Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Water”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 397 records · Page 22
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

EERC Final Topical Report – Findings on Subtask 3.2 – Produced Water Management Through Geologic Homogenization, Conditions, and Reuse

The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) was awarded a contract by the North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC) Oil and Gas Research Program (NDIC No. G-051-101) to conduct a study on the recycling of water used in oil and gas operations, also known as produced water, from oil- and gas-producing regions of North Dakota as directed by Section 19 of North Dakota House Bill 1014. This final report provides a compilation of results of the study, which include regulatory, scientific, technological, and feasibility methods and considerations associated with North Dakota produced water management. The report provides a synopsis of this project’s previously submitted produced water assessment report entitled “Produced Water Management and Recycling Options in North Dakota” (Energy & Environmental Research Center, 2020), with updated values provided as appropriate. The report provides the results from the investigation of a novel produced water management strategy, referred to as geologic homogenization, conditioning, and reuse (GHCR), which aims to use a subsurface geologic formation as a natural medium for managing produced water recycling and reuse. Water management is a significant technical and economic challenge for sustainable oil and gas production, and water volumes are intrinsically linked to oil production volumes. North Dakota oil production rose to over 1.5 million barrels (MMbbl)/day in 2019, and despite a downturn in oil price in early 2020, North Dakota oil production has recovered to 1.1 MMbbl/day as of August 2021. Bakken petroleum system development between 2008 and 2020 has resulted in a nearly fourfold increase in produced water volumes to 642 MMbbl/yr in 2020 after peaking at 740 MMbbl/yr in 2019 and a fivefold increase in saltwater disposal (SWD) volumes to 565 MMbbl/yr in 2020 after a peak of 682 MMbbl/yr in 2019. Produced water and SWD volumes are forecasted to double by 2030. SWD is the primary method of produced water management used in North Dakota, with approximately 95% of the SWD volume occurring through subsurface injection into sandstones of the Dakota Group (Dakota). Localized pressurization of the Dakota resulting from SWD and projected increases in produced water volumes could impact the economics of North Dakota oil production. As a result, there is an emerging need to pursue alternative produced water management approaches, including recycling and reuse. While produced water recycling is not yet widespread, commercial operators are making strides in overcoming the technical challenges of using high salinity produced water in completion operations (Marathon Oil, 2020). As water management continues to be a key focal point in companies’ environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives, focus on water management, including recycling, will likely continue to increase. Laboratory column testing, field sample collection, geologic modeling and numerical simulation, and techno-economic analysis all indicate that GHCR could feasibly be implemented as a potential water management option. Laboratory column testing and field sample collection indicate that the Inyan Kara sandstone and native formation fluid are capable of homogenizing with the Bakken produced water to a point where the fluid composition appears to stabilize. Extracting that stabilized fluid could be considered homogeneous and capable of providing individual batches of hydraulic fracturing fluid. Numerical simulation results indicate that extraction of fluids from the Inyan Kara in a GHCR implementation scenario is capable of reducing formation pressure, which would help ease localized pressurization of the Inyan Kara and extend the available capacity for nearby existing SWD wells. Economic analysis indicates that there are scenarios where GHCR implementation can be a competitive or even lower-cost option than a conventional water management approach. Site-specific conditions will dictate the economic potential of GHCR, but potentially attractive sites for GHCR implementation will be those that are located above a pressurized zone of the Inyan Kara, need six or more Bakken infill wells, and face high costs for conventional SWD and/or freshwater. Based on the regulatory review, drilling into the Inyan Kara for SWD and to harness as a source water for industrial use have precedent in North Dakota, and a workable regulatory solution for GHCR seems likely. However, restrictions in the state regarding surface storage and transport of produced fluids may limit some activities, which will affect how GHCR could ultimately be implemented. In summary, this study reveals pursuing GHCR can be a viable approach to water management in North Dakota. The GHCR concept addresses some of the challenges that hinder the more traditional approaches to recycling in the industry. Furthermore, an assessment of the current landscape of water management within the state reveals the ongoing trend of increasing volumes of produced water and SWD. Projections reveal that the volumes of produced water that need to be managed are expected to double over the next decade (Energy & Environmental Research Center, 2020). With the continued development of the Bakken and continuing driving factors related to ESG initiatives, implementing a practice such as GHCR is a feasible approach to adding recycling of produced water to industry within the state. This subtask was cofunded through the EERC–U.S. Department of Energy Joint Program on Research and Development for Fossil Energy-Related Resources Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FE0024233. Nonfederal funding was provided by the North Dakota Industrial Commission Oil and Gas Research Program. References Energy & Environmental Research Center, 2020, Produced water management and recycling options in North Dakota: Final Report for North Dakota Legislative Management Energy Development and Transmission Committee and North Dakota Industrial Commission. Marathon Oil, 2020, Sustainability report: https://cdn.sanity.io/files/ghcnw9z2/website/ 91744eb6ef8fbe59505a911c6b8d2e8dd9a537fa.pdf?dl (accessed November 2021).

