989-1000 GW Watershed 03 12/1/03 4:53 PM Page 989

Where Does the Ground Water

in Small Watersheds Come From?
by Thomas C. Winter1, Donald O. Rosenberry1, and James W. LaBaugh2

Abstract
Surface water and ground water watersheds commonly do not coincide. This condition is particularly relevant to
understanding biogeochemical processes in small watersheds, where detailed accounting of water and solute fluxes
commonly are done. Ground water watersheds are not as easily defined as surface watersheds because (1) they are
not observable from land surface; (2) ground water flow systems of different magnitude can be superimposed on one
another; and (3) ground water divides may move in response to dynamic recharge and discharge conditions. Field
studies of relatively permeable terrain in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Nebraska indicate that lakes and wetlands in
small watersheds located near the lower end of extensive ground water flow systems receive ground water inflow
from shallow flow systems that extend far beyond their surface watershed, and they may also receive ground water
inflow from deeper regional flow systems that pass at depth beneath local flow systems. Field studies of mountain-
ous terrain that have low-permeability deposits in New Hampshire and Costa Rica also indicate that surface water
bodies receive ground water inflow from sources beyond their local surface watersheds. Field studies of lakes and
wetlands in North Dakota, Nebraska, and Germany indicate that ground water divides move in response to changing
climate conditions, resulting in a variable source of ground water inflow to those surface water bodies.

Introduction water (Likens et al. 1967; Schindler et al. 1976; Hemond

Small watersheds have been the focus of research on
the hydrology and biogeochemistry of various types of
land-use landscapes, including agricultural, forested, urban,
and natural (Hewlett et al. 1969; Winter 1997; McCammon
et al. 1998; Baedecker and Friedman 2000). Small water-
sheds commonly are selected for intensive research
because they are believed to be areas that are well defined
by the watershed boundary. By being hydrologically well
defined, an area lends itself to detailed accounting of gains,
losses, and storage of water and solutes.
The need to examine watershed processes in order to
understand flow and transport in surface waters has long
been recognized (Leopold 1974; Hynes 1975; Likens
1984). Some detailed studies of surface waters that
included an accounting of water and solutes were in basins
that had negligible contributions from or losses to ground
1U.S. Geological Survey, Box 25046, Denver Federal Center,
Denver, CO 80225
2U.S. Geological Survey, Mail Stop 411 National Center,
12201 Sunrise Valley Dr., Reston, VA 20192
Published in 2003 by the National Ground Water Association.
Vol. 41, No. 7—GROUND WATER—Watersheds Issue 2003 (pages 989–1000)
1980). In other cases, although contribution of water from
ground water was small, such contribution delivered sub-
stantial solutes (Schwartz and Gallup 1978; Hurley et al.
1985). Subsequent examination of watershed processes in a
variety of landscapes has shown surface water can receive
considerable water and solute contributions from ground
water (LaBaugh et al. 1995; Moore 1999; Holmes 2000).
Thus, there is growing recognition that watershed process
studies should include examination of ground water
(Goodrich and Woolhiser 1993).
A watershed is the topographic demarcation that
defines a surface water drainage basin, and by doing so,
separates surface drainage basins from one another. Tradi-
tionally, the term “watershed” is used with respect to sur-
face water. Ground water hydrologists use the term less
often because they traditionally deal with aquifer systems.
However, ground water systems also have watersheds, at
flow-system divides. Although it would be convenient for
water- and chemical-budget studies of watersheds if ground
water divides underlay surface divides, they commonly do
not. This is especially true for small watersheds. Further-
more, as natural resource managers move increasingly
toward managing water supply, water quality, and other
989
989-1000 GW Watershed 03 12/1/03 4:53 PM Page 990

resources on the basis of surface watersheds (Sosin et al.
1995), it is becoming increasingly important that the extent
of ground water watersheds be considered in many of those
management plans and practices.
The common assumption that ground water divides
underlie surface divides probably stems from the work of
Hubbert (1940), whose classic diagram showed ground
water moving from water table highs beneath uplands to
contiguous lowlands (Figure 1a). Tóth (1962), based largely
on work in the Canadian prairies, extended this concept for
much larger regions and showed further that flow systems of
different magnitudes could overlie one another (Figure 1b).
Haitjema (1995) indicated that the type of flow systems
defined by Tóth were applicable primarily to terrain having
low-hydraulic conductivity (generally less than ~0.3
m/day). Ground water flow systems in porous media having
hydraulic conductivity greater than this are less likely to
have water table mounds underlying topographic highs
(Figure 1c), in which case the water table is more likely to
be a continuously sloping surface from one surface water
body to the next.
Ground water watersheds are not as easily defined as
surface watersheds because (1) they are not observable
from land surface, (2) ground water flow systems of differ-
ent magnitude can be superimposed on one another, and (3)
ground water divides may move in response to dynamic

A Land surface
Water table

Direction of ground water flow

B
Line separating local flow
METERS
systems from each other and
80 from regional flow systems
Land surface Wetland
60

50 Water table

40

30

20
Aquifer
10
Direction of ground water flow
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000
METERS

C
METERS
60 Land surface

50 Wetland
Water table
40

30
Direction of ground water flow
20

10

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000
METERS

Figure 1. Hydrologic sections showing ground water flow systems in hypothetical settings: (a) ground water flow from water
table highs beneath uplands to hydrologic sinks in the lowlands (modified from Hubbert 1940); (b) local flow systems, which
are recharged at water table highs and discharge to adjacent lowlands, overlie a regional flow system (modified from Winter
1976); (c) ground water flow systems where water table highs do not underlie topographic highs. The surface water bodies are
flow-through with respect to ground water.

