USGS ScienceSearch

USGS · ofr20051352

New York Water-Use Program and data, 2000

Abstract

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has been publishing estimates of water use every five years since 1950 in the Estimated use of water in the United States circular series. In 1978, the Congress expanded the water-use activities of the USGS by establishing the National Water-Use Information Program (NWUIP). The water-use program in New York is part of the NWUIP and is based on a cooperative agreement between the USGS and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Together, the NYSDEC and USGS collect, compile, and store water-use data to provide a data base that is useful for water-resources management. The New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) collects a wide variety of data elements relating to public-water supplies such as the name and location of the suppliers and the amount of water withdrawn. This valuable information is provided to the water-use program. The information summarized in this fact sheet has been published in U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1268, Estimated use of water in the United States in 2000 which can be accessed at http://water.usgs.gov/watuse . The 2000 data (by county) as well as previous years data can also be found at that site. Water withdrawal refers to the removal of water from the ground or its diversion from a surface-water source for use. Withdrawals of fresh and saline surface water and fresh ground water during 2000 were included in this study. The categories considered in this data compilation are public-water supply; deliveries to domestic from public-water suppliers and domestic self-supplied; industrial; thermoelectric-power generation; and irrigation. Saline withdrawals were included for the categories of industrial, mining, and thermoelectric-power generation. Saline water is a significant percentage of total withdrawals for the category of thermoelectric-power generation. The categories of withdrawal for which data were compiled for the 2000 calendar year do not include some of the categories that were addressed in 1995 and published in USGS Circular 1200, Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995. For the 2000 compilation, emphasis was placed on ensuring the quality of data that were collected, rather than attempting to address all categories and data elements on a national scale. Categories that were included in 1995 but not in 2000 are commercial; livestock; mining; the non-withdrawal categories of hydroelectric-power generation, wastewater treatment and public-water supply deliveries to commercial and industrial users. Any comparison made between 1995 and 2000 data need to be made with these category differences in mind. In 1995, the categories of commercial, livestock, and mining were about 280 Mgal/d (million gallons per day) of freshwater and 2.7 percent of total freshwater withdrawals. In addition, the report, New York water-use program and data, 1995, U. S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 014-02, concentrated on freshwater and did not include saline-surface water withdrawals in the figures. Any comparison between the 1995 and 2000 figures need to be made with this in mind. In 2000, about 12,100 Mgal/d (million gallons per day) of fresh surface and ground water and saline surface water were withdrawn from New York's rivers, streams, lakes, estuaries, bays, and aquifers for the categories addressed. Freshwater withdrawals comprised about 7,080 Mgal/d of this total. With a total population of 18,980,000 people in New York State, the total freshwater withdrawals represent an average of more than 370 gal/d (gallons per day) per capita. The amounts of fresh surface water, ground water, saline surface water, and total amounts of water withdrawn by categories of water use in New York during 2000 are shown. Many of New York's large population centers have developed along major rivers and lakes; as a result, more than 87 percent of the freshwater withdrawals in 2000 were from surface-water bodies (6,190 Mgal/d). More than 65 percent of fresh surface-water withdrawals were for thermoelectric-power generation, and about 32 percent were by public-water suppliers. Of the 890 Mgal/d of ground water withdrawn in 2000 statewide, 65 percent was withdrawn by public-water suppliers, and about 16 percent each by industrial and domestic users. More freshwater is withdrawn by thermoelectric plants than for any other water-use category. Of the freshwater withdrawals within New York, about 57 percent were made by fossil-fuel and nuclear powerplants; about 36 percent were for public-water supply; about 4.2 percent was by industrial users, 2.0 percent by domestic users, and about 0.5 percent was for irrigation. Total withdrawals, total surface-water and fresh ground-water withdrawals, in New York are plotted, by county. The categories of public-water supply and thermoelectric power account for the withdrawals that exceed 100 Mgal/d per county. The counties that have public-water supply withdrawals that exceed 100 Mgal/d are: Delaware (453 Mgal/d), Ulster, Nassau, Erie, Sullivan, Westchester, Suffolk, Putnam, and Schoharie (115 Mgal/d). These large withdrawals are from surface water except in Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island, where groundwater is the sole source of freshwater. Delaware, Putnam, Schoharie, Sullivan, Ulster, and Westchester Counties, in the southeastern part of the State, provide surface water to the aqueducts that supply drinking water to New York City. In 2000, the average amount of water delivered to New York City from these counties averaged 1,260 Mgal/d. Erie County, in western New York, had withdrawals totaling 176 Mgal/d of fresh surface water for public-water supply. More freshwater and more total water is withdrawn for the generation of thermoelectric power than for any other water-use category. All of the withdrawals are of surface water. Seven counties have total thermoelectric withdrawals that exceed 500 Mgal/d: Queens (1,690 Mgal/d), Westchester, Oswego, Suffolk, Erie, Orange, and Rockland (560 Mgal/d). The counties of Oswego, Erie, and Orange withdrew only fresh surface water for thermoelectric plants. Their sources of water were Lake Ontario (Oswego County), Niagara River (Erie County), and the Hudson River (Orange County). Queens, Westchester, Suffolk, and Rockland withdraw only saline surface water for the production of thermoelectric power. The sources of saline surface water for the thermoelectric plants in the counties of Queens, Westchester, Suffolk, and Rockland are the estuaries of the Hudson River and East River and bays of the Atlantic Ocean (Long Island Sound and the eastern shore of Jamaica Bay). New York ranked eighth in the United States in 2000 in total withdrawals (fresh and saline water); the States that exceeded New York in total withdrawals are those that have large populations (such as California and Texas) and (or) use large quantities of water for irrigation (such as Florida and Idaho). Of the categories considered for the 2000 compilation, New York did not have nationally significant withdrawals for either irrigation or industrial water use. New York ranked third after California and Texas in withdrawals of freshwater for public supply, in the withdrawal of fresh surface water for public-water supply, in total population, and in number of people served by public-water supplies. New York ranked sixth in total withdrawals for the generation of thermoelectric power and total surface-water withdrawals. Finally, New York ranked fourth in withdrawals of ground water for public supply.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Deborah S. Lumia, Kristin S. Linsey. 2005. New York Water-Use Program and data, 2000. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20051352