02 PETROLEUM↗
DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al, 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. west. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. The first two characters of each file name is the abbreviation for the state the in which the file contains data for. After the abbreviation is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file type described in detail: XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, this file is the merging of XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv and XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv by state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state the data comes from. FIPS - The two-digit numeric state ID code. waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. origWaterUse - The original stated water use(s) from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. CFS - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). Arizona is unique among the states, as its surface and groundwater resources are managed with two different sets of boundaries. So, for Arizona, the basinNum column is missing and instead there are two columns: surBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the surface water WMA the record belongs to. grdBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the groundwater WMA the record belongs to. XXStatePOD.shp: A shapefile which identifies the location of the Points of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records in XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv have coordinates, and therefore may be missing from this file. XXStatePOU.shp: A shapefile which contains the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to include within this file. XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized groundwater rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized surface water rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. Additionally, one file, stateWMALabels.csv, is not stored within a sub-directory. While we have referred to the spatial boundaries that each state uses to manage its water resources as WMAs, this term is not shared across all states. This file lists the proper name for each boundary set, by state. For those whom may be interested in exploring our code more in depth, we are also making available an internal data file for convenience. The file is in .RData format and contains everything described above as well as some minor additional objects used within the code calculating the cumulative curves. For completeness, here is a detailed description of the various objects which can be found within the .RData file: states: A character vector containing the state names for those states in which data was collected for. More importantly, the index of the state name is also the index in which that state's data can be found in the various following list objects. For example, if California is the third index in this object, the data for California will also be in the third index for each accompanying list. rightsByState_ground: A list of data frames with the cleaned ground water rights collected from each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv files. rightsByState_surface: A list of data frames with the cleaned surface water rights collected from each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv files. fullRightsRecs: A list of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxFullHarmonizedRights.csv files. projProj: The spatial projection used for map creation in the beginning of the project. Specifically, the World Geodetic System (WGS84) as a coordinate reference system (CRS) string in PROJ.4 format. wmaStateLabel: The name and/or abbreviation for what each state legally calls their WMAs. h2oUseByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed area(s) of use in this object. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to be included in this object. h2oDivByState: A list of spatial points data frames which identifies the location of the Point of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed Point of Diversion in this object. spatialWMAByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the spatial WMA boundaries for each state. The only data contained within the table are identifiers for each polygon. It is worth reiterating that Arizona is the only state in which the surface and groundwater WMA boundaries are not the same. wmaIDByState: A list which contains the unique ID values of the WMAs for each state. plottingDim: A character vector used to inform mapping functions for internal map making. Each state is classified as either "tall" or "wide", to maximize space on a typical 8x11 page. The code related to the creation of this dataset can be viewed within HarDWR GitHub Repository/dataHarmonization.

