USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Stages”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

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

At least 865 records · Page 48Linked to original sources
USGS2018

Simulation of groundwater flow and analysis of projected water use for the Rush Springs aquifer, western Oklahoma

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Oklahoma Water Resources Board, (1) quantified the groundwater resources of the Rush Springs aquifer in western Oklahoma by developing a numerical groundwater-flow model, (2) evaluated the effects of estimated equal-proportionate-share (EPS) pumping rates on aquifer storage and streamflow for time periods of 20, 40, and 50 years into the future, (3) assessed the uncertainty in the EPS scenario results, and (4) evaluated the effects of (a) projected groundwater-use rates extended 50 years into the future and (b) sustained hypothetical drought conditions over a 10-year period on stream base flow and groundwater in storage. The Rush Springs aquifer is an important source of water for municipal and irrigation use by many communities and agricultural users in the study area. The study area is composed of about 4,970 square miles (3,181,003 acres) of Rush Springs aquifer bedrock deposits located in 14 counties. The study area also includes the alluvium and terrace deposits of the Canadian and Washita Rivers, as well as alluvium along the Little Washita River, Deer Creek, and a number of smaller tributaries of the Washita River that overlie the bedrock. A numerical groundwater-flow model of the Rush Springs aquifer was constructed by using MODFLOW with the Newton solver. Groundwater flow was simulated for January 1979–December 2015 by using monthly stress periods, and an initial steady-state stress period was configured to represent mean annual inflows and outflows. The model was calibrated to groundwater-level observations at selected wells, monthly base flow at nine streamgages, stream seepage as estimated for the conceptual water budget, and Fort Cobb Reservoir stage. The EPS scenarios for the Rush Springs aquifer were run for periods of 20, 40, and 50 years. The 20-, 40-, and 50-year EPS pumping rates under normal recharge conditions were 0.82, 0.49, and 0.43 acre-foot per acre per year, respectively. Given the 2,954,545-acre aquifer area used for the EPS scenarios, the 20-year rate corresponds to an annual yield of about 2,422,727 acre-feet per year. Groundwater storage at the end of the 20-year EPS scenario was about 13,321,000 acre-feet, or about 31,516,437 acre-feet (70 percent) less than the starting EPS scenario storage. This decrease in storage was equivalent to a mean groundwater-level decline of about 152 feet. Water availability under the EPS pumping rate was primarily from the western area of the model. Saturation was sustained though the entire EPS scenario where the aquifer was sufficiently thick or a shallow hydraulic gradient was present. Fort Cobb Reservoir stage was below the dead-pool stage after about 5 years of 20-year EPS pumping. An uncertainty analysis was conducted to assess the uncertainty in the EPS scenario results. An ensemble of 400 random sets of possible parameter values was performed for the uncertainty analysis by using a multivariate normal distribution centered on the calibrated parameter values. The parameter bounds for the uncertainty analysis were determined by using the posterior covariance matrix, which allows for the incorporation of knowledge gained during the calibration process as well as observation uncertainty and the correlation between estimated parameters. The uncertainty results indicate a 95-percent confidence interval for the 20-year EPS pumping rate between 0.73 and 0.95 acre-foot per acre per year. Projected 50-year pumping scenarios were used to simulate the effects of selected well withdrawal rates on groundwater storage of the Rush Springs aquifer. The effects of well withdrawals were evaluated by comparing changes in groundwater storage between four 50-year scenarios using (1) no groundwater use, (2) mean groundwater use for the study period (1979–2015), (3) increasing groundwater use, and (4) groundwater use at the 2015 rate. The increasing-use scenario assumed a 38-percent increase in pumping over 50 years on the basis of 2010–60 demand projections for western Oklahoma. Simulated groundwater storage changes ranged between an increase of 6.3 percent for the scenario with no groundwater use, and 0.9 percent for the scenario with 2015 groundwater-use rates. For the Fort Cobb Reservoir surface watershed, simulated groundwater storage changes ranged between an increase of 23.6 percent for the scenario with no groundwater use and a decrease of 4.0 percent for the increasing groundwater-use scenario. Groundwater-level changes were generally greater in areas with a large concentration of groundwater wells and groundwater use such as the Fort Cobb Reservoir surface watershed. A hypothetical 10-year drought scenario was used to simulate the effects of a prolonged period of reduced recharge on the Rush Springs aquifer groundwater storage and Fort Cobb Reservoir stage and storage. Drought effects were quantified by comparing the results of the drought scenario to those of the calibrated numerical model. To simulate the hypothetical drought, recharge in the calibrated numerical model was reduced by 50 percent during the simulated drought period (1983–1992), and upstream inflows to the Canadian and Washita Rivers and associated tributaries were reduced by 37 percent. Groundwater storage at the end of the hypothetical drought period in December 1992 was about 42,983,000 acre-feet, or about 3,525,000 acre-feet (7.6 percent) less than the groundwater storage of the calibrated numerical model. This change in groundwater storage is equivalent to a mean groundwater-level decline of 15.8 feet. Simulated mean base-flow declines at the Canadian and Washita River streamgages were between 39 and 59 percent during the drought period. The minimum stage in Fort Cobb Reservoir at the end of the hypothetical drought period was 1,311 feet, indicating a storage capacity of only 10 percent of active conservation pool storage. The Fort Cobb Reservoir storage declines mostly resulted from reduced base flows in Cobb, Lake, and Willow Creeks upstream from the reservoir.

