Estimated use of water in the Cumberland River watershed in 2010 and projections of public-supply water use to 2040

John A. Robinson

doi:10.3133/sir20185130

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · sir20185130

Estimated use of water in the Cumberland River watershed in 2010 and projections of public-supply water use to 2040

John A. Robinson

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Nashville District, is conducting ongoing water-supply analyses of USACE reservoirs in the Cumberland River watershed to identify areas where potential water-resources issues may arise in the future. To assist the USACE in their efforts, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the USACE, collected and analyzed water-use data to estimate public-supply, self-supplied industrial, irrigation, and thermoelectric water use for 2010 and to project water demand to 2040 for the Cumberland River watershed area. Estimates of water use for public supply were projected in 10-year increments through 2040 and were based on 2010 public water-supply data and population projections for 2020 to 2040. Additionally, estimates of consumptive use, wastewater releases, and thermoelectric power and industrial return flows were calculated. All estimates are presented for the entire watershed and for the 10 reservoir catchment areas (RCAs) within the watershed. Estimated water withdrawals in the Cumberland River watershed during 2010 averaged 3,456.23 million gallons per day (Mgal/d) of freshwater for offstream use. Return flow was estimated to be 3,370.08 Mgal/d, or 98 percent of the water withdrawn during 2010. Total consumptive use accounts for the remaining 2 percent, or 86.2 Mgal/d. Estimates of water withdrawals by source indicate that withdrawals from surface water during 2010 accounted for more than 99 percent of the total withdrawals, or 3,437.90 Mgal/d. Total groundwater withdrawals during 2010 were 18.33 Mgal/d, or less than 1 percent of the total withdrawals. During 2010, withdrawals by category were estimated as follows: thermoelectric power, 3,051.12 Mgal/d; public supply, 360.00 Mgal/d; industrial, 31.5 Mgal/d; and irrigation, 13.6 Mgal/d. Return flows were estimated as thermoelectric power, 3,051.06 Mgal/d, and industrial and public supply, 319.02 Mgal/d. Consumptive use was estimated as thermoelectric power, 0.06 Mgal/d; industrial and public supply, 72.5 Mgal/d; and irrigation, 13.6 Mgal/d. By 2040, the public supply of raw and (or) finished water to meet demand for the 10 RCAs is projected to increase 48 percent to 532.51 Mgal/d. This projected increase includes an increase from 51.5 to 72.5 Mgal/d, or 41 percent, in the Barkley RCA. The combined total water demand for the Cheatham, J. Percy Priest, and Old Hickory RCAs is projected to increase from 224.08 to 359.58 Mgal/d, or 61 percent. The combined total water demand for the Center Hill, Cordell Hull, and Dale Hollow RCAs is projected to increase from 31.7 to 43.0 Mgal/d, or 36 percent. The combined total water demand for the Martins Fork, Laurel, and Wolf Creek RCAs is projected to increase from 52.8 to 57.4 Mgal/d, or 9 percent. The only RCA in the watershed with a projected decrease in water demand is Martins Fork.

Explore related subjects

Scientific Investigations Report Report

Source-reported bounding extent: 35.737595151747826° to 37.57070524233116° latitude; -88.472900390625° to -82.55126953124999° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

John A. Robinson. 2019-09-24. Estimated use of water in the Cumberland River watershed in 2010 and projections of public-supply water use to 2040. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20185130

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↗