Economics↗
DOE OSTI2023

HarDWR - Raw Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. In order to hold a water right in the western United States, an entity, (e.g., an individual, corporation, municipality, sovereign government, or non-profit) must register a physical document with the state's water regulatory agency. State water agencies each maintain their own database containing all registered water right documents within the state, along with relevant metadata such as the point of diversion and place of use of the water. All western U.S. states have digitized their individual water rights databases, along with the geospatial data describing the spatial units where water rights are managed. Each state maintains and provides their own water rights data in accordance with individual state regulations and standards. We collected water rights databases from 11 western United States states either by downloading them from publicly accessible web portals, or by contacting state water management representatives; detailed descriptions of where and when the data was collected is provided in the README.txt, as well as Lisk et al.(in review). This collection of data are those raw water rights. Each state formats their data differently, meaning that file types, field availability, and names vary from state to state. Note, the data provided here reflects the state of the water rights databases at the time we collected the data; updates have likely occurred in many states. Some pieces of information are common among all states. These are: priority date, volume or flow of water allowed by the right, stated water use of the right, and some means of identifying the geography and source of the water pertaining to the right - typically the coordinates of the Point of Diversion (PoD) of a waterbody or well. Arizona regulates water in a different way than the other 10 states. Outside of some relatively small critical agricultural areas called Active Management Areas (AMAs), Arizona does not maintain any water rights. However, the state does require registration of surface and groundwater pumping devices, which includes disclosing the mechanical specifics of the devices. We used these records as a proxy for water rights. Each state, and their respective water right authorities, have made their water right records available for non-commercial reference uses. In addition, the states make no guarantees as to the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of their respective databases, let alone the modifications which we, the authors of this paper, have made to the collected records. None of the states should be held liable for using this data outside of its intended use. In addition, the following states have requested specifically worded disclaimers to be included with their data. Colorado: "The data made available here has been modified for use from its original source, which is the State of Colorado. THE STATE OF COLORADO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTY AS TO THE COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, OR CONTENT OF ANY DATA MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS SITE. THE STATE OF COLORADO EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The data is subject to change as modifications and updates are complete. It is understood that the information contained in the Web feed is being used at one's own risk." Montana: "The Montana State Library provides this product/service for informational purposes only. The Library did not produce it for, nor is it suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Consumers of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the viability of the information for their purposes. The Library provides these data in good faith but does not represent or warrant its accuracy, adequacy, or completeness. In no event shall the Library be liable for any incorrect results or analysis; any direct, indirect, special, or consequential damages to any party; or any lost profits arising out of or in connection with the use or the inability to use the data or the services provided. The Library makes these data and services available as a convenience to the public, and for no other purpose. The Library reserves the right to change or revise published data and/or services at any time." Oregon: "This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information." The available data is provided as a series of compressed files, which each containing the full data collected from each state. Some of the files have been renamed, to more easily know which state the data belongs to. The file renaming was also required as some files from different states had the same name. In other cases, the data for a state has been placed in a folder indicating which state it belongs to - as the state organized its data by selected subregions. Below is a brief description of the format of the collected data from each state. ArizonaRights_StatementOfClaimants: A folder containing a database of interconnected CSV files. The soc_erd.pdf file contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with SOC_MAIN.csv in the center of the page. ArizonaRights_SurfaceWaterRightsData: A folder containing a database of a single Shapefile and 10 associated CSVs. SurfaceWater.pdf contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with ADWR_SW_APPL_REGRY.csv. ArizonaRights_Well55Registry: A folder containing a database of a single Shapefile and 59 associated CSVs. Wells55.pdf contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with WellRegistry.shp. CaliforniaRights_eWRIMS_directDatabase: A folder containing a collection of four "series" Microsoft Excel files, as either XLS or XLSX. The four "series": byCounty, byEntity (what type of legal entity holds the right), byUse (stated water use), and byWatershed, are various methods by which the California water rights are organized within the state's database. However, it was observed that by only collecting a single series, not all water rights were being provided. So, essentially, the majority of records within each "series" are copies of each other, with each "series" containing some unique records. ColoradoRights_NetAmounts: A folder containing 78 CSV files, with one file per Colorado Water District. IdahoRights_PointOfDiversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Idaho. IdahoRights_PlaceOfUse: A Shapefile containing the Place of Use polygons for the entire state of Idaho. MontanaRights_WaterRights: A Geodatabase file containing the Points of Diversion and Places of Use for the entire state of Montana. The name of the Points of Diversion Feature Layer within the Geodatabase is "WRDIV", and the name of the Places of Use Feature Layer is "WRPOU". NevadaRights_POD_Sites: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Nevada. NewMexicoRights_Points_of_Diversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of New Mexico. OregonRights_state_shp: A folder containing 36 Shapefiles and are split between "pod" (Point of Diversion) and "pou" (Place of Use) for each water management basin within Oregon. In other words, each basin has one "pod" file and one "pou" file. The "pod" files are point shapes, and the "pou" files are polygons. UtahRights_Points_of_Diversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Utah. WashingtonRights_WaterDiversions_ECY_NHD: A Geodatabase file containing both the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Washington. The name of the Feature Layer within the Geodatabase is "WaterDiversions_ECY_NHD". WyomingRights: A folder containing four subdirectories, one for each Wyoming Water Division. Each Division directory includes a varying number of subdirectories for each Wyoming Water District. Each District folder contains two copies of the Point of Diversion records for that area, with one copying being in CSV and one copy in Microsoft Excel XLS format.

Lisk, Matthew↗
DOE OSTI2026

Water Observations of Flow/No-Flow for the East-Taylor Watershed, Colorado (June-July 2025 and 2026)

