Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · sir20185049

Estimates of water use and trends in the Colorado River Basin, Southwestern United States, 1985–2010

Abstract

The Colorado River Basin (CRB) drains 246,000 square miles and includes parts of California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, and all of Arizona (Basin States). This report contains water-use estimates by category of use for drainage basins (Hydrologic Unit Code 8; HUC‑8) within the CRB from 1985 to 2010, at 5-year intervals. Estimates for public supply, domestic, commercial, industrial, irrigation, livestock, mining, aquaculture, hydroelectric and thermoelectric power, and wastewater returns are tabulated as (1) water withdrawals from groundwater or surface‑water sources of fresh or saline quality, (2) water delivered for domestic use, (3) wastewater returns and instream use (hydroelectric), and (4) consumptive use, or water that is consumed (USGS definition) and not available for immediate reuse. Water transported outside of the CRB (interbasin transfers) is not included as part of withdrawals and are not accounted for in any category of use within the CRB. Total withdrawals in the CRB (excluding interbasin transfers) averaged about 17 million acre-feet (maf) from 1985 to 2010, peaked at about 17.76 maf in 2000, and reached their lowest levels of 16.43 maf in 1990. Interbasin transfers to serve mostly public-supply and irrigation needs outside of the CRB are reported for 2000, 2005, and 2010 only, and averaged 5.40 maf. More surface water was used in the CRB than groundwater, averaging about 78 percent of total withdrawals, and its use increased less than 2 percent from 1985 to 2010, while groundwater withdrawals decreased about 12 percent. From 1985 to 2010, surface water averaged 98 percent of withdrawals in the upper CRB, and about 59 percent in the lower CRB. Nearly all withdrawals were freshwater, but some saline groundwater was used for mining and self-supplied industrial. Interbasin transfers have a large effect on flows in the Colorado River and are listed in this report separately with no explanation of how the water is used outside of the CRB. There are 34 interbasin transfers that conveyed an estimated 5.83, 5.20, and 5.18 maf out of the CRB in 2000, 2005, and 2010, respectively. The largest interbasin transfers are in the lower CRB and convey surface water (Colorado River water) to southern California; these accounted for 80 to 84 percent of total interbasin transfers in the CRB from 2000 to 2010. Intrabasin transfers are conveyances of surface water that cross drainage basin or State boundaries in the CRB, but the water does not leave the CRB. There are many intrabasin transfers in the CRB, but this report lists 11 that are mostly in the State of Colorado. The largest is the Central Arizona Project (CAP), through which more than 1.00 maf of water was provided to irrigate nearly 1 million acres in Maricopa, Pinal, and Pima Counties, as well as provide municipal water for Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona, during 2000, 2005, and 2010. In 2010, interbasin and intrabasin transfers accounted for 24 and 11 percent of the total water withdrawals in CRB, respectively, with the larger volumes being conveyed out of the lower CRB. Total population in the CRB increased from 4.56 to 9.44 million people from 1985 to 2010. Most of those people were in the lower CRB, with 86 percent of the total in 1985, and 90 percent of the total in 2010. Total public-supply withdrawals in the CRB provided most people with their potable water, and averaged about 1.63 maf from 1985 to 2010, ranging from about 1.07 maf in 1985 to about 2.10 maf in 2010, when it peaked. Most of public-supply withdrawals occurred in the lower CRB, ranging from 87 to 91 percent of total public-supply withdrawals in the CRB over the 25 years. Total domestic use, comprised of public-supply deliveries and self-supply domestic withdrawals, increased more than 90 percent from 1985 to 2010, from about 0.80 maf to about 1.54 maf. Domestic daily per-capita use rates in the CRB ranged from about 144 (1985) to about 121 (2000) gallons (gal) per ‑ capita between 1985 and 2010. When comparing domestic daily per-capita rates for the upper and lower CRB, people in the lower CRB, on average, used less water for domestic purposes at 128 gal per-capita daily (1985–2010), while those in the upper CRB for the same time period averaged 133 gal per-capita daily. The trend in daily per-capita use rates for the entire CRB fluctuated between the reporting years, but decreased overall, indicating that more people used less water in 2010 than in 1985, likely due to improved infrastructure, conservation, and improvements to water using appliances in homes and businesses. Irrigation accounted for most total withdrawals in the CRB, excluding instream use for hydroelectric power and interbasin transfers, averaging 85 percent from 1985 to 2010. Far more surface water than groundwater was used for irrigation in both the upper and lower CRB, but in the upper CRB, it accounted for an average of more than 98 percent of the total withdrawals (1985–2010), whereas in the lower CRB, surface-water withdrawals for irrigation averaged 61 percent of total withdrawals. On average, the upper CRB accounted for 56 percent of total irrigated acres, and the irrigation systems in the upper CRB trended towards more efficient sprinkler systems from 1985 to 2010. Long-term drought in the CRB substantially decreased the amount of streamflow available for irrigation. Increases in micro-irrigation acres, which can have efficiencies that exceed 90 percent and require 20–50 percent less water than sprinkler systems, likely contributed to reduced withdrawals in the lower CRB. For thermoelectric power, total withdrawals, including the use of reclaimed wastewater, were greater in the upper CRB from 1985 through 2005. In 2010, the lower CRB exceeded the upper by only 11,000 acre-feet. On average, thermoelectric consumptive use accounted for about 80 percent of the total withdrawals; however, consumptive-use data in the upper CRB was incomplete. Surface water was the primary source in the upper CRB and groundwater was the primary source in the lower CRB. In the CRB overall, water withdrawals for thermoelectric generation has decreased since 2000, except for groundwater withdrawals in the lower CRB. Power generation at thermoelectric plants was greater in the upper CRB from 1985 to 2000, and after 2005 the difference in power generation was small; however, the upper CRB continued to have more power generation. In both the upper and lower CRB, power generation increased from 1985 to 2005.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 31.316101383495624° to 43.83452678223682° latitude; -116.76269531249999° to -104.80957031249999° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Molly A. Maupin, Tamara I. Ivahnenko, Breton Bruce. 2018-06-26. Estimates of water use and trends in the Colorado River Basin, Southwestern United States, 1985–2010. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20185049

