Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Water Rights”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

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 data sourced from WestDAAT - Changed using a Site ID column to identify unique records to using aa combination of Site ID and Allocation ID - Removed the Water Management Area (WMA) column from the harmonized records. The replacement is a separate file which stores the relationship between allocations and WMAs. This allows for allocations to contribute to water right amounts to multiple WMAs during the subsequent cumulative process. - Added a column describing a water rights legal status - Added "Unspecified" was a water source category - Added an acre-foot (AF) column - Added a column for the classification of the right's owner v1.02 - Added a .RData file to the dataset as a convenience for anyone exploring our code. This is an internal file, and the one referenced in analysis scripts as the data objects are already in R data objects. 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 Here we present an updated database of Western U.S. water right records. This database provides consistent unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of seven broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of inter-sectoral water allocation changes though water markets (Grogan et al., *in review*). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, Water Balance Model (WBM), with a water rights module (Grogan et al., *in review*). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, water management in the U.S. West 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. We produced the water rights database presented here in four main steps: (1) data collection, (2) data quality control, (3) data harmonization, and (4) generation of cumulative water rights curves. Each of steps (1)-(3) had to be completed in order to produce (4), the final product that was used in the modeling exercise in Grogan et al. (*in review*). All data in each step is associated with a spatial unit called a Water Management Area (WMA), which is the unit of water right administration utilized by the state in which the right came from. Steps (2) and (3) required use to make assumptions and interpretation, and to remove records from the raw data collection. We describe each of these assumptions and interpretations below so that other researchers can choose to implement alternative assumptions an interpretation as fits their research aims. Motivation for Changing Data Sources The most significant change has been a switch from collecting the raw water rights directly from each state to using the water rights records presented in WestDAAT, a product of the Water Data Exchange (WaDE) Program under the Western States Water Council (WSWC). One of the main reasons for this is that each state of interest is a member of the WSWC, meaning that WaDE is partially funded by these states, as well as many universities. As WestDAAT is also a database with consistent categorization, it has allowed us to spend less time on data collection and quality control and more time on answering research questions. This has included records from water right sources we had previously not known about when creating v1.0 of this database. The only major downside to utilizing the WestDAAT records as our raw data is that further updates are tied to when WestDAAT is updated, as some states update their public water right records daily. However, as our focus is on cumulative water amounts at the regional scale, it is unlikely most records updates would have a significant effect on our results. The structure of WestDAAT led to several important changes to how HarWR is formatted. The most significant change is that WaDE has calculated a field known as `SiteUUID`, which is a unique identifier for the Point of Diversion (POD), or where the water is drawn from. This separate from `AllocationNativeID`, which is the identifier for the allocation of water, or the amount of water associated with the water right. It should be noted that it is possible for a single site to have multiple allocations associated with it and for an allocation to be able to be extracted from multiple sites. The site-allocation structure has allowed us to adapt a more consistent, and hopefully more realistic, approach in organizing the water right records than we had with HarDWR v1.0. This was incredibly helpful as the raw data from many states had multiple water uses within a single field within a single row of their raw data, and it was not always clear if the first water use was the most important, or simply first alphabetically. WestDAAT has already addressed this data quality issue. Furthermore, with v1.0, when there were multiple records with the same water right ID, we selected the largest volume or flow amount and disregarded the rest. As WestDAAT was already a common structure for disparate data formats, we were better able to identify sites with multiple allocations and, perhaps more importantly, allocations with multiple sites. This is particularly helpful when an allocation has sites which cross WMA boundaries, instead of just assigning the full water amount to a single WMA we are now able to divide the amount of water between the number of relevant WMAs. As it is now possible to identify allocations with water used in multiple WMAs, it is no longer practical to store this information within a single column. Instead the stAllocationToWMATab.csv file was created, which is an allocation by WMA matrix containing the percent Place of Use area overlap with each