U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5031

National Water Availability and Use Pilot Program

Estimated Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use in 

the Great Lakes Basin of the United States in 2005

Estimated Withdrawals and Other Elements 

of Water Use in the Great Lakes Basin of 

the United States in 2005

By Patrick C. Mills and Jennifer B. Sharpe

National Water Availability and Use Pilot Program

Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5031

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2010

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, 

natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Mills, P.C., and Sharpe, J.B., 2010, Estimated withdrawals and other elements of water use in the Great Lakes Basin 

of the United States in 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5031, 95 p.

ISBN 978-1-4113-2779-5

Front-cover image: Sand castle on Lake Michigan beach, Frankfort, Michigan courtesy of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO), image collection at http://epa.gov/glnpo/

image/, and Michigan Travel Bureau. Figure 6 images: Thermoelectric Power, Industrial, and Mining courtesy of 

USEPA, GLNPO; Industrial photograph by Carole Y. Swinehart, Michigan Sea Grant Extension; Public Supply, “The 

Carter Harrison crib, shot from the Dever crib circa 1990, Lake Michigan, off Chicago,” courtesy of Wikipedia.org at 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carter-harrison-crib-from_deaver.jpg, photograph by Richard C. Drew; Aquaculture

courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, photograph by Robert Pos; Irrigation, Domestic, and Livestock photographs 

by Patrick Mills, U.S. Geological Survey.
iii

Acknowledgments 

The authors gratefully acknowledge the USGS water-use specialists in each of the Great 

Lakes States who compiled the data for this report and the many state, local, and Federal agencies and nongovernment entities that shared data and expertise with the USGS. In many states, 

personnel from cooperating agencies worked as full partners with the USGS in this compilation 

effort. Cooperators include state agencies that manage water resources, operate data-collection 

programs, and administer regulations on water use and natural resources. 

The USGS water-use points of contact for each state are identified on the USGS National 

Water-Use Information Program Web site (http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/). Additional thanks 

are extended to Kristin Linsey, USGS, New York Water Science Center, and Kimberly Shaffer, 

USGS Ohio Water Science Center, for their efforts in verifying the data and tables. Donald 

Arvin, USGS Indiana Water Science Center, and Marilee Horn, USGS New Hampshire Water 

Science Center, are recognized for their comprehensive technical reviews of the report.

v

Contents

Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................................iii

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................2

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................2

Sources of Data and Estimates ..........................................................................................................7

Terminology Used and Changes for the 2005 National Report......................................................9

Climate and Weather..........................................................................................................................11

Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use.....................................................................................11

Total Withdrawals and Source of Water.........................................................................................12

Public Supply.......................................................................................................................................22

Self-Supplied Domestic .....................................................................................................................23

Thermoelectric Power.......................................................................................................................27

Industrial and Commercial ................................................................................................................30

Mining...................................................................................................................................................31

Irrigation...............................................................................................................................................34

Aquaculture .........................................................................................................................................37

Livestock...............................................................................................................................................39

Reclaimed Wastewater .....................................................................................................................41

Trends in Water Withdrawals, 1985–2005................................................................................................43

Consumptive Use .........................................................................................................................................49

Uncertainty in Estimates.............................................................................................................................50

Public Supply and Self-Supplied Domestic....................................................................................55

Thermoelectric Power, Industrial, and Mining ..............................................................................56

Irrigation, Aquaculture, and Livestock............................................................................................58

Comparison with Great Lakes Commission Estimates .................................................................59

Data-Quality Summary and Suggested Improvements for Estimations of Use........................62

Summary........................................................................................................................................................63

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................64

Glossary.........................................................................................................................................................69

Appendix 1. Estimates of Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use by 

8-Digit Hydrologic (Cataloging) Unit Codes (HUC) in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005 

A, Data Dictionary...............................................................................................................................75

B, Estimates of Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use by State................................78

C, Estimates of Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use by Watershed 

(8-digit HUC) ...........................................................................................................................88
vi

Figures

1–5. Maps showing:

1. The Great Lakes Basin and part of the upper St. Lawrence River Basin...................3

2. Distribution of population in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005. 

A, Population, by watershed..............................................................................................4

B, Population density, by watershed................................................................................5

C, Population, by county .....................................................................................................6

3. Land cover in the Great Lakes Basin................................................................................7

4. Watersheds of the Great Lakes Basin designated by 8-digit hydrologic 

(cataloging) unit code (HUC)..............................................................................................8

5. Total, surface-water, and groundwater withdrawals in the 

Great Lakes Basin, 2005....................................................................................................13

6. Photos and graph showing total withdrawals by water-use category in the 

Great Lakes Basin, 2005.............................................................................................................14

7. Maps showing intensity of water withdrawals in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005. 

A, Use as a function of land area.............................................................................................20

B, Gross per capita use .............................................................................................................21

8–15. Maps and graphs showing:

8. Public-supply withdrawals by source, watershed, and state in the 

Great Lakes Basin, 2005....................................................................................................24

9. Self-supplied domestic population and public-supply deliveries by 

watershed and total self-supplied domestic withdrawals by source, 

watershed, and state in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005..................................................26

10. Thermoelectric-power withdrawals by source, watershed, and state 

in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005.........................................................................................28

11. Industrial withdrawals by source, watershed, and state in the 

Great Lakes Basin, 2005....................................................................................................32

12. Mining withdrawals by source, watershed, and state in the 

Great Lakes Basin, 2005....................................................................................................35

13. Irrigation withdrawals by source, watershed, and state in the 

Great Lakes Basin, 2005....................................................................................................38

14. Aquaculture withdrawals by source, watershed, and state in the 

Great Lakes Basin, 2005....................................................................................................40

15. Livestock withdrawals by source, watershed, and state in the 

Great Lakes Basin, 2005....................................................................................................42

16–17. Graphs showing:

16. Trends in population and withdrawals by source in the 

Great Lakes Basin, 1985–2005 .........................................................................................46

17. Trends in withdrawals by water-use category in the 

Great Lakes Basin, 1985–2005 .........................................................................................47
vii

Tables

1. Total water withdrawals by source for Great Lakes watersheds and states in 

the Great Lakes Basin, 2005......................................................................................................15

2. Total water withdrawals by water-use category for Great Lakes watersheds 

and states in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005..............................................................................16

3. Surface-water withdrawals by water-use category for Great Lakes watersheds 

and states in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005..............................................................................17

4. Groundwater withdrawals by water-use category for Great Lakes watersheds 

and states in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005..............................................................................18

5. Public-supply withdrawals for Great Lakes watersheds and states in 

the Great Lakes Basin, 2005......................................................................................................22

6. Self-supplied domestic withdrawals for Great Lakes watersheds and states 

in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005..................................................................................................25

7. Thermoelectric-power withdrawals for Great Lakes watersheds and 

states in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005......................................................................................29

8. Industrial withdrawals for Great Lakes watersheds and states in 

the Great Lakes Basin, 2005......................................................................................................30

9. Mining water withdrawals for Great Lakes watersheds and states 

in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005..................................................................................................33

10. Irrigation withdrawals for Great Lakes watersheds and states in 

the Great Lakes Basin, 2005......................................................................................................36

11. Aquaculture withdrawals for Great Lakes watersheds and states in 

the Great Lakes Basin, 2005......................................................................................................39

12. Livestock withdrawals for Great Lakes watersheds and states in 

the Great Lakes Basin, 2005......................................................................................................41

13. Reclaimed wastewater use for Great Lakes watersheds and states in 

the Great Lakes Basin, 2005......................................................................................................43

14. Trends in withdrawals by 

A, Category of water use and source in the Great Lakes Basin, 1985–2005.....................44

B, Great Lakes watershed and state in the Great Lakes Basin, 1985–2005 ......................45

15. Water withdrawals and consumptive use in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005.......................51

16. Source of water-use data and estimates by category of use for states in 

the Great Lakes Basin, 2005......................................................................................................52

17. Comparison of 

A, Surface-water-withdrawal estimates by the U.S. Geological Survey, 2005, 

and Great Lakes Commission, 2004, for the Great Lakes Basin..........................................60

B, Groundwater-withdrawal estimates by the U.S. Geological Survey, 2005, 

and Great Lakes Commission, 2004, for the Great Lakes Basin..........................................61
viii

Conversion Factors and Abbreviations

Inch/Pound to SI

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

acre 4,047 square meter (m2

)

acre .001562 square mile (mi2

)

acre .4047 hectometer (hm2

)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2)

Flow rate

billion gallons per day (Bgal/d) 1.3815 billion cubic meters per year (Bm3

/yr)

gallon per minute (gal/m) .06309 liter per second (L/s)

gallon per day (gal/d) .003785 cubic meter per day (m3

/d)

million gallons per day (Mgal/d) .003785 million cubic meter per day (Mm3

/d)

million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 1.3815 million cubic meter per year (Mm3

/yr)

million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 1.121 thousand acre-foot per year 

thousand acre-feet per year .8921 million gallons per day (Mgal/d)

thousand acre-feet per year .003377 million cubic meters per day (Mm3

/d)

Application rate

million gallons per day per square mile 

(Mgal/d/mi2)

1,461 cubic meter per day per square kilometer 

(m3/d/km2)

Various water relations in inch-pound units

1 million gallons (Mgal) 3.07 acre-feet (acre-ft)

1 cubic foot (ft3) 7.48 gallons (gal) 

1 acre-foot (acre-ft) 325,851 gallons (gal) 

1 acre-foot (acre-ft) 43,450 cubic feet (ft3

)

1 inch of rain (in.) 17.4 million gallons per square mile 

(Mgal/mi2)

1 inch of rain (in.) 27,200 gallons per acre (gal/acre)

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows:

 °C=(°F-32)/1.8

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given in milligrams per liter (mg/L).
ix

Additional abbreviations used in this report

Circular Refers to one or a group of U.S. Geological Survey reports titled “Estimated Use 

of Water in the United States in [year]” that were published every 5 years from 

1950 to 2005.

AWUDS U.S. Geological Survey Aggregated Water-Use Data System

GIS Geographic Information System

GLC Great Lakes Commission

GLNPO U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office

GLBP U.S. Geological Survey Great Lakes Basin Pilot

HUC Hydrologic unit code

NWUIP U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Use Information Program

QA Quality assurance

SDWIS U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Safe Drinking Water Information System

USDA-NASS U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service

USDOE-EIA U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

Estimated Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use 

in the Great Lakes Basin of the United States in 2005

By Patrick C. Mills and Jennifer B. Sharpe

Abstract

Estimates of water withdrawals in the United States part 

of the Great Lakes Basin and 107 of its watersheds designated 

by the 8-digit hydrologic unit code (HUCs) indicate that about 

30.3 billion gallons per day (Bgal/d) were withdrawn for 

practically all categories of use in 2005. Virtually all water 

withdrawn was freshwater. Surface-water withdrawals totaled 

28.8 Bgal/d, or 95 percent of total withdrawals; about 24 

Bgal/d was withdrawn from the Great Lakes or their connecting channels. Total withdrawals, and total surface-water 

withdrawals, decreased 7 percent from 1995 to 2005, generally following the withdrawal trends of industrial use and 

that of the largest use—thermoelectric power. Groundwater 

withdrawals increased 3 percent from 1995 to 2005 and 33 

percent during 1985–2005. The substantial increase since 1985 

results primarily from increases in irrigation and self-supplied 

domestic withdrawals. In 2005, withdrawals for public supply, domestic, and irrigation use accounted for 81 percent of 

groundwater withdrawals.

About 21.9 Bgal/d, or 72 percent of total withdrawals 

for 2005, was used for thermoelectric power. Virtually all of 

this water was derived from surface water and used for oncethrough cooling at powerplants. As such, the reuse potential 

of this water in the basin is high, with the majority of the 

withdrawn water returned to its surface-water source.

Public-supply withdrawals were 3.81 Bgal/d (13 percent), 

with withdrawals declining by about 13 percent from 1995 to 

2005. In 2005, about 77 percent of the population in the Great 

Lakes Basin obtained drinking water from public suppliers, 

compared to about 78 percent in 1995 and 83 percent in 1985. 

Surface water consistently provided about 88 percent of the 

total withdrawals for public supply since 1985.

Self-supplied industrial withdrawals in 2005 totaled 

2.93 Bgal/d (10 percent), possibly as much as 30 percent less 

than in 1995. Surface water was the source for 95 percent of 

industrial withdrawals. Combined withdrawals for mining, 

irrigation, domestic, aquaculture, and livestock use (in order 

of decreasing rate) were 1.63 Bgal/d, or only 5 percent of total 

withdrawals; the withdrawals were distributed almost equally 

between surface-water and groundwater sources. Withdrawals 

for each of these uses, except livestock, increased almost 

continuously during 1985–2005. Withdrawals for mining 

increased 103 percent and for irrigation 94 percent during 

1985–2005; livestock withdrawals decreased 25 percent from 

their peak in 1990. The number of irrigated acres increased 

56 percent since 1985, totaling 750,000 acres in 2005. No use 

of reclaimed wastewater for industrial or irrigation applications was reported; however, sources of information regarding 

its use were sparse. 