Oklahoma↗
USGS2019

Quantifying the eroded and deposited mass of mercury-contaminated sediment by using terrestrial laser scanning at the confluence of Humbug Creek and the South Yuba River, Nevada County, California, 2011–13

High-resolution, terrestrial laser scanning, also known as ground-based lidar (light detection and ranging), was used to quantify the volume of mercury-contaminated sediment eroded from an outcrop of historical placer-mining debris at the confluence of Humbug Creek and the South Yuba River in the Sierra Nevada foothills, about 17 kilometers northeast of Grass Valley, California, and delivered to a zone below an observed flood stage of the South Yuba River. Substantial quantities of mercury were used and lost to the environment from historical placer gold mining activities on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada, California, and recent studies have documented continued persistence of mercury and methylmercury concentrations in water, sediment, fish, and predatory invertebrates in the Yuba River drainage basin in relation to suspected mercury sources. To identify areas that have high levels of mercury contamination as possible remediation targets in the Yuba River drainage basin and other areas in the Sierra Nevada, the U.S. Geological Survey worked in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management on this and other detailed studies. Malakoff Diggings, one of the largest hydraulic gold mines in the Sierra Nevada, is 3.5 kilometers north of the study site in the Humbug Creek subbasin. Terrestrial laser scanning was used to produce centimeter-scale, three-dimensional maps of the complex outcrop surface, which was composed of an upper erosional area (cliff and over-steepened slope) and a lower depositional area (colluvial slope). The outcrop could not be mapped non-destructively or in sufficient detail by traditional surveying techniques. The study site, which was approximately 70 meters long, 30 meters wide and 20 meters high, was surveyed four times in 2 years (December 15, 2011; October 25, 2012; January 4, 2013; and November 22, 2013) to determine volumetric differences in the upper erosional and lower depositional areas between surveys. Measured changes in volume for the upper erosional area and lower depositional area were multiplied by the corresponding sediment density so that a mass-balance relationship, between the eroded and deposited sediment during each period, could be used to estimate the amount of mercury-contaminated sediment that was transported to below the base of the colluvial slope, where it could be mobilized by the South Yuba River during a flood having a 5-to-10-year recurrence interval. On December 2, 2012, a flood of this estimated magnitude reached the base of the colluvial slope. Between the first and second surveys (December 15, 2011–October 25, 2012), an estimated mass of 18±9.2 kilograms of sediment was transported from steeper slopes to the gently sloping river bank below the base of the colluvial slope. Between the second and third surveys (October 25, 2012–January 4, 2013), an atmospheric river caused heavy precipitation at the study site during late November and early December 2012. This short-duration, high-intensity rain resulted in a large amount of erosion and deposition at the study site and also caused high streamflow (flood stage) in the South Yuba River. From October 2012 to January 2013, 51±31 kilograms of sediment was transported to below the base of the colluvial slope, that is, below the high-water mark of December 2, 2012. Between the third and fourth surveys (January 4, 2013–November 22, 2013), an additional 10±26 kilograms of sediment was transported to below the base of the colluvial slope. During the 24 months of the study, the total mass of sediment delivered below the base of the colluvial slope and the high-water mark of December 2, 2012, was 79±66 kilograms. In any given year there is a 10–20-percent chance (5-to-10-year recurrence interval) of a flood equal to or greater than that of the December 2, 2012, flood, which could transport mercury-contaminated sediment at the study site into the South Yuba River. Hydraulically modeled estimates of the South Yuba River stage during floods having a 50- and 100-year recurrence interval (2- and 1-percent annual exceedance probability, respectively) indicated that resulting river stages could be 2.2–3.0 meters above the base of the colluvial slope, or 2.2–3.0 meters above the high-water mark of December 2, 2012. Such high river stages would be likely to inundate the lower half of the colluvial slope and mobilize a substantial volume of mercury-contaminated sediment to downstream areas.

