Water wells in the Bluebonnet Groundwater Conservation District
Home water wells inside the Bluebonnet Groundwater Conservation District (Walker, Grimes, Austin and Waller counties, Texas) are typically 192 to 312 feet deep (median 240 ft, 4,255 wells drilled in the last 10 years). No single layer dominates: 40% draw from the Evangeline Aquifer, 29% from the Chicot Aquifer and 27% from the Jasper and Catahoula aquifers, with the Burkeville, according to the state's northern Gulf Coast Aquifer model (TWDB). The split between the Chicot and the Evangeline is approximate. Over the last three full years drillers reported about 455 new home wells a year; the peak was 559 in 2006. Estimated cost of a complete well at the median depth: $8,500 to $21,000.
Updated every day from Texas Water Development Board driller reports. Last update: November 11, 2026, using the state file of November 10, 2026.
Under the center of the Bluebonnet GCD
District boundary from TWDB's file current as of November 2019. Later changes are not shown.
Digging in…
Home wells in and around the Bluebonnet GCD
Each dot is a home well from a state driller report, colored by depth. Tap one for its details and official report. Tap an empty spot to see what is under that point.
Well depth (ft)
- <100
- 100
- 200
- 300
- 400
- 600
- 800+
Dark line: the district boundary (TWDB, 2019)
Green: aquifer mapped by the state
Key figures
- Typical depth (middle half)
- 192 to 312 feet
- Median depth
- 240 feet
- Deepest 10% are past
- 400 feet
- Water level (median)
- 85 feet
- 3,987 wells
- Yield (median)
- 40 gpm
- 3,938 wells, gallons per minute
- Wells used
- 4,255
- In the last 10 years
- Counties
- 4
- All years on file
- 10,318
- median 240 ft, since 1967
- Confidence
- Standard (30 or more wells)
When the wells were finished, the water stood a median 85 feet below the surface (3,987 wells), well above the bottom: the typical well holds about 155 feet of water.
New home wells per year
Over the last three full years drillers reported about 455 new home wells a year; the peak was 559 in 2006.
Show the data table
| Year | Wells |
|---|---|
| 2002 | 188 |
| 2003 | 458 |
| 2004 | 461 |
| 2005 | 515 |
| 2006 | 559 |
| 2007 | 457 |
| 2008 | 389 |
| 2009 | 337 |
| 2010 | 332 |
| 2011 | 383 |
| 2012 | 332 |
| 2013 | 392 |
| 2014 | 410 |
| 2015 | 375 |
| 2016 | 374 |
| 2017 | 375 |
| 2018 | 351 |
| 2019 | 372 |
| 2020 | 467 |
| 2021 | 462 |
| 2022 | 466 |
| 2023 | 431 |
| 2024 | 454 |
| 2025 | 479 |
| 2026 | 345 |
Which formation the wells draw from
No single layer dominates: 40% draw from the Evangeline Aquifer, 29% from the Chicot Aquifer and 27% from the Jasper and Catahoula aquifers, with the Burkeville, according to the state's northern Gulf Coast Aquifer model (TWDB). The line between the Chicot and the Evangeline is drawn differently by different studies, so read that split as approximate: of the wells the state records in the Evangeline, our method finds the Evangeline for only about 51% and the Chicot for most of the rest.
| Layer (state's model) | Share | Wells | Typical depth (ft) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evangeline | 40% | 1,562 | 190–300 |
| Chicot | 29% | 1,126 | 180–255 |
| Jasper, Catahoula and Burkeville | 27% | 1,067 | 205–360 |
| Near or below the base of the Gulf Coast Aquifer | 3% | 134 | 223–399 |
For 95% of these wells the report says where the water enters (the screen or the open hole), and we use the middle of that interval.
Places with the most wells in the district
| Place | Median depth (ft) | Middle half (ft) | Wells | Main layer |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sealy | 200 | 170–240 | 310 | Chicot Aquifer |
| Prairie View | 244 | 206–264 | 146 | Chicot Aquifer |
| Huntsville | 274 | 200–347 | 136 | Jasper and Catahoula, with the Burkeville |
| Waller | 240 | 218–265 | 135 | Chicot Aquifer |
| San Felipe | 200 | 180–236 | 127 | Chicot Aquifer |
| Hempstead | 255 | 220–290 | 118 | Evangeline Aquifer |
| Todd Mission | 250 | 240–265 | 117 | Evangeline Aquifer |
| Pine Island | 240 | 198–275 | 114 | Evangeline Aquifer |
| Bellville | 240 | 200–287 | 106 | Evangeline Aquifer |
| Plantersville | 330 | 255–370 | 105 | Evangeline Aquifer |
| New Ulm | 206 | 175–284 | 102 | Evangeline Aquifer |
| New Waverly | 216 | 195–240 | 99 | Jasper and Catahoula, with the Burkeville |
Counties
Depth over time
Home well depth in the district has not changed meaningfully in 20 years: the median was 227 feet in 2003 to 2007 and 240 feet in 2021 to 2025 (a difference under 10% or within the margin of error).
| Period | Median depth (ft) | Wells |
|---|---|---|
| 2001–2005 | 225 | 1,699 |
| 2006–2010 | 237 | 2,074 |
| 2011–2015 | 250 | 1,892 |
| 2016–2020 | 240 | 1,939 |
| 2021–2025 | 240 | 2,292 |
| 2026 | 245 | 345 |
Embed this on your site
Districts, counties, reporters and agents can embed this summary, which updates itself every day. Copy and paste this code:
<iframe src="https://terrafunded.com/embed/wells/district/bluebonnet-groundwater-conservation-district" title="Water wells: Bluebonnet Groundwater Conservation District" loading="lazy" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;height:430px;border:0"></iframe>Or this one line, which keeps the height right by itself:
<script async src="https://terrafunded.com/vendor/subsurface-embed-v1.js" data-district="bluebonnet-groundwater-conservation-district"></script>Free, under CC BY 4.0. We only ask that you keep the source link. Preview the widget
Common questions
How deep are wells in the Bluebonnet GCD?
