Search NASA⌕ Search
Home/Archive/DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI · 2475309

HarDWR - Water Management Area (WMA) Shapefiles

Lisk, Matthew·Grogan, Danielle·Zuidema, Shan·Caccese, Robert·Peklak, Darrah·Zheng, Jiameng·Fisher-Vanden, Karen·Lammers, Richard·Olmstead, Sheila·Fowler, Lara
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A dataset within the Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR). For a detailed description of the database, please see the meta-record v2.0. Changelog v2.0 - No changes v1.0 - Initial public release Description Borders of all Water Management Areas (WMAs) across the 11 western-most states of the coterminous United States are available filtered through a single source. The legal name for this set of boundaries varies state-by-state. The data is provided as two compressed shapefiles. One, stateWMAs, contains data for all 11 states. For 10 of those states, Arizona being the exception, the polygons represent the legal management boundaries used by those states to manage their surface and groundwater resources respectively. WMAs refer to the set of boundaries a particular state uses to manage its water resources. Each set of boundaries was collected from the states individually, and then merged into one spatial layer. The merging process included renaming some columns to enable merging with all other source layers, as well as removing columns deemed not required for followup analysis. The retained columns for each boundary are: basinNum - the state provided unique numerical ID; basinName - the state provided English name of the area, where applicable; state - the state name; and uniID - a unique identifier we created by concatenating the state name, and underscore, and the state numerical ID. Arizona is unique within this collection of states in that surface and groundwater resources are managed using two separate sets of boundaries. During our followup analysis (Grogan et al., in review) we decided to focus on one set of boundaries, those for surface water. This is due to the recommendation of our hydrologists that the surface water boundary set is a more realist representation of how water moves across the landscape, as a few of the groundwater boundaries are based on political and/or economic considerations. Therefore, the Arizona surface WMAs are included within stateWMAs. The Arizona groundwater WMAs are provided as a separate file, azGroundWMAs, as a companion to the first file for completeness and general reference. WMA spatial boundary data sources by state: Arizona: Arizona Surface Water Watersheds; Collected February, 2020; https://gisdata2016-11-18t150447874z-azwater.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/surface-watershed/explore?location=34.158174%2C-111.970823%2C7.50 Arizona: Arizona Ground Water Basins; Collected February, 2020; https://gisdata2016-11-18t150447874z-azwater.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/groundwater-basin-2/explore?location=34.158174%2C-111.970823%2C7.50 California: California CalWater 2.2.1; Collected February, 2020; https://www.mlml.calstate.edu/mpsl-mlml/data-center/data-entry-tools/data-tools/gis-shapefile-layers/ Colorado: Colorado Water District Boundaries; Collected February, 2020; https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdss/gis-data-category Idaho: Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) Administrative Basins; Collected November, 2015; https://data-idwr.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/fb0df7d688a04074bad92ca8ef74cc26_4/explore?location=45.018686%2C-113.862284%2C6.93 Montana: Collected June, 2019; Directly contacted Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) Office of Information Technology (OIT) Nevada: Nevada State Engineer Admin Basin Boundaries; Collected April, 2020 https://ndwr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=1364d0c3a0284fa1bcd90f952b2b9f1c New Mexico: New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (OSE) Declared Groundwater Basins; Collected April, 2020 https://geospatialdata-ose.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/ose-declared-groundwater-basins/explore?location=34.179783%2C-105.996542%2C7.51 Oregon: Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) Administrative Basins; Collected February, 2020; https://www.oregon.gov/OWRD/access_Data/Pages/Data.aspx Utah: Utah Adjudication Books; Collected April, 2020; https://opendata.gis.utah.gov/datasets/utahDNR::utah-adjudication-books/explore?location=39.497165%2C-111.587782%2C-1.00 Washington: Washington Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA); Collected June, 2017; https://ecology.wa.gov/Research-Data/Data-resources/Geographic-Information-Systems-GIS/Data Wyoming: Wyoming State Engineer's Office Board of Control Water Districts; Collected June, 2019; Directly contacted Wyoming State Engineer's Office

Explore related subjects

EconomicsWater

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Lisk, Matthew, Grogan, Danielle, Zuidema, Shan, Caccese, Robert, Peklak, Darrah, Zheng, Jiameng, Fisher-Vanden, Karen, Lammers, Richard, Olmstead, Sheila, Fowler, Lara. 2020-10-31. HarDWR - Water Management Area (WMA) Shapefiles. https://doi.org/10.57931/2475309

