A simple water budget includes precipitation, streamflow, change in storage, evapotranspiration, and residuals: P=Q + ET + ΔS + e. It is essential to include the managed component (i.e., the “human” component) to close the water budget and reduce the magnitude of the residuals from “natural” water budgets. Some of the largest components of managed water withdraws are public supply, irrigation, and thermoelectric. The modified water budget is: P=Q + ET + ΔS + (PS + Irr + TE) + e, where PS is public supply, Irr is irrigation, and TE is thermoelectric water use. This data release contains both the natural and managed components of the water budget for a region within the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin, GA, U.S. The natural components include precipitation, evapotranspiration, and discharge and the managed components include public supply, irrigation, and thermoelectric. This table contains HUC 10 IDs, year, the natural components of the water budget, and water-use data aggregated from sites to HUC 10s for the years 2008–2012.

A simple water budget includes precipitation, streamflow, change in storage, evapotranspiration, and residuals: P=Q + ET + ΔS + e. It is essential to include the managed component (i.e., the “human” component) to close the water budget and reduce the magnitude of the residuals from “natural” water budgets. Some of the largest components of managed water withdraws are public supply, irrigation, and thermoelectric. The modified water budget is: P=Q + ET + ΔS + (PS + Irr + TE) + e, where PS is public supply, Irr is irrigation, and TE is thermoelectric water use. This data release contains both the natural and managed components of the water budget for a region within the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin, GA, U.S. The natural components include precipitation, evapotranspiration, and discharge and the managed components include public supply, irrigation, and thermoelectric. This table contains HUC 10 IDs, the natural components of the water budget, and two estimates of the managed components for only the year 2010: (1) water-use data downscaled from counties to HUC 10s and (2) water-use data aggregated from sites to HUC 10s. The county-level data is downloaded directly from the USGS 5-year compilation while the site-specific data is derived from various sources (see further description in the readme).

A simple water budget includes precipitation, streamflow, change in storage, evapotranspiration, and residuals: P=Q + ET + ΔS + e. It is essential to include the managed component (i.e., the “human” component) to close the water budget and reduce the magnitude of the residuals from “natural” water budgets. Some of the largest components of managed water withdraws are public supply, irrigation, and thermoelectric. The modified water budget is: P=Q + ET + ΔS + (PS + Irr + TE) + e, where PS is public supply, Irr is irrigation, and TE is thermoelectric water use. This data release contains both the natural and managed components of the water budget for a region within the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin, GA, U.S. The natural components include precipitation, evapotranspiration, and discharge and the managed components include public supply, irrigation, and thermoelectric. This table contains HUC 10 IDs, the natural components of the water budget, and two estimates of the managed components for only the year 2010: (1) water-use data downscaled from counties to HUC 10s and (2) water-use data aggregated from sites to HUC 10s. The county-level data is downloaded directly from the USGS 5-year compilation while the site-specific data is derived from various sources (see further description in the readme).

Water budget components for 17 hydrologic regions of the United States which contain tribal lands and for the tribal lands within each of these regions. All values represent an average year based upon the years 1971-2000, and are the result of a combined analysis of national datasets.

Water budget components for 17 hydrologic regions of the United States which contain tribal lands and for the tribal lands within each of these regions. All values represent an average year based upon the years 1971-2000, and are the result of a combined analysis of national datasets.

This data release contains results from a simple monthly water budget that includes water supply and consumptive use for thermoelectric, irrigation, and public supply for 12-digit Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC12) across the conterminous United States for water years 2010-2020. These results were produced using an analysis pipeline that ingests water supply, consumptive use, and routing information and accumulates and routes the water balance through the HUC12 network (Miller and others, 2024; https://doi.org/10.5066/P14MPRDE ). Water budget results also include an assessment of supply and use imbalances within the context of historical climatic conditions to calculate a surface water supply and use index and when considering a range of environmental flow allocation methods.