990 T.C. Winter et al. GROUND WATER 41, no. 7: 989–1000

989-1000 GW Watershed 03 12/1/03 4:53 PM Page 991
recharge and discharge conditions. The superposition of
flow systems can result in ground water discharge to a sur-
face water body from more than one flow system; deeper
flow systems may have their watershed far beyond the sur-
face watershed (Tóth 1962; Haitjema 1995). For example,
a stream located at the lowest point (left side) of the hydro-
logic sections shown in Figures 1b and 1c would receive
ground water inflow from the local flow system underlying
the contiguous surface watershed, but it also would receive
ground water from the regional flow system that extends
the entire length of the section. If the ground water dis-
charge from the regional flow system is substantial, of
undesirable quality, or contaminated, considering ground
water only from the local flow system contiguous to the
stream could lead to ineffective management because the
recharge area of the regional flow system extends beyond
the local surface watershed.
Surface watersheds have numerous variations in size,
shape, relief, geologic substrate, and rates of water runoff.
Similarly, ground water flow systems also have numerous
variations in size, shape, geology, and rates of ground water
movement. It is beyond the scope of this paper to try to
describe all of the possible variations in comparing surface
and ground water watersheds; however, two issues that
watershed researchers need to be aware of when dealing
with sources of ground water in watersheds are examined
in this paper. The issues are (1) the difficulties in determin-
ing the extent of ground water watersheds, and (2) the
dynamic characteristics of ground water divides in some
hydrogeologic settings. This paper focuses mostly on stud-
ies where a considerable amount of effort went into deter-
mining the ground water component of the hydrologic sys-
tem of small watersheds. In addition, the focus is primarily
on unconfined ground water flow systems in unconsoli-
dated deposits and/or shallow bedrock associated with such
deposits.
That ground water flow divides do not coincide with
surface watersheds in areas of confined aquifers is well
known, and has been documented for a wide range of
scales. For example, Winograd and Thordarson (1975)
described a large-scale interbasin regional flow system as
the source of water to Ash Meadows in Nevada, and Hunt
et al. (2001) determined that the ground water basin of a
spring in Wisconsin did not coincide with the surface
watershed of the spring. Because ground water flow in
many confined aquifers is unrelated to surface watersheds,
such settings are not discussed in this paper.
Determining the Extent
of Ground Water Watersheds
Two characteristics of ground water flow systems
make it difficult to determine the extent of ground water
watersheds. (1) The configuration of the water table com-
monly does not reflect the configuration of land surface;
therefore, the boundaries of a shallow ground water flow
system defined on the basis of surface topography may not
reflect the true boundaries of the flow system. (2) Ground
water flow systems of different magnitude can overlie one
another, as shown in Figures 1b and 1c; therefore, ground
water discharging to a surface water body may be from a
distant source, where the ground water passed beneath one
or more local flow systems before discharging to the sur-
face water.
A number of case studies are presented in this paper
that demonstrate the difficulties in determining the extent
of ground water watersheds in various types of terrain that
represent various combinations of high and low permeabil-
ity and low and high regional topographic relief. Determin-
ing the extent of ground water watersheds by assuming the
configuration of the water table reflects the configuration of
land surface is particularly difficult in hummocky terrain
having relatively low regional topographic relief, such as
glacial and dune terrain outside of mountainous areas. Even
surface watersheds can be difficult to define in these types
of terrain because the topographic highs have highly irreg-
ular shapes, they can be very subtle, and there can be many
topographically closed depressions that do not contribute
surface runoff to the larger drainage basin. Closed depres-
sions in hummocky terrain commonly contain lakes and
wetlands that are in contact with, and therefore are part of,
ground water flow systems (Winter 1999).
Terrain with High Permeability
and Low Regional Topographic Relief
Terrain that is relatively permeable, has low regional
topographic slope, and is locally hummocky may have
extensive ground water flow systems. The flow systems
begin near regional water table highs and terminate at
regional lows. Lakes and wetlands that lie within these flow
systems can be thought of as ground water outcrops, where
ground water moves into the lake or wetland on the upgra-
dient side and lake or wetland water recharges ground
water on the downgradient side. Thus, the contributing area
of ground water to a lake or wetland selected for a research
watershed can range widely, depending on where it is
located within the ground water flow system. The con-
tributing area for ground water to the watershed would be
relatively small if it is located near the upper end of the
flow system and relatively large if it is located near the
lower end. However, except for watersheds on ground
water divides, the contributing area of ground water to the
lake or wetland is almost certain to extend beyond the local
surface watershed. The following case studies of terrain
having high permeability and low regional topographic
relief are taken from field sites in glacial terrain in Wiscon-
sin and Minnesota, and dune terrain in Nebraska.
Trout Lake Area in Wisconsin
The Trout Lake area lies within the north-central high-
lands in Wisconsin (Figure 2). Glacial deposits that are ~40
to 60 m thick and that consist largely of outwash sand and
gravel underlie the area. The area has many topographically
closed depressions that contain lakes or wetlands and that
have small surface watersheds. To determine the relation
between ground water and the lakes that lie within the
Trout Lake watershed, Cheng (1994) developed a steady-
state, three-dimensional, finite-difference model. The
model boundaries were defined on the basis of surface
topography. Because analytic element models have proved
useful in solving for the boundary conditions of ground
water flow systems (Haitjema 1995; Kelson 1998), Hunt et
