Consumptive Water-Use Coefficients for the Great Lakes Basin and Climatically Similar Areas

Shaffer, Kimberly H.; Runkle, D.L.

doi:10.3133/sir20075197

Cited by 29 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…NWED utilizes four consumptive use scenarios based on a withdrawal-based scenario, and minimum, median, and maximum consumptive use scenario. Consumptive use scenarios are based on reports published by the United States Geological Survey (Shaffer and Runkle, 2007).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Minimum (Min), median (Med), and high (Max) water consumption scenarios for each sector in each county were determined by multiplying WU I n ,s,W by the corresponding sector-level minimum, median, and high consumption coefficients developed by the USGS (Shaffer and Runkle, 2007). Only the methodology for the Med consumption scenario is shown below since both the Min and Max consumption scenarios follow an identical calculation process.…”

Section: Assigning Virtual Water Flows To Trade Flowsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For withdrawal-based water footprints, we assume 100 % consumptive use (consumption coefficient CU = 1), forcing USGS-estimated water withdrawals equal to the direct use component of the water footprint, WU. Sector-level consumption coefficient data do exist, but these data are specific to the Great Lakes region of the US, and climatically similar states, and have large uncertainty ranges (Shaffer and Runkle, 2007). Due to the large uncertainties involved with the consumption coefficients, we have attempted to estimate the uncertainty associated with consumption by using three consumption coefficients for each sector -a minimum (Min), median (Med), and maximum (Max) ( Table 1).…”

Section: Simplifying Assumptions and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A spatially detailed blue water footprint of the United States economy

Rushforth¹,

Ruddell²

2018

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This paper quantifies and maps a spatially detailed and economically complete blue water footprint for the United States, utilizing the National Water Economy Database version 1.1 (NWED). NWED utilizes multiple mesoscale (county-level) federal data resources from the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), the US Department of Transportation (USDOT), the US Department of Energy (USDOE), and the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to quantify water use, economic trade, and commodity flows to construct this water footprint. Results corroborate previous studies in both the magnitude of the US water footprint (F) and in the observed pattern of virtual water flows. Four virtual water accounting scenarios were developed with minimum (Min), median (Med), and maximum (Max) consumptive use scenarios and a withdrawal-based scenario. The median water footprint (FCUMed) of the US is 181 966 Mm3 (FWithdrawal: 400 844 Mm3; FCUMax: 222 144 Mm3; FCUMin: 61 117 Mm3) and the median per capita water footprint (FCUMed′) of the US is 589 m3 per capita (FWithdrawal′: 1298 m3 per capita; FCUMax′: 720 m3 per capita; FCUMin′: 198 m3 per capita). The US hydroeconomic network is centered on cities. Approximately 58 % of US water consumption is for direct and indirect use by cities. Further, the water footprint of agriculture and livestock is 93 % of the total US blue water footprint, and is dominated by irrigated agriculture in the western US. The water footprint of the industrial, domestic, and power economic sectors is centered on population centers, while the water footprint of the mining sector is highly dependent on the location of mineral resources. Owing to uncertainty in consumptive use coefficients alone, the mesoscale blue water footprint uncertainty ranges from 63 to over 99 % depending on location. Harmonized region-specific, economic-sector-specific consumption coefficients are necessary to reduce water footprint uncertainties and to better understand the human economy's water use impact on the hydrosphere.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Assigning Virtual Water Flows To Trade Flowsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Simplifying Assumptions and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A spatially detailed blue water footprint of the United States economy

Rushforth¹,

Ruddell²

2018

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The amount of Lake Michigan water brought into Beverly Shores may overstate the volume of water available for recharge to the surficial aquifer. Domestic water uses in the Indiana part of the Great Lakes basin have been estimated to consume about 15 percent of water supplied to residences (Shaffer and Runkle, 2007), thereby decreasing water available for discharge from the home to septic systems and for recharge to groundwater. In addition, some residences in Beverly Shores formerly withdrew water from the deeper, basal sand aquifer that was recharged outside of the study area (Buszka and others, 2007).…”

