Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Water Biology and Security”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

1,663 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
USGS2026

Uncertainty quantification of geologic energy storage in depleted gas reservoirs using material balance equations embedded in a hierarchical errors-in-variables model

The storage potential for gas in geologic settings, such as depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs and solution-mined salt caverns, is becoming salient to future energy infrastructure planning. Technologies such as carbon capture, utilization, and storage, carbon dioxide-enhanced oil recovery, and natural gas and hydrogen storage help meet growing energy demands, reduce carbon emissions to meet climate goals, and provide energy security amid geopolitical uncertainties. Therefore, estimates of underground gas storage capacity could be useful for efficiently navigating the energy transitions. Material balance is a fundamental method in reservoir engineering for estimating original gas in place and potential storage capacity at the scale necessary for national assessments of subsurface pore space resources. However, the deterministic method cannot accommodate multiple data sources or quantify uncertainty in predictions. In this study, a method that embeds material balance equations within a hierarchical errors-in-variables model is proposed which allows the estimation of the distributions of reservoir properties needed for assessments. Uncertainties associated with these reservoir properties have traditionally been expert-elicited, whereas the uncertainty estimates from the proposed models are data-driven. Capacity and uncertainty estimates can be used in a probabilistic resource assessment, supplementing information traditionally used by assessors or even replacing this expert elicitation step when data are unavailable. Various regression models are compared in a case study of the Michigan Basin, a large contributor to the United States’ current natural gas storage capacity. In particular, errors-in-variables models help ameliorate regression dilution and can quantify uncertainty in predictions of pressure in addition to storage capacity. Overfitting is addressed by quantifying generalization error and model averaging in simple and stratified cross-validation against reported working gas capacity, representing the varying quality and quantity of available data. Incorporating a statistical framework into existing numerical methods in reservoir engineering can improve the quality of estimation, and in particular, this method brings rigor to uncertainty quantification as part of a larger effort by the U.S. Geological Survey to assess domestic energy gas storage resources in depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs.

Mathematical Geosciences↗
USGS2026

The Great Lakes Geologic Mapping Coalition—Working collaboratively to understand the geology of the Great Lakes Region

Introduction The Great Lakes Geologic Mapping Coalition (GLGMC), commonly referred to as the “Coalition,” is a partnership between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S. States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and the Canadian province of Ontario. The member States receive funding for geologic mapping work from the USGS National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP), whereas Ontario participates as a nonfunded partner. The mission of the GLGMC is to produce three-dimensional (3D) geologic maps that depict unconsolidated sediments and near-surface bedrock in the Great Lakes region of North America. Geologic maps are the basis of most earth science investigations and help support resource exploration (energy, minerals, groundwater), natural hazard mitigation, infrastructure development, and land-use planning, all of which can be used to advance economic development and strengthen national security in the Great Lakes region. During the last few million years, the Great Lakes region has experienced repeated glacial advances and retreats, leaving behind extensive sediments, abundant natural resources, and widespread effects on the underlying bedrock geology (Swezey and others, 2022). Linked by shared histories of past glaciations, industrial agriculture, and legacy automotive, coal, steel, and manufacturing industries, the GLGMC member States collaborate to improve the understanding of the 3D distribution of the sediments overlying the region’s bedrock (fig. 1). Developing a comprehensive subsurface 3D framework of this glaciated terrain can provide earth science data to policymakers at all levels. These insights facilitate informed decisions on the exploration, use, and protection of vital resources, such as critical minerals, industrial materials, and aquifers, thereby supporting economic prosperity and the well-being of the citizens of this region. Since its inception in 1998, the Coalition has completed more than 100 geologic mapping projects across the Great Lakes region. Each project aims to deliver geologic maps, 3D datasets, and other information that improves understanding of the geology of the Great Lakes region, with an emphasis on economic and water resources. Key deliverables include 3D geologic maps and models typically portraying sediment thickness, often derived from top-of-bedrock and borehole data. These products are developed through a combination of fieldwork, subsurface modeling, and the collection and analysis of rock and sediment cores. To support Coalition goals, member States collaborate with scientists working on related STATEMAP, EDMAP, and FEDMAP projects. Coalition scientists also engage with Tribal Nations in the Great Lakes region to ensure that Tribal interests pertaining to Coalition work are addressed. Through this collaboration, the Coalition unites the efforts of State, Federal, and Tribal Nation stakeholders to advance geologic data production and enhance understanding of the geologic resources of the Great Lakes region.