California↗
USGS2020

Flood-inundation maps for the Little Calumet River from Lansing to South Holland, Illinois, 2020

Digital flood-inundation maps for about an 8-mile reach of the Little Calumet River, Illinois, were created by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The flood-inundation maps, which can be accessed through the USGS Flood Inundation Mapping Science website at https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/flood-inundation-mapping-fim-program , depict estimates of the areal extent and depth of flooding corresponding to selected water levels (stages) at three USGS streamgages: Little Calumet River at South Holland, Ill. (USGS station 05536290); Little Calumet River at Munster, Indiana (USGS station 05536195); and Thorn Creek at Thornton, Ill. (USGS station 05536275). Near-real-time stages at these streamgages may be obtained on the internet from the USGS National Water Information System at https://doi.org/10.5066/F7P55KJN or the National Weather Service Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service at https://water.weather.gov/ahps/ , which also forecasts flood hydrographs at these sites. Flood profiles were computed for the stream reaches using a one-dimensional unsteady flow step-backwater hydraulic model. The model performance was evaluated using historical streamflow measurements and the most current stage-discharge relations at the USGS streamgages at Little Calumet River at South Holland, Ill.; Little Calumet River at Munster, Ind.; and Thorn Creek at Thornton, Ill. The model was used to compute 24 water-surface profiles at 1-foot intervals referenced to the streamgage datum and ranging from bankfull to about the 0.2-percent annual-exceedance probability flood (500-year recurrence interval flood). The simulated water-surface profiles were then combined with a geographic information system digital elevation model (derived from light detection and ranging data having a 0.6-foot vertical accuracy and a 2-foot horizontal resolution) to delineate the area flooded at each water level. The availability of these maps, along with internet information regarding current stage from USGS streamgages and forecasted high-flow stages from the National Weather Service, will provide emergency management personnel and residents with information that is critical for flood-response activities such as evacuations and road closures, as well as for postflood recovery efforts.