This dataset provides multi-year, ground-truth visual observations of surface water flow/no-flow conditions within the East-Taylor Watershed, Colorado, collected during June and July of 2025 and 2026. In June and July 2025, on-the-ground visual observations of flow/no-flow were collected as part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (SFA) and Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL) Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) campaign (further details are provided within the CHESS Project Description). We obtained 377 water observations of flow/no-flow within the East-Taylor Watershed, Colorado. These ground-truth observations were collected to validate classification maps from remote sensing data and model results within the East-Taylor Watershed. In 2025, flow/no-flow measurements were collected using a field-based app for the CHESS Campaign (Zerion iForm). Within the field app, a water observation form was created to collect coordinates and metadata about the observation. Information collected for the water observation points included information about visually-assessed streamflow presence/absence (standard question obtained from Colorado State University’s StreamTracker project), flow estimate, stream or ponded area width, canopy cover, manganese films, iron seeps, and beaver activity. For 2025 water observations, this dataset contains: (1) a data file with the water observations and coordinates (2025_Water_Observations.csv); (2) a Keyhole Markup Language Zipped (KMZ) with the water observation locations and metadata (2025_Water_Observations_Locations.kmz); (3) photos (.jpg and .jpeg) of the water observation points, organized by location, contained within 2025_Water_Observations_FieldPhotographs.zip file; and (4) water observation protocols and figures (2025_Water_Observation_Protocols.pdf). In June and July 2026, on-the-ground visual observations of flow/no-flow were collected as part of the Watershed Function SFA project. We obtained 365 water observations of flow/no-flow within the East-Taylor Watershed, Colorado. The 2026 observations focused on collecting repeat measurements at the 2025 flow/no-flow observation locations conducted as part of the CHESS campaign. These ground-truth observations were collected to understand differences in flow/no-flow in 2026, given the unprecedented 2026 drought in Colorado. In 2026, flow/no-flow measurements were collected using ArcGIS (Geographic Information System) Survey123. Within the field app, a water observation form was created to collect coordinates and metadata about the observation. Information collected for the water observation points included repeat information from the 2025 water observation effort, including visually-assessed streamflow presence/absence (standard question obtained from Colorado State University’s StreamTracker project), flow estimate, stream or ponded area width, canopy cover, manganese films, iron seeps, beaver activity, and a new metadata component of estimated stream depth (for select locations). For 2026 water observations, this dataset contains: (1) a data file with the water observations and coordinates (2026_Water_Observations.csv); (2) a Keyhole Markup Language Zipped (KMZ) with the water observation locations and metadata (2026_Water_Observations_Locations.kmz); (3) photos (.jpg) of the water observation points, organized by location, contained within 2026_Water_Observations_FieldPhotographs.zip file; and (4) water observation protocols and figures (2026_Water_Observation_Protocols.pdf). For 2025 and 2026 water observations, this dataset contains: (1) a location metadata file (locations.csv); (6) a file-level metadata (flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; and (7) a data dictionary (dd.csv) file that contains column/row headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type. CHESS Project Description: The Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) comprised a multi-week airborne remote sensing and field observation campaign in the Upper Gunnison Basin, Colorado, conducted in June and July of 2025. Airborne remote sensing was conducted by the National Ecological Observatory Network Airborne Observation Platform (NEON AOP), concurrent with a field campaign run by the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL), the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory Watershed Function Science Focus Area (SFA), and NASA-JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation (EMIT) program. Between June 10 and July 18, 2025, the NEON AOP flight team collected high-resolution aerial imaging spectroscopy and Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data over three domains: the Upper East River (CRBU), Almont Triangle (ALMO), and the Upper Taylor Basin (UPTA). In coordination with the flights, a field campaign acquired ground-truth observations, including observations of vegetation composition, foliar traits, forest demography, and subsurface properties in 18 core sampling areas within the domains. Additional surface water observations were taken at over 380 point locations. All CHESS campaign datasets can be found within the CHESS ESS-DIVE data portal: https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/chess. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. 2026-09-02: This dataset was updated to include 2026 water observation measurements. The 2025 observation files were also updated to ensure a consistent file naming convention across water observation years.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗
DOE OSTI2023

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al, 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. west. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a collection of objects stored within an RDate file, stateWaterRightsHarmonized.RData. Each object either describes how one should interact with the other objects, or contains the harmonized water rights data. Here is each object described in detail: states: A character vector containing the state names for those states in which data was collected for. More importantly, the index of the state name is also the index in which that state's data can be found in the various following list objects. For example, if California is the third index in this object, the data for California will also be in the third index for each accompanying list. rightsByState_ground: A list of data frames with the cleaned ground water rights collected from each state. The column headers for each data frame are: waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. allocatedFlow - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. origWaterUse - The original stated water use from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. rightsByState_surface: A list of the cleaned surface water rights collected from each state. See rightsByState_ground for more details on how the data is formatted. fullRightsRecs: A list of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, these lists are the merging of rightsByState_ground and rightsByState_surface by state. See rightsByState_ground for more details on how the data is formatted. projProj: The spatial projection used for map creation in the beginning of the project. Specifically, the World Geodetic System (WGS84) as a coordinate reference system (CRS) string in PROJ.4 format. wmaStateLabel: The name and/or abbreviation for what each state legally calls their WMAs. h2oUseByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed area(s) of use in this object. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to be included in this object. h2oDivByState: A list of spatial points data frames which identifies the location of the Point of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed Point of Diversion in this object. spatialWMAByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the spatial WMA boundaries for each state. The only data contained within the table are identifiers for each polygon. It is worth reiterating that Arizona is the only state in which the surface and groundwater WMA boundaries are not the same. wmaIDByState: A list which contains the unique ID values of the WMAs for each state. plottingDim: A character vector used to inform mapping functions for internal map making. Each state is classified as either "tall" or "wide", to maximize space on a typical 8x11 page.

Economics↗
DOE OSTI2026

Conus-Wide Mapping of Water Availability and Cost

Background: New demands for water can be satisfied through a variety of source options. In some basins surface and/or groundwater may be available through permitting with the state water management agency (termed unappropriated water), alternatively water might be purchased and transferred out of its current use to another (termed appropriated water), or non-traditional water sources can be captured and treated (e.g., wastewater). The relative availability and cost of each source are key factors in the development decision. Unfortunately, these measures are location dependent with no consistent or comparable set of data available for evaluating competing water sources. With the help of water managers, water availability was mapped for over 2500 watersheds throughout CONUS. These values are unique in that they account for institutional factors (i.e., water rights, compacts, treaties, instream flows) that locally limit water use. Five water sources were individually examined, including unappropriated surface water, unappropriated groundwater, appropriated water, municipal wastewater and brackish groundwater. Associated costs to acquire, convey and treat the water, as necessary, for each of the five sources were estimated. These metrics were developed to support regional water planning and policy analysis with initial application to electric transmission planning in the western US. Problem: These data were originally developed in 20141 and updated in 20182. New datasets on which these data depend have been published. As such, there is need to update the water availability and cost data. There is also need to map this same data to a county resolution and to publish the data in a more accessible place. Organization of the dataset: Data are organized according to five primary water sources: • Unappropriated fresh surface water • Unappropriated fresh groundwater • Appropriated water • Recycled wastewater, and • Brackish water