This data release contains results from a simple monthly water budget that includes water supply and consumptive use for thermoelectric, irrigation, and public supply for 12-digit Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC12) across the conterminous United States for water years 2010-2020. These results were produced using an analysis pipeline that ingests water supply, consumptive use, and routing information and accumulates and routes the water balance through the HUC12 network (Miller and others, 2024; https://doi.org/10.5066/P14MPRDE ). Water budget results also include an assessment of supply and use imbalances within the context of historical climatic conditions to calculate a surface water supply and use index and when considering a range of environmental flow allocation methods.

As part of the National Water Census program in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin, the U.S. Geological Survey evaluated the groundwater budget of the lower ACF, with particular emphasis on recharge, characterizing the spatial and temporal relation between surface water and groundwater, and groundwater pumping. To evaluate the hydrologic budget of the lower ACF River Basin, a groundwater-flow model, constructed using MODFLOW-2005, was developed for the Upper Floridan aquifer and overlying semiconfining unit for 2008–12. Model input included temporally and spatially variable specified recharge, estimated using a preliminary version of a Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) model for the ACF River Basin, and pumping, partly estimated on the basis of measured agricultural pumping rates in Georgia. The model was calibrated to measured groundwater levels, and base flows which were estimated using hydrograph separation. The simulated groundwater flow budget resulted in a net cumulative loss in groundwater storage during the study period. Spatial variability in simulated hydrologic budgets for eight subbasins was attributed to such factors as soil storage capacity, Lake Seminole impoundment, and the presence of in-channel springs. The model simulated a net storage loss for all the subbasins. The model is limited by its conceptualization, the data used to represent and calibrate the model, and the mathematical representation of the system; therefore, any interpretations should be considered in light of these limitations. In spite of these limitations, the model provides insight regarding water availability in the lower ACF River Basin. This USGS data release contains all of the input and output files for the simulations described in the associated model documentation report (https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20175141).

As part of the National Water Census program in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin, the U.S. Geological Survey evaluated the groundwater budget of the lower ACF, with particular emphasis on recharge, characterizing the spatial and temporal relation between surface water and groundwater, and groundwater pumping. To evaluate the hydrologic budget of the lower ACF River Basin, a groundwater-flow model, constructed using MODFLOW-2005, was developed for the Upper Floridan aquifer and overlying semiconfining unit for 2008–12. Model input included temporally and spatially variable specified recharge, estimated using a preliminary version of a Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) model for the ACF River Basin, and pumping, partly estimated on the basis of measured agricultural pumping rates in Georgia. The model was calibrated to measured groundwater levels, and base flows which were estimated using hydrograph separation. The simulated groundwater flow budget resulted in a net cumulative loss in groundwater storage during the study period. Spatial variability in simulated hydrologic budgets for eight subbasins was attributed to such factors as soil storage capacity, Lake Seminole impoundment, and the presence of in-channel springs. The model simulated a net storage loss for all the subbasins. The model is limited by its conceptualization, the data used to represent and calibrate the model, and the mathematical representation of the system; therefore, any interpretations should be considered in light of these limitations. In spite of these limitations, the model provides insight regarding water availability in the lower ACF River Basin. This USGS data release contains all of the input and output files for the simulations described in the associated model documentation report (https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20175141).

As part of the U.S. Geological Survey’s Groundwater Resources Program study of the Appalachian Plateaus aquifers, estimates of annual water-budget components were determined at 849 continuous-record streamflow gaging stations from Mississippi to New York. Base flow, which can serve as a proxy for annual recharge, streamflow, and runoff were estimated from computer programs—PART (Rutledge, 1993), HYSEP (Sloto and Crouse, 1996), and BFI (Wahl and Wahl, 1988)—that are included in the hydrograph analysis component provided with version 1.0 of the U.S. Geological Survey Groundwater Toolbox. Only complete years (January to December) of record at each gage were used to determine annual estimates. Estimates of base-flow index, which is the percentage of streamflow from base flow, are included in the annual and average tables. Precipitation was estimated by calculating the average of cell values in the PRISM dataset intercepted by basin boundaries where previously defined in the GAGES-II dataset (Falcone, 2011). Estimates of evapotranspiration were then calculated from the difference between precipitation and streamflow.