Skip to content
ENES
Marketplace

Water wells in the Evangeline Aquifer, Fayette County, Texas

Only 15 home water wells that draw from the Evangeline Aquifer in Fayette County, Texas have been reported since 2001, so treat this as a rough guide: the middle half are 122 to 155 feet deep (median 137 ft). It is a minor layer here: just under 1% of the 945 wells the state's model covers; the main one is the Jasper and Catahoula aquifers, with the Burkeville (91%). They run about 128 feet shallower than the county's median well (265 ft). Estimated cost of a complete well at the median depth: $6,000 to $14,500.

This page is based on fewer than 30 wells, so it is kept out of search engines until more reports come in. Treat every figure as a rough guide.

Updated every day from Texas Water Development Board driller reports. Last update: November 11, 2026, using the state file of November 10, 2026.

All wells in Fayette CountyEvangeline Aquifer across Texas

Which layer Fayette County wells draw from

Under Ellinger, Fayette County

County home wells covered by the northern Gulf Coast Aquifer model (in the last 10 years).

Home wells in Fayette County

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.

See underground

Well depth (ft)

  • <100
  • 100
  • 200
  • 300
  • 400
  • 600
  • 800+

Dark line: Fayette County

Key figures

Typical depth (middle half)
122 to 155 feet
Median depth
137 feet
Deepest 10% are past
155 feet
Water level (median)
60 feet
15 wells
Yield (median)
20 gpm
15 wells, gallons per minute
Wells used
15
Since 2001
Share of the county's wells
<1%
All years on file
15
median 137 ft, since 2002
Confidence
Few wells (10 to 29)

When the wells were finished, the water stood a median 60 feet below the surface (15 wells), well above the bottom: the typical well holds about 77 feet of water.

Which layer Fayette County wells draw from

County home wells covered by the northern Gulf Coast Aquifer model (in the last 10 years).

What this layer is

The Evangeline lies under the Chicot and comes to the surface in a belt farther inland (Goliad Sand and the upper Fleming, or Lagarto, Formation), thicker sand and clay that dips toward the coast. Home wells draw from it in Montgomery, Waller, Austin and Colorado counties. The state's well records also put many deeper wells around Houston in it, even where the state's model still shows the Chicot at that depth.

Checked against the state's own aquifer codes: where our method names this group, the state agrees in 80% of 2,293 wells (86% for the 648 with a screened interval on their report).

More about the Evangeline Aquifer

Depth over time

Too few wells per period in this layer in Fayette County to compare depth over time. Since 2002, 15 home wells have been reported, with a median of 137 feet.

PeriodMedian depth (ft)Wells
2001–2005under 10 wells2
2006–2010under 10 wells4
2011–2015under 10 wells6
2016–2020under 10 wells1
2021–2025under 10 wells1
2026under 10 wells1

Places in Fayette County with wells in this layer

Common questions

How deep is a well in the Evangeline Aquifer in Fayette County?

Only 15 home water wells that draw from the Evangeline Aquifer in Fayette County, Texas have been reported since 2001, so treat this as a rough guide: the middle half are 122 to 155 feet deep (median 137 ft).

How many Fayette County wells draw from this layer?

It is a minor layer here: just under 1% of the 945 wells the state's model covers; the main one is the Jasper and Catahoula aquifers, with the Burkeville (91%). Only 20% of these wells have the water-bearing interval on their report (reports before about 2012 rarely do). For the others we use the bottom of the hole, which tends to read one layer deeper than where the water actually comes from.

How deep does the water stand?

When the wells were finished, the water stood a median 60 feet below the surface (15 wells), well above the bottom: the typical well holds about 77 feet of water.

What a well costs here

At the median depth for this layer in Fayette County (137 feet), a complete home well would cost roughly $6,000 to $14,500: $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 (122 to 155 feet) the range runs from $5,500 to $16,000. 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 with a valid depth on their report. 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.

Only 20% of these wells have the water-bearing interval on their report (reports before about 2012 rarely do). For the others we use the bottom of the hole, which tends to read one layer deeper than where the water actually comes from.

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/fayette-county/evangeline. License CC BY 4.0. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.24126380.

Sources