T.C. Winter et al. GROUND WATER 41, no. 7: 989–1000 991
989-1000 GW Watershed 03 12/1/03 4:53 PM Page 992
Figure 2. Location of watersheds in the United States,
Canada, Costa Rica, and Germany discussed in this paper.
al. (1998) re-evaluated the boundary conditions of the
ground water flow system that was used for the finite-dif-
ference model of the Trout Lake area, using an analytic ele-
ment model. Comparison of the boundary based on surface
topography and that based on the analytic element model is
shown in Figure 3. The ground water basin defined by the
analytic element model is larger and has a different shape,
compared to the finite-difference model. The improved def-
inition of boundary conditions resulted in improvement of
overall ground water flux calculations and distribution of
fluxes in the ground water basin.
The Trout Lake area also provides an example of how
considering the superposition of flow systems can lead to
increased understanding of ground water relations to sur-
face water bodies in small watersheds. One of the initial
studies of lake and ground water interaction in the Trout
Lake area focused on ground water flow and geochemical
processes between Crystal and Big Muskellunge lakes
(Kenoyer and Anderson 1989; Kim et al. 1999). In a later
study, which involved sampling ground water from deeper
wells in the vicinity, chemical data indicated that a deeper
ground water flow system from upgradient of Crystal Lake
underlay the shallower ground water moving from Crystal
Lake to Big Muskellunge Lake (Hunt et al., in review). A
more regional ground water model of the entire area
between Crystal Lake and the Allequash River was needed
to simulate the water age and source that was measured at
depth (Pint et al. 2003).
Shingobee River Headwaters Area in Minnesota
The Shingobee River headwaters area in Minnesota
provides another example of the difficulties in defining
ground water divides associated with small watersheds in
glacial terrain. The Shingobee River headwaters area is
located on a small topographic ridge that extends south
992 T.C. Winter et al. GROUND WATER 41, no. 7: 989–1000
from a large east-west-trending moraine in north-central
Minnesota (Figure 2). The area is underlain by glacial
deposits that are >120 m thick, and consist of thick alter-
nating units of till and sand and gravel (Winter and Rosen-
berry 1997). The surficial deposits are fluvial silt, sand, and
gravel. The area has many topographically closed depres-
sions that have small surface watersheds (Figure 4a).
Williams Lake was initially chosen for detailed study of
water and chemical budgets because it is a topographically
closed basin. However, installation of wells between Crys-
tal, Williams, and Mary lakes indicated that a ground water
divide did not underlie the surface watershed, and that
Williams Lake receives water that seeps out of Crystal
Lake and loses water that eventually seeps into Mary Lake.
Thus, the lake lies within a ground water flow system that
extends from Crystal Lake to Mary Lake. The exact loca-
tion of the southern ground water divide in the Crystal Lake
area has never been determined; i.e., it is not known if a
ground water divide is present beneath the topographic
ridge on the south side of Crystal Lake or if the lake itself
forms part of the divide.
Early in the study of the Williams Lake area, it was
discovered that ground water flow systems of different
magnitude were superimposed. A numerical cross-sec-
tional model of an area extending from the ground water
divide east of Williams Lake to Mary Lake indicated that
only the shallower ground water in the surficial aquifer dis-
charged to Williams Lake. Deeper ground water within the
surficial aquifer passed at depth beneath the lake and dis-
charged to Mary Lake (Siegel and Winter 1980).
Evidence that ground water divides do not underlie
surface divides, and that flow systems of different magni-
tude overlie one another, is present elsewhere in the
Shingobee River headwaters area. For example, the large
Figure 3. Trout Lake area in Wisconsin showing the differ-
ence in a ground water divide selected from surface topogra-
phy (assuming ground water divides underlie topographic
divides) and a ground water divide determined by an analytic
element (AE) screening model. (Modified from Hunt, Ander-
son, and Kelson 1998)
989-1000 GW Watershed 03 12/1/03 4:53 PM Page 993
Figure 4. Shingobee River headwaters area in Minnesota: (a)
map showing surface water bodies, surface watersheds, trace
of hydrologic section W-E, and direction of ground water
flow between Crystal, Williams, and Mary lakes in the upper
(southern) part of the area; (b) hydrologic section W-E show-
ing local and regional ground water flow systems in the Shin-
gobee River, Little Shingobee Fen, and Little Shingobee Lake
area in the lower (northern) part of the area.
surface discharge from the Little Shingobee Fen (~360,000
m3/year) can be accounted for only by having ground water
inflow to the fen be derived from an intermediate-scale
ground water flow system. (If all of the recharge that took
place in the local watershed of the fen [~0.13 m/year] dis-
charged to the fen, it would amount to only ~12,000
m3/year.) The intermediate flow system is recharged 1 to 2
km east of the Shingobee River and passes beneath the river
as well as the local flow system associated with the Shin-
gobee River (Figure 4b) (Winter et al. 2001).
Shingobee Lake must also be receiving ground water
inflow from intermediate and regional ground water flow
systems. The surface watershed of Shingobee Lake is rela-
tively small, yet numerous springs are present around its
perimeter and in the lakebed. Some of the springs have very
stable flow relatively independent of climate variability,
which indicates that their source is a relatively large and
stable ground water flow system. In addition, ground water
supplies about a third of the inflow to Shingobee Lake
(Rosenberry et al. 1997), which is much more water than
could be supplied from ground water recharged within its
surface watershed. Assuming the same amount of recharge
as was used for the Little Shingobee Fen calculation (~ 0.13
m/year), annual recharge within the local watershed of
Shingobee Lake is ~280,000 m3/year; whereas the excess
of surface outflow over surface inflow to the lake is more
than 1 million m3/year.
In an attempt to obtain an overall picture of ground
water and surface water interaction within the entire Shin-
gobee River headwaters area, a three-dimensional ground
water flow model was developed for the surficial aquifer