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, ↗
USGS2025

Methodology and technical input for the 2025 U.S. List of Critical Minerals—Assessing the potential effects of mineral commodity supply chain disruptions on the U.S. economy

The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey, is tasked by section 7002 (“Mineral Security”) of title VII (“Critical Minerals”) of the Energy Act of 2020 (Public Law 116–260, December 27, 2020, 116th Congress) with reviewing and revising the methodology used to evaluate mineral commodity supply risk and the U.S. List of Critical Minerals (LCM) no less than every 3 years. Following two previous LCM assessments, this analysis represents the latest technical input for evaluating each mineral commodity’s supply risk and determining their recommended status on the LCM. We evaluated mineral commodity supply risk using two criteria: (1) an economic effects assessment that quantified the potential effects of various trade disruption scenarios on the U.S. economy, and (2) an examination of whether the mineral commodity’s U.S. supply chain relied on a sole domestic producer that represented a single point of failure. For the first criterion, postdisruption equilibrium quantities and prices for each mineral commodity were calculated based on their price elasticities of supply and demand and the availability of excess production capacity for each yearlong foreign trade disruption scenario. Subsequently, a nonlinear optimization routine was used with detailed economic input-output tables to estimate the potential economic effects on the U.S. economy of over 1,200 scenarios for 84 mineral commodities. After accounting for the probability of each scenario’s occurrence, the overall results are presented in terms of changes in U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) by individual industry and the economy overall. The results, which ranged from a net decrease in U.S. GDP of nearly $4.5 billion to a net increase of $33 million, largely reflect U.S. import dependency and world production concentration. Using the Jenks natural breaks optimization method, a statistical classification technique, we categorized the mineral commodities into several classes based on this overall risk quantification. Mineral commodities with annualized probability-weighted net decreases in U.S. GDP greater than $2 million were recommended for inclusion on the LCM. If a mineral commodity did not meet the threshold for inclusion on the LCM under the first criterion, its domestic supply chain was examined under the second criterion, which recommended a mineral commodity for inclusion on the LCM if there was only a single domestic producer. Ultimately, the two criteria resulted in the recommendation of the addition of six mineral commodities (in descending risk order, potash, silicon, copper, silver, rhenium, and lead) to and the removal of two mineral commodities (arsenic and tellurium) from the LCM. By using an economic effects assessment, the results of this analysis provide a prioritization that can also be compared directly against other risk analyses and the cost of various risk mitigation strategies.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2025

Phase 1 technical implementation plan for the expansion of the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning system to Alaska

