouth and the average descent between those places. The altitudes and distances in the table were taken from topographic maps.

TABLE 4. Altitude and average descent of the North Llano, South Llano, and Llano Rivers from source to mouth


.North Llano River:

Do.. _ .... ___ ............ _ ................. _ ..

South Llano Eiver:

Do....... .... - __--.-. _. __ .....

Llano River: Head. . . .. _ -.. ..... .. .. . __ ...

Do....................................................

Altitude above mean

sea level (feet)

2,3252,2002,0001,7001,660

2,3002,2002,0001,8951,8401,660

1,6601,6301,5001,3601,1251,000

850800

River dis tance above

mouth (miles)

50.045.029.03.00

63.559.532.024.519.50

103.0100.078.562.538.024.5.6.5

0

Average de scent be

tween points (feet per

mile)

25.012.511.513.3

25.07.3

14.011.09.2

10.06.58.89.69.38.37.7

The June storm in the Llano River Basin was heaviest over the South Llano River, the Johnson Fork of the Llano River, and the upper reaches of the James River. (See fig. 36.)

River-measurement stations are maintained on the North Llano River 3 miles northwest of Junction, on the Llano River 3% miles east of Junction, and on the Llano River 4K miles east of Castell. These stations are equipped with water-stage recorders, but the recorders at the two stations on the Llano River were submerged, and complete records of stage were not obtained. Gage-height .graphs were completed for these two stations on the basis of partial recorder graphs, levels to high-water marks, and local information.

The maximum discharges were determined by the slope-area method, using Kutter's formula on the Llano River at the river- jneasurement stations near Junction and near Castell, on the South Llano River near Telegraph, about 24 miles above Junction, and on Paint Creek (tributary to the South Llano River about 19 miles above Junction) 1% miles above its mouth and near Telegraph.

The mean daily discharges and the total run-off for the period of the flood were computed for river-measurement stations on the North Llano and Llano Rivers near Junction and on the Llano River near 'Castell. (See fig. 37.) These records are presented under "Stages

98P

301

M

Num

bers

re

fer

to d

isch

arge

mea

sure

men

t st

ati

on

s In

tab

les

5 an

d 14

Op

Numbers

refe

r to

precipitation

stat

ions

in t

able 1

9S°3

0'

98P

301

Isoh

yeta

l m

ap o

f the

Lla

no R

iver

Bas

in s

how

ing

trib

utar

ies,

pla

ces

at w

hich

max

imum

dis

char

ges

wer

e de

term

ined

, int

erm

edia

te d

rain

age

area

s, a

nd t

otal

rai

nfal

l,in

inc

hes,

for

the

per

iod

June

9-1

5,19

35.

MA JOE TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 245

and discharges" (pp. 263-265). On the South Llano River and Paint Creek near Telegraph only the peak discharges were determined.

The maximum discharges determined at various places in the Llano River Basin are summarized in table 5. This table also gives for each item the drainage area and discharge per square mile.

TABLE 5. Maximum discharge determined at places in the Llano River Basin,June 1935

No. on fig. 36 and

pi. 58

9.10..... _ .11.........12... ___ .13 __ .....

Stream

North Llano River near Junction...

South Llano River near Telegraph..

Drainage area

(square mile)

914 1,762 3,514

540 218

Maximum discharge

Hour, June 14Second-

feet

-47, 400 319, 000 388, 000 160,000 69,300


51.0181 110 296 318

"Discharge determined from poorly defined rating curve.

The maximum discharges measured during the major floods of 1935 are summarized in table 14 (p. 283); for comparison, the previous known maxima are given.

Plate 60, B, shows the South Llano River at Junction at about the peak of the flood on June 14, 1935.

The floods of June 14, 1935, on the South Llano and Llano Rivers reached the highest stages ever known. At Junction the South Llano was 3 feet higher than in 1889, and according to local informa tion the 1889 flood was the highest known theretofore. The previous highest stage on the Llano River near Junction since the river- measurement station was established in 1915 was 27.15 feet on Sep tember 1, 1932, which may be compared with a stage of 43.3 feet in June 1935. The peak discharge of the flood of September 1932 was 106,000 second-feet.

At the river-measurement station on the Llano River near Castell the highest stage known prior to June 1935 was in 1889, when a stage of about 28.4 feet was reached, according to local information, which may be compared with a stage of 37.0 feet in June 1935. The highest stage prior to 1935 since the river-measurement station was estab lished in 1923 was 22.3 feet on October 6, 1930, when there was a discharge of 89,800 second-feet.

NUECES RIVER BASIN

NUECES RIVER FLOOD

The Nueces River rises in the central part of Edwards County at an altitude of about 2,400 feet, flows south for about 100 miles and east for about 240 miles, and enters the Gulf of Mexico through

246 CONTKIBUTIONS TO HYDKOLOGY, 1937

Llano River near Castell, Tex

I /Llano River near Junction, Tex.

FIGURE 37. Hydrographs of discharge, North Llano River near Junction, Llano River near Junction, and Llano River near Castell, June 14-17,1935.


Corpus Christi Bay. The total drainage area is 16,950 square miles. The river flows for about 60 miles across the Edwards Plateau and enters the Coastal Plain about 10 miles northwest of Uvalde. Above Uvalde the river traverses a mountainous country having steep slopes and quick run-off from rainstorms. The country is largely covered by cedar and is utilized principally for ranching.

The altitude of the stream bed at various places and the average descent between those places from a point 338 miles above to the mouth of the Nueces River are given in table 6. The data given were compiled from topographic maps.

TABLE 6. Altitude and average descent of the Nueces River from source to mouth


Do... . ._ Do........... ..........................................Do..... . .. _ . .......... ..........Do . . .............................Do.. ........... ..................................Do... . ........... ...... _... .....

Pulliam Creek, mouth _____ . .. ....... ...............

West Nueces River, mouth.. .................................Contour crossing _______________________

Three Rivers, gaging station __________________

Altitude above mean

sea level (feet)

2,3252,3002,2002,1002,0001,8001,6001,4501,2481,125

955900860800376101

0

River distance

above mouth (miles)

338.0337.8336.9334.7333.3328.8315.5305.5293.3285.8272.8268.2263.0256.3169.077.00

Average descent between

points (feet per mile)

125.0111.145.571.444.515.015.016.616.413.112.07.79.04.93.01.3

Gaging stations are maintained on the Nueces River at Laguna, near Uvalde, at Cotulla, and near Three Rivers. The concrete gage well at the station near Uvalde was destroyed, and the gage-height record was lost. A gage-height graph for this station was reproduced from a partial recorder chart, readings of stage at a railroad bridge 4.7 miles upstream, and information obtained from local residents. The recorder instrument at Cotulla was removed to avoid submergence; a gage-height graph was drawn on the basis of readings of a staff gage and levels to the high-water mark.

The peak discharge was determined by the slope-area method, using Kutter's formula, at Laguna, near Uvalde, and at Cotulla; the peak discharge near Three Rivers was determined from a short extension of the rating curve. The largest flood came from the West Nueces River, which enters the Nueces River between Laguna and Uvalde. (See fig. 38.)

The mean daily discharges and the total run-off for the period of the flood were computed for all river-measurement stations on the Nueces River. These records are presented under "Stages and dis charges."

700

600

500

o 400

300

,. Hu

eoes

Ri

ver near Uv

alde

, Tex.

200

100

i TV

. Hueces

Rive

r at

La

guna

, Tex.

Nueces River

at Co

tull

a, Te

x.Nu

eces

River a

t Th

ree

Rivers,

Tex.

* --

.B

UC

UC

O

CIJ

.VC

.C

c&u

X

J1

X1

SC

<

WL

VefO

^

X^

?JL

.

1415

16

17

18

22

23

24

' 25

26

27

19

20

21Ju

ne

FIG

URE

38.

Hyd

rogr

aphs

of d

isch

arge

, Nue

ces

Riv

er a

t L

agun

a, n

ear

Uva

lde,

at

Cot

ulla

, and

nea

r T

hree

Riv

ers,

Jun

e 14

-27,

1936

.


A. COLORADO RIVER AT AUSTIN, LOOKING NORTH ON CONGRESS AVENUE FROM RIGHT BANK AT ABOUT PEAK OF FLOOD OF JLNE 15, 1935.

B. SOUTH LLANO RIVER AT JUNCTION, NEAR PEAK OF FLOOD OF JUNE 14, 1935.

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 7C6 PLATE 61

A. VIE\S FROM LFFT BANK AT ABOUT 10 FEET BELOW PEAK STAGE ON JUNE 14. 1935.

B. VIEW FROM RIGHT BANK ABOUT 30 MINUTES BEFORE BRIDGES WERE DESTROYED.

Water went over and removed highway embankment on opposite bank. The remains of bridges after flood had passed are shown on plate 57, B.

NUECES RIVER ON UVALDE-LA PRYOR HIGHWAY.


A. LOOKING UPSTREAM FROM JUST BELOW LOWER CROSS SECTION.

B. LOOKING TOWARD RIGHT BANK AND UPSTREAM FROM ABOUT LOWER CROSS SECTION.

WEST NUECES RIVER NEAR BRACKETTVILLE.Slope reach used in determining discharge for flood of June 14,1935.

(See also fi? . 40.)


The maximum discharges determined at stations on the Nueces River are given in table 7, also the drainage area and discharge per square mile. (See also table 14, p. 283.)

TABLE 7. Maximum discharges at river-measurement stations on the Nueces River for the flood of June 1935

No. on pi. 58

18... _ ...19.........on

91

Location

Do. __ -. . -...

Drain age area (square miles)

764 1,930 5,260

15, 600 15, 600

Maximum discharge

Time

June 14, 11 a. m .......June 14, 4 p. m._ ......

June 23, 7 p. m "... ...

Second- feet

213, 000 616 000

82, 600 66,700 56, 000


279 319 15.7 4.28 3.59

« Probably same peak as at other stations.

Plates 57, B, and 61, A, B, show views of the Nueces Kiver between Uvalde and La Pryor at about 10 feet below the peak stage on June 14, 1935.

A stage of about 29 feet occurred at Laguna in June 1913, which is the maximum known at that place. The stage in June 1935 was 26.0 feet. The flood of September 1923 reached a stage of 26.5 feet, and the flood of 1903 reached a slightly higher stage.

The highest stage known at Uvalde previous to the stage of 36.9 feet in June 1935 was 26.4 feet in June 1913. A section was cut from a pecan tree washed down in June 1935, and by counting the annual growth rings this tree was found to be 115 years old. It is inferred from the position of the tree in relation to the river channel that the period elapsed since the occurrence of a flood of magnitude similar to that of 1935 must have exceeded the life of the tree.

The highest stage recorded at Cotulla prior to 1935 was 26.8 feet, September 7, 1932. A stage of 29.7 feet is reported to have occurred in June 1889. The stage in June 1935 was 32.4 feet.

The highest stage known at Three Kivers was 46.0 feet, September 18, 1919, with a discharge of 85,000 second-feet determined from an extension of the rating curve. The maximum stage in June 1935 was 44.67 feet.

WEST NUECES RIVER FLOOD

The West Nueces River rises in the central part of Edwards County, flows south and southeast about 100 miles, and enters the Nueces River at the edge of the Edwards Plateau about 10 miles northwest of Uvalde. The drainage basin has an area of 923 square miles, is rough and rocky with steep slopes, extensively covered with cedar, and is utilized largely for ranching.

58805 39 3

250 CONTRIBUTIONS TO HYDKOLOGY, 1937

The altitude of the stream bed at various places and the average descent between those places are given in table 8. The data pre sented were compiled from topographic maps.

TABLE 8. Altitude and average descent of the West Nueces River from source to mouth


Contour crossing ___ ,. __________________Do.... Do......-....-,........ ..............................Do........ ............. ............................... .Do... ....... ........... ...... .............Do.. . . _ . _.. ___Do.. . ........ ........ . __. Do. .... ... ...... .......... ........... ......Do.., . -.......... .

Contour crossing... _________________________Do... ._. . ... ..................... .............Do...... ......... ......Do........ ... ...... -. _. Do... ... . _. . __ Do- .----

Cline, measuring section 8 miles above __ . __________

Do. _ _ .......

Altitude above mean

sea level (feet)

2,3002,2502,2002,1502,1002,0001,9001,8001,700

1,6501,5501,4001,3001,2001,100

1,0501,000

055

River dis tance above

mouth (miles)

101.0100.097.394.391.589.285.078.873.170.568.160.544.538.124.214.513.09.73.80

Descent be tween points

(feet per mile)

60.0

16.717.943.523.816.117.5

10.013.29.4

15.67.2

10.3

10.48.5

11.8

The heaviest rain of the June storm fell over the upper part of the West Nueces River Basin, and most of the flood in the Nueces River came from this tributary. (See fig. 39.)

There are no river-measurement stations on the West Nueces River, and no data from which the run-off could be computed were available. The peak discharge was determined 28 miles above Brackettville and 8 miles above Cline by the slope-area method, using the Manning and Kutter formulas, respectively. The peak discharge near Brackett ville was computed as 580,000 second-feet from an area of 402 square miles, or a discharge of 1,440 second-feet per square mile. The peak discharge near Cline was computed as 536,000 second-feet from an area of 880 square miles, or 609 second-feet per square mile.

The drainage areas were measured from topographic maps published by the Geological Survey of the United States Department of the Interior and the Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army.

A very small part of the drainage area not shown on these sheets was determined from a county road map and a Geological Survey map of Texas on the scale of 1:500,000.

The flood of June 1935 was the greatest ever known on the West Nueces River, according to statements of ranchmen who have been living near the stream for many years. No one could be found who had ever heard of a flood that was comparable in extreme magnitude with this one.


30°00'

Numbers refer to discharge measurement stations in

Numbers refer to precipitation stations in table 1

ioo°oo' 29°sa'

.Brackeltville

O 2 4 6 6 10 MILES

0Cline wo-oo1

FIGURE 39. Isohyetal map of the West Nueces Eiver Basin showing discharge measuring places, inter mediate drainage areas, and total rainfall, in inches, June 9-15,1935, as estimated from somewhat meager information.


DETERMINATION OF DISCHARGE NEAR BRACKETTVHIE

The computed maximum discharge per square mile of drainage area of the West Nueces River 28 miles above Brackettville exceeds any rates known previously for areas of similar size. A thorough investigation and survey was made in the field, and the field data were carefully analyzed. Because of the unparalleled features of the result, some descriptive details as to its determination are given below.

Figure 40 shows the plotting of observed high-water marks, the adopted slope lines, and the cross sections used to determine the maximum discharge. Plate 62 shows views of the slope reach. All computations are summarized in table 9.

TABLE 9. Computations for slope-area determination of discharge, West Nueces River near Brackettville, June 14, 1935

[For meaning of symbols see p. 230]

Determination of discharge unconnected for velocity head

Cross section

A...... ...B.. ..........

Average

Area (square

feet)

26, 222 25, 119

discharge

w. p.

746 720

uncorrec

r

35.15 34.89

ted for v<

rvs

10.73 10.68

locity he

s

0.00305 . 0030S

ad

S»/2

0. 05S2 .0552

n

0.030 .030

1.486 n

49.5 49.5

V

29.3 29.2

Discharge (second-

feet)

770, 000 733, 000

751,500

Correction for velocity head

T/2[Assume discharge of 580,000 second-feet; velocity head=-g- (g= acceleration of gravity)]

Cross section

A...... .-.... .-.. .-

B. .. .._ .. ...

V

580,000 nn26, 222 ""' 580,000 , ,

25, 11 ~"d- 1

^ (feet)

(22. 1)>64. 3 7< 6l

64. 3 S- "*

Correction to slope

7. 61-8. 31568 (length of reach)

= -0.001233

Corrected slope

S, =0.00305-. 001233=.001817

[Recompute discharge using corrected slope]

Cross section

A...... ......B... ......

Average

Area (square

feet)

26,222 25, 119

discharge

w. p.

746 720

to three

r

35.15 34.89

signiflcar

r'/»

10.73 10.68

t figures

c

0.001817 .001817

«l/8

0.0427 .0427

n

0.030 .030

1.486 n

49.5 49.5

V

22V6 22.5

Discharge (second-

feet)

593, 000 566, 000

580,000

The discharge as recomputed, using slope corrected for velocity head, checks the assumed discharge; therefore the adopted discharge is 580,000 second-feet.

The factors considered in selecting this site for a slope-area deter mination of discharge and other pertinent information concerning it are as follows: (1) The channel was straight for about 1 mile above

60

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900'

1,

000

1,100

1,200

1,30

0Feet along

cent

er of

channel

Prof

iles

of

hi

gh-w

ater

marks

30

Wat

er

surf

ace

30

Wa1

;er

surf

ace

Sec

tion

B

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

Dis

tance

in

feet

from

left

ed

ge

of

hig

h w

ater

FIG

UEB

40.

Pro

file

s of

hig

h-w

ater

mar

ks a

nd s

ectio

ns]o

f slo

pe-a

rea

reac

h on

the

Wes

t Nue

ces

Riv

er n

ear

Bra

cket

tvill

e.