Tidwell, Vincent [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al, 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. west. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. The first two characters of each file name is the abbreviation for the state the in which the file contains data for. After the abbreviation is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file type described in detail: XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, this file is the merging of XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv and XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv by state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state the data comes from. FIPS - The two digit numeric state ID code. waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. origWaterUse - The original stated water use from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. CFS - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). Arizona is unique among the states, as its surface and groundwater resources are managed with two different sets of boundaries. So, for Arizona, the basinNum column is missing and instead there are two columns: surBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the surface water WMA the record belongs to. grdBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the groundwater WMA the record belongs to. XXStatePOD.shp: A shapefile which identifies the location of the Points of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records in XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv have coordinates, and therefore may be missing from this file. XXStatePOU.shp: A shapefile which contains the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to included within this file. XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized groundwater rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized surface water rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. Additionally, one file, stateWMALabels.csv, is not stored within a sub-directory. While we have referred to the spatial boundaries that each state uses to manage its water resources as WMAs, this term is not shared across all states. This file lists the proper name for each boundary set, by state.

Economics↗
DOE OSTI2023

Non-Fouling, Low Cost Electrolytic Coagulation & Disinfection for Treating Flowback and Produced Water for Reuse

Executive Summary This Final Report is composed of two major sections. The first section presents experimental results obtained in the laboratory during Budget Period 1. The second section presents results from the field test conducted during Budget Period 2. Laboratory Results This research investigated a novel electrochemical process for producing a ferric iron coagulant for use in treating flowback and produced water from hydraulic fracturing and oil production operations. The treatment system improves the effectiveness and lowers the cost of coagulation processes using Fe3+ as the coagulant. The electrolytic coagulant generation (ECG) system uses an electrochemical cell to produce acid and base from oilfield brine solutions. The acid is used to dissolve scrap iron to provide a Fe3+ coagulating agent. The base is used to neutralize the treated water. Compared to conventional electrocoagulation (EC), the main advantage of the ECG system is an order of magnitude lower cost for the source of iron. The second advantage over conventional EC is that it can deliver Fe3+ doses greater than 1 mM, since it is not limited by the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water required to oxidize ferrous to ferric iron. The capital costs for conventional EC and the ECG system are similar, but the operational costs for the ECG system are an order of magnitude lower than conventional EC. The combined costs for iron and electrical energy for treating 1 m3 of FPW with 1 mM Fe3+ is estimated to be $0.87 for conventional EC, and $0.087 for the ECG system. The estimated all-in cost for treating FPW with a 2 mM Fe3+ dose is $0.73/m3 ($0.12/bbl). Field Test Results The field test was conducted at the Paul Foster Central Tank Battery (CTB) in Lea County, New Mexico from November 10, 2022 through December 15, 2022. The feed water to the system was produced water from the Tatanka 1H formation. After approximately two weeks of testing, the initial batch of produced water had been treated and no untreated produced water was available. Thus, after this time, the feed water to the system consisted of previously treated water (i.e., recycled water). The recycled water had nearly all colloidal particles removed, and had a much lower alkalinity due to precipitation of carbonate minerals during the first pass through the system. Although the recycled water was not an ideal test solution due to its low particulate concentrations, its lower alkalinity did allow us to identify the main problem with the treatment system. The main problem with the treatment system was caused by the high alkalinity of the initial feed water (5.4 meq/L) that consumed a significant fraction of the electrochemically generated acid. This resulted in pH values exiting the iron contact tank that were too high to dissolve enough iron to effectively treat the produced water. Tests performed with recycled water with lower alkalinity did not have this issue, and dissolved iron concentrations greater than 20 mM could be achieved. One consistent observation was that effluent water from the iron contact tank was always free of particulates, even when fed with circumneutral solutions. This suggests that there is no need to dissolve high concentrations of iron if all the water to be treated is passed through the scrap iron canister. In this case, dissolved O2 and hypochlorous acid can promote sufficient iron corrosion to provide an effective coagulating agent – even in neutral pH water. This solves the problem resulting from highly alkaline produced water. Modifications to the design of the treatment system were made based on the field test results. These modifications will add minimal additional cost, and were tested in bench-scale laboratory experiments. In short-term testing, the modified treatment process was able to remove colloidal FeS particulates to levels below detection. Long-term, steady state testing will be required to determine whether the modified process is suitable for commercial treatment systems.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Improving Discovery, Sharing, and Use of Water Data: Initial Findings and Suggested Future Work