Illinois↗
USGS2021

Precipitation, peak streamflow, and inundation in the Bynum Run and Winters Run watersheds in Harford County, Maryland

The Harford County Department of Public Works and the U.S. Geological Survey have been working cooperatively to monitor continuous streamflow at several streamgages in Harford County, Maryland, including Bynum Run and Winters Run. A perceived recent uptick in the number of flooding events in the Bynum Run and Winters Run watersheds have led to questions about the relative frequency and magnitude of floods experienced by county residents. Precipitation, stage (water elevation), and peak flow analyses and trends were evaluated. Although there was no one contributor to point to for the perceived increase in flooding, it is most likely attributable to a combination of precipitation, stage, and peak flow. There have been numerous rainfall events with exceedingly long return intervals, but none were statistically out of the ordinary. The stages of the streams at higher flows are slightly higher (less than 0.5 feet) than historical stages, but likely are not great enough to cause a significant increase in flooding. The ratings (stage discharge relationship) for the streams have changed slightly. The latest ratings indicate erosion and deposition in the streambed over the years of observation, but again these alone do not result in more flooding. These factors taken together may point to an observational bias for incidental flooding. With the increase in land development, there may simply be more observations of flooding in the county.

Maryland↗
USGS2024

Flood-inundation maps for the Cuyahoga River in and near Independence, Ohio, 2024

Digital flood-inundation maps for a 9.9-mile reach of the Cuyahoga River in and near Independence, Ohio, were created by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District Board of Trustees. Water-surface profiles were computed for the stream reach by using a one-dimensional steady-state step-backwater model. The model was calibrated to the current (2024) stage-streamflow relation (rating curve 43.0) for the USGS streamgage 04208000, Cuyahoga River at Independence, Ohio. The resulting hydraulic model was then used to compute 13 water-surface profiles for water levels (flood stages) ranging from 14.00 to 26.00 feet. The flood stages range from “action stage” to above “major flood stage” as reported by the National Weather Service. The simulated water-surface profiles were then used in combination with a digital elevation model derived from light detection and ranging data to map the inundated areas associated with each flood profile. The flood-inundation maps and the supporting hydraulic model produced by this study can be used by emergency managers and local officials to assess flood mitigation strategies and to define flood hazard areas to protect life and property, to coordinate flood response activities such as evacuations and road closures, and to aid postflood recovery efforts.

Ohio↗
USGS1996

A coupled surface-water and ground-water flow model (MODBRANCH) for simulation of stream-aquifer interaction

Ground-water and surface-water flow models traditionally have been developed separately, with interaction between subsurface flow and streamflow either not simulated at all or accounted for by simple formulations. In areas with dynamic and hydraulically well-connected ground-water and surface-water systems, stream-aquifer interaction should be simulated using deterministic responses of both systems coupled at the stream-aquifer interface. Accordingly, a new coupled ground-water and surface-water model was developed by combining the U.S. Geological Survey models MODFLOW and BRANCH; the interfacing code is referred to as MODBRANCH. MODFLOW is the widely used modular three-dimensional, finite-difference ground-water model, and BRANCH is a one-dimensional numerical model commonly used to simulate unsteady flow in open- channel networks. MODFLOW was originally written with the River package, which calculates leakage between the aquifer and stream, assuming that the stream's stage remains constant during one model stress period. A simple streamflow routing model has been added to MODFLOW, but is limited to steady flow in rectangular, prismatic channels. To overcome these limitations, the BRANCH model, which simulates unsteady, nonuniform flow by solving the St. Venant equations, was restructured and incorporated into MODFLOW. Terms that describe leakage between stream and aquifer as a function of streambed conductance and differences in aquifer and stream stage were added to the continuity equation in BRANCH. Thus, leakage between the aquifer and stream can be calculated separately in each model, or leakages calculated in BRANCH can be used in MODFLOW. Total mass in the coupled models is accounted for and conserved. The BRANCH model calculates new stream stages for each time interval in a transient simulation based on upstream boundary conditions, stream properties, and initial estimates of aquifer heads. Next, aquifer heads are calculated in MODFLOW based on stream stages calculated by BRANCH, aquifer properties, and stresses. This process is repeated until convergence criteria are met for head and stage. Because time steps used in ground-water modeling can be much longer than time intervals used in surface- water simulations, provision has been made for handling multiple BRANCH time intervals within one MODFLOW time step. An option was also added to BRANCH to allow the simulation of channel drying and rewetting. Testing of the coupled model was verified by using data from previous studies; by comparing results with output from a simpler, four-point implicit, open-channel flow model linked with MODFLOW; and by comparison to field studies of L-31N canal in southern Florida.

Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations↗
USGS1977

Water resources data for Alabama, water year 1976

Water resources data for the 1976 water year for Alabama consist of records of stage, discharge, and water quality of streams; stage and contents of lakes and reservoirs; and water levels of ground water. This report contains discharge records for 88 gaging stations; stage only records for 25 gaging stations; stage and contents for 12 lakes and reservoirs; water quality for 45 gaging stations, 68 partial-record stations, and water levels for 53 observation wells. Also included are 27 crest-stage partial-record stations, and 11 flood hydrograph partial-record stations, Discharge records for a few pertinent stations in bordering states are also included in this report. These data represent that part of the National Water Data System collected by the U.S. Geological Survey and cooperating State and Federal agencies in Alabama.

Alabama↗
USGS1979

Water resources data for Alabama, water year 1978

Water resources data for the 1978 water year for Alabama consist of records of stage, discharge, and water quality of streams; stage and contents of lakes and reservoirs; and water levels and water quality of ground-water wells. This report contains records for water discharge at 95 gaging stations; stage only at 16 gaging stations; stage and contents of 12 lakes and reservoirs; water quality at 64 gaging stations, 24 partial-record stations, and 2 wells; and water levels at 59 observation wells. Also included are data for 23 crest-stage and 11 flood hydrograph partial-record stations. Location of these sites are shown on figures 4-7. Additional water data were collected at various sites, not involved in the systematic data-collection program, and are published as miscellaneous measurements and analyses. Discharge records for a few pertinent stations in bordering states are also included in this report. These data represent that part of the National Water Data System collected by the U.S. Geological Survey and cooperating State and Federal agencies in Alabama.

Alabama↗
USGS1980

Water resources data for Alabama, water year 1979; Volume 2. Tombigbee, Mobile, Dog, Pascagoula, and Tennessee River Basins

Water resources data for the 1979 water year consist of records of stage, discharge, and water quality of streams; stage and contents of lakes and reservoirs; and water levels and water quality of ground-water wells. This report contains records for water discharge at 51 gaging stations; stage only at 7 gaging stations; stage and contents of 4 lakes and reservoirs; water quality at 34 gaging stations, 103 partial-record stations; and water levels at 44 observation wells. Also included are data for 9 low flow, 5 crest-stage and 3 flood hydrograph partial-record stations. Location of these sites are shown on figures 4-7. Additional water data were collected at various sites, not involved in the systematic data-collection program, and are published as miscellaneous measurements and analyses. Discharge records for a few pertinent stations in bordering states are also included in this report. These data represent that part of the National Water Data System collected by the U.S. Geological Survey and cooperating State and Federal agencies in Alabama.

Alabama↗
USGS1984

Water resources data, Alabama water year 1983

Water resources data for the 1983 water year consist of records of stage, discharge, and water quality of streams; stage and contents of lakes and reservoirs; and water levels and water quality of ground-water wells. This report contains records for water discharge at 84 gaging stations; stage only at 23 gaging stations; stage and contents of 12 lakes and reservoirs; water quality at 80 gaging stations, 55 partial-record stations; water levels at 53 observation wells and water quality at 48 wells. Also included are data for 5 crest stage and 6 flood hydrograph partial-record stations. Location of these sites are shown on figures 4-7. Additional water data were collected at various sites, not involved in the systematic data-collection program, and are published as miscellaneous measurements and analyses. Discharge records for a few pertinent stations in bordering states are also included in this report. These data represent that part of the National Water Data System collected by the U.S. Geological Survey and cooperating State and Federal agencies in Alabama.