Executive Summary The conference report accompanying the fiscal year (FY) 2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 117–103) for the U.S. Department of the Interior and related agencies directed the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to “work with the State of Alaska to develop an implementation plan to be completed within two years in order to put ShakeAlert/Earthquake Early Warning in Alaska” (p. 29). Congress included $1 million in the FY 2022 appropriation to conduct this effort. The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program, along with partner organizations, has developed the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning (EEW) system for the West Coast, which currently operates in California, Oregon, and Washington. The purpose of the system and its alert delivery partners is to reduce the impact of earthquakes and save lives and property by delivering ShakeAlert-powered alerts that are transmitted to the public via mass notification technologies, and by providing more detailed data streams to institutional users and commercial service providers to trigger automated, user-specific, protective actions. ShakeAlert was designed in such a way that it could be expanded to other U.S. regions with high earthquake risk, after the build-out of seismic and geodetic networks to support ShakeAlert in a specified region is completed and the necessary funding is secured for long-term operation and maintenance. When an earthquake occurs, seismic waves radiate from the rupturing fault like waves on a pond. It is these waves that people feel as earthquake shaking and that can cause damage to structures. Using networks of ground-motion sensors and sophisticated computer algorithms, ShakeAlert can detect an earthquake seconds after it begins, calculate its location and magnitude, and estimate the resulting intensity of shaking. Early warnings of impending shaking are then sent to people and systems that may experience damaging shaking, allowing them to take appropriate protective actions. Depending on the user’s distance from the earthquake, alerts may be delivered before, during, or after the arrival of strong shaking. There will almost always be a region near the earthquake epicenter where alerts arrive after damaging shaking has begun. The ShakeAlert system updates its ground-motion estimates as an earthquake grows larger. In response to the FY 2022 congressional direction, the USGS worked with the State of Alaska to devise this implementation plan for ShakeAlert expansion to Alaska. The USGS engaged with the Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DHS&EM) and the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (DGGS). A cooperative agreement was awarded to the Alaska Earthquake Center (AEC) at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) for their contributions to the plan and their work coordinating with other networks in Alaska. The USGS engaged with the Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety Commission (ASHSC) throughout the process. The USGS also held a series of Alaska stakeholder engagements. The process of developing the implementation plan was facilitated by contracted staff from Corner Alliance, which is a government consulting firm. This implementation plan describes the details and estimates the costs for a Phase 1 expansion of the ShakeAlert system to Alaska. A geographically limited Phase 1 goal was chosen that covers the highest risk and most populated areas of Alaska. The areas proposed encompass the State’s main population centers and 90 percent of the State’s population. This Phase 1 design is considered very challenging and ambitious from the viewpoint of network operators. The lessons learned if this plan is implemented could be used to consider subsequent phases to expand EEW beyond Phase 1 in Alaska in the future. ShakeAlert is built on the foundation of the sensor networks and data processing infrastructure of the USGS-led Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). This implementation plan calls for a total of 450 high-quality, real-time EEW-capable ANSS seismic stations in Alaska: 270 new stations, 160 upgraded stations, and 20 existing stations. These seismic station numbers are based on a station spacing of 10 kilometers (km) in urban areas, 20 km in seismic source areas that endanger population centers, and 40 km in other areas. The associated costs also include support for some EEW-capable global navigation satellite system (GNSS) stations, with a focus on improving warnings for large subduction zone earthquakes. For effective EEW, ShakeAlert requires low-latency, high-availability, robust telemetry links to deliver continuous, real-time data from field stations to the data centers. The Alaska data processing hardware infrastructure would follow the general design for fail-safe operation that is used for the ShakeAlert system on the West Coast. The ShakeAlert architecture uses two independent layers: the production layer for earthquake processing and the alert layer to make alerting decisions and serve alerts to users. This implementation plan includes two geographically separated data centers in Alaska, each with two fully independent production and alert layers using the same system design developed for the West Coast. As of March 2024, the ShakeAlert system is at version 3.0.1, with more advanced versions in the development and testing pipeline. ShakeAlert originally used two algorithms to determine the location and magnitude of earthquakes using seismic data. A third algorithm that can calculate very large magnitudes of very large earthquakes with geodetic data was added in March 2024. ShakeAlert publishes several data and alert products to meet the needs of different users. All messages include the location of the earthquake, either as a point or a line, and its magnitude. Ground-shaking estimates are published in two forms, as ground-motion contours and a map grid. Providing adequate warning time for strong shaking (the “target threshold”) requires sending alerts at a threshold lower than that strong shaking level (the “alert threshold”). The thresholds for public alerting in Alaska would be a joint USGS and State decision. To have the greatest benefit, ShakeAlert-powered alerts would be delivered to institutional users and individuals by all practical pathways. The USGS alert layer can support thousands of institutional users and alert redistributors, but the USGS does not have the mission nor the infrastructure and expertise to perform mass notifications to the public or implement automatic actions for end users of the alerts. To meet this need, ShakeAlert recruits private sector “technology enablers” that have the necessary expertise to develop end-user implementations using EEW alerts with the goal of stimulating an EEW industry. Earthquake early warning alerts are useless if people do not know how to respond to them. Although the alert messages include instructions about what to do (drop, cover, and hold on), alerts are more effective if people have been trained in advance. Messages about ShakeAlert’s capabilities, limitations, and benefits could be integrated with existing earthquake education programs, including State-run programs. Therefore, ShakeAlert would coordinate with both public and private partners and stakeholders through various partnerships and agreements to accomplish consistent and ongoing public earthquake hazard education. The estimated capital cost of completing the computing infrastructure and sensor networks for the Phase 1 ShakeAlert expansion to Alaska is approximately $66 million in 2024 dollars. The annual operation and maintenance cost of the completed system is estimated to be $12 million per year in 2024 dollars when fully built out.

