Geology Reports⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · sir20115166

Documentation of methods and inventory of irrigation data collected for the 2000 and 2005 U.S. Geological Survey Estimated use of water in the United States, comparison of USGS-compiled irrigation data to other sources, and recommendations for future compilations

Jade M. Dickens·Brandon T. Forbes·Dylan S. Cobean·Saeid Tadayon
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Every five years since 1950, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Use Information Program (NWUIP) has compiled water-use information in the United States and published a circular report titled "Estimated use of water in the United States," which includes estimates of water withdrawals by State, sources of water withdrawals (groundwater or surface water), and water-use category (irrigation, public supply, industrial, thermoelectric, and so forth). This report discusses the impact of important considerations when estimating irrigated acreage and irrigation withdrawals, including estimates of conveyance loss, irrigation-system efficiencies, pasture, horticulture, golf courses, and double cropping. This report also documents the methods and data sources used by the USGS Water Science Centers (WSCs) for estimating irrigated acreage and irrigation withdrawals reported in the 2000 and 2005 USGS 5-year water-use compilations. For the 2005 USGS water-use compilation, the most common sources used by WSCs for obtaining irrigated crop acreage were the 2002 Census of Agriculture, 2003 Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey (FRIS), National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), universities, and local and State agencies. In this report, the authors compare USGS-compiled irrigated acreage to Census of Agriculture- and FRIS- reported irrigated acreage. Nationwide irrigated acreage increased from the 1997 to 2007 Census of Agriculture estimates by about 1 percent and from the 1998 to 2008 FRIS estimates by about 9 percent. Conversely, total irrigated acreage decreased from the 2000 to 2005 USGS water-use compilations by about 2 percent. An indirect method for estimating irrigation withdrawals is presented and results are compared to the 2005 USGS-reported irrigation withdrawals for selected States. This method is meant to demonstrate a way to check data reported or received from a third party, if metered data are unavailable. Of the 11 States where this method was applied, 8 States had estimated irrigation withdrawals that were within 15 percent of what was reported in the 2005 water-use compilation, and 3 States had estimated irrigation withdrawals that were more than 20 percent of what was reported in 2005. Recommendations for improving estimates of irrigated acreage and irrigation withdrawals also are presented in this report. Conveyance losses and irrigation-system efficiencies should be considered in order to achieve a more accurate representation of irrigation withdrawals. Better documentation of data sources and methods used can help lead to more consistent information in future irrigation water-use compilations. Finally, a summary of data sources and methods used to estimate irrigated acreage and irrigation withdrawals for the 2000 and 2005 compilations for each WSC is presented in appendix 1.

Explore related subjects

Scientific Investigations ReportReport

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jade M. Dickens, Brandon T. Forbes, Dylan S. Cobean, Saeid Tadayon. 2011. Documentation of methods and inventory of irrigation data collected for the 2000 and 2005 U.S. Geological Survey Estimated use of water in the United States, comparison of USGS-compiled irrigation data to other sources, and recommendations for future compilations. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20115166

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Monitoring recreation on federally managed lands and waters—Aspects of visitor use

Federally managed public lands and waters receive around 1 billion recreational visits each year. Data on these visitors can aid in guiding policy decisions, managing resources effectively, and communicating the economic contributions of lands and waters. This report explores the methods used by agencies to collect data on aspects of recreational visitor use to Federal lands and waters (apart from visitation numbers, which are the focus of a companion publication). Aspects of recreational visitor use include visitor demographics, recreational activity participation, visitor satisfaction, visitor attitudes and experiences, trip characteristics, and economic contributions. We review practices used to understand aspects of visitor use across seven Federal agencies, revealing similarities such as the use of visitor intercept surveys and coverage of similar topic areas, and differences in how survey programs are operationalized and how specific questions on visitor surveys are worded. We also evaluate emerging technologies, such as geolocated social media and mobile device location data, for their potential to aid in understanding aspects of visitor use. This report concludes with potential opportunities to enhance data collection and coordination, ensuring cost-effective data collection and informed decision making.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2026