750

fcO

Oi

00

254 CONTRIBUTIONS TO HYDKOLOGY, 1937

the reach and for about 500 feet below, where it bends slightly to the right. (2) All flow was in one channel about 712 feet wide and with depths ranging from about 33 feet near the left bank to about 45 feet near the right bank. (3) Cross sections were measured 568 feet apart; the altitudes of the high-water marks on the right bank were determined from a point about 200 feet above the upper cross section to a point about 300 feet below the lower cross section without a noticeable break in the slope. (4) The sides of the channel were of solid rock and could not have changed during the flood; the bed was of gravel, showed no evidence of appreciable shifting, and, ac cording to statements of local residents, appeared to be in the same condition after the flood as before except for filling in of a pool on the right side of the channel to a depth of 1 or 2 feet. (5) The channel was free of vegetation except for light brush along the higher part of both banks. (6) The area of the lower cross section was 4 percent smaller than that of the upper cross section; the distribution of the change was apparently uniform. (7) The high-water marks on the left bank were very well defined and were well distributed over the reach. Those on the right bank were not so well distributed, but well-defined marks found above and below the reach aided in defining the slope of the water surface. (8) The channel above and below the measuring section is clean and open and offers no obstruction to the approach or get-away of the stream. (9) No evidence of any movement of debris was apparent except the small amount of gravel mentioned above (4), either at the measuring section or for several miles above and below. However, with mean velocities hi excess of 20 feet a second (see table 9) and the material of gravel as indicated in plate 62, it seems possible that there may have been bed move ment. (10) The slope of the bed through the reach was uniform, and there was no adverse slope either within or immediately adjacent to the reach.

High-water marks indicated that the water surface was about 3 feet higher on the right bank than on the left bank. The deeper part of the channel is near the right bank. The association of the higher marks with the deeper channel is consistent with a study of many slope-area measurements made in Texas, in which it has been found that if the water surface is not level in a channel cross section it is usually higher on a side where the channel is deeper and the velocity of flow presumably greater than elsewhere in the channel.

The selection of the value of 7i=0.030, the coefficient of roughness used in the application of Manning's formula, was made in the light of experience in the determination of n in measurements of the dis charge of Texas streams, where rating curves based on slope-area determinations of discharge have been satisfactorily checked later by current-meter measurements. The value of n selected is consistent

MA JOE TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 255

with values used for other slope-area measurement reaches in Texas and in other parts of the United States. Studies of n have been made on the Brazos and Colorado Rivers for discharges up to 481,000 second-feet. Many of the n's computed from measured discharges on these streams in reaches with apparently rougher beds than in the reach on the West Nueces River near Brackettville have been less than 0.030.

The altitudes of the high-water points were averaged in groups, and the slope line was drawn through the mean position of the points so determined. Upper enveloping lines of the points plotted in figure 40 indicate slopes substantially parallel to those drawn.

The discharge was computed in table 9, using each cross section as a single channel. For comparison and check the discharge was computed by dividing the cross sections into several parts having different hydraulic radii and coefficients of roughness; the results of this determination gave discharges within a small percentage of the discharge as originally determined.

A computation of discharge was also made using only the left-bank slope, which was the natter and lower of the slopes defined by the high- water marks on the two banks. This condition seems to conform to the flattest slope and the smallest cross-sectional area of the channel that could be selected. The discharge so computed was 537,000 second-feet, which is seemingly near the minimum result that coiild be obtained from the base data. This method ignores the observa tions made on the right bank, which when taken into account produced the adopted discharge.

A reconnaissance was made of the West Nueces River from its headwaters to a point several miles below the slope-area reach. At no place was evidence found that would suggest that the flood peak was a momentary wave due to the release of a channel obstruction, or to any other cause. No section above was found where it would have been possible for the channel to be blocked.

The computed mean velocity of about 22.5 feet a second is a rate of travel of slightly more than 15 miles an hour. Had the peak re mained stationary for only 15 minutes it would have filled a length of channel of 3.8 miles. Local residents stated that they believed the river remained at maximum stage for as long as 30 minutes. This condition would seem to have led to the establishment of reasonably steady flow and hence to preclude the possibility that the high-water marks were produced by a sharp momentary wave.

The result of 580,000 second-fee t was obtained by the application of the Chezy and Manning formulas in a slope-area determination. The result is naturally subject to such limitations of accuracy as are involved in the application of these formulas to a combination of conditions more or less outside the range of ordinary experience. It


ignores any effect of the expenditure of the energy of flow in the move ment of sUt and gravel as bed load and assumes that the section of channel was the same during the time of peak discharge as after the flood, when the survey was made. As indicated in the above discus sion, this procedure seemed justified by the available evidence.

However, such uncertainties must be kept in mind in any compari son of the discharge with those obtained on other streams by more accurate methods, and any user of the data is cautioned to remember the method of derivation and, if thought desirable, to make such allowance therefor as may seem appropriate.

FRIO RIVER FLOOD

The Frio River rises in Real County about 20 miles east of the Nueces River and flows roughly parallel to the Nueces throughout its length. The Frio did not go as high in 1935 as in 1932, when the maximum known flood occurred. The Dry Frio River, tributary to the Frio, was higher than ever known before.

The Dry Frio River rises in central Real County and flows south about 40 miles (air-line distance) to its confluence with the Frio River near Knippa. It traverses a rocky, hilly region, about 250 square miles in area, from 1,000 to 2,000 feet in altitude, and covered by cedar and oak trees. Its drainage basin is adjacent to that of the Nueces River.

A slope-area measurement was made on the Dry Frio River 4 miles below Reagan Wells for determining the maximum discharge. The discharge as computed by Kutter's formula was 64,700 second-feet, which is equivalent to 539 second-feet per square mile for the drainage area of 120 square miles.

The maximum previous flood of which there is reliable information occurred in July 1932 and reached a stage at Reagan Wells about 3.0 feet lower than the 1935 flood. The peak discharge of the 1932 flood as determined by the slope-area method at a section 2.6 miles below Reagan Wells was 30,700 second-feet.

No river-measurement station is maintained on the Dry Frio River, but records of flow during the flood at the river-measurement stations on the Frio River at Concan, near Derby, at Cotulla, and at Calliham, are presented under "Stages and discharges" (pp. 273-276).

ATASCOSA RIVER FLOOD

The Atascosa River rises in the northern part of Atascosa County and flows east and south about 80 miles to its confluence with the Frio River near the town of Three Rivers. The drainage basin lies entirely within the Coastal Plain and is utilized to a great extent for farming.


The highest stage known occurred at the river-measurement station at Whitsett on June 14. The peak discharge of 38,300 second-feet was determined by the slope-area method.

A station description and a table of mean daily discharges and the total run-off for the period of the flood are presented under "Stages and discharges" (pp. 258-276).

BIO GRANDE BASIN

From 8 to more than 18 inches of rain fell over the Sycamore Creek Basin, which lies to the west and adjacent to the Nueces River Basin, during the period June 9-15, causing the greatest flood known. High but not record-breaking floods occurred in adjacent basins. Data per taining to the floods in the Rio Grande Basin may be found in Water Bulletin 5 of the International Boundary Commission, United States and Mexico. This organization maintains several river-measurement stations on the Rio Grande and its tributaries. The stations mostly affected by the June floods are those on San Felipe, Sycamore, and Pinto Creeks near Del Rio. The difference in flow past dischargemeasurement stations on the Rio Grande at Del Rio and at Eagle Pass will indicate the run-off from the area receiving the intense pre cipitation.

The maximum discharges past the river-measurement stations men tioned above are shown in table 14 (p. 283). All figures are taken from Water Bulletin 5, above noted.

STAGES AND DISCHARGES OF MAY AND JUNE FLOODS

On the following pages are presented stage and discharge records at the river-measurement stations experiencing unusual floods as above discussed. These records consist essentially of a station description, a table of mean daily discharges and the total run-off for the flood periods, and a table of discharges at indicated times during the floods in sufficient detail for reasonably reliable delineation of hydrographs. The last-mentioned table may be used to determine the rating curve for the station provided account is taken of the limits to which gage heights were applied, as given in the "Gage-height record" paragraph of the station description, and of periods when the shifting-control method of determining discharge was used. For some river-measure ment stations on streams adjacent to those experiencing unusual floods there are given records of mean daily discharges and the total run-off for the flood period.

In the "Drainage area" paragraph of the station description for some stations the probable noncontributing area is noted. This is the area that lies above the Cap Rock and is believed never to con tribute any surface run-off to the lower reaches of the streams. The


drainage areas were measured from such topographic maps as were available and from soil maps and county road maps.

The paragraph "Maxima" in the station description is divided into three subparagraphs. The first subparagraph, headed "1935," gives the maximum discharge and gage height occurring during the floods of June 1935. The second subparagraph, headed by the inclusive dates of systematic records, gives the maximum gage height and the corresponding discharge, if determined, during the period of systematic records prior to September 30, 1934. The third subparagraph, headed by the inclusive dates, gives the maximum stage and discharge, if de termined, during the period prior to the beginning of systematic records. The information in this third subparagraph is based mostly on information from local residents and is of varying degrees of accu racy and reliability.

COLORADO RIVER NEAR SAW SABA, TEX.

LOCATION. Lat. 31° 13', long. 98°34', at Red Bluff Crossing, 5.7 miles belowconfluence with San Saba River and 9.2 miles east of San Saba, San SabaCounty. Zero of gage is 1,096.22 feet above mean sea level.

DRAINAGE AREA. 30,600 square miles, of which about 11,800 square miles isprobably noncontributing.

GAGE-HEIGHT RECORD. Water-stage recorder graph. Gage heights used to halftenths between 3.9 and 6.8 feet; to hundredths below and tenths abovethese limits.

STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements below120,000 second-feet.

MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge for floodJune 15 (gage height, 38.50 feet).May 19 (gage height, 41.00 feet).

1916-34: Discharge, 163,000 second-feet Apr. 26, 1922 (gage height, about54 feet, present site and datum).

1900-1915: Discharge, 184,000 second-feet Sept. 25, 1900 (gage height,about 57.5 feet, present site and datum).

REMARKS. Small diversions above station for irrigation and municipal supplyaffect low flow only.

Mean discharge, in second-feet, and run-off, in acre-feet, June 19S5

period, 71,000 second-feet 2:45 p. m. Discharge for year, 86,000 second-feet

Day

11 _ ....12.......13 _ ....14. _ ...15.......

Ru

Second- feet

1,960 1,760 2,860 5,630

54,600

i-off, in £

Acre- feet

3,890 3,490 5,670

11, 170 108, 300

cre-feet,

Day

16 17 18 19 20

or perioc

Second- feet

64,100 39,200 14, 400 5,500 3,400

June 11-

Acre- feet

107, 300 77, 750 28, 560 10, 910 6,740

-30

Day

2122 23 24 25

Second- feet

2,410 2,250 1,920 1,410 2,250

Acre- feet

4,780 4,460 3,810 2,800 4,460

Day

26 27 28 29 30

Second- feet

2,160 2,600 3,440 1,490 1,210

Acre- feet

4,280 5,160 6,820 2,960 2,400

405, 700


Gage-height, in feet, and discharge, in second-feet, at indicated time, 1935

Time

June 10

12 midnight....

June 11

June 12

3a.m. ____

12 noon. ___ 12 midnight ....

June IS

5... ____ .....6... __ . __ ..9...............11.. _ . _ . ....

June 14

la. m. .........4...............7......... ......12 noon.. ......Ip. m ..........2...............4 _____ .....8...............11.. _ .........12 midnight ....

June IB

24 ____ .......6 ____ . __ ...8........ ...... .

Feet

5.67

5.42

5.15 5.28 5.25 5.16

5.14 5.20 6.30 7.25 8,60 8.85

8.65 7.90 7.40 7.16 7.32 7.90 8.95 9.23 9.28 9.42

15.00 17.00 20.50 28.20 34.20

Second- feet

2,160

1,920

1,720 1,840 1,800 1,720

1,720 1,760 2,680 3,800 6,230 6,600

6,230 4,960 4,110 3,800 3,950 4,960 6,960 7,320 7,510 7,690

18,000 22,000 28,900 44, 200 56, 600

Time

June 15 Con.

4... ___ . .....5. ..............7 ............9.-.. ..... ... 12 midnight _ .

June 16

6 ... ... ... ...

12 midnight. ...

June 17

12 midnight ....

June 18

6 a. m ..........12 noon. .......6 p. m _ . .....12 midnight ....

June 19

12 midnight....

June iO

12 midnight _ .

Feet

36.40 37.90 38.40 38.50 38.50 38.40 38.20 37.60 36.90 36.00

35.20 34.30 32.80 30.10

28.30 25.90 23.00 20.10

15.60 12.00 10.07 8.92

8.18 7.45

6.90 6.72 6.35

Second- feet

62,500 68, 100 70, 500 71, 000 71, 000 70,500 69, 500 66,900 64,200 61,200

59, 000 56,800 53,500 48,000

44,400 39, 600 33,800 28,100

19,200 12,400 8,960 6,780

5,500 4,110

3,370 3,120 2,790

Time

June SI 6 a. m ..........9 -_ .__...-12 noon ____6 p. m ..........9 _ .........12 midnight ....

June SS 3 a. m ..........9...............

12 midnight .... June SS

June 24

4a.m. .........8 ...12 midnight ....

June IS

12 midnight .... June 86

12noon_._ .....

7.. ___ ... .9.... _ . _ .12 midnight....

Feet

5.76 5.67 5.80 6.25 6.36 6.40

6.28 5.84 5.65 5.55 5.47

5.44 5.42 5.30

4.90 4.79 4.70

4.95 5.40 6.00 6.05 6.00 5.74

5.50 5.55 5.80 5.87 6.13 5.75

Second- feet

2,250 2,160 2,250 2,580 2,790 2,790

2,680 2,250 2,080 2,040 1,960

1,960 1,920 1,840

1,520 1,450 1,380

1,560 1,920 2,410 2,410 2,410 2,160

2,000 2,040 2,250 2,330 2,500 2,250

COLORADO BIVEK AT AUSTIN, TEX.

LOCATION. Lat. 30°16', long. 97°45', at Congress Avenue viaduct in Austin, Travis County. Zero of gage is 421.86 feet above mean sea level.

DRAINAGE AREA. 38,150 square miles, of which about 11,800 square miles is probably noncontributing.

GAGE-HEIGHT RECOBD. Water-stage recorder graph or graph drawn from fre quent gage readings. Gage heights used to half tenths between 1.4 and 3.6 feet; to hundredths below and tenths above these limits.

STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements.MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge, 481,000 second-feet 3:45 p.m. June 15 (gage height,

41.2 feet from floodmarks on gage structures at bridge pier; 42.0 feet to same datum from U. S. Weather Bureau gage on bridge at center of first span from left bank).

1898-1934: Discharge, about 236,000 second-feet a few minutes afterfailure of Austin Dam Apr. 7, 1900 (gage height, 33.5 feet). At time offailure, depth of water over dam was 11.07 feet (computed discharge, 151,000second-feet); flood appeared to be practically at its crest when dam failed.

1843-97: Stage, about 43 feet July 7, 1869 (discharge not determined).Remarks. Low flow partly regulated by diversions and reservoirs upstream.

260 CONTKIBTJTIONS TO HYDKOLOGY, 1937

Mean discharge, in second-feet, and run-off, in acre-feet, June 1935

Day

12.....13.....14 15.....16. .

B

Second- feet

4,970 8,840

13, 700 323, 000 143, 000

un-oft,lni

Acre- feet

9,860 17, 530 27, 170

640, 700 283,600

ware-feet, fc

Day

17 18.... 19.... 20 21

>r period

Second- feet

81, 200 57, 500 32, 400 17,900 13,000

June 12-3

Acre- feet

161, 100 114, 000 64,260 35, 500 25, 790

g

Day

22.... 23. _ 24 25 26. _

Second- feet

10, 300 17, 200 10,300 7,880 5,660

Acre- feet

20,430 34, 120 20, 430 15, 630 11,230

Day

27 . 28 29 30 .

Second- feet

5,050 5,050 5,660 6,600

Acre- feet

10,020 10, 020 11,230 13, 090

1,526,000


Time

June 11

12 midnight....

June It

12 midnight ....

June IS

12 noon ........

6 __ . ..........7...............10...... ........

4 a. m _____12 noon ........

6 ________ .9..... __ ......10 .... __ .11 _______ ..12 midnight _ .

June IB

la.m.. ........2 _____ . __ .3.... .......4. __ ..5 ________ .6 ________ .8..... .9 ____ . _ ....10..............11 __ . ____ .12 noon.. ......

3 ____ . .......4-..... .-...

Feet

2.40

2.202.23

2.422.903.904.764.764.66

4.303.693.603.703.854.80

10.7014.30

16.5019.0024.0027.130.031.836.338.238.939.139.840.841.141.2

Second- feet

5,480

4,8004,970

5,4807,200

10,80014, 40014, 40014,000

12, 40010, 1009,700

10, 10010, 80014, 40045, 70064, 600

76, 40095, 300

128, 000157, 000191, 000219, 000319, 000377, 000400, 000406, 000431, 000467, 000478, 000481, 000

Time

June 15 Cont.

5 p. m ..........6 ...............9... ............12 midnight _

3 a m ..........6..... ___ . _ .9... ............

6 ____ . ......9 __ ...........

6 a. m ..........12 noon ........

12 midnight ....

12 midnight ....

Feet

40.940.337.534.6

31.628.3oc 7

23.799 d91 ^

20.551 n o

1Q A

17.216.015.0

14.113.112.1511.02

9.858.62

6.65

6.03

5.355.10

Second- feet

470, 000449, 000354, 000276, 000

215, 000170, 000143, 000124, 000113,000105, 000100, 00095,900

01 ann80, 60073, 50068,200

63, 40057, 50061, 60045, 200

38, 700qi Af\n

25, 80022, 100

19, 00017, 30016, 10015, 300

Time

June 11

12 midnight ....