Alaska↗
USGS2024

Identifying transportation data and system needs for a Federal lands transportation data platform

Executive Summary Modern transportation and land-use planning efforts include information from many sources to address topics such as safety, efficiency, commercial, and social needs. This wide breadth of topics provides opportunities for collaboration and development of common tools for diverse users. In many cases, different information systems provide the spatial data and geographic content necessary for transportation and land-use planners to consider multiple lines of evidence. The Federal Highway Administration Office of Federal Lands Highway (FLH) and Federal Land Management Agency partners use detailed spatial and quantitative data to inform transportation decisions. However, logistic challenges to data sharing exist because data are often managed by separate agencies; data-exchange frameworks and interagency data agreements are insufficient; and consistency from aggregated data requires maintenance, coordination, and supporting infrastructure. The FLH and U.S. Geological Survey collaboratively examined (1) use and availability of spatial data for transportation planning and (2) a possible mechanism to use more shared and consistent data in a common planning environment. The goals of this collaborative effort were to describe data needs from the perspective of planners and to identify opportunities for shared data resources. Results presented here focus on two workshops and a subsequent investigation of data and tools available from partner agencies. The objectives of this report are to (1) describe information used in transportation planning with geographic data; (2) identify spatially explicit data that inform transportation plans and could be shared among all partners; and (3) describe current platforms, planning and administrative opportunities, and potential barriers to developing an integrated planning tool. Key information and data needs were identified in three major classes: system, user, and influential factors. System data are parts of the transportation network and information about the condition of individual segments and the network. User data provide details about the function of the system and insights into potential needs; for example, user trips between source and destinations inform road and network demands that can lead to congestion and safety issues (in the future, user data might also include scenarios and projections based on land-use plans). Influential data represent social and environmental factors that influence transit demands and network conditions. These factors could be popular locations or seasonal events that influence demand and congestion; wildlife habitat or migration intersections that affect safety and management priorities; or geologic features that influence hazards, maintenance, and safety. Responses described here provide specific information for web-tool design and give a framework for interagency communication and cooperation to address specific information needs for integrated planning. Existing web-mapping and web-services, and the data that inform them, are also described. Commonly, these data are created and published by one agency, and the core users are outside of that agency; for example, threatened species distributions are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for consideration by planners in advance of National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) evaluation. This report is provided to inform FLH leaders and Federal Land Management Agency partners by articulating user needs and requirements for integrated planning tool(s). Programmers creating a secure web-based data-sharing platform (with data-viewing, -analysis and -download functions) can use the information presented here to organize data and user interfaces. This integrated perspective can help FLH and Federal Land Management Agency partners develop transportation networks that better serve the needs of people in local communities and across States and the Nation.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1997

Water-quality assessment of south-central Texas: Occurrence and distribution of volatile organic compounds in surface water and ground water, 1983-94, and implications for future monitoring

The study area of the South-Central Texas study unit of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program comprises the Edwards aquifer in the San Antonio region and its catchment area. The first phase of the assessment includes evaluation of existing water-quality data for surface water and ground water, including volatile organic compounds, to determine the scope of planned monitoring. Most analyses of volatile organic compounds in surface water are from the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System sites in San Antonio, Texas. Nine volatile organic compounds were detected at the six sites. The three compounds with the most detections at National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System sites are 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, toluene, and xylene. Analysis of volatile organic compounds in ground water was limited to Edwards aquifer wells. Twenty-eight volatile organic compounds were detected in samples from 89 wells. The five most commonly detected compounds in samples from wells, in descending order, are tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene, bromoform, chloroform, and dibromochloromethane. Detections of volatile organic compounds in surface water and ground water within the South-Central Texas study area are limited to site-specific sources associated with development; therefore, planned monitoring for possible detections of volatile organic compounds as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program will emphasize areas of expanding population and development. Monitoring of volatile organic compounds is planned at National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System sites, at basic fixed surface-water sites, and in the ground-water study-unit surveys.