WMA. We then use this percentage to divide the allocation's flow amount between the given WMAs during the cumulation process to hopefully provide more realistic totals of water use in each area. However, not every state provides areas of water use, so like HarDWR v1.0, a hierarchical decision tree was used to assign each allocation to a WMA. First, if a WMA could be identified based on the allocation ID, then that WMA was used; typically, when available, this applied to the entire state and no further steps were needed. Second was the spatial analysis of Place of Use to WMAs. Third was a spatial analysis of the POD locations to WMAs, with the assumption that allocation's POD is within the WMA it should belong to; if an allocation still had multiple WMAs based on its POD locations, then the allocation's flow amount would be divided equally between all WMAs. The fourth, and final, process was to include water allocations which spatially fell outside of the state WMA boundaries. This could be due to several reasons, such as coordinate errors / imprecision in the POD location, imprecision in the WMA boundaries, or rights attached with features, such as a reservoir, which crosses state boundaries. To include these records, we decided for any POD which was within one kilometer of the state's edge would be assigned to the nearest WMA. Other Changes WestDAAT has Allowed In addition to a more nuanced and consistent method of assigning water right's data to WMAs, there are other benefits gained from using the WestDAAT dataset. Among those is a consistent categorization of a water right's legal status. In HarDWR v1.0, legal status was effectively ignored, which led to many valid concerns about the quality of the database related to the amounts of water the rights allowed to be claimed. The main issue was that rights with legal status' such as "application withdrawn", "non-active", or "cancelled" were included within HarDWR v1.0. These, and other water rights status' which were deemed to not be in use have been removed from this version of the database. Another major change has been the addition of the "unspecified water source category. This is water that can come from either surface water or groundwater, or the source of which is unknown. The addition of this source category brings the total number of categories to three. Due to reviewer feedback, we decided to add the acre-foot (AF) column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. We added the ownerClassification column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. File Descriptions The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. In addition, each file begins with the state's name, in case the file is separate from its sub-directory for some reason. After the state name is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file described in detail. Note that st is a placeholder for the state's name. stFullRecords_HarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the complete water records for each state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state to which the allocations belong to. FIPS - The two digit numeric state ID code. siteID - The site location ID for POD locations. A site may have multiple allocations, which are the actual amount of water which can be drawn. In a simplified hypothetical, a farm stead may have an allocation for "irrigation" and an allocation for "domestic" water use, but the water is drawn from the same pumping equipment. It should be noted that many of the site ID appear to have been added by WaDE, and therefore may not be recognized by a given state's water rights database. allocationID - The allocation ID for the water right. For most states this is the water right ID, and what is recommended to use should a right be looked up on a given state's water rights database. The water amounts associated with these IDs tend to be finer scaled than those associated with siteID. It should be noted that some allocations may be extracted from multiple sites, particularly for larger Places of Use. ownerClassification - A classification of the types of owners for water rights. The most common is `Private` which incorporates a wide range of entities. Several classifications would be grouped into a government category, most of which are for the U.S. Federal Government. These allocations could be listed as "Federal", "United States of America", or as the names of any number of federal agencies. The last major grouping of entities is for "Native American"s. priorityDate - The date we use as the water right priority date for our modeling analysis. This is the legal priority date when it is available. However, for some rights, specifically from California and New Mexico, we used a pseudo priority date (e.g. well completion date or start of well drilling date) when a legal priority date was not available. The most questionable dates come from New Mexico, where the only date associated with certain water right records was the date the allocation was recorded in the database. As the allocation record creation tended to be within a few months of the filing of the application of the water right, from manually double checking the water rights, and our analysis focuses on aggregating water rights on the timescale of years, we determined it was acceptable to use such dates to include as many records as possible. primaryBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category for the primary water use at the PoD site. allocationBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories for WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category