Alabama↗
USGS1985

Water resources data, Alabama, water year 1984

Water resources data for the 1984 water year consist of records of stage, discharge, and water quality of streams; stage and contents of lakes and reservoirs; water levels and water quality of ground-water wells; and water quality of precipitation stations. This report contains records for water discharge at 85 gaging stations; stage at 23 gaging stations; stage and contents of 13 lakes and reservoirs; water quality at 31 gaging stations, 26 partial-record stations; water levels at 48 observation wells and water quality at 5 wells. Also included are data for 4 crest stage, 6 flood hydrograph partial-record stations, and 3 quality of precipitation stations. Location of these sites are shown on figures 4-8. Additional water data were collected at various sites, not involved in the systematic data-collection program, and are published as miscellaneous measurements and analyses. Discharge records for a few pertinent stations in bordering states are also included in this report. These data represent that part of the National Water Data System collected by the U.S. Geological Survey and cooperating State and Federal agencies in Alabama.

Alabama↗
USGS1986

Water resources data for Alabama, water year 1985

Water resources data for the 1985 water year for Alabama consist of records of stage, discharge, and water quality of streams; stage and contents of lakes and reservoirs; and water levels in wells. This report includes records on both surface and ground water in the State. Specifically, it contains: (1) Discharge records for 86 streamflow-gaging stations, for 62 partial-record or miscellaneous streamflow stations, and for 4 crest-stage or partial-record streamflow stations; (2) stage and content records for 13 lakes and reservoirs and stage at 27 stations; (3) water-quality records for 22 streamflow-gaging stations, for 66 ungaged streamsites, and for 7 wells; and (4) water-level records for 62 observation wells. Discharge records for a few pertinent stations in bordering States are also included in this report.

Alabama↗
USGS2000

Water resources data, Alabama, water year 1999

Water resources data for the 1999 water year for Alabama consist of records of stage, discharge, and water quality of streams; stages and contents of lakes and reservoirs; and water levels in wells. This report includes records on both surface and ground water in the State. Specifically, it contains: (1) discharge records for 125 streamflow-gaging stations, for 41 partial-record or miscellaneous streamflow stations; (2) stage and content records for 14 lakes and reservoirs and stage or elevation at 36 stations; (3) water-quality records for 25 streamflow-gaging stations, 2 lake stations, for 33 ungaged streamsites, and for 1 precipitation station; (4) water temperature and specific conductance at 14 surface-water stations; (5) dissolved oxygen at 9 stations; (6) sediment data at 38 stations; (7) chemical analyses of bed material at 25 stations; (8) water-level records at 3 recording observation wells; and (9) water-quality records for 56 ground-water stations. Also included are lists of active and discontinued continuous-record surface-water discharge stations, continuous-record surface-water stage stations, continuous-record surface-water-quality stations, and partial-record and miscellaneous surface-water-quality stations. These data represent that part of the National Water Data System operated by the U.S. Geological Survey and cooperating Federal, State, and local agencies in Alabama.

Alabama↗
USGS1979

Water resources data for Arizona, water year 1978

Water resources data for the 1978 water year for Arizona consist of records of stage, discharge, and water quality of streams; stage, contents, and water quality of lakes and reservoirs; water levels of observation wells; and quality of ground water. This report contains discharge records for 241 gaging stations, annual peaks for 77 crest-stage partial-record stations, and discharge measurements at 58 miscellaneous sites; contents only records for 9 lakes and reservoirs; stage and contents for 1 lake; elevations only for 2 lakes or reservoirs; gage height only for 1 lake and 1 head over a dam; 16 supplementary records, included with gaging-station records, consisting of month end or monthly stage, contents, and evaporation of lakes and reservoirs, diversions, and return flows; 2 low-flow investigations; water-quality records for 87 continuous record stations and 16 miscellaneous sites; water levels for 101 observation wells; and water-quality data for water from 189 wells. The data represent that part of the National Water Data System operated by the U.S. Geological Survey and cooperating Federal and State Agencies in Arizona.