Collaborative management of water resources requires a broad suite of “water data” that extends beyond basic information about water quantity and quality to other related topics such as water infrastructure, aquatic ecosystem health, socioeconomic factors, and power generation. Water data are disparate in nature because they are collected and provided by many entities, and in some cases, remain challenging to access and use. The U.S. Department of Energy’s Water Power Technologies Office initiated a project to characterize relevant categories of water data; describe the current state of accessing, using, and visualizing water data; and outline investigatory pathways for future efforts aimed at improving the discovery, sharing, and use of water data. Input on these topics was solicited from a small but diverse cross section of members of the water resources community. Fourteen broad categories of water data were identified: dams; ecology; flood control; hydroclimatology; hydrography; hydrology; hydropower; management landscape; migratory barriers; recreation and aesthetic importance; socioeconomic; water quality; water availability and use; and weather. Stakeholder perspectives on the accessibility and usability of water data indicate these aspects are affected by a complex set of technical and social factors. However, stakeholders generally agreed that better access to water data can provide a range of benefits to water management, and they stressed the need to generate broad support from water data users and producers. Two investigatory pathways were outlined that, taken together, provide a logical progression toward the goals of the project. The first pathway emphasizes further investigation to better define target audiences and data needs, identify opportunities for collaboration between related efforts, and conduct value demonstration activities to generate further support for improving discovery and access of water data. The second pathway focuses on creating a comprehensive vision for potential solutions that improve the discovery of water data. Several activities that align with the first pathway are suggested for the next phase of the project.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Evaluating cross-sectoral impacts of climate change and adaptations on the energy-water nexus: a framework and California case study

Abstract Electricity and water systems are inextricably linked through water demands for energy generation, and through energy demands for using, moving, and treating water and wastewater. Climate change may stress these interdependencies, together referred to as the energy-water nexus, by reducing water availability for hydropower generation and by increasing irrigation and electricity demand for groundwater pumping, among other feedbacks. Further, many climate adaptation measures to augment water supplies—such as water recycling and desalination—are energy-intensive. However, water and electricity system climate vulnerabilities and adaptations are often studied in isolation, without considering how multiple interactive risks may compound. This paper reviews the fragmented literature and develops a generalized framework for understanding these implications of climate change on the energy-water nexus. We apply this framework in a case study to quantify end-century direct climate impacts on California’s water and electricity resources and estimate the magnitude of the indirect cross-sectoral feedback of electricity demand from various water adaptation strategies. Our results show that increased space cooling demand and decreased hydropower generation are the most significant direct climate change impacts on California’s electricity sector by end-century. In California’s water sector, climate change impacts directly on surface water availability exceed demand changes, but have considerable uncertainty, both in direction and magnitude. Additionally, we find that the energy demands of water sector climate adaptations could significantly affect California’s future electricity system needs. If the worst-case water shortage occurs under climate change, water-conserving adaptation measures can provide large energy savings co-benefits, but other energy-intensive water adaptations may double the direct impacts of climate change on the state’s electricity resource requirement. These results highlight the value of coordinated adaptation planning between the energy and water sectors to achieve mutually beneficial solutions for climate resilience.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Trail Creek in Taylor River Watershed, Colorado 2024-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Trail Creek. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado 2020-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors at Snodgrass Mountain. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format SG-X-Y, where SG refers to Snodgrass Mountain, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, SG-EHS is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and SG-ERTn (upslope n=1) are points along the Snodgrass electrical resistivity tomography transect not associated with the existing site names in the directory. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2020