Economics↗
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 OSTI2024

Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR) v.1

Abstract 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 for consistency, and tied them to a Western U.S.-wide shapefile of water administrative boundaries.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
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↗
DOE OSTI2024

Estimating irrigation water use from remotely sensed evapotranspiration data: Accuracy and uncertainties at field, water right, and regional scales

Irrigated agriculture is the dominant user of water globally, but most water withdrawals are not monitored or reported. As a result, it is largely unknown when, where, and how much water is used for irrigation. Here, we evaluated the ability of remotely sensed evapotranspiration (ET) data, integrated with other datasets, to calculate irrigation water withdrawals and applications in an intensively irrigated portion of the United States. We compared irrigation calculations based on an ensemble of satellite-driven ET models from OpenET with reported groundwater withdrawals from hundreds of farmer irrigation application records and a statewide flowmeter database at three spatial scales (field, water right group, and management area). At the field scale, we found that ET-based calculations of irrigation agreed best with reported irrigation when the OpenET ensemble mean was aggregated to the growing season timescale (bias = 1.6–4.9%, R 2 = 0.53–0.74), and agreement between calculated and reported irrigation was better for multi-year averages than for individual years. At the water right group scale, linking pumping wells to specific irrigated fields was the primary source of uncertainty. At the management area scale, calculated irrigation exhibited similar temporal patterns as flowmeter data but tended to be positively biased with more interannual variability. Disagreement between calculated and reported irrigation was strongly correlated with annual precipitation, and calculated and reported irrigation agreed more closely after statistically adjusting for annual precipitation. The selection of an ET model was also an important consideration, as variability across ET models was larger than the potential impacts of conservation measures employed in the region. From these results, we suggest key practices for working with ET-based irrigation data that include accurately accounting for changes in soil moisture, deep percolation, and runoff; careful verification of irrigated area and well-field linkages; and conducting application-specific evaluations of uncertainty.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

statemodify: a Python framework to facilitate accessible exploratory modeling for discovering drought vulnerabilities

The Colorado River Basin (CRB) is experiencing an unprecedented water shortage crisis brought upon by a combination of factors arising from interactions across the region’s coupled human and natural systems. Allocation of water to the seven states that rely on the Colorado River was settled in the Colorado River Compact of 1922 during a period now known to be characterized by atypically high flows (Christensen et al., 2004). Since then, aridification due to anthropogenic-driven warming has steadily reduced the overall water supply available in the basin, with a 10% decrease in the river’s flow occurring over just the past two decades (Bass et al., 2023). The river is further strained by increasing demands associated with a growing population and diverse multi-sectoral demands. Navigating these challenges also requires accounting for the complex prior appropriation water rights system governing water allocation across the region’s diverse users.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Two-Way Option Contracts That Facilitate Adaptive Water Reallocation in the Western United States

Many water markets in the western United States (U.S.) have the ability to reallocate water temporarily during drought, often as short-term water rights leases from lower value irrigated activities to higher value urban uses. Regulatory approval of water transfers, however, typically takes time and involves high transaction costs that arise from technical and legal analyses, discouraging short-term leasing. This leads municipalities to protect against drought-related shortfalls by purchasing large volumes of infrequently used permanent water rights. High transaction costs also result in municipal water rights rarely being leased back to irrigators in wet or normal years, reducing agricultural productivity. This research explores the development of a multi-year two-way option (TWO) contract that facilitates leasing from agricultural-to-urban users during drought and leasing from urban-to agricultural users during wet periods. The modeling framework developed to assess performance of the TWO contracts includes consideration of the hydrologic, engineered, and institutional systems governing the South Platte River Basin in Colorado where there is growing competition for water between municipalities (e.g., the city of Boulder) and irrigators. The modeling framework is built around StateMod, a network-based water allocation model used by state regulators to evaluate water rights allocations and potential rights transfers. Results suggest that the TWO contracts could allow municipalities to maintain supply reliability with significantly reduced rights holdings at lower cost, while increasing agricultural productivity in wet and normal years. Additionally, the TWO contracts provide irrigators with additional revenues via net payments of option fees from municipalities.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Using Financial Contracts to Facilitate Informal Leases Within a Western United States Water Market Based on Prior Appropriation

The ability to reallocate water to higher-value uses during drought is an increasingly important “soft-path” tool for managing water resources in an uncertain future. In most of the Western United States, state-level water market institutions that enable reallocation also impose substantial transaction costs on market participants related to regulatory approval and litigation. These transaction costs can be prohibitive for many participants in terms of both costs and lengthy approval periods, limiting transfers and reducing allocation efficiency, particularly during drought crises periods. This manuscript describes a mechanism to reduce transaction costs by adapting an existing form of informal leases to facilitate quicker and less expensive transfers among market participants. Instead of navigating the formal approval process to lease a water right, informal leases are financial contracts for conservation that enable more junior holders of existing rights to divert water during drought, thereby allowing the formal transfer approval process to be bypassed. The informal leasing approach is tested in the Upper Colorado River Basin, where drought and institutional barriers to transfers lead to frequent shortages for urban rights holders along Colorado's Front Range. Informal leases are facilitated via option contracts that include adaptive triggers and that define volumes of additional, compensatory, releases designed to mitigate impacts to instream flows and third parties. Results suggest that more rapid reallocation of water via informal leases could have resulted in up to $222 million in additional benefits for urban rights holders during the historical period 1950–2013.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Exploring Water System Vulnerabilities in California's Central Valley Under the Late Renaissance Megadrought and Climate Change