Within the basin, the Lake Michigan watershed accounted 

for 15.0 Bgal/d, or 49 percent, of total water withdrawals 

for 2005; an estimated 12.3 Bgal/d was withdrawn directly 

from Lake Michigan. The State of Michigan accounted for 

38 percent of total water withdrawals, representing the largest surface-water withdrawals (primarily for thermoelectric 

power use) and groundwater withdrawals (primarily for public 

supply and self-supplied domestic use). A disproportionately 

large percentage of surface-water withdrawals (6 percent, 

1.80 Bgal/d) were in Illinois, given this state represents less 

than 1 percent of the land area of the basin. Ninety percent of 

the Illinois population served by the water withdrawn from 

Lake Michigan for public supply resides outside the basin. 

Within land-based HUCs, the Lower Maumee (04100009) 

of Ohio accounted for the largest total withdrawal and total 

surface-water withdrawal (about 0.75 Bgal/d). The St. Joseph 

(04050001) of Michigan and Indiana accounted for the largest 

total groundwater withdrawal (0.25 Bgal/d). 

The degree of uncertainty associated with estimates 

of water withdrawal varies by state and by category of use. 

Site-specific withdrawal data generally are available for those 

categories of use accounting for the largest quantities of water 

withdrawals: thermoelectric power, public supply, and industrial. Often these reported data are based on direct or indirect 

metered accounting. Estimates for domestic and livestock 

withdrawals typically are derived at the county level by use of 

coefficients and other data and then reapportioned at the HUC 

level on the basis of the percentage of the land area of the 

watershed within a county. The least uncertainty is considered 

associated with estimates of withdrawal for thermoelectric 

power and public supply; the greatest uncertainty with selfsupplied domestic withdrawal estimates. 
2 Estimated Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use in the Great Lakes Basin of the United States in 2005

Introduction

At the request of Congress, the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) is assessing the availability and use of the Nation’s 

water resources to gain a clearer understanding of the status of 

our water resources and the trends in land use, water use1, and 

climate that affect them. This assessment, under the direction 

of the USGS National Assessment of Water Availability and 

Use Program (hereafter referred to as the “Water Availability 

Program”), is intended to improve the ability of water managers to project water availability for future economic and 

environmental uses (Grannemann and Reeves, 2005). 

Initial efforts of the Water Availability Program, which 

began in 2005, were focused on determining the best methods to evaluate water resources and to develop strategies 

for delivering information about water availability and use. 

Currently (2009), the Great Lakes Basin (hereafter referred 

to as the “basin”) (fig. 1) serves as a pilot-study area from 

which these strategies can be developed. A principal objective of this study is to improve the fundamental knowledge of 

the water balance of the basin, including the flows, storage, 

and water use by humans. The basin, which encompasses the 

drainage areas of Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, 

and Ontario and lies within eight states (Illinois, Indiana, 

Minnesota, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and 

Wisconsin) and two Canadian provinces (Ontario and Quebec), contains about 84 percent of the fresh surface water in 

North America and 21 percent of the fresh surface water in 

the world (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006a). 

Protecting this resource for the 34 million residents within the 

basin (Great Lakes Information Network, 2008), including 

23 million in the United States (fig. 2), and ensuring its future 

availability for the many competing users is the goal of various international efforts (Council of Great Lakes Governors, 

2001), as well as Federal, state, and provincial efforts. The 

diversity of competing uses is evidenced, in part, in the varied 

land cover (land use) (fig. 3) and economic activity within 

the basin. About 52 percent of the overall basin is forested (of 

the part of the basin that is in the United States, 53 percent is 

forested), 35 percent is in agricultural uses (33 percent of the 

United States part), 7 percent is urban or suburban (7 percent of the United States part), and 6 percent is in other uses 

such as conservation lands or recreational waters (7 percent 

of the United States part) (Great Lakes Commission, 2003; 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2009). The 

economy of the basin is driven primarily by manufacturing, 

including steel, paper, chemicals, and automobiles ($308 billion U.S. per year); tourism ($82 billion U.S.); and agriculture 

($48 billion U.S.) (Great Lakes Commission, 2003).

An understanding of water availability in an area, such as 

the Great Lakes Basin, requires information in addition to data 

on the amount of water in the hydrologic system. There is a 

need for information on how the system changes with time and 

1

 Bolded terms (or close variants thereof) are defined in the glossary near 

the end of the report.

how the system reacts to changes in environmental conditions 

and land and water use. Determinations are needed regarding constraints on water use, including current offstream

and instream use, and water-quality limitations also must 

be recognized. Among its other objectives, the USGS Great 

Lakes Basin Pilot (GLBP) attempts to compile and present 

water-use data that are needed for quantifying water availability. Products of the GLBP related to water use are assessments 

of consumptive use and return flows within the basin and 

their temporal variability (Shaffer and Runkle, 2007; Shaffer, 

2009) and, as presented in this report, an accounting of present 

(2005) and past (1985–2005) water withdrawals and other 

elements of water use within the watersheds that compose the 

U.S. part of the basin. Other products of the GLBP include 

reports on various aspects of the surface-water systems (Neff 

and Killian, 2003; Neff and Nicholas, 2005; Wilcox and others, 2007) and groundwater systems (Coon and Sheets, 2006; 

Neff and others 2006; and Sheets and Simonson, 2006) of the 

basin, and analyses using various groundwater-flow models 

(Grannemann and Reeves, 2005; Arihood, 2009; and Howard 

Reeves (U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 2010)).

Purpose and Scope

The primary purpose of this report is to present estimates 

of water withdrawals in 2005 for 107 surface-water watersheds (fig. 4, appendix 1) that compose the United States part 

of the Great Lakes Basin. Included are those watersheds with 

streams and channels directly tributary to the Great Lakes, 

each of the Great Lakes, and those of the St. Lawrence River 

Basin, extending upstream from the cities of Massena, N.Y., 

and Cornwall, Ontario (fig. 1). The watersheds, as designated 

by their 8-digit hydrologic (cataloging) unit codes (hereafter 

referred to as “HUCs”) (Seaber and others, 1987; U.S. Geological Survey, 2007; Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

2008), represent about 175,000 mi2, or 60 percent of the multinational area of the Great Lakes Basin. For consistency with 

other Great Lakes Basin Pilot reports, this report excludes the 

evaluation, summary statistics, and discussion of withdrawal 

estimates from four north-central New York HUCs (04150304 

to 04150307) that are partially in southern Canada and drain to 

the St. Lawrence River downstream from Cornwall. However, 

withdrawal estimates for these watersheds are included in 

appendix 1.

Withdrawal estimates are included for 10 water-use 

categories and for various associated elements of water use 

that are considered, in part, to be components of the cycle of 

water use or factors indicative of or contributing to the extent 

of water withdrawals and use. Also included are estimates 

of consumptive use. Sections of this report present estimates 

(principally withdrawal estimates) for the HUCs and summarize the estimates by (1) the basin, as a whole, (2) each 

receiving Great Lake (referred to as a Great Lakes watershed (fig. 1) in this report), and (3) each state area within the 

basin. Estimates of withdrawals and other elements of water 
Introduction 3

use are listed by individual HUC in appendix 1; a full listing of estimates is available for download from the USGS 

National Water-Use Information Program (NWUIP) Web site 

(http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/).

Withdrawal and associated estimates are included for the 

water-use categories public supply; self-supplied domestic; 

thermoelectric power; industrial; mining; irrigation; aquaculture; livestock; and reclaimed wastewater. Also included 

are selected estimates for commercial use. The order of 

presentation of these use categories in the report is by decreasing quantities of withdrawals by category in 2005 within two 

groupings associated with (1) water generally associated with 

consumption by humans (public supply, self-supplied domestic), and (2) water generally associated with accommodating 

human needs other than consumption (all other uses). Also 

discussed in this report are trends in water withdrawals during 

1985–2005, with emphasis on the period 1995–2005, and the 

uncertainty of withdrawal and associated water-use data and 

estimates by category of use and source of the estimates for 

each state. 

The climate of the basin is described in brief to provide a 

hydrologic context for the withdrawal estimates that are presented. For an understanding of the physical characteristics of 

the basin, including the basin’s hydrogeologic setting, readers 

are referred to the wealth of scientific and popular literature 

that describes these characteristics. Basic physical data regarding the basin and each of the Great Lakes are summarized by 

the Coordinating Committee on Great Lakes Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data (1977). The geology of the basin is 

described in Hough (1958); the hydrogeology of the basin and 

vicinity is summarized in Grannemann and others (2000), the 

USGS Ground Water Atlas of the United States (Miller, 2000), 

Figure 1. The Great Lakes Basin and part of the upper St. Lawrence River Basin.

90 ° 85 ° 80 ° 7 5°

5 0°

45 °

0 1 0 0 2 0 0 MILES

0 10 0 20 0 K ILOMETERS

40°

ONTARIO

CANADA

U.S.A.

CANADA

U.S.A.

Lake Superior

Lake

Michigan

Lake Huron

Lake

Erie

Lake

Ontario

St. Lawrence River

WISCONSIN

ILLINOIS

MINNESOTA

INDIANA

OHIO

PENNSYLVANIA

NEW

YORK

MICHIGAN

MICHIGAN

EXPLANATION

Great Lakes Basin

Upper St. Lawrence River Basin

watersheds draining to Canada,

excluded in summarized

estimates

Boundaries for Great Lakes

watersheds in the United States

Base from U.S.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2008);

Canada watersheds 2003 (Natural Resources Canada, 2003).

Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD)

(

St. Marys River

St. Clair

River

Lake

St. Clair

Detroit

River

Niagara River

Cornwall, Ontario

Massena,

New York
Figure 2. Distribution of population in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005. A, Population, by watershed (derived from county (2005) and block (2000) Fede(U.S. Department of Commerce, 2006; 2001, respectively)). MINNESOTA WISCONSIN ILLINOIS INDIANA OHIO PENNSYLVANIA 

ONTARIO CANADA U.S.A. CANADA U.S.A. CANADA U.S.A. Lake Superior Lake Michigan Lake Huron Lake Erie Lake Ont

! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! !! ! !Sheboygan OshkoshMilwaukee Green Bay Erie Toledo Cleveland 

Roche

Buffalo Duluth Saginaw Kalamazoo Grand Rapids Flint Detroit South Bend Michigan City Chicago Superior Michigan Huron 

0 100 0 100 

92° 90° 88° 86° 84° 82° 80° 78° 

46° 44° 42° 48° EXPLANATION 2005 watershed population < 10,000 10,000 to 100,000 100,000 to 500,000 500,000 to 1,000,000 1,000,000 to 2,500,000

TOTAL POPULATION,

IN THOUSANDS

15,00010,000

5,000

0

Areas are 8-digit hydrologic cataloging unit (HUC) watersheds
Figure 2. Distribution of population in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005. B, Population density, by watershed. 

MINNESOTA

WISCONSIN

ILLINOIS

INDIANA

OHIO

PENNSYLVANIA

ONTARIO

CANADA U.S.A.

CANADA U.S.A.

CANADA U.S.A.

Lake Superior

Lake 

Michigan

Lake 

Huron

Lake Erie

Lake Ont

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! 

! !

!

!

!

!

!Sheboygan

Oshkosh

Milwaukee

Green Bay

Erie

Toledo Cleveland

Roche

Buffalo

Duluth

Saginaw

Kalamazoo

Grand Rapids Flint

Detroit

South Bend

Michigan 

Chicago City

0 100 0 100 

92° 90° 88° 86° 84° 82° 80° 78° 

46°44°42°48°

Superior Michigan Huron 

TOTAL POPULATION,

IN THOUSANDS

0

100200300400500600

EXPLANATION2005 watershed population density, in people per square mile< 2525 to 100100 to 500500 to 1,0001,000 to 4,000

Areas are 8-digit hydrologic cataloging unit (HUC) watersheds
Figure 2. Distribution of population in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005. C, Population, by county (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2001, 2006). CANADA U.S.A. CANADA U.S.A. CANADA U.S.A. Lake Superior Lake Michigan Lake Huron Lake Erie Lake Ont

! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! !! ! !Sheboygan OshkoshMilwaukee Green Bay Erie Toledo Cleveland Roch

Buffalo Duluth Saginaw Kalamazoo Grand Rapids Flint Detroit South Bend Michigan City Chicago MINNESOTAWISCONSIN ILLINOIS INDIANA OHIO PENNSYLVANIA 

ONTARIO 0 100 

0 100 

92° 90° 88° 86° 84° 82° 80° 78° 

46° 44° 42° 48°

TOTAL POPULATION,

IN THOUSANDS

15,00010,000

5,000

0

IL IN MI MN NY 

EXPLANATION2005 county population< 25,00025,000 to 100,000100,000 to 500,000500,000 to 1,000,0001,000,000 to 2,000,0002,000,000 to 5,500,000

Areas are 8-digit hydrologic cataloging unit (HUC) watersheds
Introduction 7

Figure 3. Land cover in the Great Lakes Basin.