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Baseline water-quality inventory and summary for the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park, New Jersey

The Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park (PAGR), established in 2011 in the City of Paterson, New Jersey, contains many cultural, historical, and natural resources. Because of the PAGR’s young age and limited resources, a long record of natural resource data is not available for use to guide future park management and planning decisions. A detailed natural resource inventory was identified as an immediate need in the “Foundation Document—Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park,” given the history of extensive industrial activity throughout the PAGR and the Passaic River Basin. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the National Park Service and the Urban Waters Federal Partnership for the Lower Passaic River, inventoried water-quality monitoring efforts and compiled historical water-quality data from secondary data sources to define baseline conditions in the PAGR and the surrounding study area. This report documents the methods used to harmonize water-quality data aggregated from multiple sources for the PAGR study area. Procedures implemented during data harmonization include compiling data from multiple sources, assessing the dataset for completeness, addressing metadata concerns, and creating a consistent and quality-assured dataset for future analysis. The harmonized dataset contains 14 aggregated surface-water sites, 1,103 individual sampling days, and 32,000 water-quality records throughout the period of record defined for this study (1952–2021). Summary statistics and comparison to water-quality criteria are provided for focus parameters that can support PAGR management, including field properties, suspended material, total dissolved solids, specific conductance, chloride, sulfate, Escherichia coli, nutrients, contaminants of concern related to fish consumption advisories, and litter and floatable debris. A spatial data gap was identified for the recreational area near the base of the Great Falls and immediately downstream from a known combined sewer overflow discharge location. Analytic data gaps were identified for continuous streamflow and water-quality parameters, floatable debris characterization, and harmful algal blooms identification. Continuous collection of contaminants of concern was identified as a temporal data gap, as these parameters were not consistently collected within the study area. The water-quality data synthesis and summary presented in this report can assist PAGR staff in understanding the complex baseline water resources within the study area and can serve as a baseline to design future water-quality monitoring efforts and evaluate changes in water quality over time. The harmonized dataset, as well as future New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and New Jersey Harbor Discharge Group monitoring data and assessments, can also be used to examine the status and trends in surface-water quality, support compliance with the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and further investigate changes to park water resources that can affect ecological and human health.