Arizona↗
USGS1982

Water resources data for Arizona, water year 1980

Water resources data for the 1980 water year for Arizona consist of records of stage, discharge, and water quality of streams; stage, contents, and water quality of lakes and reservoirs; water levels of observation wells; and quality of ground water. This report contains discharge records for 240 gaging stations, annual peaks for 61 crest-stage partial-record stations, and discharge measurements at 14 miscellaneous sites; contents only records for 9 lakes and reservoirs; stage and contents for 1 lake; elevation and discharge for 1 streamflow station; elevation only for 1 stream-flow station; gage height only for I head over a dam; 16 supplementary records, included with gaging-station records, consisting of month end or monthly stage, contents, and evaporation of lakes and reservoirs, diversions, and return flows; water-quality records for 62 continuous-record stations and 9 miscellaneous sites; water levels for 93 observation wells; and water-quality data for water from 741 wells. The data represent that part of the National Water Data System operated by the U.S. Geological Survey and cooperating Federal and State Agencies in Arizona.

Arizona↗
USGS1988

Water resources data, Arizona, water year 1985

Water resources data for the 1985 water year for Arizona consist of records of stage, discharge, and water quality of streams; stage, contents, and water quality of lakes and reservoirs; water levels of observation wells; and quality of ground water. This report contains discharge records for 186 gaging stations, annual peaks for 24 crest-stage partial-record stations, and discharge measurements at 7 miscellaneous sites; contents only records for 8 lakes and reservoirs; stage and contents for 1 lake; elevation only for 1 streamflow station; 18 supplementary records, included with gaging-station records, consisting of monthend or monthly stage, contents, and evaporation of lakes and reservoirs, diversions, and return flows; water-quality records for 34 continuous-record stations and 5 miscellaneous sites; water levels for 95 observation wells; and water-quality data for water from 230 wells. The data re-present that part of the National Water Data System operated by the U.S. Geological Survey and cooperating Federal and State Agencies in Arizona.

Arizona↗
USGS1989

Water resources data for Arizona, water year 1987

Water discharge data for the 1987 water year for Arizona consist of records of stage, discharge, and water quality of streams; stage, contents, and water quality of lakes and reservoirs; water levels of observation wells; and quality of ground water. This report contains discharge records for 168 gaging stations, annual peaks for 22 crest-stage partial-record stations, and discharge measurements at 8 miscellaneous sites; contents only records for 9 lakes and reservoirs; stage and contents for 1 lake; elevation only for 1 streamflow station; 20 supplementary records, included with gaging-station records, consisting of monthend or monthly stage, contents, and evaporation of lakes and reservoirs, diversions, and return flows; water-quality records for 41 continous-record stations and 6 miscellaneous sites; water levels for 1,007 observation wells; and water-quality data for water from 261 wells. The data represent that part of the National Water Data System operated by the U.S. Geological Survey and cooperating Federal and State Agencies in Arizona.

Arizona↗
USGS1999

Water resources data, Arizona, water year 1998

Water discharge data for the 1998 water year for Arizona consist of records of stage, discharge, and water quality of streams; stage, contents, water quality of lakes and reservoirs; water levels of observation wells; and quality of ground water. This report contains discharge records for 167 gaging stations, annual peaks for 27 crest-stage partial-record stations; contents only records for 8 lakes and reservoirs; stage and (or) contents for 1 lake; elevation only for 1 streamflow station; included with gaging-station records, consisting of monthend or monthly stage, contents, and evaporation of lakes and reservoirs, diversions, and return flows; water-quality records for 14 continuous-record stations; water-quality data for water from 188 wells. The data represent that part of the National Water Data System operated by the U.S. Geological Survey cooperating Federal and State agencies in Arizona.

Arizona↗