Neff and others (2006), and Howard Reeves (U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 2010). The natural hydrologic 

system of the basin and the ways it has changed in response to 

human activity are described in a report by the International 

Joint Commission (2000).

Sources of Data and Estimates

The water-use estimates for the Great Lakes Basin 

HUCs were compiled as part of the larger historical effort 

by the USGS NWUIP to estimate water use for the Nation at 

5-year intervals, an effort that began in 1950 (MacKichan, 

1951, 1957; MacKichan and Kammerer, 1961; Murray, 1968; 

Murray and Reeves, 1972, 1977; Solley and others, 1983, 

1988, 1993, 1998; Hutson and others, 2004; and Kenny and 

others, 2009). In conjunction with this national compilation, 

water-use estimates were compiled for all 8-digit HUCs in the 

Nation and subsequently made publicly available on the World 

Wide Web (U.S. Geological Survey, 2009) for 1985, 1990, 

and 1995. This series of national water-use reports serves not 

only as one of the few sources of information about national or 

regional trends in water withdrawals but also as a basis for the 

present report on water withdrawals in the Great Lakes Basin. 

The format and language of this report borrows extensively 

from the above-listed reports of the USGS NWUIP and Water 

Availability Program, GLBP.

Estimates of water withdrawals in the Great Lakes Basin 

also have been compiled by other agencies and organizations, 

including the Michigan Sea Grant Program (1985) and the 

Great Lakes Commission (GLC) (2006), among others for 

years 1998–2004. The estimates presented in this report differ 

from these available compilations in several ways. Different time periods are represented; somewhat different data 

sources, category definitions, and estimations methods are 

90 ° 85° 80 ° 7 5°

50°

45°

40°

ONTARIO

CANADA

U.S.A.

CANADA

U.S.A.

Lake Superior

Lake

Michigan

Lake Huron

Lake

Erie

Lake

Ontario

St. Lawrence River

WISCONSIN

ILLINOIS

MINNESOTA

INDIANA

OHIO

PENNSYLVANIA

NEW

YORK

MICHIGAN

MICHIGAN

0 1 00 2 0 0 MILES

0 10 0 20 0 K ILOMETERS

Base from U.S. National Land Cover Database 2001 (Multi-Resolution

Land Characteristics Consortium, 2003);

Canada AVHRR Land Cover Data 1993 (Natural Resources Canada, 1993).

Water

Urban

Forest

Grassland, pasture, hay

Row crops

Wetlands

EXPLANATION

Great Lakes Basin

Land-cover category
Figure 4. Watersheds of the Great Lakes Basin designated by 8-digit hydrologic (cataloging) unit code (HUC). MINNESOTA WISCONSIN ILLINOIS INDIANA OHIO PENNSYLVANIA 

ONTARIO 008 004 007

005

04100

012

001

04110

011

002 009

010

003

004 003

003

001

001 006

002

001

001

04050

101

002 004

102

005

002

003

002

003

103 04120

007 004 002 002

003 104

204

001

005

006

203

206

001

04090

003

04040

205 202

102 103

104

201

203 101

201

101

101 04080 102 204

103

102

103

007

200

04060

104

102

006 104

005

04070

004 200 003

202

04030

105

105

003

003

108

109

107

112

002 111 001

003

106

201

110 106 302 202 107

301

101

04020

102

301 104 105

103

102

202

201

101 300

04010

04130

CANADA

U.S.A.

CANADA

U.S.A.

Lake Superior

04020300

Lake 

Michigan

04060200

Lake 

Huron

04080300

Lake Erie

04120200

Lake Ontari

04150200

0 100 0 100 

92° 90° 88° 86° 84° 82° 80° 78° 

46°44°42°48°

Base from U.S. Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2008)

8-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) = 5-digit large nu

for example, 04010+201 = 040

Boundaries for Great Lakes watersheds in the United EXPLANATION

203
Introduction 9

used; and estimates account for different base scales. For this 

report, withdrawal estimates were complied and presented 

for 8-digit HUC areas; these estimates were the basis for the 

withdrawal estimates of larger watershed and basin areas also 

presented in the report. Estimates provided by the GLC and 

others typically have been only for the larger areas presented 

in this report, including the extent of the Great Lakes Basin 

within each Great Lakes State, the area representing each 

Great Lake watershed, and (or) the entire basin. In this study, 

a single approach was employed for most HUCs in the basin 

for estimation of mining, livestock, and aquaculture withdrawals. The withdrawal accountings of these categories by others, 

including those of the GLC as provided by their jurisdictional 

participants (states and provinces), generally rely on a variety 

of approaches for the estimates. When comparing the various accountings of Great Lakes Basin water withdrawals, it is 

necessary to recognize that all such accountings, including by 

the USGS as presented here, are faced with the challenge of 

estimating withdrawals (and associated elements of water use) 

on the basis of variable sources, types, and completeness of 

data and, consequently, on the basis of variable approaches.

The 2005 National and Great Lakes Basin estimates of 

withdrawals and elements of water use by the USGS were 

compiled in cooperation with state and local agencies and with 

the assistance of various Federal agencies and nongovernmental entities. The USGS NWUIP coordinated the compilation 

effort. The estimates were reviewed at various stages of compilation within the USGS and cooperating agencies and stored 

in the USGS Aggregate Water-Use Data System (AWUDS). 

These compiled estimates are available for download from the 

USGS NWUIP Web site (http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/).

Sources of data and water-use information for estimation of withdrawals and other elements of water use vary by 

state and are discussed in greater detail in the section “Uncertainty in Estimates” near the end of this report. Guidelines 

for preparing USGS water-use estimates for 2005 (Hutson, 

2007) were developed and distributed to water-use specialists 

in USGS Water Science Centers, which operate largely at the 

state level. These specialists compiled and analyzed information from various sources, made estimates of missing data, and 

prepared documentation that identified the sources of wateruse information and methods used to quantify withdrawals 

and other aspects of water use for their respective states. For 

the more specific accounting of estimation methods included 

in those documents, readers may contact the USGS Water 

Science Centers for the states of interest. Data sources for the 

estimations included governmental agencies and nongovernmental entities. Additionally, the USGS NWUIP furnished the 

USGS Water Science Centers in each Great Lakes State with 

estimates of county and Great Lakes HUC populations, plus 

withdrawal estimates for mining, aquaculture, and livestock 

(Lovelace, 2009a,b,c). Each USGS water-use specialist was 

responsible for determining the most reliable sources of 

information available for estimating withdrawals and other 

elements of water use for his or her state, including determining whether to use all or some of the USGS NWUIP-furnished 

estimates. Estimates of withdrawals and other indicators 

of water use for HUCs in the basin aggregated by state, as 

supplied by the various USGS Water Science Centers, are 

included in appendix 1B; estimates of withdrawals aggregated 

by HUC are included in appendix 1C.

Selected water-use estimates included in this report for 

various basin HUCs in New York are preliminary; the final 

USGS NWUIP-approved estimates for these HUCs were not 

available in time for their incorporation into this water-use 

evaluation. Consequently, the aggregated estimates for HUCs 

that are fully or partly in New York and the summarized withdrawals presented for the State of New York and the Lake Erie 

and Lake Ontario watersheds are somewhat affected. Affected 

estimates, as determined from the subsequently approved New 

York estimates (available at http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/), are 

identified in appendices 1B and 1C by bold typeface.

The differences between the preliminary and final estimates are relatively minor. Affected estimates are restricted 

to the use categories and elements of public-supply, fresh 

groundwater (difference in total withdrawals of 0.01 Mgal/d 

associated with two HUCs); public-supply, population 

served (difference in total population of 1 percent); domestic, self-supplied population (difference in total population 

of 4 percent); domestic, public-supply deliveries (difference in total deliveries of 4 percent); domestic, self-supplied 

groundwater withdrawals (difference in total withdrawals of 

7 percent); industrial, surface-water withdrawals (difference 

of 0.03 Mgal/d associated with one HUC); mining, surfacewater (fresh) and groundwater (fresh and saline) withdrawals

(difference in total withdrawals of each category less than 

0.5 Mgal/d); irrigation, golf course and total withdrawals 

(surface water and groundwater) (difference in total withdrawals of each category less than 1 Mgal/d); and irrigation, 

sprinkler acreage (differences in acreage for all affected 

HUCs 0.02 Mgal/d or less).

Terminology Used and Changes for the 

2005 National Report

The terms and units in this report are similar to those 

used in previous USGS NWUIP reports and are defined in the 

glossary near the end of the report. Annual withdrawal data 

are expressed in this report in terms of million gallons per day 

(abbreviated as Mgal/d), and selectively, in thousand acre-feet 

per year. The term “billion gallons per day” (one-thousand 

million gallons per day, abbreviated as Bgal/d) is used in the 

abstract, summary, and “Trends in Water Withdrawals, 1985–

2005” sections and in selected illustrations of this report to 

more simply express large numbers. Units of million gallons 

per day or billion gallons per day are used to indicate an average daily rate of use and do not represent actual daily rates. 

For example, even though irrigation water may be applied 

only part of a year and at variable rates, average daily rate is 

equal to the total amount of water divided by 365 days. Therefore, the actual rate of application at any given time during the 
10 Estimated Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use in the Great Lakes Basin of the United States in 2005

growing season, when all the water is withdrawn and applied, 

would be more than the average daily rate expressed as million 

gallons per day or billion gallons per day. 

The values of water-use data presented in the text and 

figures generally are rounded to three significant figures. In the 

tables and appendixes, the values are shown to two decimal 

places (withdrawal and most other elements of water use, 

including population-served data) or three decimal places 

(census-population data). Values of per capita use in the text 

and appendixes are given as whole numbers. All values are 

rounded independently; therefore, the sums of individual 

rounded numbers may not equal the totals. The percentage changes discussed in the text are calculated from the 

unrounded data and expressed as integers.

For the USGS NWUIP reports for 2005 (and 2000), water 

use was defined, in a restrictive sense, as water withdrawals (Kenny and others, 2009; Hutson and others, 2004). For 

reports before 2000, water use was defined as water withdrawals plus deliveries from public-supply deliveries. In a broader 

sense, water use pertains to the interaction of humans with and 

influence on the hydrologic cycle and includes elements such 

as water withdrawal, delivery, consumptive use, wastewater 

returns, reclaimed wastewater, conveyance loss, and instream 

use. For this report, “water use” refers specifically to withdrawals but may be used in certain contexts in a broader sense 

that includes the other estimated elements of use presented 

in this report (consumptive use, use of reclaimed wastewater, 

populations served, and irrigated acreage, and so forth).

The number of mandatory water-use reporting categories 

and associated elements were reduced for the 2005 national 

compilation, and some states compiled estimates for only the 

mandatory reporting categories and elements. Principally, the 

withdrawal estimates for the mandatory categories and elements are included in this compilation of water withdrawals 

and use in the Great Lakes Basin. Additionally included are 

estimates of other selected elements of water use. Estimates 

for the nonmandatory elements of use may not be available 

for all basin states (and, thus, HUCs) or may be included only 

as basinwide estimates compiled separately from the national 

reports, such as those for consumptive use.

For 2005, estimates of self-supplied water withdrawals 

were compiled for the mandatory categories of public supply, self-supplied domestic, thermoelectric power, industrial, 

mining, irrigation, livestock, and aquaculture; compilations 

were for all counties in the United States, as well as for all 

8-digit HUCs within the U.S. part of the Great Lakes Basin 

(county estimates are presented in Kenny and others, 2009). 

Estimates were compiled for the mandatory elements population served by public supply; domestic deliveries from public 

supply; domestic self-served population; amount of power 

generated by thermoelectric powerplants; acreage irrigated 

by type of irrigation system (sprinkler, microirrigation, 

or surface application); and reclaimed wastewater use for 

irrigation and industrial purposes. Data not reported for 2005 

(or for 2000) include self-supplied commercial withdrawals; 

deliveries from public supply for commercial, industrial, and 

thermoelectric-power purposes; irrigation conveyance loss; 

consumptive use; instream hydroelectric-power use; and 

wastewater returns. Estimates of withdrawals for commercial 

use and golf course irrigation use (a subcategory of total irrigation use) are included for this study (appendix 1), as selectively furnished by USGS Water Science Centers for individual states. Estimates of consumptive use for various categories 

of use were compiled only by the Ohio Water Science Center; 

provisional estimates for basin HUCs in Ohio can be found at 

the USGS NWUIP Web site (http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/).

The mandatory water-use categories generally constitute a comprehensive accounting of water withdrawals in 

the United States and the Great Lakes Basin. During 2005, 

96 percent of total water withdrawals in the United States 

were used for thermoelectric-power, irrigation, public-supply, 

industrial, and domestic purposes (Kenny and others, 2009). 

During 1995, the last national compilation of water use by 

HUC, 98 percent of total water withdrawals in the Great Lakes 

Basin was used for the above-listed purposes in aggregate 

(Solley and others, 1998). 