Section: Water-supply Changes and Recharge To Groundwatermentioning

confidence: 99%

Relation of hydrologic processes to groundwater and surface-water levels and flow directions in a dune-beach complex at Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore and Beverly Shores, Indiana

Buszka¹,

Cohen²,

Lampe³

et al. 2011

Scientific Investigations Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Patterns uncovered in this report for consumptive use and seasonal variations of withdrawals may be used where data on consumptive use or other estimation procedures are lacking. A previous report in the series (Shaffer and Runkle, 2007) summarized previously published consumptive-use coefficients for the Great Lakes States and climatically similar states. In this report, information in databases of waterresource agencies in Ohio, Indiana, and Wisconsin was used to examine monthly variation in consumptive use.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variations in Withdrawal, Return Flow, and Consumptive Use of Water in Ohio and Indiana, with Selected Data from Wisconsin, 1999-2004

Shaffer¹

2009

Scientific Investigations Report

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This report contains an analysis of water withdrawal and return-flow data for Ohio and withdrawal data for Indiana and Wisconsin to compute consumptive-use coefficients and to describe monthly variability of withdrawals and consumptive use. Concurrent data were available for most water-use categories from 1999 through 2004. Average monthly water withdrawals are discussed for a variety of water-use categories, and average water use per month is depicted graphically for Ohio, Indiana, and Wisconsin (public supply only). For most water-use categories, the summer months were those of highest withdrawal and highest consumptive use. For public supply, average monthly withdrawals ranged from 1,380 million gallons per day (Mgal/d) (November) to 1,620 Mgal/d (July) in Ohio, 621 Mgal/d (December) to 816 Mgal/d (July) in Indiana, and 515 Mgal/d (December) to 694 Mgal/d (July) in Wisconsin. Ohio and Indiana thermoelectric facilities had large increases in average monthly withdrawals in the summer months (5,520 Mgal/d in March to 7,510 Mgal/d in August for Indiana; 7,380 Mgal/d in February to 10,040 Mgal/d in July for Ohio), possibly because of increased electricity production in the summer, a need for additional cooling-water withdrawals when intake-water temperature is high, or use of different types of cooling methods during different times of the year. Average industrial withdrawals ranged from 2,220 Mgal/d (December) to 2,620 Mgal/d (August) in Indiana and from 707 Mgal/d (January) to 787 Mgal/d (August) in Ohio. The Ohio and Indiana irrigation data showed that most withdrawals were in May through October for golf courses, nurseries, and crop irrigation. Commercial water withdrawals ranged from 30.4 Mgal/d (January) to 65.0 Mgal/d (September) in Indiana and from 23.2 Mgal/d (November) to 49.5 Mgal/d (August) in Ohio; commercial facilities that have high water demand in Ohio and Indiana are medical facilities, schools, amusement facilities, wildlife facilities, large stores, colleges, correctional institutions, and national security facilities. Monthly livestock withdrawals were constant for Ohio but were more variable in Indiana and depended on whether the livestock facility operated on a Variations in Water Withdrawal, Return Flow, and Consumptive Use in Ohio, Indiana, and Wisconsin relatively few records were available; the Ohio median annual consumptive-use coefficient for livestock was 76 percent (18 records), for aquaculture was 0 percent (33 records), and for mining was 10 percent (418 records). In terms of maximum accuracy and minimal uncertainty, use of available withdrawal, return-flow, and consumptiveuse data reported by facilities and data estimated from similar facilities are preferable over estimates based on data for a particular water-use category or groups of water-use categories. If monthly withdrawal, return flow, and consumptive use data are few and limited, monthly patterns described in this report may be used as a basis of estimation, but the level of uncertainty may be a greater than for the other e...

show abstract

Consumptive Water-Use Coefficients for the Great Lakes Basin and Climatically Similar Areas

Cited by 29 publications

References 0 publications

A spatially detailed blue water footprint of the United States economy

A spatially detailed blue water footprint of the United States economy

Relation of hydrologic processes to groundwater and surface-water levels and flow directions in a dune-beach complex at Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore and Beverly Shores, Indiana

Variations in Withdrawal, Return Flow, and Consumptive Use of Water in Ohio and Indiana, with Selected Data from Wisconsin, 1999-2004

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About