(Filby et al. 2002). The model results indicated that some of
the intermediate-scale flow systems that discharge into Shin-
gobee Lake and Little Shingobee Fen may be recharged as
far away as the Williams and Crystal lakes area.
Island Lake Area in Nebraska
Lakes and wetlands occupy many of the interdunal
lowlands in the sandhills of Nebraska (Figure 2). Similar to
the studies in the Shingobee River headwaters area in Min-
nesota, construction of numerous wells between Island
Lake and neighboring lakes indicated that ground water
divides do not commonly underlie surface watershed
divides. The configuration of the water table in the vicinity
of this group of lakes indicates that ground water moves
generally from north to south and that the lakes are in direct
connection with the ground water system (Figure 5) (Win-
ter 1986). The group of lakes studied in this part of the
Crescent Lake National Wildlife Refuge lie near the lowest
part of a vast ground water flow system that may have its
regional divide many kilometers to the north. Although
water moves from lake to lake through the ground water
system, chemical data indicate that the water does not move
as an unmodified lake-water plume from lake to lake
(LaBaugh 1986). Near-shore seepage of ground water into
these lakes on their upgradient side does not reflect the
chemistry of the next lake upgradient; instead, it has chem-
ical characteristics of freshly recharged ground water.
Therefore, ground water inflow to a given lake is a combi-
nation of ground water that was recharged in the uplands
between the lakes and by upgradient lake water that moves
deeper through the ground water system. In addition, it is
likely that deeper ground water may bypass some of the
lakes at depth beneath the shallower ground water flow sys-
tems, as at the Trout Lake (Wisconsin) and Williams Lake
(Minnesota) field sites.
Terrain Having Low Permeability
and Low Regional Topographic Relief
The configuration of the water table in terrain having
low permeability, such as glacial till, generally is more
complex than in the more permeable sand-and-gravel set-
tings presented in the previous section of this paper. In
some areas of fine-grained till, water table mounds can be
present beneath topographic highs on a local scale, result-
ing in some lakes and wetlands being discharge areas for
local ground water flow systems. Alternatively, the depres-
sions themselves can be the focal points for ground water
recharge, where the water table mounds underlie the
depressions rather than the topographic highs (Lissey
1971). As a result of the complex configuration of the water
table, individual surface water bodies in low-permeability
terrain can be recharge areas, discharge areas for closed
local flow systems, have flow-through conditions similar to
T.C. Winter et al. GROUND WATER 41, no. 7: 989–1000 993
989-1000 GW Watershed 03 12/1/03 4:54 PM Page 994
Figure 5. Island Lake area in Nebraska showing surface
water bodies, surface watersheds, contours of the water table
(m), and direction of ground water flow on October 28, 1982.
(Modified from Winter 1986)
lakes and wetlands in permeable terrain, or be discharge
areas for local, intermediate, and regional ground water
flow systems. The following case studies of terrain having
low permeability and low regional topographic relief are
taken from field sites in glacial terrain in North Dakota and
Ontario, Canada. Hydraulic conductivity of the glacial till
at both sites is highly variable, but at both sites it averages
about 10–7 m/sec.
Cottonwood Lake Area in North Dakota
The Cottonwood Lake area is situated on one of the
highest parts of the eastern edge of a large moraine, the
Missouri Coteau, in eastern North Dakota (Figure 2). The
glacial deposits in the Cottonwood Lake area are as much
as 140 m thick and consist predominantly of clayey, silty
till. The area has many steep-sided closed depressions,
most of which contain wetlands that have small surface
watersheds (Figure 6). Although Wetland P1 was the pri-
mary focus of study with respect to determining detailed
water and chemical budgets, installation of wells through-
out the Cottonwood Lake area indicated that the wetland
receives ground water from beyond its local surface water-
shed. The ground water flow system extends to the topo-
graphic high in the southeastern part of the area, which is
underlain by a regional water table high. The Cottonwood
Lake area is similar to the sites discussed in the previous
section of this paper in that many of the wetlands receive
994 T.C. Winter et al. GROUND WATER 41, no. 7: 989–1000
ground water from beyond their local watersheds and have
seepage to ground water. Furthermore, superposition of
ground water flow systems also is common here, and
throughout the Missouri Coteau (Swanson et al. 1988).
However, unlike the sites discussed in the previous section,
the low permeability of the till results in much more relief
of the water table, which in turn results in the presence of
ground water divides beneath some of the local surface
watershed divides.
Harp Lake Catchment in Ontario, Canada
Harp 4–21 is a small (3.7 ha) headwater catchment
within the Harp Lake watershed in southern Ontario. The
catchment is near the southern margin of the Canadian
Shield (Figure 2), and the surface deposit overlying the
crystalline bedrock is glacial till that ranges in thickness
from 1 to 13 m (Hinton et al. 1993). Topographic relief of
the catchment is ~38 m. Detailed study of ground water
movement in this small catchment indicated that the water
table was not a subdued replica of the land surface and that
water table contours were not parallel to land surface con-
tours. The study indicated that the surface watershed area
differed by as much as 57% from the ground water water-
shed area of the stream.
Terrain Having Low Permeability
and High Topographic Relief
The studies discussed previously provide examples of
the difficulties in defining the boundaries of ground water
watersheds associated with surface watersheds in relatively
flat landscapes. However, even in areas of high relief (hun-
dreds of meters) that have well-defined surface watersheds,
ground water divides may differ from surface watersheds.
Figure 6. Map of the Cottonwood Lake area in North Dakota
showing wetlands, surface watersheds, configuration of the
water table, and direction of ground water flow in the vicin-
ity of Wetland P1 on May 31, 1987. (Modified from Winter
and Rosenberry [1995]).
989-1000 GW Watershed 03 12/1/03 4:54 PM Page 995