In some respects, the apparent comprehensiveness of 

the accounting presented in the current study is affected by 

the exclusion of withdrawals for hydroelectric-power and 

commercial uses. Hydroelectric-power generation accounts 

for withdrawals of about 300 Mgal/d in the U.S. part of the 

basin (Great Lakes Commission, 2006), or about 10 times 

the withdrawals accounted for in this study. However, this 

is an instream use, where all the water that is used is considered to be returned to the basin. Thus, there is no associated 

consumptive use. As such, for purposes of this study, these 

large withdrawals need not be considered in the accounting. 

Although generally excluded in this accounting, commercial 

withdrawals historically (1985–95) represent only a small 

fraction (less than 1 percent) of total basin withdrawals; 

however, the quantities of these withdrawals may routinely be 

underestimated (Marilee Horn, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 2009). Additional discussion on the estimation 

of commercial withdrawals can be found in the report section 

“Industrial and Commercial.”

For comparison of the estimates of withdrawals from 

2005 with past estimates, several other changes in accounting should be noted. For 2005, saline water was defined, for 

most categories of use, as water that has a concentration of 

1,000 mg/L or more dissolved solids. For public supply, saline 

water was defined as water that requires desalination or dilution to make it potable. Before 2005, the concentration-based 

definition for saline water was applied to the thermoelectricpower, industrial, and mining categories. All public-supply, 

self-supplied domestic, irrigation, livestock, and aquaculture 

withdrawals were considered or compiled only as freshwater. 

Before 2000, thermoelectric-power water use was subdivided by fuel type rather than the type of cooling system 

(once-through or closed-loop). Cooling-system type is the 

primary determinant of consumptive use relative to withdrawals at powerplants. Operation of these cooling systems and 

their relation to consumptive use are described in the report 
Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use 11

sections “Thermoelectric Power” and “Consumptive Use.” 

Also, before 2000, the livestock category was subdivided into 

livestock and animal specialties; most of these specialties 

were included in the livestock accounting in subsequent years. 

Beginning in 2000, one of the former specialties, aquaculture, 

along with fish hatcheries (formerly reported as self-supplied 

withdrawals in the commercial category), was introduced as a 

new category of water use.

Climate and Weather

Climate (long-term atmospheric conditions) and weather 

(short-term conditions) affect both the amount of available 

water resources (such as streams, lakes, and aquifers) and 

water withdrawals. Precipitation, in the form of rain and snow, 

contributes to streamflow, lake storage, and aquifer recharge. 

When conditions are hotter and drier than normal, water 

resources become stressed. There is less available water and 

water use increases, particularly for irrigation of crops, lawns, 

and golf courses.

The Great Lakes Basin lies within the humid-continental 

climatic region. The climate of the basin varies extensively 

because of the long north-to-south span of the basin and the 

effects of the Great Lakes on near-shore temperatures and precipitation. The mean January temperature ranges from −2°F in 

the north to 28°F in the south, and the mean July temperature 

ranges from 64°F in the north to 74°F in the south. Precipitation is distributed relatively uniformly throughout the year 

but varies west to east across the basin, ranging from a mean 

annual precipitation of 28 in. north of Lake Superior to 52 in. 

east of Lake Ontario (Wilcox and others, 2007).

Statewide weather statistics for the basin states were 

examined to evaluate possible climatic influences on the 

withdrawal estimates presented in the report. Temperatures 

throughout the states composing the basin generally ranged 

from above normal to much above normal (Minnesota and 

Wisconsin) during 2005 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2007). Higher than normal temperatures 

contribute to increased evapotranspiration, and thus, water 

loss from surface-water bodies and from soil water for 

groundwater recharge. However, such losses that may have 

been associated with higher than normal temperatures tended 

to be countered by generally higher than normal precipitation. 

Precipitation varied widely across the basin states. In and near 

the Lake Michigan watershed, precipitation ranged from much 

below normal (in Illinois) to near normal. Although representing only a small fraction of the entire Great Lakes Basin, precipitation totals in Illinois were among the 11 lowest on record 

(1895–2005) for the State. Within other parts of the entire 

basin, precipitation ranged from near normal to much above 

normal (in Minnesota and New York). The generally normal to 

wet conditions throughout most of the basin suggest that water 

resources and withdrawals for irrigation were not affected 

unusually by weather in 2005. Depending on the seasonal 

distribution, warmer than normal conditions throughout much 

of the basin and drier than normal conditions in (and near) 

Illinois might locally have contributed somewhat to increased 

withdrawals for thermoelectric power, domestic and public 

supply, or livestock use.

Although estimates of withdrawals for 2005 are considered here with respect to 2005 basin weather conditions, it 

should be recognized that there is inherent complexity associated with such considerations. Weather patterns, particularly 

precipitation patterns, can vary considerably over small areas. 

Thus, their association with regional trends in water use may 

be inappropriate. Similarly, there may be time lags associated with weather and climate trends and resultant water use. 

Finally, not all water-withdrawal estimates presented herein 

may be fully representative of 2005 use. Some estimates may 

incorporate use data from years before and after 2005. For 

example, mining estimates in most states are derived, in part, 

from 2004 production data; irrigation estimates in several 

states are derived from 2002 estimates of irrigated acreage.

Withdrawals and Other Elements of 

Water Use

Water-use activities begin when water is diverted or 

withdrawn from surface-water or groundwater sources and 

conveyed to a place of use. A withdrawal is made by a selfsupplied user or by a public-supply facility (also known as 

a community water system). A self-supplied user can be a 

single user or aggregate of users (group of users in a specific 

geographic area). Accounting for water use generally associates the withdrawal of water for a specific purpose, such as 

irrigation, industrial processing or manufacture, or domestic 

activities in a household (such as drinking or bathing). 

Withdrawals within the Great Lakes Basin for 2005 were 

estimated by source and type of water (surface water, groundwater; freshwater, saline water) for the use categories public 

supply and self-supplied domestic, thermoelectric power, 

industrial, mining, irrigation, aquaculture, and livestock. Also 

estimated were quantities of reclaimed wastewater used for 

irrigation and industry, as well as values of other associated 

elements of water use that include population, population 

served by public supply, domestic deliveries from public 

supply, domestic self-served population, power generated, 

irrigated acres by type of irrigation, intensity of withdrawals, and gross per capita use. Within the following sections 

of the report, the withdrawal estimates by source, type, and 

geographic distribution are discussed and summarized. Also 

discussed are the estimates of the associated elements of 

water use.

Summaries by geographic distribution include the 5 

Great Lakes watersheds, 8 states (basin areas), and 107 HUCs 

within the basin. Total withdrawals presented for each of the 

Great Lakes watersheds (Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, 

or Ontario) include the withdrawals from all HUCs draining 

directly or indirectly to a single lake. Withdrawals also are 
12 Estimated Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use in the Great Lakes Basin of the United States in 2005

presented for the HUCs representing each Great Lake. In some 

cases, these withdrawals include a small percentage (2 percent 

or less) of groundwater associated with mining extractions or 

wells on lake islands. Withdrawals from the Great Lakes also 

include those that could be identified from the channels connecting the lakes. These channels include the St. Marys River 

for Lake Huron; St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair, and Detroit 

River for Lake Erie; and the Niagara River and St. Lawrence 

River for Lake Ontario (fig. 1). All withdrawal values given in 

this report, whether a total from all sources of water (surface 

water and groundwater) and categories of use, a total by 

specified source (surface water or groundwater) and category 

of use, or a total from a specific geographic area (basin, 

Great Lake watershed, state, or HUC) represent aggregated 

withdrawals from a number of surface-water intakes and (or) 

groundwater wells.

Total Withdrawals and Source of Water

Total water withdrawals in the Great Lakes Basin for 

2005 are summarized by source of water, geographic distribution, and category of use in figures 5 and 6 and tables 1 and 

2. For individual HUCs, withdrawals by category of use and 

other elements of water use are listed in appendix 1. 

For 2005, freshwater and saline-water withdrawals from 

surface-water and groundwater sources totaled 30,300 Mgal/d. 

About 24,100 Mgal/d (79 percent) of the withdrawals were 

from HUCs representing the five Great Lakes or their connecting channels, with less than 0.04 percent of the withdrawals 

from these HUCs as groundwater. Saline water represented 

less than 0.004 percent of the total water withdrawn. 

Although saline-water withdrawals represent only a small 

fraction of total withdrawals, the quantity of saline withdrawals might be nominally greater than estimated in this assessment. For the compilation, water for most uses other than 

public supply is classified as saline if it contains 1,000 mg/L 

or more dissolved solids. In most cases, data were not readily 

available on the chemistry of the water withdrawals, so reportings generally assume freshwater withdrawals. The likelihood 

for dissolved solids concentrations of greater than 1,000 mg/L 

is greatest with groundwater withdrawn from the deep aquifers 

near the base of the (geological) Illinois and Michigan Basins 

in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan (Miller, 2000). Saline waters 

also are present where naturally occurring salt deposits and 

saline springs are common, as in parts of New York, Ohio, and 

Michigan where salt is mined (Sanford, 1995; Encyclopedia 

of Cleveland History, 2003; Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 1994). 

Estimates of withdrawals, by source, indicate that 

surface-water withdrawals for 2005 totaled 28,800 Mgal/d, or 

95 percent of the total withdrawals for all categories of use; 

about 24,000 Mgal/d was withdrawn from HUCs representing 

the Great Lakes or their connecting channels. Groundwater 

withdrawals totaled 1,500 Mgal/d, of which about 0.08 percent 

was saline water. Given the insubstantial fraction of total (and 

groundwater) withdrawals representing saline withdrawals, 

most presentations in this report of withdrawals (as volumes 

or percentages) by category of use are as total withdrawals. 

For the most part, these total withdrawals also represent total 

freshwater withdrawals. A distinction between total withdrawals and total freshwater withdrawals is made only for the 

single category of use that included saline withdrawals: mining withdrawals from groundwater sources.

The largest total water withdrawals were for thermoelectric-power use, at 21,900 Mgal/d or 72 percent of total 

withdrawals; an estimated 2 percent of this water is consumed, 

and the remainder is returned to the source at the once-through 

cooling-system-based plants that are predominant in the 

basin (Shaffer and Runkle, 2007). Public supply accounted 

for 3,810 Mgal/d (13 percent of withdrawals) and industrial use, 2,930 Mgal/d (10 percent). Mining and irrigation 

each accounted for 2 percent of withdrawals; self-supplied 

domestic, aquaculture, and livestock use each accounted for 

1 percent or less of withdrawals.

More surface water than groundwater was withdrawn in 

all categories of use except self-supplied domestic, irrigation, 

and livestock use (tables 3 and 4). About 76 percent (21,900 

Mgal/d) of the surface-water withdrawals were for thermoelectric power and 12 percent (3,350 Mgal/d) were for public supply. The largest total withdrawal, 15,000 Mgal/d (49 percent of 

withdrawals), was from the Lake Michigan watershed (largest watershed, at 39 percent of the basin land area), as was 

the largest surface-water withdrawal, at 14,000 Mgal/d 

(49 percent). Most of the withdrawals (10,300 Mgal/d) from 

the watershed were surface-water withdrawals for thermoelectric-power generation. The Lake Michigan watershed also 

accounted for the largest surface-water withdrawals for public 

supply, industrial, irrigation, and aquaculture use. By Great 

Lakes States within the basin, the largest total withdrawal, 

11,700 Mgal/d (38 percent of withdrawals), was in Michigan 

(largest state area, at 51 percent of the basin land area), as 

was the largest surface-water withdrawal, at 10,800 Mgal/d 

(38 percent). Most of the withdrawals from Michigan were 

surface-water withdrawals for thermoelectric-power generation (9,140 Mgal/d). Michigan also accounted for the largest 

surface-water withdrawals for irrigation and aquaculture uses. 

Illinois accounted for the largest surface-water withdrawals 

for public supply (1,020 Mgal/d); those withdrawals serve the 

residents of metropolitan Chicago, about 90 percent of whom 

reside outside the basin. 

Most groundwater withdrawals, about 58 percent, 

were distributed about equally between public-supply and 

self-supplied domestic use; irrigation use accounted for an 

additional 23 percent of groundwater withdrawals (table 4). 

About 63 percent (950 Mgal/d) of the groundwater withdrawals were in the Lake Michigan watershed; about 64 percent of 

these withdrawals in the watershed were distributed almost 

equally between irrigation and public-supply use. About 

56 percent of the groundwater withdrawals were in Michigan; 

about 61 percent of the withdrawals in the State were distributed almost equally between public supply and self-supplied 
Figure 5. Total, surface-water, and groundwater withdrawals in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005.