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Estimating aftershock risk for entry into earthquake-damaged buildings

We present a simple method to estimate the risk of experiencing strong shaking from aftershocks during entry into earthquake-damaged buildings. We compute wait times until the probability of strong ground shaking from aftershocks reaches a predefined risk threshold; for example, a 0.4 percent probability of experiencing Modified Mercalli Intensity 7 or greater shaking during the planned building entry. We also develop a relation between aftershock probability and the probability of strong shaking, so that users can reference the U.S. Geological Survey aftershock forecast during an ongoing aftershock sequence to determine if the risk threshold has been met. We apply our method to active continental regions (for example, the Western United States), stable continental regions (for example, the Central and Eastern United States), and subduction zones (for example, Cascadia or Alaska).

Open-File Report

End-user needs for remote sensing wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of North America

The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of North America comprises globally important grassland and wetland ecosystems critical for numerous populations of migratory birds. Due to the importance of this region for migratory birds, and particularly waterfowl, and the threats of habitat loss due to intensifying agriculture, there is a mature and diverse system of conservation organizations, agencies, and partnerships that spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually on habitat conservation to support migratory bird populations. Remote sensing can be a powerful tool for observing and evaluating global change at large scales as well as expanding inferences from field studies to the broader landscape with statistical models. However, development and utilization of these tools has lagged behind their demand for several reasons, including concerns over spatial and temporal resolution and accuracy of products; perception of a misalignment with decision-maker needs; technological barriers such as skill sets of conservation professionals, computing resources, data access, and usability. In this report, we summarize the needs of conservation professionals and scientists who use or want to use remote sensing data products to inform science about wetland change and conservation of wetlands in the PPR. We assembled this information through several methods leading up to, during, and following a January 2026 PPR Wetland Remote Sensing Workshop. The workshop included United States and Canadian scientists, conservation professionals, and policy experts. Our goal was to bring together end-users and remote sensing product developers jointly to explore reducing the lag between product development and utilization of products to inform science and conservation. Specifically, we aimed to identify gaps in wetland remote sensing that limit effective monitoring, management, and conservation in the PPR, and to develop a framework that outlines pathways to address these gaps by fostering collaboration, improving communication networks, encouraging discussion, and building on existing and ongoing efforts. This report summarizes our participants’ descriptions of end-user needs and the outcomes of the workshop.

Prairie Pothole region

Bathymetric survey and storage capacity of Upper Lake Mary near Flagstaff, Arizona in 2024

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the city of Flagstaff, collected bathymetric, light detection and ranging (lidar), and land-survey data of Upper Lake Mary in Arizona during the months of April and October 2024. The city of Flagstaff uses a combination of groundwater from well fields throughout the Flagstaff area and surface water, mainly from Upper Lake Mary, for its potable water supply. The purpose of the survey is to update previous surveys using new technology and compare the results to previous surveys to determine if there was a decrease in storage capacity that could affect the city’s water supply. The lakebed was mapped in April 2024 using a vessel equipped with a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and mobile lidar scanner with positioning captured using a real-time kinematic global navigation satellite system (RTK GNSS) base and receivers. In October 2024, areas of the reservoir that were too shallow for the boat and shoreline that were not captured by the vessel-based lidar were surveyed on foot using hand-held RTK GNSS receivers. At full pool (spillway elevation of 6,831.82 feet above NAVD 88 [2,082.34 meters (m)], Upper Lake Mary has a storage capacity of 16,449.80 acre-feet (20,290,611.73 cubic meters) and a surface area of 953.57 acres (3,860,926.075 square meters). The reservoir is 5.7 miles (9.7 kilometers) long and varies in width from 326 feet (99.36 m) near the central, narrow portion of the reservoir to 2,613 feet (796.44 m) in the upper portion. Comparisons between this survey and the previous two surveys from the 1950s and 2006 indicate no apparent decrease in reservoir area or storage capacity. Results of the 2024 survey indicate that Upper Lake Mary’s storage capacity increased by 0.9 percent from the 2006 survey and a 1.6 percent increase in surface area from the 2006 survey.

Arizona