The following case studies of terrain having low perme-

ability and high relief are taken from field sites in moun-
tainous terrain in New Hampshire and Costa Rica.

Mirror Lake Area in New Hampshire

The Mirror Lake watershed is located near the lower
end of the Hubbard Brook valley in the White Mountains of
central New Hampshire (Figure 2). The lake, which lies at
an altitude of 213 m, is bounded to the west and north by
steep hills that reach a maximum altitude of 469 m (Figure
7). The watershed is underlain by fractured crystalline
bedrock, which is overlain by glacial deposits. Thickness of
the glacial deposits varies from zero to a few meters in the
higher part of the Mirror Lake watershed to as much as 30
m in the lower part. The glacial deposits throughout most
of the Mirror Lake watershed consist primarily of silty,
sandy till, containing numerous cobbles and boulders.
A preliminary cross-sectional numerical model of the
Mirror Lake area (Harte and Winter 1996) indicated that
the ground water divide of the flow system associated with
Mirror Lake was located beyond the surface watershed as
well as beyond the watershed of Norris Brook, the next
stream up the valley. The model results indicated that part
of the ground water flow system associated with Mirror
Lake passes beneath a small local flow system associated
with Norris Brook. The model results also indicated that a
deeper ground water flow system passes beneath the Mirror
Lake ground water system and discharges to the Pemige- Figure 7. Mirror Lake area in New Hampshire showing the
wassett River. surface watershed, and the ground water basin associated
To provide a more complete picture of Mirror Lake’s with the lake as determined by a three-dimensional ground
ground water basin, a three-dimensional numerical model water flow model. (Modified from Tiedeman et al. 1997)
was constructed by Tiedeman et al. (1997). The model
results also indicated that the Mirror Lake ground water
basin extends beyond Norris Brook. By mapping the three- tributed as much as 84% of the water that discharged as
dimensional flow system, the model was able to determine riparian seeps. Because of the difference in solutes between
the areal extent of the ground water basin that is recharged the shallow local ground water and the deeper regional
at the water table, and the areal extent of the part that moves ground water, the contribution of solutes by interbasin
as underflow beneath Norris Brook (Figure 7). The model transfer was even higher than it was for the interbasin trans-
also determined that the ground water basin is 50% larger fer of water. For example, at the location and time that 49%
than the surface watershed. of the stream water was ground water derived from distant
sources, the chloride contributed by those sources was
La Selva Biological Station in Costa Rica 92%. In the case of the seeps, it was found that as much as
The La Selva Biological Station lies in the transition 99% of the chloride was brought into the area by ground
zone between the steep foothills of the Cordillera Central water from distant sources. By correlation of chloride with
and the Caribbean coastal plain in Costa Rica (Figure 2). other major ions, the data indicated that most solutes were
Bedrock in the area is largely volcanic in origin. The bio- brought into the area by ground water from distant sources.
logical station is operated by the Organization for Tropical A major finding of the study was that the ground water
Studies and includes a number of small watersheds that are derived from outside the basin had a substantial effect on
used for research and educational purposes. Using chemi- the chemistry of not only the streams but also much of the
cal data from more than 800 samples of surface water and shallow ground water near streams (Figure 8).
ground water, Genereux et al. (2002) found that surface
water and shallow ground water contained two chemically Dynamic Characteristics of Ground Water Divides
distinct waters. One water type had low solutes and is typ- Unconfined ground water is recharged by infiltration
ical of the water that drains from hillslope soils within the of precipitation and movement of water through the unsat-
surface watersheds following rainfall. The second water urated zone to the water table. The areal distribution of
type was more mineralized and was believed to be ground recharge can be highly variable depending on the distribu-
water derived from beyond the local surface watersheds. tion of precipitation, permeability of geologic deposits, and
Chemical mixing calculations indicated that as much configuration of the land surface. Permeability of the geo-
as 49% of the water in some streams during baseflow con- logic deposits controls the rates of infiltration and distribu-
ditions consisted of deep ground water that had moved into tion of water in the subsurface. Configuration of the land
the area from distant sources. This source of water also con- surface affects the areal distribution of recharge because,