MINNESOTA

MINNESOTA

MINNESOTA

WISCONSIN

WISCONSIN

WISCONSIN

ILLINOIS

ILLINOIS

ILLINOIS

INDIANA

INDIANA

INDIANA

OHIO

OHIO

OHIO

PENNSYLVANIA

PENNSYLVANIA

NEW

YORK

NEW

YORK

Lake

Superior

680

Lake

Superior

681

Lake

Superior

0.10

Lake

Michigan

12,300

Lake

Michigan

12,300

Lake

Michigan

0.40

Lake

Huron

1,060

Lake

Huron

1,060

Lake

Huron

0.47

Lake Ontario

2,100

Lake Ontario

2,100

< 1

< 1

1 to 10

1 to 10

10 to 100

10 to 100

100 to 500

100 to 500

500 to 1,000

500 to 1,000

Lake Erie

7,860

Lake Erie

7,870

Lake E

7.35

Surface water

95%

Groundwater

5%

TOTAL WITHDRAWALS,

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

TOTAL WITHDRAWALS,

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

20,000

20,000

15,000

15,000

10,000

10,000

5,000

5,000

0

0

EXPLANATION

EXPLANATION

Surface-water withdrawals,

in million gallons per day

Total water withdrawals,

in million gallons per day

Superior Michigan Huron 

IL IN MI MN NY 

Areas are 8-digit hydrologic

cataloging unit (HUC) watersheds
14 Estimated Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use in the Great Lakes Basin of the United States in 2005

Figure 6. Total withdrawals by water-use category in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005 (values in percentage of water use in million 

gallons per day; aquaculture and livestock use less than 1 percent of total use; photo credits are on inside of front cover).

514 Mgal/d 493 Mgal/d 412 Mgal/d 141 Mgal/d 67.9 Mgal/d

21,900 Mgal/d

Thermoelectric Power

72%

Public

Supply

13%

Industrial

10%

Mining 2%

Irrigation 2%

Domestic 1%

Aquaculture and Livestock <1%

3,810 Mgal/d 2,930 Mgal/d

Thermoelectric Power

Public Supply Industrial

Mining Irrigation Domestic Aquaculture Livestock
Table 1. Total water withdrawals by source for Great Lakes watersheds and states in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005.[Figures may not sum to totals because of independent rounding]

Withdrawals, in million gallons per day

By source and type

 Surface water Groundwater 

Great Lakes 

watershed

Land area1, 

in square miles

Population, 

in thousands Fresh Saline Total Fresh Saline Total Fr

Superior 16,783 431.114 968.43 0.00 968.43 33.94 0.00 33.94 1,00Michigan 44,779 7,711.612 14,047.26 .00 14,047.26 950.19 .72 950.91 14,9Huron 16,229 1,617.285 1,103.99 .00 1,103.99 123.40 .14 123.54 1,22Erie 21,783 10,800.648 9,952.29 .00 9,952.29 307.68 .20 307.88 10,2Ontario 14,652 2,349.828 2,731.91 .00 2,731.91 89.23 .14 89.37 2,82TOTAL 114,226 22,910.487 28,803.88 .00 28,803.88 1,504.44 1.20 1,505.64 30,3

1Area of individual watersheds designated by 8-digit hydrologic unit code (HUCs) and the Great Lake within each Great Lake watershed a

Withdrawals, in million gallons per day

By source and type

Surface water Groundwater 

State Land area1, in square miles Population, in thousands Fresh Saline Total Fresh Saline Total Fr

Illinois 90 667.500 1,800.81 0.00 1,800.81 0.53 0.00 0.53 1,80Indiana 3,483 1369.794 2,462.96 .00 2,462.96 130.81 .00 130.81 2,59Michigan 58,107 10120.859 10,823.12 .00 10,823.12 835.80 .95 836.75 11,6Minnesota 6,253 215.094 587.85 .00 587.85 9.96 .00 9.96 59New York2 16,926 3551.985 3,975.26 .00 3,975.26 110.72 .25 110.97 4,0Ohio 11,600 4014.374 3,399.99 .00 3,399.99 132.80 .00 132.80 3,53Pennsylvania 607 263.822 40.98 .00 40.98 7.65 .00 7.65 4Wisconsin 17,160 2707.059 5,712.91 .00 5,712.91 276.17 .00 276.17 5,9TOTAL 114,226 22910.487 28,803.88 .00 28,803.88 1,504.44 1.20 1,505.64 30,3

1Area of individual HUCs and the Great Lake within each state are given in appendix 1B.2Area does not include HUCs 04150304 to 04150307 (3,540 square miles) that are partially in Canada and whose surface-water discharge 

outside the U.S. part of the Great Lakes Basin; the areas of these HUCs are given in appendix 1B.
Table 2. Total water withdrawals by water-use category for Great Lakes watersheds and states in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005. [Figures may not sum to totals because of independent rounding. All values are in million gallons per day] Great Lakes watershed Public supply Domestic Thermoelectric power Industrial Mining Irrigation Aquaculture Livesto

Fresh Fresh Fresh Saline Fresh Saline Fresh Saline Fresh Fresh Fresh 

Superior 57.03 7.81 511.47 0.00 23.16 0.00 374.11 0.00 1.46 26.59 0.74 Michigan 1,782.88 178.52 10,338.31 .00 2,116.99 .00 60.61 .72 403.80 79.65 36.69 Huron 256.93 68.41 815.64 .00 34.71 .00 10.82 .14 27.11 8.64 5.13 Erie 1,387.02 117.45 7,933.66 .00 691.91 .00 58.19 .20 45.76 13.39 12.59 Ontario 327.30 40.20 2,340.90 .00 63.10 .00 8.68 .14 15.35 12.90 12.71 TOTAL 3,811.16 412.39 21,939.98 .00 2,929.87 .00 512.41 1.20 493.48 141.17 67.86 

State Public supply Domestic Thermoelectric power Industrial Mining Irrigation Aquaculture Livesto

Fresh Fresh Fresh Saline Fresh Saline Fresh Saline Fresh Fresh Fresh 

Illinois 1,023.71 0.08 758.32 0.00 18.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.00 Indiana 170.82 27.90 728.13 .00 1,624.59 .00 4.42 .00 32.11 .00 5.80 Michigan 1,142.76 250.95 9,148.91 .00 628.76 .00 94.55 .95 308.08 65.34 19.57 Minnesota 40.29 3.22 190.34 .00 7.77 .00 354.76 .00 .40 .79 .24 New York 516.59 51.55 3,362.80 .00 94.49 .00 10.67 .25 20.23 14.34 15.31 Ohio 567.00 47.86 2,517.99 .00 335.54 .00 36.93 .00 17.71 4.04 5.72 Pennsylvania 33.61 2.36 0.00 .00 5.23 .00 .56 .00 .59 5.79 .49 Wisconsin 316.38 28.47 5,233.49 .00 214.97 .00 10.52 .00 113.65 50.87 20.73 TOTAL 3,811.16 412.39 21,939.98 .00 2,929.87 .00 512.41 1.20 493.48 141.17 67.86 
Table 3. Surface-water withdrawals by water-use category for Great Lakes watersheds and states in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005.[Figures may not sum to totals because of independent rounding. All values are in million gallons per day]

Great Lakes 

watershed

Public 

supply Domestic

Thermoelectric 

power Industrial Mining Irrigation Aquaculture Livesto

Fresh Fresh Fresh Saline Fresh Saline Fresh Saline Fresh Fresh Fresh 

Superior 42.49 0.00 511.36 0.00 22.62 0.00 369.74 0.00 0.75 21.44 0.0Michigan 1,487.48 .00 10,334.52 .00 2,012.77 .00 49.03 .00 93.42 65.17 4.8Huron 225.43 .00 814.42 .00 32.73 .00 10.45 .00 13.24 7.25 .4Erie 1,293.21 .96 7,933.30 .00 656.91 .00 22.90 .00 30.39 8.78 5.8Ontario 304.46 .00 2,340.90 .00 54.73 .00 6.98 .00 10.70 9.68 4.4TOTAL 3,353.07 .96 21,934.50 .00 2,779.76 .00 459.10 .00 148.50 112.32 15.6

Public 

supply Domestic

Thermoelectric 

power Industrial Mining Irrigation Aquaculture Livesto

State Fresh Fresh Fresh Saline Fresh Saline Fresh Saline Fresh Fresh Fresh 

Illinois 1,023.70 0.00 758.32 0.00 18.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.0Indiana 110.08 .00 727.86 .00 1,613.51 .00 4.05 .00 5.23 .00 2.2Michigan 882.61 .00 9,144.84 .00 539.66 .00 81.35 .00 110.41 62.39 1.8Minnesota 34.30 .00 190.23 .00 7.76 .00 354.74 .00 .39 .43 .0New York 490.64 .00 3,362.80 .00 84.14 .00 8.61 .00 14.05 9.64 5.3Ohio 533.44 .96 2,517.99 .00 320.71 .00 5.51 .00 13.65 3.66 4.0Pennsylvania 31.36 .00 .00 .00 5.21 .00 .45 .00 .45 3.45 .0Wisconsin 246.94 .00 5,232.46 .00 190.25 .00 4.39 .00 4.05 32.75 2.0TOTAL 3,353.07 .96 21,934.50 .00 2,779.76 .00 459.10 .00 148.50 112.32 15.6
Table 4. Groundwater withdrawals by water-use category for Great Lakes watersheds and states in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005. [Figures may not sum to totals because of independent rounding. All values are in million gallons per day] Great Lakes watershed Public supply Domestic Thermoelectric power Industrial Mining Irrigation Aquaculture Livesto

Fresh Fresh Fresh Saline Fresh Saline Fresh Saline Fresh Fresh Fresh 

Superior 14.54 7.81 0.11 0.00 0.54 0.00 4.37 0.00 0.71 5.15 0.71 Michigan 295.40 178.52 3.79 .00 104.22 .00 11.58 .72 310.38 14.48 31.82 Huron 31.50 68.41 1.22 .00 1.98 .00 .37 .14 13.87 1.39 4.66 Erie 93.81 116.49 .36 .00 35.00 .00 35.29 .20 15.37 4.61 6.75 Ontario 22.84 40.20 .00 .00 8.37 .00 1.70 .14 4.65 3.22 8.25 TOTAL 458.09 411.43 5.48 .00 150.11 .00 53.31 1.20 344.98 28.85 52.19 

Public supply Domestic Thermoelectric power Industrial Mining Irrigation Aquaculture Livesto

State Fresh Fresh Fresh Saline Fresh Saline Fresh Saline Fresh Fresh Fresh 

Illinois 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 Indiana 60.74 27.90 .27 .00 11.08 .00 .37 .00 26.88 .00 3.57 Michigan 260.15 250.95 4.07 .00 89.10 .00 13.20 .95 197.67 2.95 17.71 Minnesota 5.99 3.22 .11 .00 .01 .00 .02 .00 .01 .36 .24 New York 25.95 51.55 .00 .00 10.35 .00 2.06 .25 6.18 4.70 9.93 Ohio 33.56 46.90 .00 .00 14.83 .00 31.42 .00 4.06 .38 1.65 Pennsylvania 2.25 2.36 .00 .00 .02 .00 .11 .00 .14 2.34 .43 Wisconsin 69.44 28.47 1.03 .00 24.72 .00 6.13 .00 109.60 18.12 18.66 

.00 TOTAL 458.09 411.43 5.48 .00 150.11 .00 53.31 1.20 344.98 28.85 52.19 
Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use 19

domestic use. In addition to the large percentage of basin land 

area represented by the Lake Michigan watershed and the state 

of Michigan, both areas are underlain by extensive unconsolidated and bedrock aquifers (Miller, 2000).

The distributions of total, total surface-water, and total 

groundwater withdrawals by HUC are shown in figure 5. 

Withdrawals from the HUC representing Lake Michigan (hereafter each Great Lake HUC is referred to solely by the name 

of the lake) accounted for the majority of the total withdrawal 

(41 percent; 12,300 Mgal/d; 0.4 Mgal/d as groundwater) and 

total surface-water withdrawal (43 percent; 12,300 Mgal/d) in 

the basin. Lake Erie accounted for an additional 7,870 Mgal/d 

of total withdrawal (7.35 Mgal/d as groundwater). The largest 

total withdrawals, and total surface-water withdrawals from 

land-based HUCs (756 and 748 Mgal/d, respectively) were 

from the Lower Maumee (04100009) of Ohio (fig. 4); the largest total groundwater withdrawals (248 Mgal/d) were from the 

St. Joseph (04050001) of Michigan and Indiana.

The intensity of withdrawals within the basin, measured 

as a function of area (including the portion of each Great Lake 

within the United States), was 0.17 Mgal/d/mi2. Excluding the 

HUCs representing the five sparsely populated Great Lakes, 

the intensity of withdrawals within the entirety of land-based 

HUCs of the basin was 0.04 Mgal/d/mi2. The intensity of the 

withdrawals within the land-based HUCs of the basin was 

substantially less than that within the basin as a whole because 

of the substantial volumes of water (about 24,000 Mgal/d) 

withdrawn directly from the Great Lakes. 