Texas↗
USGS2024

State of science, gap analysis, and prioritization for southeastern United States water-quality impacts from coastal storms—Fiscal year 2023 program report to the Water Resources Mission Area from the Water Availability Impacts of Extreme Events Program—Hurricanes

Tropical cyclones (coastal storm events that include tropical depressions, tropical storms, and hurricanes) cause landscape-scale disturbances that can lead to impaired water quality and thus reduce water availability for use. Stakeholders and scientists at local and national scales have illustrated a need for understanding these risks to water quality. A regional and comprehensive understanding of the impacts of tropical storms and hurricanes on surface-water and groundwater quality—and thus water availability—is lacking for potentially impacted coastal and inland areas. As the U.S. Geological Survey considers development of tools to predict the extent to which water-quality impacts of hurricanes affect water availability, an assessment of the state of the science of hurricane impacts is needed, including a gap analysis and prioritization of data and science needs. This assessment focuses on the southeastern coastal States.

southeastern United States↗
USGS2025

Estimating agricultural irrigation water consumption for the High Plains aquifer region with integrated energy- and water-balance evapotranspiration modeling approaches

Estimation of irrigation water use provides essential information for the management and conservation of agricultural water resources. Conventionally, water use data are created based on reports and surveys from water users, whereas manual records may not be complete due to lacking flow meters, measurement gaps, inconsistent methods across regions, and time- and cost-consuming data processing. Alternatively, spatially explicit estimation of irrigation water use can be conducted efficiently using remote sensing evapotranspiration (ET) modeling approaches. In this study, we created a gridded blue water evapotranspiration (BWET) dataset to estimate historical irrigation water consumption (1986 – 2020) in the croplands across the United States High Plains aquifer region. The BWET data were generated by integrating an energy-balance ET model [Operational Simplified Surface Energy Balance model (SSEBop)] and a water-balance ET model [Vegetation ET model (VegET)]. BWET in croplands indicates crop consumptive use of irrigation water extracted from surface water and groundwater resources. The BWET estimates were compared with reported irrigation water use data for all counties within the aquifer region. The results revealed high agreement between growing season (May – September) BWET and annual water withdrawal at county level. Specifically, correlation coefficients of volumetric BWET and water withdrawal were 0.90 and 0.96, respectively, for the entire aquifer region and western Kansas. The timeseries of BWET and water withdrawal showed similar temporal trends and high covariations. The BWET estimates were systematically lower than the water withdrawal measurements, which was primarily attributed to blue water losses in the irrigation system. The irrigation efficiency, calculated as the ratio of BWET to water withdrawal depth, was 0.57 and 0.74 for the entire aquifer region and western Kansas, respectively. This study demonstrates the capability of using satellite-based ET models (e.g., SSEBop and VegET) to efficiently estimate crop water consumption and evaluate irrigation efficiency at landscape, county, and regional scales.

Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, ↗
USGS2024

Potential climate and human water-use effects on water-quality trends in a semiarid, western U.S. watershed: Fountain Creek, Colorado, USA

Nutrients, total dissolved solids (TDS), and trace elements affect the suitability of water for human and natural needs. Here, trends in such water-quality constituents are analyzed for 1999–2022 for eight nested monitoring sites in the 24,000 km 2 Fountain Creek watershed in Colorado, USA, by using the weighted regressions on time, discharge, and season (WRTDS) methodology. Fountain Creek shares characteristics with other western U.S. watersheds: (1) an expanding but more water-efficient population, (2) a heavy reliance on imported water, (3) a semiarid climate trending towards warmer and drier conditions, and (4) shifts of water from agricultural to municipal uses. The WRTDS analysis found both upward and downward trends in the concentrations of nutrients that reflected possible shifts in effluent management, instream uptake, and water conservation by a watershed population that grew by about 40%. Selenium, other trace elements, and TDS can pose water-quality challenges downstream and their concentrations were found to have a downwards trend. Those trends could be driven by either a warming and drying of the local climate or decreased agricultural irrigation, as both would reduce recharge and subsequent mobilization from natural geologic sources via groundwater discharge. The patterns illustrate how changes in climate and water use may have affected water quality in Fountain Creek and demonstrate the patterns to look for in other western watersheds.