Abstract California faces cycles of drought and flooding that are projected to intensify, but these extremes may impact water users across the state differently due to the region's natural hydroclimate variability and complex institutional framework governing water deliveries. To assess these risks, this study introduces a novel exploratory modeling framework informed by paleo and climate‐change based scenarios to better understand how impacts propagate through the Central Valley's complex water system. A stochastic weather generator, conditioned on tree‐ring data, produces a large ensemble of daily weather sequences conditioned on drought and flood conditions under the Late Renaissance Megadrought period (1550–1580 CE). Regional climate changes are applied to this weather data and drive hydrologic projections for the Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Tulare Basins. The resulting streamflow ensembles are used in an exploratory stress test using the California Food‐Energy‐Water System model, a highly resolved, daily model of water storage and conveyance throughout California's Central Valley. Results show that megadrought conditions lead to unprecedented reductions in inflows and storage at major California reservoirs. Both junior and senior water rights holders experience multi‐year periods of curtailed water deliveries and complete drawdowns of groundwater assets. When megadrought dynamics are combined with climate change, risks for unprecedented depletion of reservoir storage and sustained curtailment of water deliveries across multiple years increase. Asymmetries in risk emerge depending on water source, rights, and access to groundwater banks.

Gupta, Rohini S. [School of Civil and Environmenta↗
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↗
NASA NTRS2011

Evapotranspiration as a Regional Climate Priority: Results from a NASA/USDA Workshop

On April 5 to 7, 2011, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the United States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) sponsored a Workshop on Evapotranspiration (ET) in Silver Spring Maryland. The workshop was a response to a recommendation in the 2009-2011 GEO (Group on Earth Observations) Work Plan that a workshop on ET should be held to discuss issues related to ET products and services and the potential for incorporating ET activities into the 2012-2015 GEO Work Plan. The workshop had a regional emphasis, although there were several excellent international and global presentations including one on the GEWEX LANDFLUX project. The different scales of these activities suggests that a framework is needed that can accommodate both regional and global ET activities. Despite limitations with the workshop's scheduling, it attracted 76 experts who contributed informative presentations and insightful discussions. The goals of the workshop involved the exchange of information and ideas and the development of plans for providing more visibility for ET issues. Specific objectives included 1) defining the needs and requirements for evapotranspiration data in weather and climate studies, in natural and agro-ecoystem monitoring, and in water resource management; 2) reviewing the methods used to measure and model evapotranspiration; 3) assessing surface and satellite observation systems required to support ET measurement, modeling and evaluation; 4) assessing the feasibility of developing a proposal for a task on evapotranspiration for the 2012-2015 GEO Work Plan, and 5) exploring the level of support and consensus for developing a strategy for establishing evapotranspiration as an Essential Climate Variable (ECV) within the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) framework The workshop featured a combination of oral presentations and breakout group sessions focused on the above objectives. There were also poster presentations providing opportunities for one-on-one discussions of ET modeling and measurement techniques. Presentations by users of ET data set the tone for the workshop. In the USA at the national and regional levels water rights issues represent a major opportunity for ET applications. ET data play a major role in estimating water loss due to irrigation, the largest cause of consumptive water loss in the USA, particularly in the West. Irrigation requirements are relatively specific since the needs are clearly defined by the geometry and number of the irrigation systems and can be monitored with high resolution satellite data. There was a strong consensus that land surface temperature (LST) at high resolution is critical for monitoring irrigation. State governments have made commitments to more efficient water management in the western US, but they need full access to improved and more timely ET data and applications to implement this plan. Water managers also reported that in spite of the recent development of. new techniques, the procedures used in some of the water balance calculations in some states are out of date and do not take advantage of new observational and data assimilation systems. The development of ET forecasts for water management is also seen as a priority. Although ET forecasts are currently being produced on an experimental basis these predictions could be improved by considering ET as a dynamic prediction variable in models and by increasing the time resolution of these ET predictions.