The intensity of withdrawals within the five Great Lakes 

watersheds of the basin ranged from 0.03 Mgal/d/mi2 in the 

Lake Superior watershed to 0.39 Mgal/d/mi2 in theLake Erie 

watershed. Excluding the HUCs representing the Great Lakes, 

the intensity of withdrawals within the Great Lakes watersheds 

ranged from 0.02 Mgal/d/mi2 in the Lake Superior watershed 

to 0.11 Mgal/d/mi2 in theLake Erie watershed. The intensity 

of withdrawals within the eight states of the basin ranged 

from 0.04 Mgal/d/mi2 in Pennsylvania to 1.09 Mgal/d/mi2 in 

Illinois. Excluding the HUCs representing the Great Lakes, 

the intensity of withdrawals within the basin States ranged 

from 0.02 Mgal/d/mi2 in Pennsylvania to 0.14 Mgal/d/mi2 

in Indiana.

The greatest intensity of withdrawals in the Lake Erie 

watershed, when both accounting for and excluding direct-lake 

withdrawals, is a function of the comparatively large in- and 

off-lake withdrawals in this watershed and the comparatively 

small areas representing both the watershed as a whole and 

the land-based part of the watershed. The greatest intensity 

of withdrawals in Illinois, when accounting for direct-lake 

withdrawals, is a function of the State’s comparatively large 

direct withdrawals from Lake Michigan for public supply and 

its comparatively small area within the basin. The greatest 

intensity of withdrawals in Indiana, when excluding directlake withdrawals, is a function of the State’s comparatively 

large groundwater and (or) surface-water withdrawals for 

public supply, domestic supply, industry, and irrigation and its 

comparatively small area within the basin.

Excluding the HUCs representing the five Great Lakes, 

where populations are sparse and direct-lake withdrawals are 

substantial, the greatest intensity of withdrawals by HUC was 

1.23 Mgal/d/mi2 in the Lower Fox (04030204) of Wisconsin, 

which includes the city of Green Bay (fig. 7A). Powerplant 

and industrial withdrawals account for the majority of use in 

that watershed. Examination of individual HUCs indicates that 

some smaller watersheds in the basin have a greater intensity 

of withdrawals than do some larger watersheds. Thermoelectric-power and (or) public-supply withdrawals, in large 

part, account for the more intensive water use in many of the 

comparatively smaller watersheds.

Gross per capita use within the basin, another indicator of 

intensity of use, was 1,320 gal/d in 2005. The highest recorded 

gross per capita use, 1,510 gal/d, was in 1990 (Solley and 

others, 1993). High per capita use in the Great Lakes Basin 

generally corresponds to sparsely populated watersheds with 

large thermoelectric-power or other industrial-type water withdrawals. Excluding the HUCs representing the five sparsely 

populated Great Lakes where most basin withdrawals occur, 

gross per capita use within the entirety of the basin’s landbased HUCs was 273 gal/d. 

Gross per capita use within the five Great Lakes watersheds of the basin ranged from 759 gal/d in the Lake Huron 

watershed to 2,330 gal/d in theLake Superior watershed. Gross 

per capita use within the land-based HUCs of the Great Lakes 

watersheds ranged from 105 gal/d in those that compose the 

Lake Huron watershed to 749 gal/d in those that compose the

Lake Superior watershed. Gross per capita use within the eight 

states of the basin ranged from 185 gal/d in Pennsylvania to 

2,780 gal/d in Minnesota. The gross per capita use within the 

land-based HUCs of the basin states ranged from 12 gal/d in 

those of Illinois to 1,270 gal/d in those of Minnesota.

The greatest per capita use in the Lake Superior watershed, when both accounting for and excluding direct-lake 

withdrawals, is a function of the sparsely populated HUCs in 

this part of Minnesota and Michigan, and, in some locales, 

comparatively large withdrawals for mining. The low per 

capita use in Illinois, when excluding direct-lake withdrawals, is a function of the State’s comparatively small volume of 

withdrawals in the densely populated basin area representing 

part of metropolitan Chicago. The water needs of this population are principally served by withdrawals from the adjacent 

HUC, which represents Lake Michigan.

Excluding the HUCs representing the five Great Lakes, 

where populations are sparse and direct-lake withdrawals 

are substantial, gross per capita use ranged from 6 gal/d in 

the Lake St. Clair (04090002) of Michigan to 3,030 gal/d in 

the Michigamme (04030107) of Michigan (fig. 7B). Most 

of the water used in the well-populated Lake St. Clair HUC 

near Detroit (0.62 million people) is supplied from outside 

the watershed by withdrawals from neighboring Great Lakes 

and (or) their connecting channels. The Michigamme HUC 

is in the sparsely populated Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 

and mining withdrawals account for the majority of use in 

that watershed. 
Figure 7. Intensity of water withdrawals in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005. A, Use as a function of land area. MINNESOTA WISCONSIN ILLINOIS INDIANA OHIO PENNSYLVANIA 

ONTARIO CANADA U.S.A. CANADA U.S.A. CANADA U.S.A. Lake Superior Lake Michigan Lake Huron Lake Erie Lake Ont

92° 90° 88° 86° 84° 82° 80° 78° 

46° 44° 42° 48° ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! !! ! !Sheboygan OshkoshMilwaukee Green Bay Erie Toledo Cleveland 

Roche

Buffalo Duluth Saginaw Kalamazoo Grand Rapids Flint Detroit South Bend Michigan City Chicago 0 100 

0 100 

EXPLANATION Intensity of withdrawals, in million gallons per day per square mile < 0.01 0.01 to 0.1 0.1 to 0.5 0.5 to 1 1 to 2 Areas are 8-digit hydrologic cataloging unit (HUC) watersheds
Figure 7. Intensity of water withdrawals in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005. B, Gross per capita use.

MINNESOTA

WISCONSIN

ILLINOIS

INDIANA

OHIO

PENNSYLVANIA

ONTARIO

CANADA U.S.A.

CANADA U.S.A.

CANADA U.S.A.

Lake Superior

Lake 

Michigan

Lake 

Huron

Lake Erie

Lake Ont

92° 90° 88° 86° 84° 82° 80° 78° 

46°44°42°48°

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! 

! !

!

!

!

!

!Sheboygan

Oshkosh

Milwaukee

Green Bay

Erie

Toledo Cleveland

Roche

Buffalo

Duluth

Saginaw

Kalamazoo

Grand Rapids Flint

Detroit

South Bend

Michigan 

City Chicago

0 100 0 100 

EXPLANATIONGross per capita use,  in gallons per day  per person 

< 5050 to 100100 to 500500 to 1,0001,000 to 5,000

Areas are 8-digit hydrologic cataloging unit (HUC) watersheds
22 Estimated Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use in the Great Lakes Basin of the United States in 2005

Public Supply

Public supply refers to water withdrawn by public and 

private suppliers that furnish water to at least 25 people 

or have a minimum of 15 service connections year-round 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006b). Public-supply water may be delivered to users for domestic, commercial, 

industrial, irrigation, or thermoelectric-power purposes. Some 

public-supply water may be delivered to other public suppliers 

or used in the process of water and wastewater treatment. Public-supply water is used for such public uses as pools, parks, 

and public buildings; some of this water may be unaccounted 

for (losses) due to system leaks or nonmetered services such 

as firefighting or the flushing of utility water lines. All publicsupply withdrawals in the Great Lakes Basin are freshwater. 

For 2005, public-use losses and water deliveries, other than 

domestic deliveries, were not mandatory accounting elements 

and thus were not compiled routinely by USGS Water Science 

Centers. As a result, only estimates for domestic deliveries by 

public supply are included in this report. These deliveries are 

included as an element of domestic use and presented and discussed in the report section “Domestic Supply.” For this compilation and report, public-supply use refers to the collective 

withdrawals intended for all public purposes and for delivery 

to nonpublic users, including deliveries to domestic users. 

Public-supply withdrawals and population served are 

summarized by Great Lakes watershed and by state in table 5. 

Withdrawals and associated elements of water use are listed 

by individual HUC in appendix 1. For 2005, total withdrawal 

of surface water and groundwater in the Great Lakes Basin for 

Table 5. Public-supply withdrawals for Great Lakes watersheds and states in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005.

[Figures may not sum to totals because of independent rounding]

Population, in thousands Withdrawals, in million gallons per day

Served by public supply By source

Great Lakes 

watershed Total Population Population, in percent Surface water Groundwater Total

Superior 431.114 316.17 73 42.49 14.54 57.03

Michigan 7,711.612 5,414.34 70 1,487.48 295.40 1,782.88

Huron 1,617.285 824.69 51 225.43 31.50 256.93

Erie 10,800.648 9,321.96 86 1,293.21 93.81 1,387.02

Ontario 2,349.828 1,836.16 78 304.46 22.84 327.30

TOTAL 22,910.487 17,713.32 77 3,353.07 458.09 3,811.16

Population, in thousands Withdrawals, in million gallons per day

Served by public supply By source

State Total Population Population, 

in percent Surface water Groundwater Total

Illinois 667.500 666.66 100 1,023.70 0.01 1,023.71

Indiana 1,369.794 1,002.68 73 110.08 60.74 170.82

Michigan 10,120.859 7,212.94 71 882.61 260.15 1,142.76

Minnesota 215.094 169.11 79 34.30 5.99 40.29

New York 3,551.985 2,889.44 81 490.64 25.95 516.59

Ohio 4,014.374 3,380.97 84 533.44 33.56 567.00

Pennsylvania 263.822 224.47 85 31.36 2.25 33.61

Wisconsin 2,707.059 2,167.05 80 246.94 69.44 316.38

TOTAL 22,910.487 17,713.32 77 3,353.07 458.09 3,811.16
Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use 23

public supply was an estimated 3,810 Mgal/d. Public-supply 

withdrawals were 13 percent of total withdrawals in the basin 

for all categories of use and 46 percent of total withdrawals for 

all categories of use excluding thermoelectric power. About 

17.7 million people in the basin or 77 percent of the total population of the basin depended on water from public suppliers. 

Eighty-eight percent of the water for public supply was withdrawn from surface sources, with about 76 percent directly 

from the Great Lakes or one of their connecting channels.

The Lake Michigan watershed accounted for the majority of withdrawals for public supply in the Great Lakes Basin 

(47 percent of public-supply withdrawals; 1,780 Mgal/d), followed by the Lake Erie watershed (36 percent; 1,390 Mgal/d). 

The quantity of water withdrawn for public supply within 

each Great Lakes watershed strongly correlated (r=0.90) with 

the population of the watersheds. The Lake Erie watershed 

accounted for 47 percent of the total population within the 

basin; the Lake Michigan watershed, 34 percent. Total withdrawals in the Lake Michigan watershed were notably greater 

than those in the Lake Erie watershed, despite a population 

that was about 29 percent less than that of the Lake Erie watershed. This discrepancy can be explained, in large part, by the 

transfer of large volumes of water outside the Lake Michigan 

watershed (and basin) to serve that population of about 6 million in the metropolitan region of Chicago, Ill. Consequently, 

per capita public-supply use is higher for the Lake Michigan 

watershed (329 gal/d) than for the other Great Lake watersheds (ranging from 149 gal/d for Lake Erie to 312 gal/d for 

Lake Huron). 

The percentage of total population served by public 

supply ranged from 51 percent in the Lake Huron watershed to 86 percent in the Lake Erie watershed. The largest 

surface-water withdrawal for public supply, 1,490 Mgal/d 

(44 percent of public-supply surface-water withdrawals), was 

in the Lake Michigan watershed, as was the largest groundwater withdrawal, 295 Mgal/d (64 percent of public-supply 

groundwater withdrawals). 

The quantity of water withdrawn for public supply within 

each Great Lakes State correlated less strongly (r=0.67) with 

the state’s basin population than that indicated for the Great 

Lakes watersheds. Michigan, the state with the largest population in the basin (10.1 million), accounted for 41 percent of 

the total population served by public supply and 30 percent 

of total public-supply withdrawals. However, despite representing less than 1 percent of the land-based area of the basin 

(90 mi2) and only 3 percent of the basin population (0.67 million), the Illinois part of the basin accounted for 27 percent of 

the total public-supply withdrawals. About 6.7 million people 

in the Chicago, Ill., metropolitan area (in and outside the 

basin) are served by public water supplied from Lake Michigan, and this water is included in the State’s withdrawal totals.

The distributions of total, surface-water, and groundwater 

withdrawals for public supply by HUC are shown in figure 8. 

The largest total withdrawal (surface water plus groundwater), 

about 1,460 Mgal/d, was from Lake Michigan, principally 

to supply the large cities of Chicago (1,020 Mgal/d) and 

Milwaukee. Withdrawals from the other Great Lakes included 

about 1,120 Mgal/d from Lake Erie (0.01 Mgal/d were 

reported as groundwater withdrawals), principally to supply 

Detroit and Cleveland; 225 Mgal/d, Lake Huron; 70.1 Mgal/d, 

Lake Ontario; and 37.3 Mgal/d, Lake Superior. The largest 

total withdrawal, 125 Mgal/d, and surface-water withdrawal, 

117 Mgal/d, from a land-based HUC were in the Seneca 

(04140201) of New York; and the largest total groundwater 

withdrawal, 73.8 Mgal/d, was in the St. Joseph (04050001) of 

Indiana and Michigan, followed by 56.0 Mgal/d in the Upper 

Grand (04050004) of Michigan. The largest public-water supplied populations are in densely populated urban HUCs adjacent to the Great Lakes; these include the Detroit (04090004) 

(2.1 million), followed by the Pike-Root (04040002), Milwaukee (04040003), Clinton (04090003), and Cuyahoga 

(04110002) (each about 0.9 million) (figs. 4, 3, 2).