HarDWR - Cumulative Water Rights Curves

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 - Recalculated based on Harmonized Water Rights Records v2.0 sourced from WestDAAT - Added "Unspecified" was a water source category, and files associated with this category v1.01 - Updated the names of each file with an ID number less than 3 digits to include leading 0s v1.0 - Initial public release Description This product an updated version of the database used as input to the WBM model (Grogan et al. in review; Grogan et al. 2022), and is the result of the step creating cumulative water rights curves described in Lisk et al. (2024). This database contains 2,667 individual .csv files, three for each Water Management Area (WMA) in the 11-state region. File Naming WMA_[###]_[X]W.csv, where [###] is the unique identifier for each WMA, and [X] is either "S" for surface water rights, "G" for groundwater rights, or "U" for unspecified. Column headers in each file: Year: the priority date year CUML: the total cumulative water rights allocated up to this priority date year (ft3s-1) Irrigation: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Irrigation category up to this priority date year (%) Domestic: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Domestic category up to this priority date year (%) Livestock: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Livestock category up to this priority date year (%) Fish: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Fish category up to this priority date year (%) Industrial: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Industrial category up to this priority date year (%) Environmental: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Environmental category up to this priority date year (%) Other: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Other category up to this priority date year (%) In addition to the database files, there is a companion .csv file, called stateWMAs_ID.csv. The main purpose of this file is to provide the means of translating between the [###] unique identifier and the various other id of the WMA the file is attached to. This translation file has five columns, which are: basinNum: The official state given alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA basinName: the state provided English name of the area, where applicable state: the state name uniID: a unique identifier we created by concatenating the state name, and underscore, and the state numerical ID ID: a unique numeric identifier we created as a requirement for the files to be used within WBM (Grogan et al. in review) For those whom may be interested in exploring our code more in depth, we are also making available an internal data file for convenience. The file is in .RData format and contains everything described above as well as some minor additional objects used within the code calculating the cumulative curves. For completeness, here is a detailed description of the various objects which can be found within the .RData file: states: A character vector containing the state names for those states in the study region. More importantly, the index of the state name is also the index in which that state's data can be found in the various following list objects. For example, if California is the second index in this object, the data for California will also be in the second index for each accompanying list. wmasRightsPersGrd: A list of nested lists of data frames. Each state has one entry in the top level list and consist of a list with one data frame per WMA. The data frames in this object are the same as the above described .csv files, specifically for groundwater. wmasRightsPersSur: A list of nested lists of data frames. Each state has one entry in the top level list and consist of a list with one data frame per WMA. The data frames in this object are the same as the above described .csv files, specifically for surface water. wmasRightsPersUnsp: A list of nested lists of data frames. Each state has one entry in the top level list and consist of a list with one data frame per WMA. The data frames in this object are the same as the above described .csv files, specifically for water from an unspecified source. wmasRightsTotsGrd: A list of nested lists of data frames. Each state has one entry in the top level list and consist of a list with one data frame per WMA. The values in the data frames of this object would be the equivalent to multiplying the CUML column by the sector percentage columns to create the sector total ft3s-1, specifically for groundwater. This object is provided for convenience to check out original total values, if desired. wmasRightsTotsSur: A list of nested lists of data frames. Each state has one entry in the top level list and consist of a list with one data frame per WMA. The values in the data frames of this object would be the equivalent to multiplying the CUML column by the sector percentage columns to create the sector total ft3s-1, specifically for surface water. This object is provided for convenience to check out original total values, if desired. wmasRightsTotsUnsp: A list of nested lists of data frames. Each state has one entry in the top level list and consist of a list with one data frame per WMA. The values in the data frames of this object would be the equivalent to multiplying the CUML column by the sector percentage columns to create the sector total ft3s-1, specifically for water from an unspecified source. This object is provided for convenience to check out original total values, if desired. wmaIDByState: A list of data frames which contain the by state allocation by WMA matrix. There is a matrix for each state in a different data frame within the object.

Economics↗
DOE OSTI2021

Plant functional types broadly describe water use strategies in the Caatinga, a seasonally dry tropical forest in northeast Brazil

In seasonally dry tropical forests, plant functional type can be classified as deciduous low wood density, deciduous high wood density, or evergreen high wood density species. While deciduousness is often associated with drought-avoidance and low wood density is often associated with tissue water storage, the degree to which these functional types may correspond to diverging and unique water use strategies has not been extensively tested. We examined (a) tolerance to water stress, measured by predawn and mid-day leaf water potential; (b) water use efficiency, measured via foliar δ 13 C; and (c) access to soil water, measured via stem water δ 18 O. We found that deciduous low wood density species maintain high leaf water potential and low water use efficiency. Deciduous high wood density species have lower leaf water potential and variable water use efficiency. Both groups rely on shallow soil water. Evergreen high wood density species have low leaf water potential, higher water use efficiency, and access alternative water sources. These findings indicate that deciduous low wood density species are drought avoiders, with a specialized strategy for storing root and stem water. Deciduous high wood density species are moderately drought tolerant, and evergreen high wood density species are the most drought tolerant group. Our results broadly support the plant functional type framework as a way to understand water use strategies, but also highlight species-level differences.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Drivers of Future Physical Water Scarcity and Its Economic Impacts in Latin America and the Caribbean

Future water scarcity is a global concern with significant impacts on the energy, water, and land (EWL) sectors. Countries in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) are significant producers of agricultural goods consumed around the world, so disruptions resulting from land and water scarcity in LAC are a source of global supply chain risk. Understanding where water scarcity in LAC could occur and what could drive that scarcity to emerge is critical for strategic resource management and planning, both regionally and globally. Assessing future water scarcity impacts in LAC is challenging given the multisector dynamic interactions among the EWL sectors and the multiple uncertainties acting across different spatial scales. We use scenario discovery to explore the drivers of future water scarcity, considering assumptions related to climate, socioeconomics, and the EWL sectors. Understanding what factors drive uncertainty across outcomes can help stakeholders in targeting long-term solutions and future data collection efforts. To illuminate these dynamics, we use a database consisting of a large ensemble of scenarios representing diverse worlds simulated using the Global Change Analysis Model. We quantify future water scarcity and its economic impacts across the scenarios using three metrics: (1) physical water scarcity, (2) water price, and (3) crop profit. We find that physical water scarcity and water price are driven primarily by reservoir storage capacity assumptions, highlighting the importance of strategic water infrastructure development in maintaining future water availability and accessibility. Crop profit is driven by a combination of water supply and demand assumptions, which emphasizes the complex nature of EWL multisector dynamics. While most of LAC is poised to have abundant land and water resources available for development, water basins in Mexico and along the Pacific coast of South America experience high levels of severity and uncertainty across the future scenarios for at least one of the metrics. We find that the drivers of extreme scarcity vary spatially and across the metrics, further highlighting the heterogeneity of the region and the importance of considering multiple metrics to assess water scarcity vulnerability.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Vegetation water sources in California's Sierra Nevada (USA) are young and change over time, a multi-isotope ( δ 18 O, δ 2 H, 3 H) tracer approach.