June SS

10.

4 ______ . _ .7 ___ ......8 ..........9 __ ... ...10 ..11 .. _ ....

12 midnight.

12 midnight ....

June S5

12 midnight- ...

12 midnight ....

Feet

4.373.78

3.373.204.00

4.845.305.936.056.116.096.005.854.754.08

3.763.022.80

2.602.13

1.831.62

Second- feet

13,00011, 000

9,9909,330

12,000

15, 30017, 30019,90020,30020,80020,80020,30019,50015, 30012,700

11,7009,0008,360

8,0406,600

5,6604,900

NOTE. Discharge determined by shifting-control method except from 2 a. m. June 15 to 9 a. m. June 16.

COLORADO RIVER AT SMTTHVHLE, TEX.

LOCATION. Lat. 30°01 / , long. 97°10', 1,200 feet above highway bridge at Smith- ville, Bastrop County. Zero of gage, 270.14 feet above mean sea level;

DRAINAGE AREA. 39,650 square miles, of which about 11,800 square miles is probably noncontributing.

GAGE-HEIGHT RECORD. Water-stage recorder graph except for short time on June 16 when recorder was submerged and graph was drawn from gage readings


and record of peak stage. Gage heights used to half tenths between 2.9 and 5.2 feet; to hundredths below and tenths above these limits.

STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements below 148,000 second-feet; extended to peak stage on basis of one slope-area meas urement of that peak.

MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge, 305,000 second-feet 4:30 p. m. June 16 (gage height, 42.5 feet, from floodmarks).

1930-34: Discharge, 67,500 second-feet Oct. 9, 19, 1930 (gage height, 21.40 feet).

1913-29: Stage, about 47.4 feet December 1913 (discharge not determined).REMARKS. Low flow partly regulated by diversions and reservoirs upstream.


Day

12......13......14......15......16-..

Rt

Second- feet

5,940 7,860

17,800 29,000

219, 000

m-off, in £

Acre- feet

11, 780 15, 590 35, 310 57,520

434,400

icre-feet, f<

Day

17 18 19 20 21

>r perioc

Second- feet

184, 000 101,000 60,500 28,400 17,400

I June 12-

Acre- feet

365, 000 200,300 120,000 56, 330 34, 510

30

Day

22 2324 25 26

Second- feet

13,300 12,000 15,200 9,560 7,630

Acre- feet

26,380 23,800 30, 150 18, 960 15, 130

Day

27 28 29 30

Second- feet

6,260 5,770 5,610 6,090

Acre- feet

12,420 11,440 11, 130 12,080

1,492,000


Time

June 11

June IS

10 ...........

4...... _ ......6.. ____ ... ...8...... _10..... _

June 14

4....... _ .. ...8_....... .

4. ___ ..... _8.. _ ..... _ ..12 midnight ....

11..... ___ ...

2.. _ ..........3... ____ . ....4... ___ ......

Feet

8.14

7.407.357.17

6.977.007.308.40

10.0010.4010.259.959.83

10.1310.9012. 3513.0513.1513.0012.2011.20

9.8010.0010.5012.215.016.417.2

Second- feet

7,110

5,7705,6105,450

5,1505,1505,6107,630

11, 50012, 50012,00011, 50011, 000

12,00014, 00018, 70020, 50021. 10020,80018, 10015, 100

11, 00011, 50012,70017, 80027,80033,90037,800

Time

June IB Con.

6..... _ .......7......... _ ...8.. ____ . ....9.. ___ .......10..............12 midnight ....

June 16

6... ___ ......9....... ........

2 p. m ..........3 __ . ____ 4..... ..........5........... ....6...............9...............12 midnight- ...

12 midnight ....

June 18

6 a. m _____

6 p. m ..........12 midnight ..

12 midnight ....

Feet

17.818.319.520.221.122.324.4

27.632.737.240.241.642.142.542.442. 141.340.3

38.135.532.730.4

28.627.325.824.1

21.017.5

Second- feet

40,40043, 00049, 50053. 50058,80066, 10080, 000

104, 000148, 000203, 000254, 000284, 000295, 000305, 000303, 000295, 000277,000256,000

217,000180, 000148, 000126, OCO

112, 000102, 00091, 30080, 000

60,60040,900

Time

June SO

12 midnight ....

June 88

June US

12 noon ........

June 84

6. _____ .. ...9...............

12 midnight. ...

June 25

12 midnight. ...

June 86

12 midnight ....

Feet

14.512 7

12 411.610.8

10.3510.00

9.309.80

11.40

11.8511.9611.7311.3010.409.87

9.028.43

8.127.65

Second- feet

27, 00020,800

19, 60017,20014,600

13, 30012,200

10, 50011, 70016,000

17, 80018,10017 ^fift

16, 00010 Of-lfl

12, 000

9,560Q 9K(\

7,8106,940

NOTE. Discharge determined by shifting.control method except June 16-20.


COLORADO RIVER WEAR EAGLE LAKE, TEX.

LOCATION. Lat. 29°35', long. 96°25', at Lakeside Irrigation Co.'s pumpingplant, 5 miles southwest of Eagle Lake, Colorado County. Zero of gage is139.56 feet above mean sea level.

DRAINAGE AREA. 40,940 square miles, of which about 11,800 square miles isprobably noncontributing.

GAGE-HEIGHT RECORD. Water-stage recorder graph. Gage heights used to halftenths between 2.7 and 5.5 feet; to hundredths below and tenths above theselimits.

STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements. MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge, 177,000 second-feet 2:30 a. m. June 19 (gage

height, 29.45 feet).1930-34: Discharge, 57,500 second-feet Oct. 21, 1930 (gage height, 20.48

feet).1913-29: Stage, about 32.0 feet December 1913, present site and datum

(discharge not determined). REMARKS. Diversions above for irrigation and municipal supply affect low flow

only.


Day

13 _ ..14.....15.. 16 _ ..17

E

Second- feet

7,550 7,550

14,400 27,900 58, 700

un-ofif, in

Acre- feet

14,980 14, 980 28,560 55, 340

116, 400acre-feet,

Day

18 19.... 20 21 22

or perio

Second- feet

116,000 164, 000 123,000 67,800 24,300

d June 13

Acre- feet

230, 100 325, 300 244,000 134, 500 48,200

-30.......

Day

23 24 25 26 27

Second- feet

16,100 13,000 14,600 10, 900 8,670

Acre- feet

31, 930 25, 790 28, 960 21, 620 17,200

Day

28. _ 29.... 30

Second- feet

7,420 6,480 6,430

Acre- feet

14,720 12,850 12, 750

1,378,00-


Time

June IS

12 midnight. ...

June 14

9 __ .... _ ...

12 midnight ....

6 a. m _____

12 noon... ..... 2 p. m . .4 _ . _ _____7 .....10 ____ . ...

June 16

4............... 6 .......6...............9... _ . ........

8 .. _ ...12 midnight ....

Feet

8.94

7.90

7.737.737.888.98

10.00

11.20

11.77 11.80 11.7711.64 11.50

10.9510.95 11.1011.5513.8015.7517.5018.6519.40

Second- feet

9,260

7,350 6,750

6,1906,190 6,5508,820

11, 000

14, 00015, 000 15, 500 15, 500 15, 50015, 000 14, 800

13, 20013, 200 13, 700

21, 50028,40035, 90041, 90045,900

Time

June 17

8 ___ ...

8....... .....12 midnight ....

June 184 a. m .......... 8....... .....12 noon... .....

8 12 midnight ....

June 193 a. m .......... 6.......... _ ..9 ... .........12 noon.... .... 4 p. m... .......

12 midnight ....

6 a. m ..........

6 p. m .. 12 midnight

June SI

12 midnight ....

Feet

20.1520.7021.2521.7222.3623.16

23.75 24.6325.90 27.2228.4429.35

29.45 29.3529.0028.77 28.56*io. ou 27.95

27.37 26.7725.94 25.00

23.8022.6020.8318.45

Second- feet

50,50053, 90057, 70061,80068, 00075, 700

82, 200 91, 700

110, 000 133, 000156, 000177, 000

177, 000 177, 000168, 000 164, 000 160, 000lOrt, UUU

148, 000

136, 000 125, 000110, 000 97, 000

82, 20068, 90052, 50038, 800

Time

June 22

12 midnight

June 2S6 a. m _____ 12 noon... __

12 midnight ....

2 p. m..._ ...... 6 ........12 midnight ....

June 253 a. m. ......... 5.. _____ .....7 _ ........9. ... ... .... 12 noon... .....6 p. m .......12 midnight ....

6 a. m. __ ..

12 midnight

Feet

16.1014.4013.4812.92

12.75 12.5312.05 11.55

11.1010.8710.87 11.1811.90

12.10 12.1412.1112.05 11.8611.34 10.82

10.4210.069.759.49

Second- feet

28,40022, 20019, 30017,500

16, 900 16, 40015, 300 13, 700

12, 70012, 20012, 200 13, 00014,800

15, 500 15, 50015, 50015, 300 15, 00013, 500 12,200

11, 30010, 6009,9209,260

NOTE. Discharge determined by shifting-control method except June 17 to 6 a. m. June 21.


NORTH LLANO RIVER NEAR JUNCTION, TEX.

263

LOCATION. Lat. 30°30', long. 99°47', 500 feet above remains of old Wilson Damand 3 miles northwest of Junction, Kimble County. Zero of gage is 1,699.9feet above mean sea level.

DRAINAGE AREA. 914 square miles. GAGE-HEIGHT RECORD. Water-stage recorder graph. Gage heights used to

half tenths between 4.0 and 6.0 feet; to hundredths below and tenths abovethese limits.

STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements below33,700 second-feet and extended above the peak stage. Definition doubtfulabove 33,700 second-feet and subject to revision.

MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge, 47,400 second-feet 12:20 p. m. June 14 (gage height,20.70 feet).

1915-34: Discharge, 48,100 second-feet Oct. 6, 1930 (gage height, 20.9feet).

1875-1914: Stage, about 22.9 feet in 1889. REMARKS. Diversions for irrigation materially reduce low-water flow but do not

affect flood flow.


Day

13.......14.......15... _ .16. ___ .17.......

Eu

Second- feet

647 22,300 4,890

646 403

i-oflf, in £

Acre- feet

1,283 44, 230 9,700 1,280

799

icre-feet,

Day

18 __ .19 __ . 20..... 21..... 22....,

for perio<

Seocjnd- feet

625 436 274 242 219

1 June IE

Acre- feet

1,240 865 543 480 434

-30

Day

23. 24, .... 25..... 26..... 27

Second- feet

200 185 166 155 140

Acre- feet

397 367 329 307 278

Day

28 29..... 30 ..

Second- feet

136 129 118

Acre- feet

270256 234

63,290


Time

June IS1 a. m .......... 4. ...........

4 p. m ..........12 midnight __

3 ..........4 _______ . ...5 . 6.. _ .... 7..... .......8...... ....... , .9 ....... ...10...... ___ ...11, ________

1 p. m .......... 2.. _ . .. .. 3.. ____ ...... 4.. _ .... ....5.... _ ........ 6............... 7_. ........... .. 8..............9. ...........10 ..........11... _ .. .. ..12 midnight .

Feet

3.82 3.363.00 2.57 2.38

2.442.563.405.558.30

13.9015.3516.3017.6019.00

20.50 19.00 16.10 14.3013.10 12.35 12.10 12.5012.8012.2011.4010.40

Second- feet

1,290 942700 462 379

474538

1,1304,560

10, 700

30, 000

36, 90041, 60046, 70046, 700 41, 600 32, 200 26, 70023, 300 21, 300 20, 500

22, 40020, 80018, 60015, 900

Time

June 15

2 a. m.__ _ ... 4... ... ......6. __ 9....... ........

8 ...... ...

12 midnight ....

June 17

12 noon ......... 6 p. m ..........7 __ _____

9.... .. 10 .... 12 midnight ....

6. ... . .... .

Feet

9.10 8.006.95 5.55 4.724.003.503 90

2.702.46

2.31

2.13 2.10 4.10

3.85 3.22 3.13

2.922.46

Second- feet

12,600 10, 0007,700 4,560 2,8601,7901,220

Q79

620484

408

325 312

1,920

1,600 988 918

764484

Time

June 19 Con.

12 noon. -- 12 midnight .

June 90

June K

June 24

12 noon.. __ .

June 25

12 noon.....

Feet

2.232.07

2.01

1.93

1.87

1.82

1.78

1.73

1.70

Second- feet

370299

274

242

219

200

185

160

155


LLANO RIVER NEAR JUNCTION, TEX.

LOCATION. Lat. 30°30', long. 99°44', 100 feet north of Kerrville-Junction road, 3 miles below confluence of North Llano and South Llano Rivers, and 3J4 miles east of Junction, Kimble County.

DBAINAGE AREA. 1,762 square miles.GAGE-HEIGHT EECOED. Water-stage recorder graph except June 11-17, when it

tfas determined from graph drawn from a partial recorder graph, gage read ings, and floodmarks. Gage heights used to halftenths between 3.5 and 5.4 feet to hundredths below and tenths above these limits.

STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements below 35,000 second-feet; extended to peak discharge on basis of four slope-area measurements.

MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge, 319,000 second-feet 12 noon June 14 (gage height, 43.3 feet, from floodmarks).

1915-34: Discharge, about 106,000 second-feet Sept. 1, 1932 (gage height, 27.15 feet).

1889-1935: Discharge and stage, that of June 14, 1935.REMARKS. Small diversions and storage above station affect low flow only.


Day

13- 14.. 15.. _ ..16.. .17..

Rui

Second- feet

465 124, 000

15, 700 3,310 1,400

i-ofl. in £

Acre- feet

922 246, 000

31, 140 6,570 2,780

cre-feet, f

Day

18 19 20 ___21 ___ 22 .-

or period

Second- feet

1,420 1,430

813 649586

June 13-

A cre- feet

2,820 2,840 1,610 1,290 1,160

30

Day

23 24 __ . 25.-.. 26 27 ___

Second- feet

546 485 452 420 387

Acre- feet

1,080 962 897 833 768

Day

28 29 30

Second- feet

381 362 337

Acre- feet

756 718 668

303, 800

Gage-height, in feet, and discharge, in second-feet, at indicated time, 19S5

Time

June 18

12 midnight ....

5. 6 _7 8 9 10 ___ 11 ___ . .......

2 3

6.. _ 7... __ 8- _ .... 10. _ 12midnieht--_-

Feet

2.31

2.322.432.64

3.334.009.00

17.029.037.041.042.943.3

41.239.236.633.429.625.822.017.715.6

Second- feet

434

442523687

1,4002,150

11, 30037, 400

123, 000221, 000282, 000312, 000319, 000

285, 000254, 000215, 000173, 000130, 00094, 60065. 20040, 60031. son

Time

June 15

8

12 midnight ....

8 ........9- .10 . . ...11 12 midnight ....

10

Feet

13.111.4

8.67.2

5.804.50

3.54

3.323.14

2.90

3.575,505.004.524.20

3.373.12

Second- feet

22, 90017, 80014, 40010, 4007,350

4,6502,7301,9201,640

1,3901,190

9401,2701,6404,1603,4102,7502,390

1,4501,170

Time

June 19 Con.

2 __ ... ... __ .6 ..... ... ...12 midnight ....

12 noon. _ . ...

Feet

3.413.443.403.172.95

2.75

2.57

2.48

9 49

2.33

2 28

2-23

Second- feet

1,4901,5201,4801,230

990

795

649

686

546

485

452

420

LLANO RIVER NEAR CASTELL, TEX.

LOCATION. Lat. 30°43', long. 98°53', 4 miles above mouth of Hickory Creekand 6 miles east of Castell, Llano County.

DBAINAGE AREA. 3,514 square miles.


GAGE-HEIGHT RECORD. Graph drawn from fragmentary staff-gage readings, floodmarks, and local information. Gage heights used to half tenths be tween 1.5 and 4.4 feet; to hundredths below and tenths above these limits.

STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements below 10,000 second-feet; extended to peak stage on basis of one float and one slope-area measurement.

MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge, 388,000 second-feet 1 p. m. June 14 (gage height, 37.0 feet, from floodmarks).

1923-34: Discharge, 89,800 second-feet Oct. 6,1930 (gage height, 22.3 feet). 1889-1922: Stage, 28.4 feet in 1889 (discharge not determined).

REMARKS. Small diversions above station affect low flow only.


Day

9. 10.. -11. _ 12 .......13 14..- ...

Eui

Second- feet

"562

216, 000

i-off. in a

Acre- feet

'1,110

428, 400

cre-feet,

Day

15 .. 16 .....IT- IS- ... 19 20

for period

Second- feet

84, 700 7,940 3,690 1,780 1,190 1,060

June 9i

Acre- feet

168, 000 15, 750 7,320 3,530 2,360 2,100

30

Day

21. ....22. _ . 23..... 24..... 25..... 26.....

Second- feet

1,010 950 950 880 770 723

Acre- feet

2,000 1,880 1,880 1,750 1,630 1,430

Day

27 _ .. 28..... 29.....30. ....

Second- feet

1,530 750 696 656

Acre- feet

3,030 1,490 1,180 1,100

650. 300

o Average for period June 9-13. * Average daily run-off for period June 9-13.