Lawford, Richard↗
NASA NTRS2018

Are Water Markets Globally Applicable?

Water scarcity is a global concern that necessitates a global perspective, but it is also the product of multiple regional issues that require regional solutions. Water markets constitute a regionally applicable non-structural measure to counter water scarcity that has received the attention of academics and policy-makers, but there is no global view on their applicability. We present the global distribution of potential nations and states where water markets could be instituted in a legal sense, by investigating 296 water laws internationally, with special reference to a minimum set of key rules: legalization of water reallocation, the separation of water rights and landownership, and the modification of the cancellation rule for non-use. We also suggest two additional globally distributed prerequisites and policy implications: the predictability of the available water before irrigation periods and public control of groundwater pumping throughout its jurisdiction.

global water scarcity↗
NASA NTRS1973

Development of a computer-aided procedure for the national program of inspection of dams

An effort was undertaken to determine the utility of ERTS-1 MSS data, together with automatic data processing (ADP) techniques, to detect and locate surface water, and transfer the related technology to the Texas Water Rights Commission (TWRC). A test site was selected, ERTS-1 MSS and ancillary data obtained, and existent ADP classification programs applied. During the course of this effort a linear discriminant function was developed. The results were evaluated for potential candidates for a transferable procedure. A computer-aided technique using a linear discriminant function was selected and recommended, for inclusion in an operational system, which met detection and location criteria. Specifically, evaluation of the selected computer-aided procedure for the test site resulted in the detection of 100 percent of areas of surface water 10 acres or greater in areal extent and the geographic location of areas classified as water to a positional accuracy of 1000 feet or closer. The procedure was recommended for inclusion in an operational computer-aided procedure for transfer to TWRC.

Source record↗
DOE OSTI2025

Infrastructure and resource development needs to support a significant expansion of US nuclear capacity

In December 2023, the United States pledged at a United Nations conference to triple nuclear energy by 2050. In May of 2025 a new administration announced plans to quadruple nuclear energy by 2025, setting a new target that requires understanding the key infrastructure and resources needed to achieve large-scale deployment. This study attempts to quantify “what it takes” to deploy an additional 200 GWe of nuclear capacity. It projects demand levels for workforce, fuel, uranium mining and enrichment, waste management, supply chain, land, licensing, and water. Demand growth is also contextualized. For example, the peak number of construction workers required is approximately 215,000, a 37 % increase in the current US utility construction workforce. Up to 80,000 MT/year of mined uranium will be needed, necessitating a 60-fold increase in US mining production or a doubling of global mining if sourced externally. Advanced reactor fuels, uranium mining, and nuclear-grade equipment production would need substantial expansion. Operational workforce, enrichment needs, and licensing submissions also face significant increases. Although water consumption may see relatively lower increases, securing water rights poses unique challenges. This study consolidates various demand metrics in a broad context, highlighting the necessity of early preparations, such as workforce training, to support a tripling of nuclear energy. While it outlines the demand-side requirements, it does not assess the difficulties of ramping up or other supply-side issues. The findings also shed light on the impact of reactor size and reactor technology on various demand metrics.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Is Clean Hydrogen Production a Good Fit for Questa? (Final Economic Impact Results) [Slides]