New Jersey↗

Slip tendency and dilation tendency of Quaternary faults in the Great Basin region, Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming

This report presents the results of slip tendency and dilation tendency analysis of Quaternary faults in the Great Basin region, in the states of Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. This effort was undertaken as part of two studies: the U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal Technologies Office-funded Innovative Geothermal Exploration through Novel Investigations of Undiscovered Systems (INGENIOUS) project, which is a multidisciplinary, multi-institution effort to develop new methodologies and best practices to accelerate the discovery of new, commercially viable hydrothermal resources; and the U.S. Geological Survey Geothermal Resources Investigations Project. The goal of this work is to identify faults and fault segments that are appropriately oriented to be stress-loaded for slip or to dilate under the ambient stress conditions. Both conditions may make such faults more likely to host permeability and fluid flow relative to other faults in the region. Slip tendency and dilation tendency were calculated for all fault segments in the study area from the U.S. Geological Survey Quaternary Fault and Fold Database. Results demonstrate that faults with high slip tendency and dilation tendency are common in the Great Basin region. The areas containing many high slip tendency and dilation tendency fault segments are associated with high strain rates. These areas also host a relatively high proportion of the known hydrothermal systems. This indicates that faults with high slip tendency and dilation tendency in areas with high strain-rate are potentially most prospective for hosting hydrothermal systems. The database published in coordination with this report contains the slip tendency and dilation tendency results data, including the fault geometry and stress data used to calculate these quantities, for both the Great Basin study area and the smaller INGENIOUS study area.

Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, ↗

A spatial analysis of the groundwater emergence flood hazard in Long Island, New York, and coastal areas surrounding Long Island Sound in New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island

Long Island, New York, and nearby coastal areas surrounding Long Island Sound are densely populated and, like other coastal areas, are susceptible to flooding from several potential sources, including stormwater from precipitation events, tidal flooding and storm surge, and groundwater emergence flooding. Groundwater emergence fooding refers to the intersection of a rising water table with land surface or critical infrastructure. Many studies of flood drivers either neglect or only briefly discuss how shallow groundwater conditions may contribute to or exacerbate flood conditions. As a part of a comprehensive study of compound flood hazards in the coastal areas of Long Island and Long Island Sound, a spatial analysis was completed by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Long Island Sound Partnership, formerly called the Long Island Sound Study, using available regional datasets to characterize the potential hazard for groundwater emergence flooding. The approximately 3,100 square mile study area was subdivided into 11,407 grid cells that were 900 meters by 900 meters (approximately 3,000 feet by 3,000 feet), for the purpose of integrating the spatial datasets to calculate and map the groundwater emergence flood hazard. The depth to the water table, hydrologic soil groups, and National Land Cover Database were harmonized to the common grid. A groundwater emergence flood hazard score was calculated for each grid cell for current average conditions following a set of rules accounting for the depth to the water table and the percentage of area within each cell with slow infiltrating soils. A scenario with a higher sea-level position was also calculated for the Long Island part of the study area. The calculated groundwater emergence flood hazard score was reviewed in conjunction with the National Land Cover Database to identify developed areas and associated infrastructure that may be at risk of potential groundwater emergence flooding. Study results indicate that the groundwater emergence flood hazard is highest in coastal areas and near surface water where the water table is close to ground surface. Inland areas away from surface waterbodies are not likely to be exposed to groundwater emergence flooding. For Long Island, in the scenario with higher sea-level position, a greater groundwater emergence flood hazard is calculated for some locations closer to the coast and where land is submerged. Away from the coast and surface-water drainage, the groundwater emergence flood hazard is similar between the current average sea-level condition and the higher sea-level position scenario.

Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island↗