Self-Supplied Domestic

Domestic water use is that used for indoor and outdoor 

household purposes. Common indoor uses include drinking, preparing food, bathing, washing clothes and dishes, and 

flushing toilets. Major outdoor uses include watering lawns 

and gardens, filling swimming pools, and washing cars. Water 

for domestic use may be self-supplied or delivered from a 

public supplier. In this compilation and report, the category 

of domestic use refers to both self-supplied withdrawals and 

domestic deliveries from public supply. For self-supplied 

domestic water, the source usually is a well. All self-supplied 

domestic withdrawals are considered freshwater. Self-supplied 

domestic population was defined as the difference between the 

total population for 2005, as determined by the U.S. Census 

Bureau, and the population served by public suppliers. 

Self-supplied domestic withdrawals, domestic population served by public supply, and domestic deliveries from 

public supply were estimated and reported for 2005. Estimates 

for each of these elements of domestic use are included and 

discussed in this report. Domestic supply consumptive use was 

not a mandatory accounting element for 2005, and estimates 

in this category were compiled only by the USGS Ohio Water 

Science Center (provisional estimates for basin HUCs in Ohio 

can be found at http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/). On the basis 

of the domestic-withdrawal estimates and data available from 

other sources, consumptive use is estimated for the basin and 

discussed briefly in the report section “Consumptive Use.”

Self-supplied domestic withdrawals and population are 

summarized by Great Lakes watershed and by state in table 6. 

Withdrawals and associated elements of water use are listed 

by individual HUC in appendix 1. For 2005, total self-supplied 

domestic withdrawals in the Great Lakes Basin were an estimated 412 Mgal/d. Self-supplied domestic withdrawals were 

about 1 percent of total withdrawals in the basin and 5 percent 

of total withdrawals for all categories of use excluding thermoelectric power. Domestic public-supply deliveries totaled 

1,410 Mgal/d.
Figure 8. Public-supply withdrawals by source, watershed, and state in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005. MINNESOTA MINNESOTA MINNESOTA WISCONSIN WISCONSIN WISCONSIN ILLINOIS ILLINOIS ILLINOIS INDIANA INDIANA INDIANA OHIO OHIO OHIO PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA 

NEW YORK NEW YORK 

Lake Superior 37.3 Lake Superior 37.3 Lake Superior 0.00 Lake Michigan 1,460 Lake Michigan 1,460 Lake Michigan 0.00 Lake Huron 225 Lake Huron 225 Lake Huron 0.00 Lake Ontario 70.1 Lake Ontario 70.1 

EXPLANATION EXPLANATION 

Lake Erie 1,120 Lake Erie 1,120 Lake E

0.0

Surface-water withdrawals, in million gallons per day Total water withdrawals, in million gallons per day 

TOTAL WITHDRAWALS,

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

TOTAL WITHDRAWALS,

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

2,000

2,000

1,500

1,500

1,000

1,000

500

500

0

0

Groundwater

12%

Surface water

88%

< 1

< 1

1 to 10

1 to 10

10 to 50

10 to 50

50 to 100

50 to 100

100 to 200

100 to 200

Superior Michigan Huron 

IL IN MI MN NY 

Areas are 8-digit hydrologic

cataloging unit (HUC) watersheds
Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use 25

About 5.20 million people in the basin were selfsupplied, and groundwater was essentially the single source 

of that water (greater than 99.7 percent of withdrawals). All 

reported surface-water withdrawals occurred in 16 Ohio 

watersheds (appendix 1B). The self-supplied domestic population was 23 percent of the total population of the basin. 

The Lake Michigan watershed accounted for the largest 

proportion of self-supplied domestic withdrawals (43 percent of domestic withdrawals; 179 Mgal/d), followed by the 

Lake Erie watershed (28 percent; 117 Mgal/d). Great Lakes 

watersheds and states with the largest populations generally 

withdrew the largest quantities of water (r=0.81 and r=0.97, 

respectively). The Lake Michigan watershed accounted for 

34 percent of the total population of the basin and 44 percent of the self-supplied domestic population. A larger rural 

population in the Lake Michigan watershed likely accounts 

for the greater volume of self-supplied domestic withdrawals 

in that watershed than the more populous Lake Erie watershed 

(7.7 and 10.8 million total residents, respectively). Michigan, 

the state with the largest population in the basin, accounted for 

56 percent of the total self-supplied population and 61 percent 

of self-supplied domestic withdrawals. The percentage of total 

population that was self-supplied ranged from less than 1 percent in Illinois to about 28 percent in Indiana and Michigan. 

The distributions of total self-supplied domestic withdrawals, self-supplied domestic population, and domestic 

public-supply deliveries by HUC are shown in figure 9. 

The largest total withdrawal and groundwater withdrawal, 

30.6 Mgal/d, was in the St. Joseph (04050001) of Indiana 

and Michigan. This watershed also had the largest self-supplied population, at 0.38 million. The largest surface-water 

withdrawal, 0.19 Mgal/d, was in the Cuyahoga (04110002) 

Table 6. Self-supplied domestic withdrawals for Great Lakes watersheds and states in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005.

[Figures may not sum to totals because of independent rounding]

Population, in thousands Withdrawals, in million gallons per day

Self-supplied domestic By source

Great Lakes 

watershed Total Served by public supply Population Population, 

in percent Surface water Groundwater Total

Superior 431.114 316.17 114.95 27 0.00 7.81 7.81

Michigan 7,711.612 5,414.34 2,297.30 30 .00 178.52 178.52

Huron 1,617.285 824.69 792.59 49 .00 68.41 68.41

Erie 10,800.648 9,321.96 1,478.65 14 .96 116.49 117.45

Ontario 2,349.828 1,836.16 513.64 22 .00 40.20 40.20

TOTAL 22,910.487 17,713.32 5,197.126 23 .96 411.43 412.39

Population, in thousands Withdrawals, in million gallons per day

Self-supplied domestic By source

State Total Served by 

public supply Population Population, 

in percent Surface water Groundwater Total

Illinois 667.500 666.66 0.84 0 0.00 0.08 0.08

Indiana 1,369.794 1,002.68 367.13 27 .00 27.90 27.90

Michigan 10,120.859 7,212.94 2,907.89 29 .00 250.95 250.95

Minnesota 215.094 169.11 45.99 21 .00 3.22 3.22

New York 3,551.985 2,889.44 662.51 19 .00 51.55 51.55

Ohio 4,014.374 3,380.97 633.39 16 .96 46.90 47.86

Pennsylvania 263.822 224.47 39.35 15 .00 2.36 2.36

Wisconsin 2,707.059 2,167.05 540.03 20 .00 28.47 28.47

TOTAL 22,910.487 17,713.32 5,197.126 23 .96 411.43 412.39
Figure 9. Self-supplied domestic population and public-supply deliveries by watershed and total self-supplied domestic withdrawals by source, watGreat Lakes Basin, 2005.

MINNESOTA

MINNESOTA

MINNESOTA

WISCONSIN

WISCONSIN

WISCONSIN

ILLINOIS

ILLINOIS

ILLINOIS

INDIANA

INDIANA

INDIANA

OHIO

OHIO

OHIO

PENNSYLVANIA

PENNSYLVANIA

NEW

YORK

NEW

YORK

Lake

Superior

1.38

Lake

Superior

0.10

Lake

Superior

0.00

Lake

Michigan

0.56

Lake

Michigan

0.05

Lake

Michigan

0.30

Lake

Huron

2.27

Lake

Huron

0.20

Lake

Huron

0.00

Lake Ontario

0.00

Lake Ontario

0.00

L

EXPLANATION

EXPLANATION

Lake Erie

1.07

Lake Erie

0.09

Lake E

0.0

Self-supplied domestic

population, in thousands

Total water withdrawals,

in million gallons per day

TOTAL WITHDRAWALS,

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

TOTAL WITHDRAWALS,

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

300

225

300

150

225

75

150

75

0

0

Groundwater

> 99%

Surface water

< 1%

< 1

1 to 10

10 to 50

50 to 100

100 to 500

< 0.1

0.1 to 1

1 to 10

10 to 25

25 to 50

Superior Michigan Huron 

IL IN MI MN NY 

Areas are 8-digit hydrologic

cataloging unit (HUC) watersheds
Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use 27

of Ohio. Within state areas, about 46 percent of domestic 

withdrawals occurred within 13 HUCs (10 in Michigan, and 

1 each in Indiana, New York, and Ohio); withdrawals within 

these HUCs ranged from about 10 to 23 Mgal/d. The largest 

domestic public-supply deliveries, 171 Mgal/d, were in the 

Detroit (04090004), serving the large population of metropolitan Detroit.

Thermoelectric Power

Water for thermoelectric power is used in the process of 

generating electricity with steam-driven turbine generators. 

In this process, some water is converted to steam to drive 

the generators; most is continuously circulated for cooling. 

Beginning with the 2000 report, thermoelectric-power water 

withdrawals were compiled by cooling-system type; coolingsystem type is the primary determinant for the amount of consumptive use relative to withdrawals. Once-through cooling 

refers to a cooling system in which water is withdrawn from a 

source, typically a surface-water body, circulated through heat 

exchangers to condense steam to water, and then returned to 

the source. Closed-loop cooling refers to a cooling system in 

which water is withdrawn from a source, circulated through 

heat exchangers, cooled, and then recirculated. Cooling can 

be achieved by routing the water through cooling towers or 

manmade or natural ponds or lakes (referred to as “cooling 

ponds”), or by other means. Cooling ponds generally require a 

shallow reservoir with a large surface area to effectively dissipate the heat. Subsequent water withdrawals for a closed-loop 

system are used to replace water lost primarily to evaporation, as well as to blowdown, drift, and leakage. Closed-loop 

cooling results in larger consumptive use relative to withdrawals than does open-loop cooling (Solley and others, 1998). 

Individual plants may rely on different cooling systems at 

different times or during different seasons. Within the Great 

Lakes Basin, only freshwater is used for thermoelectric-power 

cooling systems and other aspects of power generation. 

For 2005, public-supply deliveries to thermoelectric 

powerplants and consumptive use were not mandatory 

accounting elements, and estimates in these categories were 

compiled only by the USGS Ohio Water Science Center 

(provisional estimates for basin HUCs in Ohio can be found at 

http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/). Only self-supplied withdrawals 

are considered in this accounting and report of thermoelectricpower withdrawals. On the basis of the thermoelectric-power 

withdrawal estimates and data available from other sources, 

consumptive use is estimated for the basin and discussed 

briefly in this report section and in somewhat greater detail 

later in the report, in the “Consumptive Use” section.

Thermoelectric-power withdrawals (total and by coolingsystem type) and net power generation are summarized by 

Great Lakes watershed and by state in table 7. Withdrawals 

and associated elements of water use are listed by individual 

HUC in appendix 1. For 2005, total withdrawals in the Great 

Lakes Basin for thermoelectric-power generation were an 

estimated 21,900 Mgal/d. Surface water was the source for 

more than 99 percent of the thermoelectric-power withdrawals. About 19,100 Mgal/d was withdrawn directly from the 

Great Lakes or their connecting channels. Thermoelectricpower withdrawals accounted for 72 percent of total water 

withdrawals in the basin and 76 percent of total surface-water 

withdrawals. The high percentage of total water withdrawal 

represented by thermoelectric-power use is characteristic in 

eastern states, where the power-production infrastructure was 

established to take advantage of the extensive water supply of 

the Great Lakes and major rivers and to satisfy the electricalpower demands of nearby large urban and industrial centers. 

The majority of these centers, including about 80 percent of 

the basin population (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2005), 

are within about 50 mi of one of the Great Lakes. This population distribution is shown variously in figures 2 and 3 by the 

population distributions and land-cover/land-use patterns in 

the basin.

The distributions of total, total surface-water, and total 

groundwater withdrawals by HUC are shown in figure 10. The 

largest total withdrawal, about 9,450 Mgal/d, was from Lake 

Michigan. Withdrawals from other Great Lakes included about 

6,440 Mgal/d from Lake Erie; 2,030 Mgal/d, Lake Ontario; 

810 Mgal/d, Lake Huron; and 321 Mgal/d, Lake Superior. An 

estimated 83 percent of the withdrawals for thermoelectricpower generation occurred in two Great Lakes watersheds, 

about 47 percent (10,300 Mgal/d) in the Lake Michigan 

watershed and 36 percent (7,930 Mgal/d) in the Lake Erie 

watershed. For states in the basin, the largest water withdrawals for thermoelectric-power generation were in Michigan 

(9,150 Mgal/d), followed by Wisconsin (5,230 Mgal/d). 