The Village of Questa, New Mexico is aiming to become a regional clean energy hub with robust and diverse employment opportunities for the local community supported by the energy sector and by other businesses inspired or attracted by abundant clean energy, outdoor recreation, and cultural opportunities. A coalition of stakeholders in the Village of Questa, comprising the Village, Kit Carson Electric Cooperative (KCEC), Questa Economic Development Fund, and Chevron, is exploring options to develop hydrogen production facilities as an opportunity to create jobs, provide reliable clean energy, and utilize former mine resources. Questa is home to a molybdenum mine owned by Chevron that closed in 2014. Several residents in Questa and surrounding communities lost their jobs when the mine closed and transitioned from active operations into environmental remediation. Although remediation efforts have been ongoing since 2014 and are expected to continue for at least 16 more years, the number of jobs with Chevron is much smaller now than it was before the closure. Between available workforce, brownfield land, and water rights formerly supporting mine operations but now in a transition period, there are considerable local resources that could be directed toward clean energy generation. Questa's electricity supply is already 100% solar during daylight hours thanks to Kit Carson Electric Cooperative's (KCEC's) strategic decision-making and partnering over the last decade. Now, Questa, KCEC, and Chevron are exploring the potential costs and benefits of siting an electrolytic hydrogen production facility and additional solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity in Questa to further advance the region's clean energy economy. In this report, we estimated the potential economic impacts (i.e., jobs, value added, gross output, tax revenue) of constructing and operating a combined hydrogen (32 MW polymer electrolyte membrane electrolizer + 7.5 MW fuel cell) and solar facility (22.5 MW) in the Village of Questa, as well as the resulting economic spillovers to Taos County and the state of New Mexico. We employ an input-output model that leverages IMPLAN's economic data for the region complemented by construction and operating expenses estimated by NREL and feedback from the local coalition to evaluate the direct, indirect and induced effects of the project construction (transient impacts) and operation (more permanent impacts). Based on the area's average trade profile, feedback from the coalition and current market conditions, these projects are expected to support 487 full-time equivalent jobs during construction, generating $\$24$ million in income for those workers and $\$82$ million in local economic activity in the state. Of those jobs, 106 are expected to be construction sector jobs. These investments are also estimated to add $\$36.5$ million to New Mexico's gross state product (GSP). In the Village of Questa, we estimate 16 jobs will be supported in construction and transportation industries, generating $\$0.9$ million in earnings. In Taos County, the construction phase is expected to support 285 jobs primarily in construction and professional services, while manufacturing jobs dominate the results for the Rest of New Mexico. The Village is also estimated to receive $\$0.9$ million in tax revenue from the construction phase alone. Once in operation, the project continues to impact the state and Questa. Around 20 jobs (full-time equivalent for each year of operation) are supported across New Mexico, with approximately 11 directly employed in Questa by both facilities. The total annual local economic activity supported by ongoing operations is just over $\$1.3$ million/yr, generating $\$1.6$ million/yr in additional income in the state. Annual operations are estimated to add $\$2.1$ million to the state's GSP. The Village is expected to receive around $\$43,000$/yr in tax revenue. Impacts vary significantly depending on which businesses are supplying materials, equipment and services, and where construction workers reside. Choosing local suppliers will most benefit Questa and the New Mexico economy, adding up to 500 jobs during construction and 13 long-term jobs. Local and state governments may consider ways to incentivize local businesses in order to maximize economic benefits.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2024

Is Clean Hydrogen Production a Good Fit for Questa? Final Economic Impact Results