Time

June 10

June IS

24.... ___ ......6. _ . _ ..8- ____10

4. ...... __ .6... .... .....7 .8 ____ . ..10 11... . ..........12 midnight

June 15

6.. _ - ___ .

Feet

3.35

3.20

3.10

3.06

4.005.408.60

16.0025.4033.4036.8037.0036.3033.4030.6030.0031.4035.7036.0036.70

32.6028.0021.7018.70

Second- feet

620

520

470

450

1,3103,900

11,50045,800

149, 000305, 000383, 000388,000371, 000306, 000243, 000230,000260, 000367, 000364, 000357, 000

287, 000192, 00098,20066,900

Time

June 15 Con.

4 _________6 .. ......8- _ ..... .....10 12 midnight

June 16

2 a. m ..........4... ___ .......6.. _ ..........8. .........10

8 . ......... ..12 midnight .

12 midnight

June 19

2p.m.

Feet

16.7015.1013.7012.6011.7010.9010.309.60

9.108.608.107.707.407.006.606.206.90

5.625.284.984.70

4.354.063.80

3.653.653.68

Second- feet

50,80039, 70031,20026, 80022,00018,90016, 70014,400

12, 90011, 50010, 2009,1508,4207,4606,5405,6404,980

4,3203,6903,0902,600

1,8601,3801,070

900800830

Time

June 19 Con.

6 ...............8- __ .........10

June SI

June 8&

June 84

Feet

4.004.244.073.973.89

3.68

3.55

3.50

3.50

3.43

3.32

3.27

Second- feet

1,3101,6701,4101,2701,180

1,050

1.010

1950

950

880

770

723

NOTE. Discharge determined by shifting-control method June 20-26. 58805 39 i


PEDEENAIES RIVER NEAR SPICE WOOD, TEX.

LOCATION. Lat. 30°25'15", long. 98°04'50", in Travis County, 5.4 miles aboveconfluence with Colorado River and 8 miles southeast of Spicewood, BurnetCounty. Zero of gage is 624.8 feet above mean sea level.

DRAINAGE AKEA. 1,294 square miles. GAGE-HEIGHT RECORD. Graph drawn from two or more gage readings daily.

Gage heights used to half tenths between 1.6 and 2.8 feet; to hundredthsbelow and tenths above these limits.

STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements below3,500 second-feet; extended to peak discharge by one slope-area measurementand three slope-area computations.

MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge, 105,000 second-feet 10 a. m. June 15 (gage height,32.0 feet, from graph based on gage readings).

1923-34: Discharge, 155,000 second-feet May 28, 1929 (gage height, 40.4feet, from floodmarks).

1869-1922: Stage, about the same height as in 1929, occurred in 1869. REMARKS. No regulation or diversions.


Day

19

13. _ .........14 _ . _ ......15 ___ ...........16. . . _ . _

Run-off, in a

Secon - feet

167 368

3,250 6,360

68,700 2,820

cre-feet,

Acre- feet

331 730

6,450 12, 610

136, 300 5,590

or perioc

Day

17 ___ . .....18.. _ . ___ . _ .19 .... ___ ..20 ... __ .. 21..... _ - __ ..99oq

June 11 30

Second- Acre- feet feet

-106 t210

i'3,210 d 6,370

Day

24 25... ___ ..26 27....... ....

9Q

30

Second- feet

330

174

Acre- feet

/655

345

180, 100

« Average for period June 17-21.'Average daily run-off for period June 17-21. Average for period June 22, 23.^Averase daily run-off for period June 22, 23. Average for period June 24-29./Average daily run-off for period June 24-29.

GUADAIUPE RIVER NEAR SPRING BRANCH, TEX.

LOCATION. Lat. 29°52', long. 98°23', at New Braunfels-Blanco highway bridge4 miles southeast of Spring Branch, Comal County. Zero of gage is 947.37feet above mean sea level.

DRAINAGE AREA. 1,432 square miles. GAGE-HEIGHT RECORD. Water-stage recorder graph. Gage heights used to half

tenths between 4.7 and 5.0 feet; hundredths below and tenths above theselimits.

STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements below70,000 second-feet; extended above.

MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge, 114,000 second-feet 5 a. m. June 15 (gage height,41.30 feet).

1922-34: Discharge, 121,000 second-feet 2 a. m. July 3, 1932 (gage height,42.10 feet).

1900-1921: Stage, 45 to 50 feet in 1900 (discharge not determined). REMARKS. Small diversions and regulation upstream affect low flow only.



Day

11... ....12.......13 ___ ..14... ....15... ....

Rui

Second- feet

336585

2,190 5,890

66, 100a-off. in £

Acre- feet

666 1,160 4,340

11, 680 131, 100icre-feet.

Day

16 17 18 19 20

for nerioc

Second- feet

12, 300 4,030 2,810 2,190 1,770

June 11

Acre- feet

24,400 7,990 5,570 4,340 3,510

-30

Day

21..... 22 23.....9d

25

Second- feet

1,520 1,340 1,910 1,340 1,070

Acre- feet

3,010 2,660 3,790 2,660 2,120

Day

26 27 28 29..... 30

Second- feet

945 845 770 695 645

Acre- feet

1,870 1,680 1,530 1,380 1,280

216, 700

SAN ANTONIO RIVER NEAR FALLS CITY, TEX.

LOCATION. Lat. 28°57'05", long. 98°03'55", at highway bridge half a mile above Scared Dog Creek and 3.4 miles southwest of Falls City, Karnes County.

DRAINAGE AREA. 2,067 square miles.GAGE-HEIGHT RECORD. Water-stage recorder graph; no record June 18-25 (dis

charge estimated). Gage heights used to half tenths between 3.9 and 4.6 feet; to hundredths below and tenths above these limits.

STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements. MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge, 14,300 second-feet 3 p. m. June 15 (gage height,

17.97 feet, affected by backwater); maximum gage height, 22.3 feet June 13, 1935 (affected by backwater).

1925-34: Discharge, 10,100 second-feet May 29, 1929 (gage height, 11.15 feet).1875-1924: Stage, 28.36 feet in October 1913 (discharge not determined).

REMARKS. Flow partly regulated by 254,000 acre-feet of storage in Medina Reservoir, on Medina River.


Day

11 .......12.. __ .13.. .....14.......15 .......

Second- feet

582 2,290

10, 800 12, 400 13, 800

Acre- feet

1,150 4,540

21, 420 24,600 27, 370

Day

16 17.. ... 18 19..... 20

Second- feet

10, 800 7,820

"3,270 "3,270 "3,270

Run-oft, in acre-feet, for period June 11

Acre- feet

21,420 15, 510 66,490 66,490 '6,490

-30

Day

21..... 22 23 24. .... 25- ...

Second- feet

«3,270 «3,270 "3,270 "3,270 "3,270

Acre- feet

'6,490 66,490 i>6,490 66,490 66,490

Day

26 27. .... 28 29 . 30 .....

Second- feet

704 658 626 595 564

Acre- feet

1,400 1,310 1,240 1,180 1,120

174, 200

»Average for period June 18-25. * Average daily run-off for period June 18-25.

CIBOIO CREEK NEAR FALLS CITY, TEX.

LOCATION. Lat. 29°01', long. 97°56', 200 feet downstream from Cestohowa Bridge, 6 miles above confluence with San Antonio River, and 6 miles north east of Falls City, Karnes County.

DRAINAGE AREA. 831 square miles.GAGE-HEIGHT RECORD. Water-stage recorder graph except parts of June 12, 13,

14, 16, and 17 when recorder was submerged and graph drawn based on floodmarks and local information. Gage heights used to half tenths be tween 2.6 and 4.9 feet; to hundredths below and tenths above these limits.

STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements below 15,400 second-feet; extended above.

MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge, about 28,600 second-feet 4 a. m. June 14 (gage height, 33.0 feet, from flood marks).

1931-34: Discharge, 6,390 second-feet July 30, 1933 (gage height, 21.5 feet, from floodmarks).

1913-30: Stage, about 38 feet in October 1913 (discharge not determined).REMARKS. No large diversions or regulation above station.



Day

11. _ ...12.......13.. 14.... 15 ___ .

Rui

Second- feet

270 1,120

11, 000 18, 100 1,980

i-ofi, in £

Acre- feet

536 2,220

21, 820 35, 900 3,930

icre-feet.

Day

16 17 18 . 19 20 .

for perioc

Second- feet

3,140 3,290

960 608 465

June 11

Acre- feet

6,230 6,530 1,900 1,210

922

-30.

Day

21 - 22 23 24 25

Second- feet

339 248 188 154 182

Acre- feet

672 492 373 305 254

Day

26 27 _ .. 28 29 30 ___

Second- feet

110 93 81 73 66

Acre- feet

218 184 161 145 131

84. 130

NFECES RIVER AT IAGUNA, TEX.

LOCATION. Lat. 29°26', long. 100°00', half a mile below Sycamore Creek and1 mile northeast of Laguna, Uvalde County.

DRAINAGE AREA. 764 square miles. GAGE-HEIGHT RECORD. Water-stage recorder graph. Gage heights used to half

tenths between 4.4 and 7.6 feet; to hundredths below and tenths above theselimits.

STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements below40,000 second-feet; extended to peak discharge on basis of one float and oneslope-area measurement.

MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge, 213,000 second-feet 11 a. m. June 14 (gage height,26.0 feet, from floodmarks).

1924-34: Discharge, about 87,200 second-feet June 15, 1930 (gage height,20.1 feet).

1903-23: Discharge, 226,000 second-feet Sept. 21, 1923 (gage height, 26.5feet). Stage, about 29 feet in June 1913 (discharge not determined).

REMARKS. No diversions or regulation.


Day

11... 12 13 14 15

Rui

Second- feet

459 1,060

12,600 107, 000 12,100

i-ofi, in a

Acre- feet

910 2,100

24, 990 212, 200 24,000

cre-feet,

Day

16 _ - 17 18 19 20«. ...

or perioc

Second- feet

3,780 2,600 2,030 1,700 1,520

June 11-

Acre- feet

7,500 5,160 4,030 3,370 3,010

-30

Day

21 22 _ .. 23 24 25

Second- feet

1,300 1,170 1,090

932 828

Acre- feet

2,580 2,320 2,160 1,850 1,640

Day

26 __ .27 _ .. 28 29 30

Second- feet

759 695 643 595 562

Acre- feet

1,510 1,380 1,280 1,180 1,110

304, 300

Gage-height, in feet, and discharge, in second-feet, at indicated time, 19S5

Time

June 10

6. ......8 12 midnieht __

Feet

4.02

4.004.124.304.14

Second- feet

435

425483578493

Time

June 18

3 ___ ...5 ____ .......7 _ ......8 .... ......10 _ .11 12 midnieht ....

Feet

4.154.405.255.105.575.405.705.745.65

Second- feet

498633

1,4901,2402,0501,7502,2802,3502.190

Time

June IS

2 ...............3. _ . ___ . ....5 ___ . _ .....8 _____ .. _ .11

2 P. m. __ -.

Feet

5.505.706.636.506.726.606.706.60

Second- feet

1,9202,2805,0504,9005,2105,0505,2105.050


(rage-height, in feet, and discharge, in second-feet, at indicated time, 1985 Contd.

Time

June IS Con.

4 ____ . .......5 ....... . .......6 _ __ ...7... ......... ...8.-. .........« 10.... .. ..12 midnight ....

June 14

1 a. m ..........2 ___ ..........3 ____ .. ......4 __ . _ .......5 ...«.. . 7 ____ . ......8fl 10..............11..... ____ .12 noon ........

2 ...............3.. _______ . 4 ...............5 _________ . ___ . ___ ..7 _______ .. 8 ____ . ......«. ..... .10..............

Feet

7.709.80

13.6014.1013.3015.5016.2015.7013.75

13.3013.5014.3015.6517.6020.0022.0024.3025.8025.7026.0025.0524.80 25.6025.30 24.6522.9020.60

17.1015.7014.85

Second- feet

11,30023,20025,20022,10031,80036, 40033,00024,000

22,00022,80026,10032, 40049,20085, 500

122, 000171, 000208, 000206,000213, 000188,000loo, UUU203, 000196, 000 178, 000140, 00095,80067, 400 44,00033,00028, 300

Time

June U Con. 11...... _ .. ...12 midnight ....

June 15

2.... ____ ...3-... _ . ......4....-..- __ .5..-.- .......6...... _____ .7 __ ......8. . .Q

10 , 11.- _ - _ ...

Q

8 __ ...12 noon. -. .....

12 midnight ....

6 p. m ..........

Feet

14.1013.30

12.6011.9512.7512.6512.2011.6512.4012.88

10.559.759 QQ

8.538.007.206.65

6 90

5.855.635 09

5.06

* O/

4.704.544 40

Second- feet

25,20022,100

19, 50017,40020,20019,50018,10016,20018,80020,60016,50013, 40011, 30010, 2008,5007,5306,0605,050

3,9203,6603 9QH

2,990

2,760 2,6002,4402,280

Time

June 18

12 midnight....

12 noon ........

June *4

12 noon ........

12 noon ........

Feet

4.234.083 94

3.82

3.60

3.34

3.22

3.10

2.90

2.76

2.66

Second- feet

O 19ft

1,9801,840

1,700

1,520

1,300

1,170

1,090

932

828

759

NUECES RIVER NEAR UVAIBE, TEX.

LOCATION. Lat. 29°11', long. 99°54', at Tom Nunn Crossing, 4K miles below Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway bridge, 7 miles west by south of Uvalde, Uvalde County.

DRAINAGE AREA. 1,930 square miles, a large part of which is noncontributing at low stages owing to water entering fault a few miles above gage.

GAGE-HEIGHT RECORD. Water-stage recorder graph prior to June 12, 1935; graph drawn from information furnished by local residents, readings of stage by railroad company at railroad bridge 4.5 miles upstream, and floodmarks subsequent to June 11, 1935. Gage heights used to half tenths between 3.2 and 5.1 feet prior to June 14 and between 1.2 and 2.6 feet after June 14; to hundredths below and tenths above these limits.

STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements below 50,000 second-feet, extended to peak stage on basis of two slope-area measure ments.

MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge, 616,000 second-feet at 4 p. m. June 14 (gage height, 36.9 feet, from floodmarks).

1927-34: Discharge, 188,000 second-feet Sept. 1, 1932 (gage height, 23.25 feet).

1910-26: Discharge, 229,000 second-feet June 1913 (gage height, 26.4 feet).REMARKS. No diversions or regulation.



Day

12 .......13 .14. ......15 .....16

Em

Second- feet

395 1,760

147, 000 45, 000 19, 000

a-off, in £

Acre- feet

783 3,490

291, 600 89, 260 37, 690

icre-feet,

Day

17..... 18.-... 19 20 21 -

for perioc

Second- feet

12, 200 7,820 4,980 3,020 2,120

I June 12

Acre- feet

24, 200 15, 510 9,880 5,990 4,200

-30

Day

22 23.. ... 24 25. ... . 26

Second- feet

1,630 1,260

990 790 678

Acre- feet

3,230 2,500 1,960 1,570 1,340

Day

27. . 28 29- 30

Second- feet

605 570 505 505

Acre- feet

1,200 1,130 1,000 1,000

497, 500


Time

June 11 12 midnight

«a. m __ ._

2 a. m _____4. _ . __ .. ....6 ______ . ....8 .........9 _____ ......10 ___ .... __ .11. . .........

2. ....-3 .... .... ...4 ___6 6 ___ ..... .....7 __ . _ .......8 ....... ....9 .....10 ______ ....11. .....12 midnight-

Feet

1.82

1.80

2.502.953.65

5.155.806.608.20

13.2017.4019.3020.8022.1022.8023.3036.9036.2033.4030.5027.7024.3022.4021.0019.90

Second- feet

404

395

9601,6402,730

5,6006,9008,740

12, 80033, 20067,40089, 900

110, 000132, 000145, 000155, 000616, 000585, 000471, 000362,000267, 000177, 000138, 000113, 00097, 700

Time

June 15

4 _______ ..6 ________ ..8.. __ . ___ .10 __ .....

6 __ .... _ ....9 ... ...12 midnight ....

12 midnight-

Feet

18.4017.2016.2015.4014.7014.1013.3012.7012.2011.70

10.9010.209.508.90

8.407.907.507.00

6.506.005.50

Second- feet

78,80065, 20055, 00048,20042,90038, 70033, 80030, 50028,00025, 500

21, 60018, 80016, 50014, 700

13, 30012,00011, 0009,700

8,5107,3606,240

Time

June 19

8 a. m ..........

June £0

June £1

12 noon ........

June £5

3 p. m ..........

Feet

5.104.704.30

3.85

3.20

2.82

2.45

2.15

1.92

1.70

Second- feet

5,390-4,5903,860

3,020

2,120

1,630

1,260

990

790

640

NUECES RIVER AT COTULIA, TEX.

LOCATION. Lat. 28°26', long. 99°16', at Cotulla-Laredo highway bridge in Cotulla, LaSalle County. Zero of gage is 368.08 feet above mean sea level.

DRAINAGE AREA. 5,260 square miles, a large part of which is noncontributing at low stages owing to water entering fault near Uvalde.

GAGE-HEIGHT RECORD. Water-stage recorder graph except June 15-20, when graph was drawn from frequent gage readings. Gage heights used to half tenths between 11.6 and 12.8 feet; to hundredths below and tenths above these limits.

STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements below 37,000 second-feet, extended to peak stage on basis of one slope-area meas urement of the peak.

MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge, 82,600 second-feet at 7 a. m. June 18 (gage height, 32.4 feet, from floodmarks).

1923-34: Discharge, 49,500 second-feet June 3, 1925 (gage height, 24.8 feet, present site and datum).

1899-1922: Stage, 29.7 feet, present site and datum, June 19, 1899 (dis charge not determined).

REMARKS. Regulation and diversions affect low flow only.



Day

l2345678

Second- feet

9941,6002,2704,2906,4805,6003,7703,300

Acre- feet

1,9703,1704,5008,510

12,85011, 1107,4806,550

Day

910111213141516

Second- feet

3,4203,8904,4804,4804,0103,1803,3004,480

Run-off, in acre-feet, for period June 1-

Acre- feet

6,7807,7208,8908,8907,9506,3106,5508,890

Day

1718192021222324

Second- feet

32, 20079,00057, 60035, 30021, 50012, 6007,5504,740

Acre- feet

63, 870156, 700114, 20070,02042, 64024,99014, 9809,400

Day

252627282930

Second- feet

2,8902,1201,7001,3901,1701,010

30. ____________ ... _______________ ..

Acre- feet

5,7304,2003,3702,7602,3202,000

635,300


Time

June 9

12 midnight ....

June 10

6 p. m ..........12 midnight ....

12 midnight

June IS

12 midnight .

6 p. m ..........12 midnight ....

6 p. m ..........12 midnight ....

6... . __ ...12 noon ........

8_ . .........

2 a. m ..........4 ___ ...... ...6 ............10-, _ . .....1 p.m ..........

Feet

13.49

13.7514.1414.39

14.4314.47

14.4114.4114.35

14.1813.9613.7713.56

13.3513.1312.9812.96

13.1013.1513.2013.4213.6213.55

13.6513.9514.2614.5514.60

Second- feet

3,420

3,7704,2404,480

4,4804,480

4,4804,4804,480

4,2404,0103,7703,650

3,4203,1802,9502,950

3,0603,1803,1803,4203,6503,650

3,6503,8904,2404,6004,720

Time

June 16 Con.

1 p. m ..........11 __ .........

June 17

3 ____ ...4 ...............5 ...............6 _ . _ . _ ....7 _ . _ ... .....8 _ ... .........9.. _ . .........10.. ........

4 __ ...........6 ____ ..... ...8 _ ... _ . _ ..10 12 midnight ....

4 _ ...... __ ..6 .... ___ ...8 ___ .........10 _ ....

4 _ ............6.. __ .. ___ .9 ........ ....12 midnight ....

8 ..........

8 .. ....12 midnight ....

8 _________ .

Feet

14.6014.75

14.8515.0015.1315.3515.9517.2018.3019.4520.6023.0025.4027.6029.3030.6031.4031.90

32.2032.3032.4032.4032.3032.2032.1031.9031.7531.4531.10

30.6530.1529.5028.9028.2527.60

27.0026.35

Second- feet

4,7204,840

5,4705,7305,8806,3307,2809,500

11, 80014,30017, 30024,70033, 60044, 60056,20066, 60073,60078, 100

80,80081, 70082, 60082, 60081, 70080, 80079, 90078, 10077, 20073, 60070,900

66,60063, 40057, 80053,30048, 40044,600

41, 00038,000

Time

June SO Con.

12 noon ........

8 _ .....12 midnight....

8 ____ ___ .

8 __ . ____ ...

12 midnight

6 a. m ___ . ...

12 midnight

June 84

6a.m. .........12 noon. . ...

6 a. m ..........

6 p. m _ . .....12 midnight ....

12noon._ ......

Feet

25.7525.1024.5023.90

23.2522.6022.0021.3520.8020.25

19.4318.6517.9217.25

16.6816.1715.7215.25

14.7514.2313.7213.28

12.9512.6712.4512.30

12.1512.0211.9311.83

Second- feet

35,20032,40030,10027,900

25,40023,30020,40019,60017, 80016,200

14,30012,40010, 9009,500

8,5307,6206,8006,030

5,4704,7204,1303,650

3,3002,8902,6502,470

2,3002,1202,0601,950

NOTE. Discharge determined by shifting-control method June 10-16.

272 CONTEIBUTI05TS TO HYDKOLOGY, 1937

NUECES RIVER NEAR THREE RIVERS, TEX.

LOCATION. Lat. 28°26'10", long. 98°11'10", 100 feet below San Antonio*Uvalde and Gulf Railroad and 2 miles southeast of Three Rivers, LiveOak County. Zero of gage is 101.08 feet above mean sea level.

DBAINAGB AREA. 15,600 square miles, part of which is noncontributing at lowstages owing to water entering fault near Uvalde.

GAGE-HEIGHT RECORD. Water-stage recorder graph. Gage heights used to halftenths between 3.5 and 4.8 feet; to hundredths below and tenths abovethese limits.

STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements below55,000 second-feet and extended to peak stage.

MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge, 66,700 second-feet at 6 a. m. June 15 (gage height,44.67 feet).

1915-34: Discharge, about 85,000 second-feet Sept. 18, 1919 (gage height,46.0 feet).

Peak of Sept. 18, 1919, is maximum known. It is rumored that asimilar height occurred about 1882.

REMARKS. Small diversions for irrigation above station.


Day

1... __2_. _ ..3.. _ 4.......5_.._ 6.. 7 8.. ......

Ru

Second- feet

9,840 15,400 18, 000 17, 400 16, 300 19, 500 25,400 22, 600

n-ofl, in

Acre- feet

19, 520 30, 550 35, 700 34, 510 32, 330 38, 680 50, 380 44,830

acre-feet,

Day

9. .....10.....11-. 12 13 _ .. 14..... 15 16

for perio

Second- feet

16,400 12, 100 11,200 13, 200 22, 600 61, 900 63,400 44, 400

d June 1-

Acre- feet

32,530 24,000 22, 210 26, 180 44, 830

102, 900 125, 800 88,070

-30

Day

17..... 18. _ . 19 20 21.....22., ... 23 24.. ...

Second- feet

23, 800 16,500 16,400 22,400 26, 500 34,000 53,500 51, 000

Acre- feet

47, 210 32, 730 32,530 44, 430 52, 560 67, 440

106, 100 101, 200

Day

25..... 26 27 28 29 30. ....

Second- feet

40,000 30,900 23,300 17, 500 12, 400 9,040

Acre- feet

79, 340 61,290 46, 210 34, 710 24, 600 17, 930

1, 501, 000


Time

June 1

la. m ..........6. ____10 _ ........3 p. m. ........

12 midnight- ...

4 a. m ..........

12 midnight ....

8 a. m ..........

12 midnight ....

12 midnight June 5

12 noon .........

12 midnight. ...

Feet

26.2028.3530.8632.5833.7034.35

34.8735.6836.2536.78

37.0537.1537.02

36.7836.45

36.1736.0436.0436.47

Second- feet

6,9107,8509,270

10,70012 00012, 900

14, 00015, 30016, 20017, 400

17, 80018, 30017, 800

16,20015,80015, 80016. 800

Time

June 6

6.... _ . .......

12 midnight

June 10

12 midnight. ...

Feet

Q7 f\>7

37.92qo 07

39.47

39.66qQ 47

38.98QQ 00

37.54

36.70

QQ m

32.6032.60

Second- feet

18, 00020, 00090 onn

25,60026, 500

t)K fif\f\

91 °.nn19, 000

17, 200

14,300

12,00011, 100in onn10. 900

Time

June 11

12 midnight _ .

12 midnight ....

12 midnight ....

8 . .....12 midnight _ .

June IB

8 ____ . ___

Feet

32.7733.0233.42

33.9534.6335.50

36.6038.4539.8541.30

42.3343.4343.9344.3044.53

44.6544.6744,65

Second- feet

11, 10011, 30011, 800

12, 60013, 50015, 000

17,00021, 60026, 90035, 100

42, 70053, 00058,00062, 30064,500

65, 60066, 70065, 600


Gage-height, in feet, and discharge, in second-feet, at indicated time, 1935 Contd.

Time

June 15 Con.

B... ......... ...12 midnight

June 16 6 a. m _____

12 midnight

6 a. m _____

12 midnight

12 midnight

12 midnight ....

Feet

44.5644.3744.1243.80

43.2042.5241.6840.75

39.7838.8533.1337.50

36.8636.2635.8835.75

35.8536.2036.7537.37

Second- feet

65,60063,40060, 10057, 000

51,00044,50037, 90032, 000

26,900

20,60019,000

17, 60016, 40015, 60015, 500

15,50016, 20017, 40018,800

Time

June SO

12 midnight ....

9 _ .......11 ....... ....

6 ........ ...

12 midnight. ...

Feet

38.0538.7039.2539.63

39.8239.8539.7039.6539.65

39.7940.0540.9841.9549 an

43.3743.6243.7043.60

Second- feet

20, 30022,50024, 40026, 100

26, 90026, 90026,50026, 10026, 100

27, 00027, 80033, 00040, 00047, 200

53,00055, 00056, 00055, 000

Time

June S4-

June %5

12 midnight

12 midnight

12 midnight ....

12 midnight _ .

12 midnight ....

Feet

43.4443.2242.9842.72

42.0441.36

40.6339.80

38.9038.02

36.8535.43

33.8732.15

30.2528.20

Second- feet

53,00051, 00049, 00046, 300

40,00035, 800

30,90026,900

23,20020,300

17, 40014,800

12, 50010, 500

9,0007,850

FRIO EIVEK AT CONCAN, TEX.

LOCATION. Lat. 29°29', long. 99°42', half a mile below Concan post office, UvaldeCounty.

DRAINAGE AREA. 485 square miles. GAGE-HEIGHT RECORD. Water-stage recorder graph. Gage heights used to half

tenths between 3.1 and 4.2 feet; to hundredths below and tenths above theselimits.

STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements below440 second-feet; extended to peak discharge on basis of two slope-area meas urements.

MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge, about 86,900 second-feet 1:30 a. m. June 14 (gageheight, 29.4 feet, from floodmarks).

1924-34: Discharge, 162,000 second-feet July 1, 1932 (gage height, 34.44feet, from floodmarks).

1913-23: Stage 28.8 feet Sept. 18, 1923, from floodmarks (discharge notdetermined).

REMARKS. No diversions or regulation.


Mean discharge, in second-feet, and run-off, in acre-feet, 1935

Day

May 27........ ...28..............29... _____ .30 ____ . __ .31

June 1 ________2...............3 __ .. _ .....4... ___ . .....56 ____ .... ....

Eun-oflf, it Run-off, it

Second- feet

209 3,740 1,570

863 2,380

824 622 596 480 707 499

i acre-fee i acre-fee

Acre- feet

415 7,420 3,110 1,710 4,720

1,630 1,230 1,180

952 1,400

990

t, for perk t, for perk

Day

June 7 _____ . ....8 ____ . __ .9... _ .. ......

10. ..........11 __ .... .....12. __ . ____ .13 __ ..... .....14. __ .... .....

16.. . _ . ___ .17 __ . _ .18 ...........19. _______ .

d May 27 to June d June 13-30. ....

Second- feet

421 395 362 336 473 668

7,690 22,700 2,770 1,760 1,440 1,240 1,080

12

Acre- feet

835 783 718 666 938

1,320 15, 250 45,020 5,490 3,490 2,860 2,460 2,140

Day

June 20 _______21... _ . .......22 ..............23. ___ .......24. __ .........25...... _ .....26. .............27 _____ - ....28. ___ .. _ ...00

30. _______ ..

Second- feet

948 876 804 733 694 648 616 570 544 512 486

Acre- feet

1,880 1,740 1,590 1,450 1,380 1,290 1,220 1,130 1,080 1,020

964

30, 020 91. 450

FRIO RIVER NEAR DERBY, TEX.

LOCATION. Lat. 28°44', long. 99°09', at International-Great Northern Railroadbridge 900 feet below mouth of Leona River and 4 miles south of Derby,Frio County. Zero of gage is 449.3 feet above mean sea level.

DBAINAGB ABBA. 3,493 square miles, a large part of which is noncontributingat low stages, owing to water entering fault a few miles below Concan.

GAGE-HEIGHT RECORD. Water-stage recorder graph except June 1 to 4 and 14to 19 when graph was drawn from numerous gage readings and floodmarks.Gage heights used to half tenths between 2.6 and 4.0 feet; to hundredths belowand tenths above these limits.

STAGE-DISCHARGE BELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements below40,000 second-feet, extended to peak discharge on basis of one slope-areameasurement of the peak.

MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge, 68,300 second-feet at 4:30 a. m. June 2 (gage height,23.68 feet, from floodmarks).

Discharge, 49,000 second-feet at 7 a. m. June 16 (gage height, 20.8 feet,observed at peak).

1915-34: Discharge, 230,000 second-feet July 4, 1932 (gage height, 29.45feet, from floodmarks).

Peak of July 4, 1932, is maximum known. REMABKS. Small diversions for irrigation above station.

Mean discharge, in second-feet, and run-off, in acre-feet, 1935

Day

May 27 ..............28..............29 ___ ........30..............31........ ..

June 1 _______ .2... ............3 _____ . _ .4........ .......5 ____ ........6 .... ..... ...

Run-off, i: Run-off, ii

Second- feet

361 155

3,360 15,900 7,780

16,700 55,400 17,500 5,640 3,020 2,290

i acre-fee i acre-fee

Acre- feet

716 307

6,660 31, 540 15, 430

33, 120 109, 900 34, 710 11,190 5,990 4,540

t, for perk t, for perk

Day

June 7..............8. _____ . _ .9 ____ .......

10..............11. _ . ___ .12...... _ .....13. _ ..... _ ..14..............15..............36... ..... ___ .17..............18.. _ . ___ ...19... ___ .....

>d May 27 to June >d June 13 30

Second- feet

2,700 1,600

922 528 412 937

2,280 9,960

26,800 45, 800 24, 100 6,980 3,850

12

Acre- feet

5,360 3,170 1,830 1,050

817 1,860 4,520

19, 760 53,160 90, 8-10 47, 800 13, 840 7,640

Day

June 20. 21 22. ______ ...23.. ___ . ......24.. _____ ...25..............26 _____ ..27... ____ ....28. ___ .....29.. ___ . __ .30 _______ ...

Second- feet

2,920 2,280 1,910 1,590 1,250 1,010

882 806 733 663 595

Acre- feet

5,790 4,520 3,790 3,150 2,480 2,000 1,750 1,600 1,450 1,320 1,180

268, 200 266, 600

MAJOR TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 275FRIO KITES AT CAIUHAM, TEZ.

LOCATION. Lat. 28°29'30", long. 98°20'45", at Calliham-Whitsett highwaybridge 1 mile north of Calliham, MeMullen County. Zero of gage is 153.47feet above mean sea level.

DRAINAGE AREA. 5,491 square miles, a large part of which is noncontributing atlow stages owing to water entering a fault below Concan.

GAGE-HEIGHT RECORD. Water-stage recorder graph except June 5 to 25, whengraph was drawn from numerous gage readings. Gage heights used to halftenths between 4.5 and 5.3 feet; to hundredths below and tenths above theselimits.

STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements below14,000 second-feet; extended to peak discharge on basis of one slope-areameasurement of the peak.

MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge, 28,600 second-feet at 7:40 a. m. June 6 (gageheight, 33.42 feet, from graph based on gage readings.

Discharge, 21,400 second-feet at 2 a. m. June 14 (gage height, 31.4 feet,from graph based on gage readings).

Discharge, 26,600 second-feet at 7 a. m. June 20 (gage height, 32.9 feet,from graph based on gage readings).

1924-26, 1932-34: Discharge, 109,000 second-feet July 6, 1932 (gageheight, 39.20 feet).

Peak of July 6, 1932, is maximum known. REMARKS. Small diversions for irrigation above station.


Day

1.. ......2... .....3 ___ ...4. __ ...5 __ . ...6... ..7... .....8...

Seeond- feet

4,590 5,180 8,650

10,900 18,100 27,100 19, 000 10, 600

Acre- feet

9,100 10, 270 17, 160 21,620 35, 900 53,750 37, 690 21, 020

Day

9...... 10 11 ..... 12..... 13..... 14..... 15 ..... 16

Second- feet

5,500 3,640 5,110 4,930

14,500 17, 600 10,500 7,410

Run-off, in acre-feet, for period June 1-

Acre- feet

10, 910 7,220

10, 140 9,780

28, 760 34, 910 20, 830 14, 700

30

Day

17 18 19.. ... 20 21 22..... 23 ..... 24.....

Second- feet

5,120 9,120

20, 500 25,600 17,900 9,200 4,400 3,030

Acre- feet

10, 160 18,090 40, 660 50, 780 35,500 18, 250 8,730 6,010

Day

25 26 27 28 29..... 30

Second- feet

2,310 1,920 1,640 1,410 1,240

810

Acre- feet

4,580 3,810 3,250 2,800 2,460 1,610

550,400

ATASCOSA RIVER AT WHITSETT, TEX.

LOCATION. Lat. 28°39', long. 98° 18', 0.9 mile west of Whitsett, Live Oak County,and 4 miles below mouth of La Parita Creek.

DRAINAGE AREA. 1,171 square miles. GAGE-HEIGHT RECORD. Water-stage recorder graph except June 13 to 15, when

graph was drawn from local information and floodmarks. Gage heightsused to half tenths between 5.5 and 7.2 feet; of hundredths below and tenthsabove these limits.

STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements below7,500 second-feet, extended to peak discharge on basis of one slope-areameasurement of the peak.

MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge, 38,300 second-feet June 14 (gage height, 38.0 feet,from floodmarks).

1924-26, 1932-34: Discharge, 2,780 second-feet July 12, 1925 (gage height,19.7 feet, present datum).

1922-23: Discharge, about 20,100 second-feet in April 1922 (gage height,32.1 feet, present datum).

Peak of June 14, 1935, maximum known. REMARKS. No diversions or regulation.



Day

1 ____2 __ ...3.. ...4 ........5........6........7........8 -..

RUJ

Second- feet

2,140 5,800 1,110

340 735 351 175 807

n-ofl, in «

Acre- feet

4,240 11,500 2,200

674 1,460

696 347

1,600

cre-feet,

Day

9 _. 10. . 11 12 - 13 14 15 16

for perioc

Second- feet

1,560 1,920 5,840 5,480

15,100 36, 800 17,300 3,210

[ June 1-

Acre- feet

3,090 3,810

11,580 10, 870 29,950 72, 990 34, 310 6,370

30

Day

17 18 19 20.. ... 21 22 23 24

Second- feet

2,680 463 295 225 176 148 131 114

Acre- feet

5,320 918 585 446 349 294 260 226

Day

25 26. . 27 28 29- ... 30

Second- feet

100 88 80 66 61 56

Acre- feet

198 175 159 131 121 111

205,000

DECEMBER FLOOD ON BUFFALO BAYOU

GENERAL FEATURES

The following is quoted from the United States Weather Bureau's "Climatological data," Texas section, for December 1935, page 96:

Torrential rains in Harris County from December 6 to 8 caused phenomenal rises in Buffalo and Whiteoak Bayous. Authentic rainfall measurements during the period mentioned ranged from 5.52 inches at Houston to 16.49 inches at Satsuma, in the northwestern portion of the county. The two bayous have their confluence near the wholesale business district of Houston, from whence Buffalo Bayou flows through the city to Galveston Bay.

Buffalo Bayou heads in southeastern Waller County at an altitude of about 180 feet and flows eastward about 55 miles across Harris County and through the city of Houston to its confluence with the San Jacinto Kiver, 7 miles above Galveston Bay. The area drained by Buffalo Bayou is entirely in the Coastal Plain. There is a heavy growth of trees and brush along the streams, but otherwise the area is not heavily wooded.

Whiteoak and Little Whiteoak Bayous, tributary to Buffalo and Whiteoak Bayous respectively, drain a region to the north and east of and adjacent to the Buffalo Bayou drainage basin above the city of Houston.

No detailed estimate of the damage caused by the flood was ob tained. Most of the damage occurred in the city of Houston. The following relevant information is taken from the United States Weather Bureau publication cited above:

Approximately 100 blocks in the business and residential sections of the city were inundated, causing property damage of some $2,500,000, while 8 persons were drowned. Damage was done to buildings, household furnishings, bridges, roads, and merchandise.

PRECIPITATION

The rainfall data obtained are given in table 10, below. The rainfall records at Houston, Houston airport, Kichmond, and Sugar- land are quoted from the published reports of the United States Weather Bureau. The records at other points were obtained from


individual observers; some of the observers measured the rainfall in standard Weather Bureau type gages belonging to the city of Houston, and others measured the rainfall in tubs, barrels, cans, and other receptacles.

TABLE 10. Precipitation in inches in Buffalo Bayou and adjacent drainage basins,December 6-8, 1935

No. on fig. 41

1..... ___ ......2_ .............3 ___ . _ . ...4... ____ .......

6,... .............7.. ____ . __ ..8.. ...............

10 11.. _______ ..12...... .... ....

Station

Houston airport _____________ ..

Westfleld... ..... .... __ . __ ..........

6

0.101.05

3.243.063.258.00

M( )

7.30( )

5.16

7

4.952.224.156.104.12

11.07.30

17.017.59.19

20.815.48

8

0.472.996.10.07

6-8

5.526.26

10.259.417.18

14.2515.3017.017.516.4920.820.64

Rainfall included in the next measurement.

Figure 41 is a map showing the Buffalo Bayou drainage basin above Lockwood Drive bridge in Houston and parts of adjacent river basins, and other features.

MAXIMUM DISCHARGE

The maximum discharges at several points were determined from rating curves based on current-meter measurements made during the flood by M. J. McCall, bridge engineer, Harris County. All discharge figures are taken from a report by Mr. McCall. The drainage areas were measured on topographic maps. Table 11 gives the results of discharge measurements made on Buffalo Bayou and tributaries. Figure 42 shows a hydrograph of the discharge of Buffalo Bayou at the Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railroad Eureka Cutoff bridge. The run-off for the flood period at this bridge is given in table 12.

TABLE 11. Maximum discharge, Buffalo Bayou and tributaries at Houston, forflood of December 9, 1935

No. on fig. 41

1 ___ ......2 3 - 4 _ ..... _ ..


Whiteoak Bayou at railroad bridge west of Stude Park ......

area (square mile)

319 458 85.3 18.1

Maximum discharge

Second- feet

40,030 52, 750 14, 750 4,950


125 115 173273

O W

estfi

eld

fcO

9505

0'»3

°ZO

>

X

Numbers

refer

to di

scharge

measurement

stat

ions

In

tables

11 an

d 14

95°s

o'

Numbers

'refer t

o prec

ipit

atio

n stat

ions

in table

10Su

gar

Land

J

01

25

45

M

ILES

FIO

UBE

41.

Iso

hyet

al m

ap o

f the

Buf

falo

Bay

ou B

asin

sho

win

g di

scha

rge

mea

suri

ng p

lace

s, in

term

edia

te d

rain

age

area

s, r

ainf

all s

tatio

ns, a

nd to

tal r

ainf

all,

in in

ches

, Dec

embe

r&

-8,1

935.

45 40 35 30 20 15 10

/ 710

1112

Dec

embe

r FI

GU

EB 4

2. H

ydro

grap

b of

dis

char

ge, B

uffa

lo B

ayou

at E

urek

a C

utof

f rai

lroa

d br

idge

at H

oust

on, D

ecem

ber

7-12

,193

5.Is

D


TABLE 12. Run-off, in acre-feet, gage height, in feet, and discharge, in second-feet, on Buffalo Bayou at Eureka Cutoff bridge, Houston, December 7-12, 1935

Day

Dec. 7, noon to midnight Dec. 8

Time

Dec. 7

1 p. m ..........6 _ ...... ...12 midnight ....

Dec. 8

12 midnight-

Gage height (feet)

25.0 30.7 37.7

45.0 52.0 59.0 60.7

Dis charge

(second- feet)

3,300 6,420

10,940

16,400 23, 700 35,700 39,840

Acre- feet

6,350 50,600 71,800

Time

Dec. 92 a. m _____6-_.._12 now 6 p. m 12 mid

D

12 nooi 6 p. m 12 mid

I... .....

night .

c.10

night. ...

Day

Dec. 1 Dec. 1 Dec. 1

T

Gage height (feet)

60.8 60.7 59.1 57.7 55.6

53.2 50.647.4 44.5

3 . -.- .. . ..L _ _____ __ . __ _ _ . _ _ _2, midnigl

otal

Dis charge

(second- feet)

40,030 39,840 35,980 32, 830 29, 020

25,320 22, 060 18, 700 16,000

Time

Dec. 11

12 noon.. ......12 midnight __

Dec. It

Gage height (feet)

39.8 36.3

34.5

Acre- feet

44,000 25,000 9,120

206,900

Dis charge

(second- feet)

12, 410 9,960

8,725

High-water altitudes along Buffalo Bayou were determined at several places by the Department of Public Works, city of Houston, and the data presented in table 13 were taken from profiles prepared therefrom. Figure 43 shows profiles plotted from the data presented in this table.

PREVIOUS FLOODS

The following information regarding previous floods in relation to that of December 1935 is quoted from the Monthly Weather Keview for December 1935, page 361:

Levels run by the city engineer show a stage of 40.3 feet above mean tide level immediately below the confluence of the Buffalo and Whiteoak Bayous, as com pared with 34.3 feet on May 31, 1929, and 34.3 feet in 1879 (date unknown). The crest passed in the early morning of December 9.

An unusually high stage is reported as having occurred in 1854, but no information concerning it is available.

30

__^ 1

<K M

& 4* m o 0.

^--- -.--- ^

s-H

-

igh w

ater

,

- - -.

2 \

.-B

ot

Dec

. 9,

1

- -^

3

]

;om

of

chai

935

~ .

mel,

Ju

ne <s*'^

.~T~

T 5

f

1929

^ M

s

"\r V

9

T

vf\

x\

in S

treet

[cro

wn

of

^--

v7

XNIN->

bri

dge

irch)

^

.rT

op

of

road

way

on

bri

dge

1 E

urek

a C

uto

ff b

ridge

(G.H

.& S

.A.R

.R.

) 2

She

pher

d D

rive

bri

dg

e 3

Wau

gh D

rive

bri

dg

e 4

Sab

ine

Str

eet

bri

dge

5 C

apit

ol

Ave

nue

bri

dge

6 P

rest

on A

venu

e bri

dge

7 S

mit

h S

treet

bri

dge

8 F

rankli

n A

venu

e bri

dge

9 M

ilam

Str

eet

bri

dge

10

San

Ja

cin

to S

treet

bri

dge

^

\~

~\.

\

s m CD ja bO

C r\ g g

, \

14

1312

1110

498765

Dis

tanc

e In

mile

s ab

ove

turn

ing

basi

n FI

GTJB

E 43

, Hig

h-w

ater

and

str

eam

-bed

pro

files

of

Buf

falo

Bay

ou f

rom

Pos

t O

ak R

oad

to t

he t

urni

ng b

asin

at H

oust

on, D

ecem

ber 9

,193

5.to 00


TABLE 13. Crest stages, flood of December 9, 1985, and stream-bed altitudes determined June 1929, of Buffalo Bayou at Houston

Post Oak Road _ ___________ , ____________Eureka Cutofl bridge _______________________

Shepherd Drive bridge.. _____________________Waugh Drive bridge- ____________________

Sabine Street bridge ________________ ______Capitol Avenue bridge. ______________________

Smith Street bridge __ .. ____________________Franklin Avenue bridge _______________________

Main Street bridge _ ______________________San Jacinto Street bridge _ ___________________

Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. Co. bridge.. ____________

San Antonio & Aransas Pass R. R. bridge. ___________

Turning basin

Distance above

basin (miles)

14.9014.0612.3110.319.509.067.947.106.786.706.606.506.396.255.815.625.315.004.824.193.121.25.88.12

0

Altitude

Flood crest

62.460.256.352.050.149.947.947.146.746.544.941.040.339.738.337.236.535.834.132.126.219.418.113.512 7

above mea (feet)

Stream bed

8.77.13.9.6

2.0-3.9-3.9-7.9-4.9-4.4-3.9-8.2-9.3

-14.0-10.0-11.9-13.9-13.0-13.0-13.0-14.0 15.9-16.5-25.9

Q sea level

Road way

56.5

41.946.9

44.640.536.036.735.928.4

56.041.7

a Crown of concrete arch.

SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM DISCHARGES

Table 14 presents a summary of the maximum discharges that occurred on various streams in Texas during the major floods of 1935. The drainage area and discharge per square mile are given for each gaging station. For purposes of comparison the maximum previously recorded stages and the discharges, if known, are given.

TAB

LE 1

4.

Max

imum

sta

ges

and

disc

harg

es o

n ce

rtai

n st

ream

s in

Tex

as

No.

on

map

s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11

12

13

14 15

16 17

Str

eam

and

pla

ce o

f de

term

inat

ion

Buf

falo

Bay

ou B

asin

Buf

falo

B

ayou

at

E

ure

ka

Cut

off

brid

ge,

Buf

falo

B

ayou

at

Loc

kwoo

d D

rive

br

idge

,

Whi

teoa

k B

ayou

at

rail

road

bri

dge

wes

t of

Lit

tle

Whi

teoa

k B

ayou

at

Syl

vest

er S

tree

t,

Colo

rado

Riv

er B

asin

Oua

dalu

pe R

iver

Bas

in

Qua

dalu

pe R

iver

nea

r S

prin

g B

ranc

h .........

Cib

olo

Cre

ek n

ear

Fal

ls C

ity

... _

__ . _

.. ..

.

Lat

i

tude

0

/

29

45

29

45

29

47

29

49

31

13

30

16

30

01

29

35

30

30

30

30

30

43

30

15

30

18

30

25

29

52

28

57

29

01

Long

i tu

de

0

1

95

27

95

19

95

23

95

23

98

34

97

45

97

10

96

25

99

47

99

44

98

53

99

57

99

53

98

05

98

23

98

04

97

56

Dra

inag

e ar

ea

(squ

are

mil

es)

319

458 85

.3

18.1

<« 30

, 600

<«

38, 1

50

<« 39

, 650

<«

40, 9

40

914

1,76

2 3,

514

540

218

1,29

4

1,43

2 2,

067

831

Per

iod

of

reco

rd

1855

-193

5

1855

-193

5

1855

-193

5

1855

-193

5

1900

-193

5 18

43-1

935

1913

-193

5 19

13-1

935

1875

-193

5 18

89-1

935

1889

-193

5

1923

-193

5 18

69-1

935

1900

-193

5 18

75-1

935

1913

-193

5

Max

imum

sta

ge a

nd d

isch

arge

pr

evio

usly

reco

rded

Dat

e

May

19

29

May

19

29

Sep

t. 19

00

July

18

69

Dec

. 19

13

Dec

. 19

13

1889

1889

May

19

29

July

19

32

Oct

. 19

13

Oct

. 19

13

Stag

e (f

eet)

( )

( ) 57.5

43

.0

*4

7.4

»

32.0

22

.9<

) 28

.4

< )

40.4

* 42

. 10

28.3

6 38

Dis

char

ge

(sec

ond-

fe

et)

« 19

, 000

« 30

, 500

« 18

4, 0

00

155,

000

« 12

1, 0

00

Max

imum

sta

ge a

nd d

isch

arge

, 19

35

Dat

e

Dec

. 9

Dec

. 9

Dec

. 9

Dec

. 9

May

19

Ju

ne

15

June

16

Ju

ne

19

June

14

Ju

ne

14

June

14

Ju

ne

14

Jun

e 14

Ju

ne

15

June

15

Ju

ne

15

June

14

Sta

ge

(fee

t)

41.0

0 42

.0

42.5

29

.45

20.7

0 43

.3

37.0

(»

)

32.0

41.3

0 '1

7.97

33

.0

Dis

char

ge

Sec

ond-

fe

et

* 40

, 030

' 52

, 750

'14,

750

'4,9

50

'86,

000

> 481

, 000

' 3

05, 0

00

' 17

7, 0

00

/ 47,

400

'3

19,0

00

' 388

, 000

'

160,

000

* 6

9, 3

00

105

,000

11

4, 0

00

/ 14

, 300

2

8,60

0

Sec

ond-

fe

et p

er

squa

re

mil

e

125

115

173

273 4

.57

18

.3

11.0

»6

.07

51.9

18

1 11

0 29

6 31

8 81.1

79.6

6.

92

34.4

See

foot

note

s at

end

of

tabl

e.

bO 00

CO

TAB

LE 1

4.

Max

imum

sta

ges

and

disc

harg

es o

n ce

rtai

n st

ream

s in

Tex

as

Con

tinu

edto

No.

on

map

s 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29 30 31

32

33

34

Stre

am a

nd p

lace

of d

eter

min

atio

n

Nue

ces

Riv

er B

asin

Nue

ces

Riv

er n

ear

Uva

lde.

. __

__

__

__

__

Frio

Riv

er a

t C

allih

am _

____________

Rio

Gra

nde

Bas

in

Lat

i

tude

29

26

29

11

28

26

28

26

29

44

29

20

29

29

28

44

28

30

29

31

29

26

28

39

29

20

28

43

29

21

29

15

29

12

Long

i tu

de

0

/

100

00

99

54

99

16

98

11

100

24

100

06

99

42

99

09

98

21

99

49

99

17

98

18

100

54

100

31

100

53

100

46

100

42

Dra

inag

e ar

ea

(squ

are

mile

s) 764

1,93

0 5,

260

15, 6

00

402

880

485

3,49

3 5,

491

120

153

1,17

1

123,

318

12

6, 9

62

62

524

229

Peri

od o

f re

cord

1903

-193

5 19

10-1

935

1899

-193

5 19

15-1

935

1913

-193

5 19

15-1

935

1924

-193

5

1922

-193

5

1900

-193

5 19

00-1

935

1931

-193

5 19

32-1

935

1928

-193

5

Max

imum

sta

ge a

nd d

isch

arge

pr

evio

usly

reco

rded

Dat

e

June

19

13

June

191

3 Ju

ne 1

899

Sept

. 19

19

July

19

32

July

19

32

July

19

32

Apr

. 19

22

Sep

t. 19

32

Sep

t. 19

32

Sep

t. 19

34

Sep

t. 19

32

Aug

. 19

32

Stag

e (fe

et)

29 26.4

29

.7

* 46

.0

* 34

. 44

*29.