T.C. Winter et al. GROUND WATER 41, no. 7: 989–1000 995

989-1000 GW Watershed 03 12/1/03 4:54 PM Page 996
for a given permeability, water moving downward through
the unsaturated zone reaches the water table sooner where
the unsaturated zone is thinner. Hence, recharge commonly
is focused initially beneath depressions in the land surface
in some landscapes (Lissey 1971) and near surface water
bodies that are hydraulically connected to ground water
(Winter 1983). Because precipitation is the ultimate source
of recharge, the temporal and spatial configuration of the
water table for a given landform and geology depends on
the temporal and spatial distribution of precipitation. The
result is that the water table and ground water divides move
up and down, and divides may move laterally as well.
Three examples of field studies are presented where the
movement of ground water divides has been documented.
The sites are in Nebraska, North Dakota, and Germany.
Island Lake Area in Nebraska
The general hydrogeology of the Island Lake area was
described in the previous section of this paper. One aspect
of the studies at Island Lake was to examine the recharge
process beneath the sand dunes. Water level data from lines
of observation wells installed between the lakes indicated
that the divides, both water table mounds and water table
troughs, moved laterally depending on wet or dry condi-
tions (Winter 1986). Where water table mounds were pre-
sent beneath a hummocky dune between Hackberry and
Island lakes, the divide moved from the vicinity of well 13
during the high-water period of 1982 (Figure 9a) to well 2
during the low-water period of 1982 (Figure 9b), and back
to well 13 during the high-water period of 1983 (Figure 9c).
In a later study, Keen (1992) documented the dynamic
characteristics of the water table divide between Island and
Hackberry lakes by installing additional water table wells
and instrumenting them with continuous recorders.
On the opposite side of Island Lake, where the line of
observation wells traversed a sharp-crested dune, the move-
ment of a water table trough also was dynamic. During the
high-water period of 1982, the nadir of the trough was in
the vicinity of well 7 (Figure 9d). During the low-water
period of 1982, there was no water table trough between
Island and Crane lakes (Figure 9e). Under this condition,
Figure 8. Hydrologic section in the La Selva area in Costa
Rica showing the ratio of local ground water to ground water
that had moved into the area from outside the watershed
(fwater). (Modified from Genereux et al. 2002)
996 T.C. Winter et al. GROUND WATER 41, no. 7: 989–1000
the ground water watershed of Crane Lake included Island
Lake. During the high-water period of 1983, a water table
trough was located in the vicinity of well 8 (Figure 9f).
Cottonwood Lake Area in North Dakota
The general hydrogeology of the Cotttonwood Lake
area was described in a previous section of this paper. The
ground water divide between local flow systems associated
with individual wetlands of interest for this paper lies
between Wetlands T1 and P8 (Figure 6). At this locality, a
ground water divide underlies the surface divide most of the
time. However, during very dry conditions, the water table
mound on the west side of Wetland T1 occasionally lowers
enough for ground water to move from the ground water
watershed of Wetland P1 to the ground water watershed of
Wetland P8 (Winter and Rosenberry 1995). During those
times, the ground water watershed for the local flow system
contributing ground water to Wetland P1 becomes part of
the ground water watershed of Wetland P8, greatly increas-
ing the extent of the local ground water flow system con-
tributing to Wetland P8. Since 1980, this condition occurred
during a one-year drought in 1985 and the five-year drought
from 1988 to 1992.
Lake Stechlin Area in Germany
Lake Stechlin lies in the lake district of northeast Ger-
many (Figure 2). It and nearby Lakes Dagow, Peetsch, and
Glietzen receive ground water inflow but have no perennial
stream inflow. To gain an understanding of the extent of the
ground water basins that contribute water to these lakes,
Holzbecher (2001) developed a two-dimensional numerical
ground water model of the area, focusing particularly on
the ground water systems between the four lakes. The
model was calibrated to lake levels, which have been mea-
sured since 1901, and ground water levels, which have been
measured at ~20 wells since 1959. Results of simulations
for wet, dry, and very dry conditions are shown in Figure
10.
For wet conditions (Figure 10A), a ground water
divide is present between lakes Stechlin and Glietzen and
between lakes Stechlin and Peetsch. A divide is not present
between lakes Dagow and Stechlin, permitting seepage of
water from Lake Dagow to move as ground water directly
to Lake Stechlin.
For dry conditions (Figure 10b), the divide between
lakes Stechlin and Glietzen moved closer to Lake Stechlin
compared to the wet conditions; however, it is breached in
a very small area, permitting a small amount of seepage
from Lake Stechlin to move as ground water directly to
Lake Glietzen. The divide between lakes Stechlin and
Peetsch moved closer to Lake Stechlin compared to the wet
conditions. The dimensions of the ground water flow sys-
tem between lakes Dagow and Stechlin changed little com-
pared to the wet conditions.
For very dry conditions (Figure 10c), the divide
between lakes Stechlin and Glietzen moved even closer to
Lake Stechlin compared to the dry conditions. Further-
more, the breach in the ground water divide became larger,
permitting a larger amount of seepage from Lake Stechlin
to move as ground water directly to Lake Glietzen. The
divide between lakes Stechlin and Peetsch moved closer to
989-1000 GW Watershed 03 12/1/03 4:54 PM Page 997
Figure 9. Hydrologic sections in the Island Lake area in Nebraska showing water table profiles between Hackberry and Island
lakes (a, b, and c), and between Island and Crane lakes (d, e, f) for three dates. (Modified from Winter 1986)
Lake Stechlin compared to the dry conditions. The dimen-
sions of the ground water flow system between lakes
Dagow and Stechlin changed considerably compared to the
dry conditions. In this area, the much larger ground water
flow system that moved water from Lake Dagow to Lake
Stechlin greatly reduced the area of the flow system that
moved water to Lake Stechlin from the area between lakes
Stechlin and Peetsch.
Discussion
Some general observations can be derived from the
results of the studies presented in this paper. For example, if
a region has a relatively permeable unconfined aquifer, (1)
water table divides (boundaries of local ground water flow)
commonly do not underlie local surface watersheds, and (2)
regional ground water flow systems can underlie local flow
systems. Examples of such types of terrain include outwash
sand and gravel, dune sand, beach sand, and fluvial sand and
gravel formations. Even though surface water bodies such
as lakes and wetlands may lie within closed surface water-
sheds, they generally are in direct contact with ground water
and are surface expressions of ground water flow systems
that may be much larger than the surface watersheds. If a
lake or wetland is located near the upper end of an extensive
ground water flow system, it will have a smaller ground
water watershed than if it is located near the lower end of the
flow system. Chemical budgets of topographically isolated
surface water are related to the amount of water and solutes
received from ground water and the amount of water and