Sierra Nevada forests transpire a significant amount of California's water resources, sparking interest in applying forest management to improve California's water supply. Determining the source water of evapotranspiration enables forest managers to make informed decisions. To this end, a significant interest in critical zone science is to develop new methods to work across time scales to predict subsurface water storage and use. Here, forest vegetation accessed young water and switched sources depending on availability, suggesting that forest drought vulnerability may depend on the range of water sources available (rain, snowmelt and deeply stored water). This finding also suggests that changes in transpiration rates may have immediate effects on water sources in close proximity to vegetation, and delayed effects on storage and runoff. New δ 18 O, δ 2 H and 3 H data were used to track precipitation, runoff, evapotranspiration and storage through the critical zone seasonally, including seasons where evapotranspiration and snowmelt were in phase (winter snowmelt) and out of phase (seasonally dry summer). The main source of this headwater catchment's runoff is derived from its meadow saturated zone water, which was dominated by snowmelt. Water that originated as snowmelt contributed to transpiration, unless other sources, such as recent rain, became available. In cases where xylem δ 18 O and δ 2 H signatures matched those of deeper saturated zone water, 3 H data showed that xylem water was distinctly younger than the deep saturated zone water. During 2016, which experienced relatively normal snowpack in winter and seasonally dry summer conditions, mean summer saturated zone water and vegetation water were similar in δ 18 O, –12.4 ± 0.04 ‰ and – 12.5 ± 0.3 ‰, respectively, but were distinctly different in 3 H, 5.5 ± 0.2 pCi/L and 13.7 ± 1.1 pCi/L, respectively. While δ 18 O shows that vegetation and meadow saturated zone water have similar origins, 3 H shows they have dissimilar ages.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Water level changes in Lake Erie drive 21st century CO 2 and CH 4 fluxes from a coastal temperate wetland

Wetland water depth influences microbial and plant communities, which can alter the above- and below-ground carbon cycling of a wetland. Wetland water depths are likely to change due to shifting precipitation patterns, which will affect projections of greenhouse gas emissions; however, these effects are rarely incorporated into wetland greenhouse gas models. Seeking to address this gap, we used a mechanistic model, ecosys, to simulate a range of water depth scenarios in a temperate wetland, and analyzed simulated predictions of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) andmethane (CH 4 ) fluxes over the 21st century. We tested our model using eddy covariance measurements of CO 2 and CH 4 fluxes collected at the Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve (OWC) during 2015 and 2016. OWC is a lacustrine, estuarine, freshwater, mineral-soil marsh. An empirical model found that the wetland water depth is highly dependent on the water depth of the nearby Lake Erie. Future wetland surface water depths were modeled based on projection of Lake Erie's water depth using four separate NOAA projections, resulting in four wetland water-depth scenarios. Two of the four 21st century projections for Lake Erie water depths used in this study indicated that the water depth of the wetland would remain nearly steady; however, the other two indicated decreases in the wetland water depth. In our scenario where the wetland dries out, we project the wetland's climatological warming effect will decrease due to smaller CH 4 fluxes to the atmosphere and larger CO 2 uptake by the wetland. We also found that increased water level can lower emissions by shifting the site towards more open water areas, which have lower CH 4 emissions. We found that decreased water depths would cause more widespread colonization of the wetland by macrophyte vegetation. Using an empirical relationship, we also found that further drying could result in other, non-wetland vegetation to emerge, dramatically altering soil carbon cycling. In three of our four projections, we found that in general the magnitude of CO 2 and CH 4 fluxes steadily increase over the next 100 years in response to higher temperatures. However, in our driest simulations, we projected a different response due to increased oxidation of soil carbon, with CH 4 emissions decreasing substantially from an annual cumulative peak of 224.6 to a minimum of 104.7 gC m –2 year –1 . In that same simulation, net cumulative flux of CO 2 changed from being a sink of 56.5 gC m –2 year –1 to a source of 369.6 gCm –2 year –1 over the same period, despite a temperature increase from 13.7 °C to 14.2 °C. This temperature shift in our other three cases with greater water depths increased the source strength of CH 4 and the sink strength of CO 2 . Here, we conclude that the magnitude of wetland greenhouse-gas fluxes depended on the water depth primarily as it affected the areal percentage of the wetland available for plant colonization, but dramatic decreases in water depths could cause significant reductions in the wetland CH 4 fluxes, while simultaneously altering the wetland vegetation.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