Discussion of “tide‐producing forces and artesian pressures”

I was an employee of the Texas State Board of Water Engineers in charge of the Fort Stockton field office at the time that the data for this paper were gathered. Since I have done both extensive and detailed ground‐water work in the Fort Stockton area, including the setting and maintaining of the water‐stage recorder at the Gonzales well, I believe I can add some pertinent hydrologic remarks about this paper.

The authors state that the principal water‐bearing formation is a limestone. This opinion is not shared by myself and most likely the majority of other geologists in this area. Adkins [1927] favored the basal Cretaceous sands as the principal source of water to Comanche Springs. I believe that the most extensive and the principal water‐bearing formation is a sand and sandstone. The crevices and channels reported in wells and exposed at the springs are only a localized condition resulting from structural weakness and solution caused by a high water surface. The piezometric surface in sand and crevice wells is essentially identical; this suggests that there exists but one principal aquifer in this area. W.N. White, former District Geologist in Texas for the U.S. Geological Survey, in a personal communication to me in 1948, reported Comanche Springs to be the most reliable springs in Texas. This reliable flow strongly supports the concept of a sand aquifer, whose catchment area, or source, is of vast and varied extent, and a great distance from its outlet.