solutes lost to ground water (Schwartz and Gallup 1978;
Wood and Sanford 1990; Gosselin et al. 1994; Cheng and
Anderson 1994; LaBaugh et al. 2000). Therefore, a surface
water body near the upper end of a flow system would be
expected to have fewer solutes contributed by ground water
than a surface water body near the lower end. As pointed out
by Winter (2001), this is the case for the Trout Lake area in
Wisconsin and the Shingobee River headwaters area in
Minnesota. However, it is not the case for the Island Lake
area in Nebraska. Here, the lakes are increasingly less min-
eralized, as they are positioned lower in the ground water
flow system. This seeming paradox brings out the impor-
tance of considering the relative contributions of superim-
posed flow systems.
T.C. Winter et al. GROUND WATER 41, no. 7: 989–1000 997
989-1000 GW Watershed 03 12/1/03 4:54 PM Page 998
Figure 10. Maps of ground water divides and direction of
ground water flow in the vicinity of Lake Stechlin and nearby
lakes in northeast Germany for (a) wet, (b) dry, and (c) very
dry conditions. (Modified from Holzbecker 2001)
Most of the case studies presented in this paper indi-
cate that ground water flow systems of different magnitude
are superimposed in the general study area. The sites under-
lain by permeable geologic deposits generally have a slop-
ing water table connecting the lakes and wetlands, indicat-
ing that the shallowest ground water moves from surface
water body to surface water body. These sites also have
deeper ground water flow systems that move water from
higher parts of the flow system to lower parts, sometimes
bypassing some of the surface water bodies. In many cases,
discharge of this deeper ground water to a surface water
998 T.C. Winter et al. GROUND WATER 41, no. 7: 989–1000
body accounts for the greater mineralization of water bod-
ies lower in the ground water flow system. In the case of the
Nebraska site, it is hypothesized that locally recharged
fresh ground water between the lakes contributes more
water to the lakes than the more mineralized deeper ground
water. The deeper ground water eventually discharges to
major regional hydrologic drains—a large wetland that
forms the headwaters of the Blue River, a tributary to the
North Platte River, and to the North Platte River itself.
If a region is underlain by poorly permeable geologic
deposits, such as clayey till and lacustrine and fluvial silt
and clay, ground water flow system divides commonly
underlie local surface watersheds. However, the ground
water divides may not completely enclose the surface water
body. At the gaps in the divide, ground water from beyond
the surface watersheds can discharge to the surface water
body. Even though the movement of the shallowest ground
water from surface water body to surface water body down
a regional ground water gradient is less common and more
disjointed in areas of poorly permeable deposits, superim-
posed flow systems have an important role in determining
the quantity and types of solutes in the surface water. In the
case of the North Dakota site, the deeper flow systems result
in the surface water bodies in lower parts of the region being
more mineralized than those in the higher parts.
The dynamics of ground water flow system divides
pose a challenging dilemma to research in small water-
sheds. Few studies have examined the effect of moving
divides on the fluxes of solutes within the ground water
system or on their discharge to surface water. One can only
speculate on the effect of moving ground water divides on
fluxes to surface water, based on the three studies presented
in the previous section of this paper. The shifting divides
between Island Lake and its two neighbors, Hackberry and
Crane lakes, probably would not affect the solute concen-
trations of the lakes because the distance of the shifts are
not great and the divides remain in the same general vicin-
ity. Furthermore, the lines of section shown are aligned
roughly perpendicular to the regional flow system; there-
fore, the gradients roughly perpendicular to the sections are
greater than those along the sections. The vast majority of
seepage to and from the lakes is on their upgradient and
downgradient sides.
In the case of the North Dakota site, the ground water
divide between Wetlands P1 and P8 disappears only during
the most severe droughts, and has a recurrence interval of
years to decades. Furthermore, even during those times
when the divide is not present, the rates of ground water
movement are so low in the poorly permeable till that large
masses of solutes probably do not move from the ground
water watershed of Wetland P1 to that of Wetland P8.
In the case of the Lake Stechlin area, the moving
ground water divides could be fairly important to the water
and solute fluxes to the lakes. The divides move a relatively
large distance, particularly between Lake Stechlin and
Lakes Dagow and Peetsch.
Conclusion
Researchers studying small watersheds need to be
aware that ground water flow divides do not underlie
989-1000 GW Watershed 03 12/1/03 4:54 PM Page 999
surface divides in many settings. Only if a surface water-
shed of a research site is at the highest ridge away from
major hydrologic sinks such as regional rivers, can one be
sure that ground water is not moving into the area from dis-
tant sources. For most other watersheds, ground water can
move into watersheds either because ground water divides
are not present beneath the surface divides or because
ground water moves into the area from deeper flow sys-
tems. Ground water divides move in response to changing
recharge conditions, which in turn is related to the dynam-
ics of climate and precipitation.
References
Baedecker, M.J., and L.C. Friedman. 2000. Water, energy, and
biogeochemical budgets: A watershed research program.
USGS Fact Sheet 165–99.
Cheng, X. 1994. Numerical analysis of groundwater and lake sys-
tems with application to the Trout River basin, Vilas County,
Wisconsin. Ph.D. diss., Department of Geology and Geo-
physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Cheng, X., and M.P. Anderson. 1994. Simulating the influence of
lake position on groundwater. Water Resources Research 30,
no. 7: 2041–2049.
Filby, S.K., S.M. Locke, M.A. Person, T.C. Winter, D.O. Rosen-
berry, J.L. Nieber, W.J. Gutowski, and E. Ito. 2002. Mid-
Holocene hydrologic model of the Shingobee watershed,
Minnesota. Quaternary Research 58, no. 3: 246–254.
Genereux, D.P., S.J. Wood, and C.M. Pringle. 2002. Chemical
tracing of interbasin groundwater transfer in the lowland rain-
forest of Costa Rica. Journal of Hydrology 258, 163–178.
Goodrich, D.C., and D.A. Woolhiser. 1993. Catchment hydrol-
ogy. U.S. National Report to International Union of Geo-
desy and Geophysics. Reviews of Geophysics Supplement,
202–209.
Gosselin, D.C., S. Sibray, and J. Ayers. 1994. Geochemistry of
K-rich alkaline lakes, western Sandhills, Nebraska.
Geochimica et Cosmochemica Acta 58, 1403–1418.
Haitjema, H.M. 1995. Analytic Element Modeling of Groundwa-
ter Flow. San Diego, California: Academic Press.
Harte, P. T., and T.C. Winter. 1996. Factors affecting recharge to
crystalline rock in the Mirror Lake area, Grafton County,
New Hampshire. In USGS Toxic Substances Hydrology
Program—Proceedings of the Technical Meeting, Colorado
Springs, Colorado, September 20–24, 1993, ed. D.W. Mor-
ganwalp and D.A. Aronson, 141–150. USGS Water-
Resources Investigations Report 94–4015.
Hemond, H.F. 1980. Biogeochemistry of Thoreau’s Bog, Con-
cord, Massachusetts. Ecological Monographs 50, 507–526.
Hewlett, J.D., H.W. Lull, and K.G. Reinhart. 1969. In defense of