Evaluation of best management practices at an edge-of-field site in the Eagle Creek watershed, Ohio, 2012–20

In 2010, the U.S. Geological Survey worked in partnership with the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and the Natural Resources Conservation Service to identify farm fields in priority watersheds—watersheds critically important to Great Lake health. Intensive best management practices were implemented in five States to test the efficacy of best management practices, also referred to as agricultural conservation practices, to reduce sediment and nutrient runoff on agricultural fields. These fields were chosen as representatives of the priority watersheds because their farming practices and geographical conditions were common among farms in those watersheds. A farm site located near Findlay, Ohio, in the Eagle Creek watershed used two conservation practices, cover crop (Natural Resources Conservation Service practice standard 340) and variable rate technology (VRT; Natural Resources Conservation Service practice standard 590), which represent common practices in the Maumee priority watershed. This study monitored surface runoff and subsurface tile runoff at the Eagle Creek watershed site. The effects of cover crop and VRT nutrient application on sediment and nutrient runoff were assessed from October 2012 to September 2020. Cover crops were applied in fall of 2016, 2017, and 2018, coinciding with VRT applications. The following parameters were analyzed as part of the study: runoff discharge; peak discharge; and concentrations and loads of total phosphorus, particulate phosphorus, dissolved reactive phosphorus, and suspended sediment. High peak runoff events disproportionally affected nutrient concentrations and loads in runoff. A threshold of the 85th percentile of the peak discharge was chosen to assess the effect of cover crop and VRT nutrient application on nutrient mitigation at each gage. Runoff events below the 85th percentile were considered small, and runoff events over the 85th percentile were considered large. Concentrations from collected water-quality samples were used for the analysis; estimated concentrations were excluded from the statistical evaluation. All surface runoff parameters during small runoff events, except surface runoff volume, were significantly lower in the period with cover crops and VRT implementation. Contrarily, subsurface runoff parameters during small events were not statistically different between the periods with and without cover crops and VRT implementation. Surface and subsurface parameters during large events were also not statistically different between the periods with and without cover crops and VRT implementation. These results indicate cover crops and VRT may improve water quality during small runoff events, but additional best management practices that mitigate large runoff events may lead to greater water-quality improvement given the contribution of large events to overall losses.

Ohio↗
USGS2026

Continuous monitoring and temporal variability of fluorescence of dissolved organic matter in karst groundwater of the Edwards aquifer, south-central Texas, 2019–24

Widespread urbanization on the Edwards aquifer recharge zone in south-central Texas has prompted the development of new approaches and tools for evaluating the current and future status of water quality in the San Antonio and Barton Springs segments of the Edwards aquifer. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the San Antonio Water System and the City of Austin, applied continuous monitoring of fluorescence of dissolved organic matter (fDOM) to characterize the sources and transport of dissolved organic matter and associated constituents in the Edwards aquifer. Continuous fDOM time-series data were adjusted using empirically derived temperature, turbidity, and inner-filter-effect correction factors prior to analysis and interpretation. Fully corrected fDOM time-series data from the study sites were evaluated for short- and long-term temporal variability in fDOM in the context of the hydrologic and climatic conditions that occurred during the 5-year study period to understand vulnerability of the aquifer to potential contaminants in recharge. Study results indicate that fDOM is an effective proxy for dissolved organic carbon that, in turn, is indicative of the influx of recent surface water and associated contaminants, and thus, aquifer vulnerability to those contaminants. Although other continuously monitored water-quality parameters provide insights into changes in water quality in response to varying hydrologic conditions, the quantitative relation between fDOM and dissolved organic carbon directly indicates the timing and magnitude of pulses of organic constituents derived from the land surface, whereas other water-quality parameters do not.

Texas↗