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related reports

DOE OSTI2026

Data for Filling the Cellulosic Bio-economy Gap by Utilizing a Wedge Approach Combined with Stakeholder Collaboration

The price gap between the market and breakeven prices of cellulosic biomass for farmers represents a significant barrier to the development of a low-carbon cellulosic bioeconomy. Using a bottom-up, agent-based modeling tool that replicates the behaviors and interactions of key stakeholders, this study analyzes the emergence of a cellulosic bioeconomy at the local scale through a wedge approach that examines an integrated portfolio of multiple policy options, including subsidies for small-scale bioproducts and environmental credits. The role of collaboration among multiple stakeholders, such as biomass producers (farmers), bio-refinery industry, government, and society, is assessed for filling the price gap. Using the Sangamon River Basin as a case study site, we evaluate the effectiveness of the wedge approach by comparing simulation results from multiple scenarios, each incorporating different combinations of bioeconomy wedges, with and without stakeholder collaboration. Results underscore that active collaboration among stakeholders acts as a catalyst enlarging the effectiveness of bioeconomy wedges. Including the carbon credits and environmental value in the policy portfolio is found to bridge the price gap through collective contributions from diverse stakeholders, where the cellulosic biofuel and bioproduct industry plays a pivotal role. Although this study is conducted at the local watershed scale, the methodology and findings offer valuable insights for market development in other watersheds and the potential scaling of local markets to regional and national levels.

Economics↗
DOE OSTI2026

Data for Rewiring Yeast Metabolism for Producing 2,3-Butanediol and Two Downstream Applications: Techno-Economic Analysis and Life Cycle Assessment of Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK) and Agricultural Biostimulant Production

Rising concerns for sustainability and global climate change have driven the development of sustainable production pathways for biofuels and chemicals from lignocellulosic biomass via integrated biological and chemical processes. We constructed an engineered Saccharomyces cerevisiae capable of producing 2,3-butanediol (2,3-BDO) from glucose without accumulating ethanol and glycerol, which hinder downstream processing of 2,3-BDO, through extensive metabolic reprogramming. Specifically, we introduced heterologous 2,3-BDO biosynthetic enzymes and deleted the major isozymes of ethanol and glycerol biosynthetic enzymes. In addition, we introduced an NAD+ regenerating Pyruvate-Malate (PM) cycle and enhanced the NAD+ regenerating capability of the PM cycle to resolve the redox imbalance from the deletion of ethanol and glycerol production pathways. The resulting engineered yeast produced 109.9 g/L of 2,3-BDO with a productivity of 1.0 g/L/h and a yield of 0.36 g/g glucose in a fed-batch fermentation. We also conducted techno-economic analysis (TEA) and life cycle assessment (LCA) of the production of methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) through catalytic dehydration of 2,3-BDO. A TEA based on the experimental results indicated that the minimum product selling price (MPSP) was estimated to be $1.90/kg. Regarding cradle-to-grave LCA, 100-year global warming potential (GWP100) and fossil energy consumption (FEC) were found to be 0.37 kg CO2 eq/kg and 3.1 MJ/kg, respectively. These results demonstrated the feasibility of cost-competitive and sustainable bio-based MEK production via yeast fermentation. In addition, we explored the possibility of using the fermentation broth containing 2,3-BDO as a biostimulant inducing drought tolerance in plants. As a result, the yeast 2,3-BDO fermentation broth can induce drought tolerance in Arabidopsis thaliana without a complicated purification process.

Economics↗
DOE OSTI2024

Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR)

From Lisk et al. (2024): "In the arid and semi-arid western U.S., access to water is regulated through a legal system of water rights. Individuals, companies, organizations, municipalities, and tribal entities have documents that declare their water rights. State water regulatory agencies collate and maintain these records, which can be used in legal disputes over access to water. While these records are publicly available data in all western U.S. states, the data have not yet been readily available in digital form from all states. Furthermore, there are many differences in data format, terminology, and definitions between state water regulatory agencies. Here, we have collected water rights data from 11 western U.S. state agencies, harmonized terminology and use definitions, formatted them consistently, and tied them to a western U.S.-wide shapefile of water administrative boundaries. We demonstrate how these data enable consistent regional-scale western U.S. hydrologic and economic modeling."

Economics↗