45

* 39

. 2

32.1

34.5

49

.0

14.4

7 17

.10

21.0

8

Dis

char

ge

(sec

ond-

fe

et)

' 229

, 000

85,

000

' 16

2, 0

00

< 230

, 000

<

109,

000

20,1

00

«' 605

, 000

'

569,

000

11

,300

44

,800

* 54

, 650

Max

imum

sta

ge a

nd d

isch

arge

, 19

35

Dat

e

June

14

Ju

ne 1

4 Ju

ne

18

June

15

June

14

Ju

ne 1

4 Ju

ne

14

June

2

June

6

June

14

M

ay 3

1 Ju

ne 1

4

June

14

Ju

ne

15

June

14

Ju

ne

14

June

14

Stag

e (f

eet)

26.0

A

36. 9

A

32. 4

44

.67

(»)

(*)

29.4

23

.68

33.4

2 (»

) (»

) *

38. 0

"23.

63

33.2

3 23

.20

30.2

« 11

. 15

Dis

char

ge

Seco

nd-

feet

' 213

, 000

< 6

16, 0

00

< 82,

600

/

66, 7

00

« 580

, 000

' 5

36, 0

00

< 86,

900

/

68, 3

00

/ 28

, 600

< 6

4, 7

00

< 230

, 000

« 3

8, 3

00

195,

000

19

9,00

0 45

,000

< 2

15, 0

00

14, 6

00

Seco

nd-

feet

per

sq

uare

m

ile 279

319 15

.7

4.28

1,

440

609

179 19

.6

5.21

53

9 1,

500 32

.7

726

410 63

.8

« R

ecor

d fr

om E

ngin

eerin

g D

epar

tmen

t, ci

ty o

f Hou

ston

. R

ecor

d fr

om M

. J.

McC

all,

engi

neer

for H

arri

s C

ount

y. S

tage

less

than

in 1

935.

d 11

,800

squ

are

mile

s no

ncon

trib

utin

g. D

isch

arge

fro

m e

xten

sion

of r

atin

g cu

rve.

/ D

isch

arge

fro

m w

ell-d

efin

ed ra

ting

curv

e. B

ased

on

effe

ctiv

e ar

ea.

* G

reat

est s

tage

kno

wn

to lo

cal r

esid

ents

.' D

isch

arge

by

slop

e-ar

ea m

etho

d.< D

isch

arge

from

poo

rly d

efin

ed r

atin

g cu

rve.

* Sta

ge 4

5 to

50

feet

in 1

900,

disc

harg

e no

t det

erm

ined

. ' M

axim

um s

tage

Jun

e 13

, 22.

3 fe

et (

back

wat

er).

*» R

ecor

d fr

om W

ater

Bul

l. 5,

Int

erna

tiona

l Bou

ndar

y C

omm

issi

on, U

nite

d St

ates

and

Mex

ico.

»

Max

imum

for J

une,

not

max

imum

for y

ear.

INDEX

A Page

Abstracts of reports ______________ 1,21, 53-54, 99-100, 163, 181-182, 223-224

Acknowledgments for aid ____ 25, 55, 104, 183, 228Acre-foot, definition of ___________ 227Agriculture, Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz ___ 170-171

Gila and San Simon Valley , Ariz. . . __ 187-188Alluvial land, Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz., water

bearing qualities of ______ 173, pi. 41 Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz., wells in. 175-177, pi. 41 Gila Valley, Ariz., features of.... 163-164, pi. 47

Andrews, D. A., Ground water in Avra-AltarValley, Ariz _ __ . 163-180, pis. 41-44

Arikaree River, Colo.-Nebr., discharge of. __ 36,45flood on... __________________ 32-33flood on, damage by ___________ 40-44

progress of crests ___________ 33-34Arroyo Seco, Calif. , discharge of _______ 97Artesian conditions, in Avra-Altar Valley

Ariz... .......... ................. 174in Gila and San Simon Valley, Ariz. _ 208-212 in Ogden Valley, Utah....- ______ . 120-122

Artesian reservoir, Ogden Valley, Utah, discharge from ___________ 137-140

probable effect of Pine View Reservoiron........................ _ ... 143-144

relation of, to stream flow ____ 144-146, pi. 37 Artesian Park, Utah, Middle Fork of Ogden

River near ___________ 112, 113 North Fork of Ogden River at, discharge

of. ....... ................... 114, pl.39South Fork of Ogden River near, discharge

of.... ................ 111,113, pis. 37-38wells at, analyses of water from ____ 160-161

discharge from __________ 125, pi. 37 Atascosa River, discharge of, at Whitsett,

Tex_ ............... _ ..... 275-276, 284flood on. _ ................. __ ...... 256-257

Atlantic City area, N. J., wells in, salt-waterleaks in ______________ 4

Austin, Tex., Colorado River at, dischargeOf .... _ ......... 241, 242, 259-260, 283

B

Baboquivari Mountains, Ariz., geologic character of.. ___________ 172, pi. 42

Balcones fault zone, Tex., features of ____ 228-229 Barnston, Nebr., Big Blue River at, discharge

of.. . ..... .......... 47Bell, J. A., and Hawgood, H., quoted.. ___ 69 Beloit, Kans., Solomon River at, discharge of. 47 Big Blue River, discharge of, at Barnston,

Nebr... ....................... _ 47discharge of, at Hull, Kans. ____ . __ 48

at Manhattan, Kans_ _________ 52 at Randolph, Kans __________ 48

TanBlackwood Creek, Nebr., flood crest on___ 36 Blanchard Canyon, Calif., discharge of. 67,82 Bloomington, Nebr., Republican River at,

discharge of_ 45 Bonner Springs, Kans., Kansas River at, dis

charge of__________ 39,46, pi. 13 Bonneville. See Lake Bonneville. Bostwick, Nebr., Republican River at, dis

charge of.__...- 49 Brackettville, Tex., West Nueces River near,

discharge of . 252-256,284, pi. 52 Brand Canyon, Calif., discharge of . 67-98 Brand Park, Glendale Highlands, Calif., land

slide in__.__.........__ 95, pi. 32Brown, R. W., fossils identified by_____ 199 Bryan, Kirk, quoted.__.______. 166,197-198 Buffalo Bayou, discharge of, at Houston,

Tex.... _....__... 277-282,283flood in, damage by.___ 276

precipitation contributing to. 276-278

0

Calliham, Tex., Frio River at, discharge of. 275,284 Cambrian quartzite, in Gila and San Simon

Valley, Ariz.__..... ___ 195Cambridge, Nebr., Republican River at. pi. 12 Carrizo Springs, Tex., wells near, study of. 6-8, pi. 1 Castell, Tex., Llano River near, discharge

of .. 245,246,264-265,283 Central Plateau of Texas, features of____.. 228 Cerro Colorado, Ariz., geologic character

of .. . 172, pi. 42 Chambers, A. A., analyses by____ 179-180 Champion, Nebr., Frenchman Creek near,

discharge of___ 48 Check dams, Calif., features of....__ pis. 20,33Chief of Engineers, United States Army,

quoted.._______ 49 Cibolo Creek, discharge of, near Falls City,

Tex....__ .......... 267-268,283Clay Center, Kans., Republican River at, dis

charge of._ . 45 Climate, Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz. __ 167-168

Gila and San Simon Valley, Ariz. ..- 186-187 Ogden Valley, Utah.- . 105-106, pi. 35

Coastal Plain of Texas, features of____... 229 Colorado River, altitude and descent of 240

discharge of, at Austin, Tex_____ 241, 242,259-260,283

at Smithville, Tex 241,242,260-261,283near Eagle Lake, Tex_._ 241,242,262,283near San Saba, Tex. . 241,242,258-259,283

flood on...._... 236-237,239-241,242, pis. 59-60Concan, Tex., Frio River at, discharge of. 273-

274,284 Control, definition of____________ 227

285

286 INDEX

Page Cotulla, Tex., Nueces Eiver at, discharge

of......__..._... 248,249,270-271,284Coyote Mountains, Ariz., geologic character

of-...... .. 171Cretaceous rocks, in Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz 172 Culbertson, Nebr., Frenchman Creek at, dis

charge of..... -.--. .- 46Eepublican Eiver at, discharge of 45

Daingerfield, L. H., quoted......... .. 60-61,98Dalrymple, Tate, and others, Major Texas

floods Of 1935._..... 223-284, pis. 54-62Debris, composition of ..- _... 88-92, pi. 30

measurement of__________ 92-93, pi. 30movement of, across debris cone_____ 80-87

adaptation of stream bed to_ 74-80, pi. 24by La Canada Valley flood__.__ 69-93factors influencing- . ..__ 74,88-92

sources of_______ 93-9C, pis. 17,21-22,31-34Deer Canyon, Calif., discharge of_.____ 83Definition of terms. _ . . 227Del Eio, Tex., Pinto Creek near, discharge of. 284

San Felipe Creek near, discharge of.___ 284Delaware Eiver, discharge of, at Valley Falls,

Kans___ - ..._____ 48Derby, Tex., Frio Eiver near, discharge of.. 274,284D'Hanis, Tex., Seco Creek near, discharge of. 284Drainage, Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz___ 167, pi. 43

Ogden Valley, Utah ..........___ 106-107Texas....__._....._._..... 224-227, pi. 54

Dry Frio Eiver. discharge of, near EeaganWells, Tex....................... 284

flood on... ___. ......___ 256Dunsmore Creek, Calif., debris in, composi

tion of__ __________ 91 erosion by____________ 84-86, pis. 27-28

E

Eagle Lake, Tex., Colorado Eiver near, dis charge of .. 241,242,262,283

Eagle Pass, Tex., Eio Grande at, discharge of.. 284Electrical-conductivity method of locating

salt-water leaks in wells_ 12-19, pis. 3-9Ellsworth, Kans., Smoky Hill Eiver at, dis

charge of._ ...________. 47,52Endicott, Nebr., Little Blue Eiver near, dis

charge of_ Engineer quoted________________ 97-!Enterprise, Kans., Smoky Hill Eiver at, dis

charge of_ .. ..______ 47Erosion, causes of, in Gila Valley, Ariz___ 190-194,

pis. 47,49 causes of, in San Simon Valley, Ariz__ 188-190

F

Falls City, Tex., Cibolo Creek near, dischargeOf ____.._._______ 267-268,283

San Antonio Eiver near, discharge of. _ 267,283 Faults, occurrence of, in Gila and San Simon

Valley, Ariz.. .........___ 194-195occurrence of, in Ogden Valley, Utah___ 107

Fiedler, A. G., quoted...___________ 8 Field work_____ 3,23,55,100-101,165,183,227-228 Fire, Pickens Canyon, character and extent of. 60

PageFish Creek, Calif., discharge of 97

debris in____________ 81-82,84, pis. 26-27Flood, damage by, in Colorado 43

damage by, in Kansas 43-44in La Canada Valley, Calif . 68-69, pi. 19in Nebraska. 43in Eepublican Eiver-Kansas Eiver

Basin________________ 40-44 in Texas.. 237,276, pis. 56-57,60-«1

Flood discharges, in Eepublican Eiver- Kansas Eiver Basin, general features of__. 32-33

in Eepublican Eiver-Kansas Eiver Basin,measurements of. 44-52

in Texas ___.. _. _________ 257-284 determination of.__ 229-232

Fluorine, relation of, to mottled enamel ofteeth... ........... . ... 220

Follansbee, Eobert, and Spiegel, J. B., Flood on Eepublican and Kansas Eivers May and June 1935.. 21-52, pis. 10-15

Frenchman Creek, discharge of, at Culbertson,Nebr... . 46

discharge of, near Champion, Nebr. 46near Hamlet, Nebr_ 46

flood crest on. __.. . 36Frio Eiver, discharge of, at Calliham, Tex... 275,284

discharge of, at Concan, Tex......... 273-274,284near Derby, Tex__.. 274,284

flood on___________..... .. 256

G

Gazin, C. L., fossils identified by. ... 198 Geography, Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz . 165-171,

pis. 41-44Gila and San Simon Valley, Ariz.. 183-188, pi. 45

Geologic history, Gila and San Simon Valley,Ariz., summary of... 204-205

Geology, Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz 171-174, pi. 41Gila and San Simon Valley, Ariz.. 194-205, pi. 46Ogden Valley, Utah, general features of.. 107-110

Gila conglomerate, character, thickness, anddistribution of.. 196-198, pis. 45-46,50-52

fossils from............................. 198-200occurrence of....__..... 195wells in.. ....... .. 208-212, pi. 46

Gila Mountains, Ariz., geologic character of... 195 Gila Eiver near Solomonsville, Ariz., dis

charge of__ ________ 207, pi. 47 Gila Valley, Ariz., features of . 190-194, pi. 47 Gilbert, G. K., quoted .... ... .... 74,75,197Glaciation, effect of, on Ogden Valley, Utah _ 108 Graham Mountains, Ariz., geologic character

of __.....___ 195, pi. 49Green, Eobert A., analyses by. .. . 179-180 Ground water, development of, in Avra-Altar

Valley, Ariz..... 174-177, pi. 41discharge of, Ogden Valley, Utah____ 136-141 occurrence of, Ogden Valley, Utah___ 119-120,

pi. 36quality of, in Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz 177-180

in Gila and San Simon Valley, Ariz.. 217-222in Ogden Valley, Utah .. 142,160-161

recharge of, Ogden Valley, Utah..___ 131-136source of, in Gila and San Simon Valley,

Ariz______.__-______ 207-217 in Ogden Valley, Utah..______ 120-121

INDEX 287

Page Quadalupe River, discharge of, near Spring

Branch, Tex ..____ 266-267,283

H

Haigler, Nebr., Arikaree River at, discharge of. 39,45Haines Canyon, Calif., check dam in_____ pi. 33

dischargeof .... . ......____ 65-67debris in, composition of ______ 91-92, pi. 30

measurement of________ 92-93, pi. 30 source of..___________ 96, pi. 34

Hamlet, Nebr., Frenchman Creek near, dis charge of... 46

Hardy, Nebr., Republican River near, dis charge of..._____________ 45

Hawgood, H., and Bell, J. A., quoted_____ 69 Hondo, Tex., Anvil Herald quoted..__ 232-233,236 Honolulu, Hawaii, wells in, study of._____ 8 Houston, Tex., Buffalo Bayou at, discharge of. 283 Hull, Elans., Big Blue River at, discharge of_ 48 Huntsville area, Utah, South Fork of Ogden

River near, discharge of...____ 111, 113, pis. 37-38

Huntsville Spring Creek near, dischargeof.............................. 112-113

Igneous rocks, occurrence of, in Gila and SanSimon Valley, Ariz________ 195

Indian traditions regarding floods, in the Re publican River-Kansas River Basin......____________. 50-51

Isohyetals, definition of ____________ 227

Jarboe, J. H., quoted. .. .... ____ 234Johnson grass, Avra-Altar Valley, irrigation

of.._.__...._______... 171,173 Junction, Tex., Llano River near, discharge of. 245,

246,264,283North Llano River near, discharge of___ 245,

246,263,283Junction City, Kans., Kansas River near, dis

charge of.... ..... 39 Republican River at...... ......___ 52

K

Kansas City, Kans., Kansas River at, dis chargeof...____._______ 39

Kansas River, discharge of.______ 37-39, pi. 13 discharge of, at Bonner Springs, Kans

39,46, pi. 13at Kansas City, Kans. ..__ 39 at Lecompton, Kans__... ____ 39,52 at Ogden, Kans_______... 39,45, pi. 13 at Topeka, Kans_____ 39,46, pis. 11,13 at Wamego, Kans. 39,46, pi. 13 near Junction City, Kans.______ 39 near Manhattan, Kans________ 39

early floods on . . .....__ 49 flood on, damage by___________ 40-44

Kansas River Basin. See Republican River- Kansas River Basin.