Home water wells inside the Bluebonnet Groundwater Conservation District (Walker, Grimes, Austin and Waller counties, Texas) are typically 192 to 312 feet deep (median 240 ft, 4,255 wells drilled in the last 10 years).
Which formation do wells in the district draw from?
No single layer dominates: 40% draw from the Evangeline Aquifer, 29% from the Chicot Aquifer and 27% from the Jasper and Catahoula aquifers, with the Burkeville, according to the state's northern Gulf Coast Aquifer model (TWDB). The line between the Chicot and the Evangeline is drawn differently by different studies, so read that split as approximate: of the wells the state records in the Evangeline, our method finds the Evangeline for only about 51% and the Chicot for most of the rest.
What does a groundwater conservation district do?
In Texas, districts are the local authority over groundwater: they can require registration or permits for new wells, set spacing from other wells and property lines, and limit pumping. Each district writes its own rules, so ask the Bluebonnet Groundwater Conservation District before drilling inside it.
What a well costs here
At the median depth for the district (240 feet), a complete home well would cost roughly $8,500 to $21,000: $25 to $60 per foot for drilling, casing and seal, plus $2,500 to $6,500 for the pump, pressure tank, controls and hookup at the well. Across the whole middle half of depths (192 to 312 feet) the range runs from $7,500 to $25,000. This is TerraFunded's estimate from published Texas prices, not a quote, and it leaves out trenching and the line to the house. Get prices from at least two licensed drillers.
How these numbers are made
We count new and replacement domestic (home) wells whose coordinates fall inside the district boundary. We use the last 10 years when there are at least 30 wells; otherwise all since 2001. The median is the middle well and the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile.
To tell which layer a well draws from, we take the ground elevation at its location, subtract the depth of the interval where water enters (or the bottom of the hole when the report does not give one) and see which layer of the state's model that point falls in.
For 95% of these wells the report says where the water enters (the screen or the open hole), and we use the middle of that interval.
How well it works: In 14,333 wells in the area of the state's northern Gulf Coast Aquifer model (Houston and Southeast Texas) where the State of Texas recorded the aquifer, the formation our method says the well draws from (as grouped on these pages) is the one the state recorded in about 83% of them, and that formation or the one next to it in at least 99%; of the 3,578 of those wells that the state records in the Evangeline, it names the Evangeline for about 51% and the Chicot for most of the rest.
- The layers come from the Texas Water Development Board's northern Gulf Coast Aquifer model, with cells of about 0.62 mile (1 km). It is a regional model, not a survey of any lot.
- The state's model has cells of about 3,277 ft (1 km, 0.62 mile); we read it on a grid of about 0.6 by 0.7 miles. It is not a survey of any lot, so we give ranges.
- Figures go by three groups: Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper and Catahoula with the Burkeville. The state's records cannot tell the Burkeville, the Jasper and the Catahoula apart at a well (alone, the Burkeville matched 33% and the Catahoula 50%), so they are never named one by one as the formation of a well or a place.
- The line between the Chicot and the Evangeline is drawn differently by different studies. The state's records put about half of their Evangeline wells in what the model draws as the Chicot, mostly deeper wells in Harris, Montgomery, Waller, Liberty and Austin counties. Where both appear, the split is approximate.
- "Near or below the base" means the well ends near or below the base of the Gulf Coast Aquifer (under the Catahoula: Jackson Group, Yegua and older). It is 1.3% of home wells; half of them end within about 85 ft of the base. That is not an error: the model simply ends there.
- The model's top layer is a uniform 49 ft slab for the water table zone, not a rock unit; we merge it into the unit beneath. The model also covers Colorado, Lavaca, Fayette, Wharton and Matagorda counties (outside Groundwater Management Area 14), with the same framework. Texas part only.
- We never use the model's water levels. The water level on this page is the one each driller measured when the well was finished.
These are depths of real wells drilled nearby, not a promise about any property. Groundwater can change over short distances and with drought. A licensed water well driller can tell you what to expect on a specific tract.
Read the full methodology · Download the data (CSV, CC BY 4.0)
How to cite
TerraFunded (2026). Texas Well Atlas: Underground. From Texas Water Development Board driller reports and groundwater availability models (data as of November 10, 2026). https://terrafunded.com/wells/districts/bluebonnet-groundwater-conservation-district. License CC BY 4.0. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.24126380.
Sources
- Submitted Driller's Reports database, Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) (file of November 10, 2026)
- Northern Portion of the Gulf Coast Aquifer System Groundwater Availability Model for Groundwater Management Area 14 Joint Planning (GMA 14 Model). Keester, M.R., Webster, P., Beach, J., Drabek, C., and Chen, Y.H. (KT Groundwater and Advanced Groundwater Solutions), for Groundwater Management Area 14, in cooperation with Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District; layer elevations from GULF-2023 (Ellis and others, 2023, U.S. Geological Survey), 2025, GAM v4.1. TWDB groundwater availability model.
- Groundwater conservation district boundaries, TWDB (current as of November 2019)
- Ground elevation: Terrain Tiles (Mapzen), Registry of Open Data on AWS
- TWDB well report viewer (each well's official report)