Colorado↗
USGS2025

Water-resources inventory and assessment at Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the National Park Service, prepared a water-resources inventory and assessment for Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument (KAWW). This compilation includes published and publicly accessible hydrologic data and resource assessments of streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, wetlands, vernal pools, and groundwater in and near KAWW. It also includes reports and datasets summarizing attributes of KAWW’s hydrologic infrastructure, such as stream crossings, dams, wastewater discharge plants, groundwater monitoring wells, and U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations. Descriptions of data and details of current limitations in available datasets are included. Wetland, groundwater, streamflow, and water-quality information are all limited. Hydrography data are available; however, there are limited ground-truth data. Accurate streamlines within KAWW were developed from light detection and ranging (lidar) as a part of this work. Hydrologic infrastructure information is available from multiple sources; however, differences exist among the datasets. Datasets are summarized in appendix 1.

Maine↗
USGS1999

Water-quality assessment of the New England coastal basins in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island: Environmental settings and implications for water quality and aquatic biota

The New England Coastal Basins in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island constitute one of 59 study units selected for water-quality assessment as part of the U.S. Geological Survey's National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program. England Coastal Basins study unit encompasses the fresh surface waters and ground waters in a 23,000 square-mile area that drains to the Atlantic Ocean. Major basins include those of the Kennebec, Androscoggin, Saco, Merrimack, Charles, Blackstone, Taunton, and Pawcatuck Rivers. Defining the environmental setting of the study unit is the first step in designing and conducting a multi-disciplinary regional water-quality assessment. The report describes the natural and human factors that affect water quality in the basins and includes descriptions of the physiography, climate, geology, soils, surface- and ground-water hydrology, land use, and the aquatic ecosystem. Although surface-water quality has greatly improved over the past 30 years as a result of improved wastewater treatment at municipal and industrial wastewater facilities, a number of water-quality problems remain. Industrial and municipal wastewater discharges, combined sewer overflows, hydrologic modifications from dams and water diversions, and runoff from urban land use are the major causes of water-quality degradation in 1998. The most frequently detected contaminants in ground water in the study area are volatile organic compounds, petroleum-related products, nitrates, and chloride and sodium. Sources of these contaminants include leaking storage tanks, accidental spills, landfills, road salting, and septic systems and lagoons. Elevated concentrations of mercury are found in fish tissue from streams and lakes throughout the study area.

Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island↗
USGS1992

Public water-supply systems and water use in Tennessee, 1988

This report summarizes the results of a study conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), Division of Water Supply in 1988. Data gathered during an inventory by the TDEC were collated to determine water use, supply sources, population served, and design and storage capacities of the systems. The inventory was limited to systems that were active on June 30, 1988. Results of a survey of the systems conducted by the Tennessee Department of Health and Environment during 1988 were a primary source of data for this report. Data from computer and manual files maintained by the Tennessee Department of Health and Environment and the U.S. Geological Survey also were used. The Division of Water Supply, TDEC, surveyed 541 public water-supply systems. These systems served 81 percent of the population of the State, or 3.95 million people. The gross per capita use statewide for public-supplied water was 179 gallons per day. Total water withdrawals for public supply increased about 39 percent from 510 million gallons per day (Mgal/d) in 1980, to 708 Mgalld in 1988. During the same period, the population increased about 7 percent. Surface-water withdrawals accounted for 63 percent (446 Mgal/d) of the total water withdrawn in the State. All of these withdrawals occurred in the Tennessee (56 percent or 249 Mgal/d) and the Ohio (44 percent or 197 Mgalld) hydrologic regions. Ground water supplied 262 Mgal/d or 37 percent of the total water withdrawn by public-supply systems statewide. Of that amount, 79 percent, or 208 Mgalld, was used in western Tennessee.