FanKansas State Historical Society Transactions,

quoted..._________.__ 51Kidwell, C. H., analyses by________ 179-180Kleberg County, Tex., wells in, study of _ 10,

16-18,19, pis. 6-9Knechtel, M. M., Geology and ground-water

resources of the valley of Gila River and San Simon Creek, Graham County, Ariz. 181-222, pis. 45-53

Kramer, E. W., quoted. ___________ 68

La Canada Valley, Calif., discharge of 65-68 fire adjacent to._________.__.. 60 flood in, damage by________ 68-69, pi. 19 debris in__________________ 69-93 rainfall in. _______________ 58,60-65 soil of... .__ 58topography and drainage of.. 56-58, pis. 16-18vegetation in . 59

Laguna, Tex., Nueces River at, discharge of.. 248,249,268-269,284

Lake beds. See Gila conglomerate. Lake Bonneville, Utah, history of 108-110 Landslides, in La Canada Valley, Calif., fea

tures of.________. 94-95, pis. 32, 34 Lawrence, Kans., Wakarusa River near, dis

charge of.._.. 48 Lecompton, Kans., Kansas River at, discharge

of._ 39,52Leggette, R. M., and Taylor, G. H., Geology

and ground-water resources of Og den Valley, Utah. . 99-161, pis. 35-40

Limestone, commercial production of, in Avra- Altar Valley, Ariz.....__...... 172

Lindsborg, Kans., Smoky Hill River at, dis charge of._______ 47

Litigation, suspension of, among Ogden Valley,Utah, water users______ 103

Little Blue River, discharge of, at Waterville,Kans__________ 48

discharge of, near Endicott, Nebr__ 48 Little Whiteoak Bayou, discharge of, at Hous

ton, Tex _..___.__.... 283Livingston, Penn, and Lynch, Walter, Meth

ods of locating salt-water leaks in water wells... 1-20, pis. 1-9

Llano River, altitude and descent of 243 discharge of, near Castell, Tex.245,246,264-265,283

near Junction, Tex_____ 245,246,264,283 flood on__....___ 236-237,241-245,246, pi. 56

Location of Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz. 163-165, pi. 41 Gila and San Simon Valley, Ariz. 183-184, pi. 45 of Ogden Valley, Utah.. 101-103

Lohman, K. E., diatoms identified by.. 193-200 Lohr, E. W., analyses by...__... 160-161,179-180

Chemical character of the ground water in the valley of Gila River and San Simon Creek, Graham County, Ariz______.__. _____ 217-222

Los Angeles River, discharge of, at Los An geles. . 87

Lynch, Walter, with Livingston, Penn, Meth ods of locating salt-water leaks in water wells____ 1-20, pis. 1-9

288 INDEX

PageM

Manhattan, Kans., Big Blue River at, dis charge of.______________ 52

Kansas River near, discharge of_____ 39 Mansfield, W. C., fossils identified hy____ 199 Max, Nehr., Repuhlican River at, discharge

Of._______._____........_ 45Medicine Creek, Nebr., flood on, damage by.. 40-44 Meinzer, 0. E., quoted____________ 209 Metainorphic rocks, occurrence of, in Qila and

San Simon Valley, Ariz_____ 195 Methods of locating salt-water leaks in wells.. 4-19,

pis. 1-9Mining, Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz ..___ 171 Monthly Weather Review quoted.__ 225-226,280 Mottled enamel, cause of, in teeth______ 220

N

Newspapers quoted ______________ 41,42Niles, Kans., Solomon River at, discharge of. 47,52North Llano River, altitude and descent of 243

discharge of, near Junction, Tex. 245,246,263,283Nueces River, altitude and descent of.___ 247

discharge of, at Cotulla, Tex. 248,249,270-271,284at Laguna, Tex 248,249,268-269,284near Three Rivers, Tex. 248,249,272-273,284near Uvalde, Tex....... 248,249,269-270,284

flood on.... . 236-237, 245, 246-249, pis. 57, 61

Ogden, Kans., Kansas River at, discharge of. 39,45, pi. 13

Ogden, Utah, City of, cooperation with__ 99-161Ogden River, Utah, analysis of water from.. 160-161

discharge of..__.________ 114-118, pi. 39Middle Fork of, analyses of water from. 160-161

discharge of. .. __ 112-113North Fork of, analyses of water from.. 160-161

discharge of____________ 114, pi. 39South Fork of, analyses of water from.. 160-161

discharge of.._.......... Ill, 113, pis. 37-38Ogden Valley, Utah, section in________ 109 Oro Blanco Mountains, Ariz., geologic char

acter of......................... 171-172

Paint Creek, discharge of, near Telegraph,Tex_......................... 245,283

Paleozoic rocks, occurrence of, in Avra-AltarValley, Ariz. .................... 172

Pedernales River, discharge of, near Spice- wood, Tex-_.__ 241,266,283

Pediments, in Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz., geo logic character of______ 166,172-173

in Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz., wells in__ 174-175,pi. 41

in Gila Valley, features of____ 192-193, pi. 49 Peloncillo Mountains, Ariz., geologic character

of__ ._ 195 Permeability coefficient, definition of____ 120 Peterson, J. Q., with Troxell, H. C., Flood in

La Canada Valley, Calif., January 1,1934...........____ 53-98, pis. 16-34

PagePickens Canyon, Calif., debris in, composition

oL._ . . 88-89, pl.30debris in, measurement of..__ __ 93

movement of ._______...__ 71-74,77-80,86-88, pis. 16-17,19-26,28-30

source of... . 93-96,pis. 17,21-22,32-33discharge of ____ .___________ 66-68,83

Pickna well. See Winter Haven, Tex., wellnear.

Final schist, occurrence of, in Qila and SanSimon Valley, Ariz________ 195

Pine View Reservoir, Ogden Valley, Utah,capacity of__........._..... 142-143

probable effect of, on artesian reservoir. 143-144 Pinto Creek, discharge of, near Del Rio, Tex._ 284 Pleistocene time, events of, in Qila and San

Simon Valley, Ariz_____... 188-189 Pleistocene(i) terrace gravel, character and

distribution of, in Qila and San Simon Valley, Ariz_... 200

Population, Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz. 170 Qila and San Simon Valley, Ariz._. __ 186

Pozo Verde Mountains, Avra-Altar Valley,Ariz., geologic character of- 171-172

Pre-Cambrian rocks, occurrence of, in Avra- Altar Valley, Ariz ......... 171-172

occurrence of, in Gila and San Simon Val ley, Ariz .._ -.. .. 195

Previous investigations, in Avra-Altar Val ley, Ariz____________.__ 165

in Gila and San Simon Valley, Ariz___ 185 in Ogden Valley, Utah..__._...._ 103-104

Pumping method of locating salt-water leaksin wells, operation of . . 4-8, pi. 1

Q

Quaternary alluvium, character and distribu tion of, in Qila and San Simon Valley, Ariz__........ 200-201, pi. 46

wells in, in Gila and San Simon Valley,Ariz.. 207-208

Quaternary rocks, occurrence of, in Avra- Altar Valley, Ariz. .. 172

occurrence of, in Gila and San Simon Val ley, Ariz.. . 195

Quinlan Mountains, Ariz., geologic characterof.. . 171

R

Rainfall, Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz 168 Gila River and San Simon Creek Valley,

Ariz .. . . 187 La Canada Valley 58-59,60-65 Ogden Valley, Utah... 105-106, pi. 35 Republican River-Kansas River Basin 24-29,

pi. 10Texas 233-234, 237-239,244,251,276-278, pi. 58

Randolph, Kans., Big Blue River at, dis charge of. . 48

Red Cloud, Nebr., Republican River at-..-, pi. 12 Republican River at Cambridge, Nebr. pi. 12

at Red Cloud, Nebr . pi. 12 at Wakefield, Kans . pi. 14

INDEX 289

Republican River discharge of . 32-33,37-39, pi. 13 discharge of, at Bloomington, Nebr__ 45

at Bostwick, Nebr.. 49 at Clay Center, Kans______ 45, pi. 13 at Culbertson, Nebr. 45, pi. 11 at Junction City, Kans __ 52 at Mas, Nebr.- __ _____ 45 at Scandia, Kans..___.__ 45, pis. 13,14 near Hardy, Nebr.________ 45, pi. 13 near Superior, Nebr. . .. 49-50

earlier floods on_ .. __..... 49-51flood on, damage by...__ __..... 40-44

crests of__________ 33-36, pis. 11-14 North Fork of, discharge of_--___.-- 46 South Fork of, discharge of- ...- 32-34,37-39

Republican River-Kansas River Basin, gagingstations in.._____.___ 44, pi. 15

gaging stations in, daily discharge at.. 46-48,52previous floods in_____________ 49-51

Indian traditions regarding_____ 50-51rainfall in______________ 24-29, pi. 10topography of... ___ _____ 29-31

Rio Qrande, discharge of, at Eagle Pass, Tes. 284discharge of, near Del Rio, Tes_____ 284

Rio Qrande Basin, flood in_...._._.__ 257Rio Hondo, discharge of, near Montebello,

Calif- . 97Roberts Canyon, Calif., debris in, composition

of __....__... 88-89Rogers Creek, Calif., debris in, composition

of.. .. 88-S9discharge of_______.....____.. 97

Roswell, N. Mes., wells near, study of.-__ 8 Rothe, Josie, quoted____________ 232-233

Saline River, discharge of, at Tescott, Kans.. 47discharge of, near Salina, Kans._____ 52

near Wilson, Kans____._____.. 47Salt-water leaks in wells, electrical-conduc

tivity method of locating.. 12-19, pis. 3-9 pumping method of locating..____ 4-8, pi. 1 sampler method of locating_._ 10-12, pis. 3-4

San Antonio River, discharge of, near FallsCity, Tes 267,283

San Felipe Creek, discharge of, near Del Rio,Tex- _ 284

San Gabriel River, discharge of, at Pico, Calif. 97San Jose Creek, Calif., discharge of._____ 97-San Luis Mountains, Ariz., geologic character

of ......... 171-172San Saba, Tex., Colorado River near, dis

charge of___________... 258-259San Simon Creek, Ariz., age of._____ 189, pi. 48San Simon Valley, Ariz., features of___ 188-190,

pis. 47-48Sanitation, emergency measures for_____ 43-44Santa Ana River, Calif., debris in, composi

tion of . 88-89Santa Paula Creek, Calif., crest discharge of 97Santa Teresa Mountains, Ariz., geologic charac

ter of.______.___....__ 195Sarasota County, Fla., wells in, study of__ 10,

18,19, pis. 3-6, 8Sawpit Creek, Calif., debris in, composition

of.... . .____... 88-89

PageScandia, Kans., Republican River at, flood

discharge of .... . 45, pis. 13,14Schwennesen, A. T., quoted_ ... 191Seco Creek, discharge of, near D'Hanis, Tex.. 284

earlier floods on_.....__ __ 236flood on, discharge from.. . 234-236

general features of-- 232-233 rainfall causing ____.....__ 233-234

Second-feet, definition of ___ -- 227 Second-feet per square mile, definition of 227 Sedimentary rocks, formations of, in Gila and

San Simon Valley, Ariz......... 196-205Sediments, character and thickness of, in Og-

den Valley, Utah... .__.... 107-110Sespe Creek, Calif., discharge of..---__-. 97 Shields Canyon, Calif., crest discharge of 67,82 Sierrita Mountains, Ariz., geologic character

Of- . 171,172, pis. 43-44 Silverbell Mountains, Ariz., geologic charac

ter of __- 172Smith, H. V., and Smith, M. C., quoted 220 Smithville, Tes., Colorado River at, discharge

of...._.......__ 241,242,260-261,283Smoky Hill River, discharge of, at Ellswortb,

Kans_._._________ 47,52discharge of, at Enterprise, Kans 47

at Lindsborg, Kans__ 47Snyder Hill, Ariz., geologic character of. 172Soil, conservation of, in Gila Valley, Ariz 194

erosion of, relation of, to rainfall 93-94,pis. 31-32, 34

features of, in La Canada Valley, Calif. 58 Soldier Creek, discharge of, at Topeka, Kans. _ 48 Solomon River, discharge of, at Beloit,

Kans....__._.__ __ 47, pi. 11discharge of, at Niles, Kans ..._ 47,52

Solomonsville, Ariz., Gila River near.... 207, pi. 47San Simon Creek near________ pi. 48

South Llano River, altitude and descent of-... 243 discharge of, near Telegraph, Tex 245,283

Spicer, H. C., depth-temperature study ofwells by.__ _..___ 217

Spicewood, Tes., Pedernales River near, dis charge of-_--___-- 266

Spiegel, J. B., with Follansbee, Robert, Flood on Republican and Kansas Rivers, May and June 1935..-. 21-52, pis. 10-15

Spring Branch, Tes., Guadalupe River near,discharge of . 266-267

Springs, in Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz 172 in Gila and San Simon Valley, Ariz... 214-217,

pis. 46, 52, 53 in Gila and San Simon Valley, Ariz.,

water from, analyses of- 222 in Ogden Valley, Utah... 115,136,137,139

Stage-discharge relation, definition of_ 227 Staked Plains of Tesas, features of____ 228 Stranger Creek near Tonganosie, Kans., dis

charge of--____ _ 48 Stream flow, in Ogden Valley, Utah_... 144-146 Structure, features of, in Gila and San Simon

Valley, Ariz. _. 194-195 Superior, Nebr., Republican River near, dis

charge of_._ . 49-50 Surface water, analyses of, from Ogden Valley,

Utah...... ... 160-161

290 INDEX

Page Surface water, discharge measurements of, in

Gila and San Simon Valley, Ariz. 207 in Odgen Valley, Utah.. 111-118, pis. 37-39

irrigation with, in Gila and San SimonValley, Ariz..___..... 206-207, pi. 47

Sycamore Creek, discharge of, near Del Rio,Tex ...... .................. 284

Sycamore Creek Basin, flood in_______ 257

T

Tanque, Ariz., San Simon Creek near__ pis. 47-48Taylor, G. H., with Leggette, R. M., Geology

and ground-water resources of Ogden Valley, Utah.. 99-161, pis. 35-40

Telegraph, Tex., Paint Creek near, dischargeof............................... 245,283

South Llano River near, discharge of_ 245,283Terms, definition of.._____________ 227Tertiary rocks, occurrence of, in Avra-Altar

Valley, Ariz_________ 172, pi. 42 occurrence of, in Gila and San Simon

Valley, Ariz____________ 195Tertiary time, events of, in Gila and San

Simon Valley, Ariz. ......_.. 188Tescott, Kans., Saline River at, discharge of_ 47Texas Board of Water Engineers, cooperation

with._____________ 1-20, 223-284Three Rivers, Tex., Nueces River near, dis

charge of ___ 248, 249, 272-273,284Tonganoxie, Kans., Stranger Creek near, dis

charge of...... ......_..__ 48Topeka, Kans., Kansas River at, discharge

of.._____________ 39, 46, pi. 13 Soldier Creek at, discharge of______ 48

Topography, Gila and San Simon Valley,Ariz____________. 183-184, pi. 45

La Canada Valley.._____ 56-58, pis. 16-18 Republican River-Kansas River Basin__ 29-31 Texas_____._____.__ 228-229, pi. 55

Transportation and settlements, Avra-AltarValley, Ariz_____..___ 169-170

Gila and San Simon Valley, Ariz____ 185-186Troxell, H. C., and Peterson, J. Q., Flood in

La Canada Valley, Calif., Jan. l, 1934_ __________ 53-98, pis. 16-34

Tucson Mountains, Ariz., geologic characterof 172

Turnbull Mountains, Ariz., geologic characterof __.. 195

Twin Falls South Side project, Idaho, wells in,study of __ __._____ 8

U

United States Army, Chief of Engineers,quoted____________ _ 49

United States Weather Bureau quoted___ 276 Uvalde, Tex., Nueces River near, discharge

Of.......__........ 248, 249,269-270,284

Valley Falls, Kans., Delaware River at, dis charge of-__________.__ 48

Vegetation, Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz.. 169, pis. 43-44 Gila and San Simon Valley, Ariz__ .. 187 La Canada Valley_____________ 59 Ogden Valley, Utah..____._____ 106

PagtVelocity method of locating salt-water leaks in

wells, operation of______ 8-10, pi. 2Verdugo Canyon, discharge of, at Wabasso

Way, Calif.. .. 67-68-Verdugo Mountains, Calif., run-off in..... 98, pi. 34

W

Wabasso Way, Calif., Verdugo Canyon at,discharge of______.___.... 67-68-

Wakarusa River, discharge of, near Lawrence,Kans_________...___ 48-

Wakefleld, Kans., Republican River at___ pi. 14 Wamego, Kans., -Kansas River at, discharge

of.......... 39, 46, pi. 13Water, history of use of, in Ogden Valley,

Utah............... ... . 10$municipal supplies of, in Gila and San

Simon Valley, Ariz_______ 206 quality of, in Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz.... 177-180-

in Gila and San Simon Valley, Ariz. 217-222 in Ogden Valley, Utah......... 142,160-161

uses of, in Gila and San Simon Valley,Ariz.............................. 205-

Water level, in Ogden Valley, Utah, fluctua tions of_____________ 126-131

In Ogden Valley, Utah, records of 154-1591 Water spreading, in Ogden Valley, Utah, pos

sibilities of. 135-136-Waterman Mountains, Ariz., geologic char

acter of_____________.. 172 Waterville, Kans., Little Blue River at, dis

charge of..___ __ . 48- Wells, construction of, to avoid contamination

by salt water_. .. 19-201 deep, in Gila and San Simon Valley,

Ariz..... . ... 212-214, pi. 5*depth-temperature relations in.. 217 in Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz. _ 174-177, pi. 41

water from, analyses of__ 179-180* in Gila and San Simon Valley, Ariz., logs

of .. . 202-20*records of._____ .... 222 (Inserts)water from, analyses of. 222"

in Gila conglomerate, Gila and San SimonValley, Ariz. ..____ 208-212, pi. 46

in Ogden Valley, Utah, logs of.. pi. 40-records of......... 122-131,146-153, pis. 37-38water from, analyses of. 160-161

in Quaternary alluvium, Gila and SanSimon Valley, Ariz....... 207-208, pi. 46-

locating salt-water leaks in 1-20, pis. 1-9 observation, in Ogden Valley, Utah. 122-123, pis.

36-3»salt-water leaks in, areas studied 3

West Nueces River, altitude and descent of 250-flood on._....__..... 236-237,247,249-256discharge of, near Brackettville, Tex__252-256,

284, pi. 62-near Cline, Tex___ . 284

Whiteoak Bayou, discharge of, at Houston,Tex.-.._......_ _ - 283-

Whitsett, Tex., Atascosa River at, dischargeOf _._.___.__ 275-276,284

Wilson, Kans., Saline River near, discharge of. 4T Winter Garden area, Texas, wells in, study

of__.._- 5,9-10,13,14,15,19, pis. 3-» Winter Haven, Tex., well near, study of.. 5-6,16, IT

MAJOR TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 - USGS · 2011-03-21 · MAJOR TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 BY TATE DALRYMPLE...

Documents

Transcript of MAJOR TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 - USGS · 2011-03-21 · MAJOR TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 BY TATE DALRYMPLE...