small watersheds. Water Resources Research 5, 306–316.
Hinton, M.J., S.L. Schiff, and M.C. English. 1993. Physical prop-
erties governing groundwater flow in a glacial till catch-
ment. Journal of Hydrology 142, 229–249.
Holmes, R.M. 2000. The importance of ground water to stream
ecosystem function. In Streams and Ground Waters, ed.
R.M. Holmes and P.J. Mulholland, 137–148. San Diego,
California: Academic Press.
Holzbecker, E. 2001. The dynamics of subsurface water divides:
Watersheds of Lake Stechlin and neighboring lakes. Hydro-
logical Processes 15, 2297–2304.
Hubbert, M.K. 1940. The theory of ground water motion. Jour-
nal of Geology 48, 785–944.
Hunt, R.J., M.P. Anderson, and V.A. Kelson. 1998. Improving a
complex finite-difference ground water flow model through
the use of an analytic element screening model. Ground
Water 36, no. 6: 1011–1017.
Hunt, R.J., D.P. Krabbenhoft, T.D. Bullen, J.F. Walker, C.
Kendall, and M.P. Anderson. Difficulties in determining
groundwater flowpaths and the need for multiple criteria. In
review.
Hunt, R.J., J.J. Steuer, M.T.C. Mansor, and T.D. Bullen. 2001.
Delineating a recharge area for a spring using numerical
modeling, Monte Carlo techniques, and geophysical investi-
gation. Ground Water 39, no. 5: 702–712.
Hurley, J.P., D.E. Armstrong, G.J. Kenoyer, and C.J. Bowser.
1985. Ground water as a silica source for diatom production
in a precipitation-dominated lake. Science 227, 1576–1578.
Hynes, H.B.N. 1975. The stream and its valley. Verhandlungen
Internationale Vereinigung Limnologie 19, 1–15.
Keen, K.L. 1992. Geomorphology, recharge, and water-table
fluctuations in stabilized sand dunes: The Nebraska sand
hills, U.S.A. Ph.D. diss., Department of Geology and Geo-
physics, University of Minnesota.
Kelson, V.A. 1998. Practical advances in groundwater modeling
with analytic elements. Ph.D. diss., School of Public and
Environmental Affairs, University of Indiana.
Kenoyer, G.J., and M.P. Anderson. 1989. Groundwater’s
dynamic role in regulating acidity and chemistry in a pre-
cipitation-dominated lake. Journal of Hydrology 109,
287–306.
Kim, K., M.P. Anderson, and C.J. Bowser. 1999. Model calibra-
tion with multiple targets: A case study. Ground Water 37,
no. 3: 345–351.
LaBaugh, J.W. 1986. Limnological characteristics of selected
lakes in the Nebraska sandhills, U.S.A., and their relation to
chemical characteristics of adjacent ground water. Journal
of Hydrology 86, 279–298.
LaBaugh, J.W., D.O. Rosenberry, and T.C. Winter. 1995.
Groundwater contribution to the water and chemical bud-
gets of Williams Lake, Minnesota, 1980–1991. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 52, 754–767.
LaBaugh, J.W., T.C. Winter, and D.O. Rosenberry. 2000. Com-
parison of the variability in fluxes of ground water and
solutes in lakes and wetlands in central North America. Ver-
handlungen Internationale Vereinigung Limnologie 27,
420–426.
Leopold, L.B. 1974. Water–A Primer. San Francisco: W.H.
Freeman and Co.
Likens, G.E. 1984. Beyond the shoreline: A watershed-ecosys-
tem approach. Verhandlungen Internationale Vereinigung
Limnologie 22, 1–22.
Likens, G.E., F.H. Bormann, N.M. Johnson, and R.S. Pierce.
1967. The calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium
budgets for a small forested ecosystem. Ecology 48,
772–785.
Lissey, A. 1971. Depression-focused transient ground water flow
patterns in Manitoba. Geological Association of Canada
Special Paper 9, 333–341.
McCammon, B.J., J. Rector, and K. Gebhart. 1998. A framework
of analyzing the hydrologic condition of watersheds. U.S.
Bureau of Land Management Technical Notes 405.
Moore, W.S. 1999. The subterranean estuary: A reaction zone of
ground water and sea water. Marine Chemistry 65, 111–
125.
Pint, C.D., R.J. Hunt, and M.P. Anderson. 2003. Flow path delin-
eation and ground water age, Allequash Basin, Wisconsin.
Ground Water, this issue.
Rosenberry, D.O., T.C. Winter, D.A. Merk, G.H. Leavesley, and
L.D. Beaver. 1997. Hydrology of the Shingobee River head-
waters area. In Hydrological and Biogeochemical Research
in the Shingobee River Headwaters Area, North-Central
Minnesota, ed. T.C. Winter, 19–23. USGS Water-Resources
Investigations Report 96–4215.
Schindler, D.W., R.W. Newberry, K.G. Beaty, and P. Campbell.
1976. Natural water and chemical budgets for a small Pre-
cambrian lake basin in central Canada. Journal of the Fish-
eries Research Board of Canada 33, 2526–2543.
Schwartz, F.W., and D.N. Gallup. 1978. Some factors controlling
the major ion chemistry of small lakes: Examples from the
prairie parkland of Canada. Hydrobiologia 58, 65–81.
T.C. Winter et al. GROUND WATER 41, no. 7: 989–1000 999
989-1000 GW Watershed 03 12/1/03 4:54 PM Page 1000
Siegel, D.I., and T.C. Winter. 1980. Hydrologic setting of
Williams Lake, Hubbard County, Minnesota. USGS Open-
File Report 80–403.
Sosin, A., D. Brady, M. McCarthy, W. Cooter, and S. Alexander.
1995. Watershed protection: A project focus. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency Report EPA841-R–95–003.
Swanson, G.A., T.C. Winter, V.A. Adomaitis, and J.W.
LaBaugh. 1988. Chemical characteristics of prairie lakes in
south-central North Dakota: Their potential for influencing
use by fish and wildlife. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Technical
Report 18.
Tiedeman, C.R., D.J. Goode, and P.A. Hsieh. 1997. Numerical
simulation of ground water flow through glacial deposits
and crystalline bedrock in the Mirror Lake area, Grafton
County, New Hampshire. USGS Professional Paper 1572.
Tóth, J. 1962. A theoretical analysis of groundwater flow in small
drainage basins. In Proceedings of Hydrology Symposium No.
3, Groundwater, 75–96. Ottawa, Canada: Queen’s Printer.
Winograd, I.J., and W. Thordarson. 1975. Hydrogeologic and
hydrochemical framework, south-central Great Basin,
Nevada-California, with special reference to the Nevada
Test Site. USGS Professional Paper 712-C.
Winter, T.C. 1976. Numerical simulation analysis of the interac-
tion of lakes and ground water. USGS Professional Paper
1001.
Winter, T.C. 1983. The interaction of lakes with variably satu-
rated porous media. Water Resources Research 19, no. 5:
1203–1218.
1000 T.C. Winter et al. GROUND WATER 41, no. 7: 989–1000
Winter, T.C. 1986. Effect of ground water recharge on configu-
ration of the water table beneath sand dunes and on seepage
in lakes in the sandhills of Nebraska. Journal of Hydrology
86, 221–237.
Winter, T.C. (ed.). 1997. Hydrological and biogeochemical
research in the Shingobee River headwaters area, north-cen-
tral Minnesota. USGS Water-Resources Investigations
Report 96–4215.
Winter, T.C. 1999. Relation of streams, lakes, and wetlands to
groundwater flow systems. Hydrogeology Journal 7, 28–45.
Winter, T.C. 2001. The concept of hydrologic landscapes. Jour-
nal of the American Water Resources Association 37, no. 2:
335–349.
Winter, T.C., and D.O. Rosenberry. 1995. The interaction of
ground water with prairie pothole wetlands in the Cotton-
wood Lake area, east-central North Dakota, 1979–1990.
Wetlands 15, no. 3: 193–211.
Winter, T.C., and D.O. Rosenberry. 1997. Physiographic and
geologic characteristics of the Shingobee River headwaters
area. In Hydrological and Biogeochemical Research in the
Shingobee River Headwaters Area, North-Central Min-
nesota, ed. T.C. Winter, 11–17. USGS Water-Resources
Investigations Report 96–4215.
Winter, T.C., D.O. Rosenberry, D.C. Buso, and D.A. Merk.
2001. Water source to four U.S. wetlands: Implications for
wetland management. Wetlands 21, no. 4: 462–473.
Wood, W.W., and W.E. Sanford. 1990. Ground-water control of
evaporite deposition. Economic Geology 85, 1226–1235.