Tennessee↗
USGS2026

Water use permits as of July 2024 and reported water use near the North Unit of Theodore Roosevelt National Park, North Dakota, 1980–2023

Starting in the early 2000s, increasing oil and gas development in western North Dakota created a need for additional water resources from surface-water and groundwater sources near the North Unit of Theodore Roosevelt National Park. To summarize the use of water in that area, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the National Park Service, developed a map of surface-water and groundwater resources, aquifers, and water-use diversions, and plotted water-use trends from 1980 to 2023. Reported water used from permits in the map area has more than doubled since 2020, increasing from about 750 acre-feet in 2020 to about 2,300 acre-feet in 2022 and 2,000 acre-feet in 2023. Surface water provided the primary source of reported water used for the study period with an average of about 410 acre-feet per year from 1980 through 2017 and about 1,330 acre-feet per year from 2018 through 2023. After 2011, groundwater sourced from the Little Missouri River, Tobacco Garden Creek, Fox Hills, Fort Union, and Dakota aquifers became a larger portion of total annual reported water use from permits in the map area. From 1980 through 2015, water use for irrigation averaged 86 percent of the total annual reported surface-water and groundwater use in the map area. Starting in 2011, however, industrial uses became a proportionally larger total use of water, and in 2015, became the highest reported volume of water use in the map area. From 2011 to 2023, industrial use designated for water depots increased from 50 acre-feet to about 1,370 acre-feet, accounting for about 70 percent of total reported water use in the map area in 2023.

North Dakota↗
USGS2025

Water use across the conterminous United States, water years 2010–20

Withdrawals of water for human use are fundamental to the evaluation of the Nation’s water availability. This chapter provides an analysis of public supply, crop irrigation, and thermoelectric power water use for the conterminous United States (CONUS) during water years 2010–20. These three categories account for about 90 percent of water withdrawals in the Nation. The values presented here are based on modeling approaches that estimate water use at temporal (monthly) and spatial scales (12-digit hydrologic unit code—small watersheds sized 50–100 square kilometers) compatible for integration into a broader national assessment of water availability. Models also provide an understanding of factors that influence water use. An estimated 244,817 million gallons per day (Mgal/d; 28,677 million cubic meters per month [Mm 3 /mo]) were withdrawn on average within the CONUS during water years 2010–20 from fresh water and saline water for crop irrigation, public supply, and thermoelectric power, with shares of 43, 14.5, and 42.5 percent for each of these categories, respectively. In the same period, estimated withdrawals and consumptive use (1) for public supply were 35,400 and 4,219 Mgal/d (4,081 and 486 Mm 3 /mo), respectively; (2) for crop irrigation were 105,497 and 75,698 Mgal/d (12,147 and 8,716 Mm 3 /mo), respectively; and (3) for thermoelectric power from fresh water were 82,656 and 2,904 Mgal/d (9,952 and 345 Mm 3 /mo), respectively. Withdrawals for these categories of water use are highly spatially variable, with western States dominated by crop irrigation and eastern States dominated by thermoelectric-power water use. Public supply accounts for the largest percentage of water use in several heavily populated northeastern States. Reliance on groundwater compared to surface water depends on the availability of water sources and the type of water use. For public supply, withdrawals from groundwater are greater than withdrawals from surface water in the Western aggregated hydrologic regions, whereas the balance shifts to more surface water for the rest of the CONUS. In all aggregated hydrologic regions, the predominant source of water for crop irrigation is groundwater. Most thermoelectric power facilities in the eastern half of the CONUS use surface water from freshwater and saline sources; most thermoelectric power facilities in the western half of the CONUS use groundwater.

conterminous United States↗
USGS2024

Characterization of the water resources of the Pamunkey River watershed in Virginia—A review of water science, management, and traditional ecological knowledge

In central Virginia, the Pamunkey Indian Tribe and Reservation are facing increasingly complex water resource issues related to quantity and quality. Documentation of surface-water, groundwater, water quality, land subsidence, sea-level rise, and river ecology issues in the Pamunkey River watershed and incorporation of traditional ecological knowledge into these research topics may improve understanding of the water resources broadly. This report summarizes the relevant traditional ecological knowledge and scientific literature to elucidate gaps in the total combined knowledge of a suite of water science topics concerning the Pamunkey River watershed. This suite of water science topics includes some of the issues that the Pamunkey Indian Tribe and Reservation are facing within the watershed: fragmentation of streams and management of streamflow, flooding, degrading water quality, groundwater extraction, relative sea-level rise, rapid changes in ecosystems, loss of ecological and biological diversity, and climate change. Gaps in total combined knowledge are pervasive throughout each of these water resource topics. Identifying these knowledge gaps can help inform future research and management strategies.

Virginia↗