The Village of Questa, New Mexico is aiming to become a regional clean energy hub with robust and diverse employment opportunities for the local community supported by the energy sector and by other businesses inspired or attracted by abundant clean energy, outdoor recreation, and cultural opportunities. A coalition of stakeholders in the Village of Questa, comprising the Village, Kit Carson Electric Cooperative (KCEC), Questa Economic Development Fund, and Chevron, is exploring options to develop hydrogen production facilities as an opportunity to create jobs, provide reliable clean energy, and utilize former mine resources. Questa is home to a molybdenum mine owned by Chevron that closed in 2014. Several residents in Questa and surrounding communities lost their jobs when the mine closed and transitioned from active operations into environmental remediation. Although remediation efforts have been ongoing since 2014 and are expected to continue for at least 16 more years, the number of jobs with Chevron is much smaller now than it was before the closure. Between available workforce, brownfield land, and water rights formerly supporting mine operations but now in a transition period, there are considerable local resources that could be directed toward clean energy generation. Questa's electricity supply is already 100% solar during daylight hours thanks to Kit Carson Electric Cooperative's (KCEC's) strategic decision-making and partnering over the last decade. Now, Questa, KCEC, and Chevron are exploring the potential costs and benefits of siting an electrolytic hydrogen production facility and additional solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity in Questa to further advance the region's clean energy economy. In this report, we estimated the potential economic impacts (i.e., jobs, value added, gross output, tax revenue) of constructing and operating a combined hydrogen (32 MW polymer electrolyte membrane electrolizer + 7.5 MW fuel cell) and solar facility (22.5 MW) in the Village of Questa, as well as the resulting economic spillovers to Taos County and the state of New Mexico. We employ an input-output model that leverages IMPLAN's economic data for the region complemented by construction and operating expenses estimated by NREL and feedback from the local coalition to evaluate the direct, indirect and induced effects of the project construction (transient impacts) and operation (more permanent impacts). Based on the area's average trade profile, feedback from the coalition and current market conditions, these projects are expected to support 487 full-time equivalent jobs during construction, generating $\$24$ million in income for those workers and $\$82$ million in local economic activity in the state. Of those jobs, 106 are expected to be construction sector jobs. These investments are also estimated to add $\$36.5$ million to New Mexico's gross state product (GSP). In the Village of Questa, we estimate 16 jobs will be supported in construction and transportation industries, generating $\$0.9$ million in earnings. In Taos County, the construction phase is expected to support 285 jobs primarily in construction and professional services, while manufacturing jobs dominate the results for the Rest of New Mexico. The Village is also estimated to receive $\$0.9$ million in tax revenue from the construction phase alone. Once in operation, the project continues to impact the state and Questa. Around 20 jobs (full-time equivalent for each year of operation) are supported across New Mexico, with approximately 11 directly employed in Questa by both facilities. The total annual local economic activity supported by ongoing operations is just over $\$1.3$ million/yr, generating $\$1.6$ million/yr in additional income in the state. Annual operations are estimated to add $\$2.1$ million to the state's GSP. The Village is expected to receive around $\$43,000$/yr in tax revenue. Impacts vary significantly depending on which businesses are supplying materials, equipment and services, and where construction workers reside. Choosing local suppliers will most benefit Questa and the New Mexico economy, adding up to 500 jobs during construction and 13 long-term jobs. Local and state governments may consider ways to incentivize local businesses in order to maximize economic benefits.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2025

Environmental Impacts of Closed-Loop Pumped Storage Hydropower

The goal of this report is to help license applicants, resource agencies, and other members of the hydropower community involved in closed-loop pumped storage hydropower permitting and licensing process, focus the scope of environmental reviews, and more quickly identify impacts with project nexus and potential mitigation measures for these impacts. Pumped storage hydropower (PSH) is an energy storage technology that uses energy to pump water up from a lower reservoir to an upper reservoir where water is stored until electricity is needed and the water is released to a lower reservoir passing through turbines. Closed-loop PSH—PSH that is not continuously connected to a naturally flowing water feature—is one of the lowest greenhouse gas emitting energy storage technologies and is therefore a critical part of the transition to renewable energy (Simon et al. 2023). Proposals for closed-loop PSH facilities in the United States currently account for more than 40% of original licenses and 99% of potential generation capacity in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) hydropower licensing pipeline (Johnson et al. 2023). While closed-loop PSH facilities can have lower environmental impacts than open-loop PSH facilities, no closed-loop facilities have been constructed in the United States to enable direct accounting of project impacts and efficacy of mitigations. Many proposals for closed-loop PSH submitted to FERC are abandoned early in the permitting and licensing process prior to license applications and environmental assessments, so there is little documentation describing potential project impacts and proposed mitigations. The newness of closed-loop PSH proposals in the United States may mean that tribal, federal, and state agencies with authorities for cultural and natural resources protection and management involved in the FERC licensing process may not have experience with closed-loop PSH regulation. Moreover, many proposed closed-loop PSH facilities are in areas that do not have high concentrations of conventional hydropower, so these agencies may also be unfamiliar with the FERC hydropower licensing process. The goal of this report is to help license applicants, resource agencies, and other members of the hydropower community focus the scope of environmental review for the closed-loop PSH development, licensing, and federal authorization process enabling quicker identification of potential impacts, mitigations, and situations where mitigation may not be possible. We found that environmental impacts of closed-loop PSH are highly site-specific, and generalizations about the types of environmental impacts across closed-loop PSH projects are difficult to make. Environmental impacts of closed-loop PSH are like those for open-loop PSH with a few exceptions including water sourcing, which can lead to delays and contention due to potential complexities with water rights, impacts to aquatic resources, and greenhouse gas emission potential. Cultural resource impacts were commonly reported in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents reviewed and discussed in interviews, but in many cases such impacts cannot be mitigated.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