Withdrawals from surface waters other than one of the Great 

Lakes were limited to powerplants located in 16 HUCs. The 

largest total withdrawal and surface-water withdrawal from a 

land-based HUC, at 731 Mgal/d, were in the Lower Maumee 

(04100009) of Ohio. The largest groundwater withdrawal, 

1.26 Mgal/d, was in the Michigan area of the St. Joseph 

(04050001), followed by 1.02 Mgal/d in the Manitowoc 

(04030101) of Wisconsin. Groundwater withdrawals ranging from 0.01 to 0.89 Mgal/d were reported in only 10 other 

HUCs in the basin.

Plants equipped with closed-loop cooling systems 

accounted for less than 1 percent of water withdrawals for 

thermoelectric-power generation. The predominance of 

once-through cooling systems in the basin is driven by the 

abundance of water supply relative to other parts of the United 

States, where closed-loop cooling systems predominate 

(Hutson and others, 2004). Once-through cooling systems also 

generally are common to older (pre-1970s) plants typically 

constructed before thermal requirements for return water 

became more restrictive (Hutson, 2007). Many older plants 

likely are particular to the populated northern Midwest and 

Northeastern States, having been built before the 1970s, when 

population and industrial activity in the region were at their 

peak (Great Lakes Information Network, 2008). 
Figure 10. Thermoelectric-power withdrawals by source, watershed, and state in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005. MINNESOTA MINNESOTA MINNESOTA WISCONSIN WISCONSIN WISCONSIN ILLINOIS ILLINOIS ILLINOIS INDIANA INDIANA INDIANA OHIO OHIO OHIO PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA 

NEW YORK NEW YORK 

Lake Superior 321 Lake Superior 321 Lake Superior 0.00 Lake Michigan 9,450 Lake Michigan 9,450 Lake Michigan 0.00 Lake Huron 810 Lake Huron 810 Lake Huron 0.00 Lake Ontario 2,030 Lake Ontario 2,030 

EXPLANATION EXPLANATION 

Lake Erie 6,440 Lake Erie 6,440 Lake E

0.00 Surface-water withdrawals, in million gallons per day Total water withdrawals, in million gallons per day 

TOTAL WITHDRAWALS,

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

TOTAL WITHDRAWALS,

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

20,000

20,000

15,000

15,000

10,000

10,000

5,000

5,000

0

0

Surface water

> 99%

Groundwater

< 1%

Once-through

cooling Closed-loop 98% cooling

2%

< 1

1 to 10

10 to 100

100 to 500

500 to 1,000

< 1

1 to 10

10 to 100

100 to 500

500 to 1,000

Superior Michigan Huron 

IL IN MI MN NY 

Areas are 8-digit hydrologic

cataloging unit (HUC) watersheds
Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use 29

With the predominance of thermoelectric powerplants in 

the basin using once-through cooling systems, reuse potential 

of water in the basin is high. Given the typically low consumptive use of water associated with these plants, about 1 to 

3 percent (Solley and others, 1998; Marilee Horn, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 2009), the majority of the 

large volumes of water withdrawn by these plants are returned 

to the surface-water sources.

Net (power) generation is the amount of gross generation 

less the electrical energy consumed at the generating station 

for station service (U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, 2007). For 2005, about 234,200 GWh

of net power was generated in the Great Lakes Basin. Net 

power generation in basin states generally correlated with 

total water withdrawals for thermoelectric-power generation 

and population (r=0.97 and 0.98, respectively). An estimated 

116,700 GWh was generated in Michigan, representing 

50 percent of the generation in the basin; power generation 

also was comparatively high in Ohio, Wisconsin, and New 

York (from 11 to 18 percent of generation in the basin). An 

estimated 87 percent of the power generation was at thermoelectric powerplants withdrawing water for cooling directly 

from one of the Great Lakes or a connecting channel.

Table 7. Thermoelectric-power withdrawals for Great Lakes watersheds and states in the 

Great Lakes Basin, 2005.

[Figures may not sum to totals because of independent rounding]

Withdrawals, in million gallons per day

By source and type

Great Lakes 

watershed

Surface water Groundwater Total

Fresh Fresh Total Fresh Saline Total

Superior 511.36 0.11 511.47 511.47 0.00 511.47

Michigan 10,334.52 3.79 10,338.31 10,338.31 .00 10,338.31

Huron 814.42 1.22 815.64 815.64 .00 815.64

Erie 7,933.30 .36 7,933.66 7,933.66 .00 7,933.66

Ontario 2,340.90 .00 2,340.90 2,340.90 .00 2,340.90

TOTAL 21,934.50 5.48 21,939.98 21,939.98 .00 21,939.98

Withdrawals, in million gallons per day

By source and type

Surface water Groundwater Total

State Fresh Fresh Total Fresh Saline Total

Illinois 758.32 0.00 758.32 758.32 0.00 758.32

Indiana 727.86 .27 728.13 728.13 .00 728.13

Michigan 9,144.84 4.07 9,148.91 9,148.91 .00 9,148.91

Minnesota 190.23 .11 190.34 190.34 .00 190.34

New York 3,362.80 .00 3,362.80 3,362.80 .00 3,362.80

Ohio 2,517.99 .00 2,517.99 2,517.99 .00 2,517.99

Pennsylvania .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

Wisconsin 5,232.46 1.03 5,233.49 5,233.49 .00 5,233.49

TOTAL 21,934.50 5.48 21,939.98 21,939.98 .00 21,939.98
30 Estimated Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use in the Great Lakes Basin of the United States in 2005

Industrial and Commercial

Industrial water use includes water used for such purposes as fabricating, processing, washing, diluting, cooling, 

or transporting a product; incorporating water into a product; 

or maintaining sanitation within the manufacturing facility. 

Some industries that use large amounts of water produce such 

commodities as food, paper, chemicals, refined petroleum, 

or primary metals. Water for industrial use may be delivered 

from a public supplier or be self-supplied. Only self-supplied 

withdrawals are considered in this accounting and report of 

industrial use. Withdrawals were reported as freshwater or 

saline water, because the extraction of saline water has been 

indicated in past accountings of industrial withdrawals in the 

basin. 

For 2005, public-supply deliveries to industrial users and 

consumptive were not mandatory accounting elements, and 

estimates in this category were compiled only by the USGS 

Ohio Water Science Center (provisional estimates for basin 

HUCs in Ohio can be found at http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/).

On the basis of the industrial-withdrawal estimates and data 

available from other sources, consumptive use is estimated for 

the basin and discussed briefly in the report section “Consumptive Use.”

Industrial withdrawals are summarized by Great Lakes 

watershed and by state in table 8. Withdrawals and associated elements of water use are listed by individual HUC in 

appendix 1. For 2005, total withdrawals in the Great Lakes 

Basin for industrial use were an estimated 2,930 Mgal/d. 

All the withdrawals were reported as freshwater. Industrial 

Table 8. Industrial withdrawals for Great Lakes watersheds and states in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005.

[Figures may not sum to totals because of independent rounding]

Withdrawals, in million gallons per day

By source and type

Great Lakes 

watershed

Surface water Groundwater Total

Fresh Saline Total Fresh Saline Total Fresh Saline Total

Superior 22.62 0.00 22.62 0.54 0.00 0.54 23.16 0.00 23.16

Michigan 2,012.77 .00 2,012.77 104.22 .00 104.22 2,116.99 .00 2,116.99

Huron 32.73 .00 32.73 1.98 .00 1.98 34.71 .00 34.71

Erie 656.91 .00 656.91 35.00 .00 35.00 691.91 .00 691.91

Ontario 54.73 .00 54.73 8.37 .00 8.37 63.10 .00 63.10

TOTAL 2,779.76 .00 2,779.76 150.11 .00 150.11 2,929.87 .00 2,929.87

Withdrawals, in million gallons per day

By source and type

Surface water Groundwater Total

State Fresh Saline Total Fresh Saline Total Fresh Saline Total

Illinois 18.52 0.00 18.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.52 0.00 18.52

Indiana 1,613.51 .00 1,613.51 11.08 .00 11.08 1,624.59 .00 1,624.59

Michigan 539.66 .00 539.66 89.10 .00 89.10 628.76 .00 628.76

Minnesota 7.76 .00 7.76 .01 .00 .01 7.77 .00 7.77

New York 84.14 .00 84.14 10.35 .00 10.35 94.49 .00 94.49

Ohio 320.71 .00 320.71 14.83 .00 14.83 335.54 .00 335.54

Pennsylvania 5.21 .00 5.21 .02 .00 .02 5.23 .00 5.23

Wisconsin 190.25 .00 190.25 24.72 .00 24.72 214.97 .00 214.97

TOTAL 2,779.76 .00 2,779.76 150.11 0.00 150.11 2,929.87 .00 2,929.87
Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use 31

withdrawals were 10 percent of total withdrawals in the basin 

and 35 percent of total withdrawals for all categories of use 

excluding thermoelectric power. Ninety-five percent of the 

water for self-supplied industrial use was withdrawn from 

surface sources, with about 60 percent directly from the Great 

Lakes or one of their connecting channels. 

The Lake Michigan watershed accounted for the 

majority of total withdrawals for industrial use (72 percent; 

2,120 Mgal/d), as well as the majority of surface-water 

withdrawals (72 percent; 2,010 Mgal/d) and groundwater 

withdrawals (69 percent; 104 Mgal/d) for such use. The Lake 

Erie watershed also accounted for a comparatively large quantity of surface-water and groundwater withdrawals (24 and 

23 percent, respectively). 

For states in the basin, Indiana accounted for 55 percent 

of total industrial withdrawals (1,620 Mgal/d), followed by 

Michigan (19 percent; 629 Mgal/d). The largest surface-water 

withdrawals were in Indiana (1,610 Mgal/d; 58 percent); the 

largest groundwater withdrawals in Michigan (89.1 Mgal/d; 

59 percent).

The distributions of total, total surface-water, and total 

groundwater withdrawals for industrial use by HUC are shown 

in figure 11. The largest total withdrawal, about 1,430 Mgal/d, 

was from Lake Michigan. About 303 Mgal/d was withdrawn 

from Lake Erie. Estimated withdrawals from Lakes Ontario, 

Superior, and Huron ranged from 0.22 to 19.6 Mgal/d, 

respectively. The largest total withdrawal and surface-water 

withdrawal from land-based HUCs, 310 and 308 Mgal/d, 

respectively, were in the Little Calumet-Galien (04040001) 

of Indiana and Michigan; 98 percent of the surface-water 

withdrawal occurred within Indiana. Total (and surface-water) 

withdrawals in other HUCs were less than about 120 Mgal/d, 

but more typically were less than about 60 Mgal/d. The largest 

groundwater withdrawal, 35.6 Mgal/d, was in the Kalamazoo 

(04050003) of Michigan; withdrawals in six other HUCs in 

the Lake Michigan and Lake Erie watersheds ranged from 

about 5 to 15 Mgal/d.

In compilations by other agencies, commercial water use 

sometimes is included in the consideration of industrial water 

use. Commercial use includes the use of water by facilities 

such as motels, restaurants, office buildings, retail outlets, and 

residential institutions, among others. Water may be selfsupplied or obtained from (delivered by) a public supply. For 

2005, commercial use was not a mandatory accounting category; thus, commercial withdrawals were compiled by only 

some of the USGS Water Science Centers in the basin. These 

estimates for selected basin HUCs are included in appendix 

1. Commercial deliveries and consumptive use also were 

not mandatory accounting elements for 2005 and estimates 

in these categories were compiled only by the USGS Ohio 

Water Science Center (provisional estimates for basin HUCs 

in Ohio can be found at http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/). On the 

basis of the available commercial-withdrawal estimates and 

data available from other sources, consumptive use is estimated for the basin and discussed briefly in the report section 

“Consumptive Use.”

Although not routinely compiled by USGS Water Science 

Centers for 2005, commercial withdrawals in the Great Lakes 

Basin are briefly considered here to address their periodic consideration with industrial use by others and to better account 

for the entirety of basin water use. It is expected that selfsupplied commercial withdrawals represent only a small fraction of total withdrawals in the basin. Since 1985, estimated 

withdrawals have not exceeded 0.46 percent of total withdrawals, as reported for 1995 (Solley and others, 1998). For those 

states furnishing estimates of commercial use in the basin for 

2005 (all but Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania), total 

withdrawals were 44.3 Mgal/d. The largest use by HUC was in 

the Indiana area of the St. Joseph (04050001), at 27.1 Mgal/d, 

followed by the Sandusky (04100011) of Ohio, at 3.0 Mgal/d. 

Use in the St. Joseph watershed was about equally distributed 

between surface-water and groundwater withdrawals. Of the 

54 HUCs with reported commercial withdrawals, 91 percent 

of the withdrawals were less than 1 Mgal/d.

Given the generally applied method of accounting for 

commercial withdrawals, it might be possible that these totals 

are underestimated in this and other accountings (Marilee 

Horn, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 2009). Many 

states in the basin and elsewhere base their estimated commercial withdrawals on amounts reported by well owners to mandatory or voluntary state inventory programs. Typically, these 

programs target users (and wells) withdrawing a minimum of 

100,000 gal/d (70 gal/min). Because of this target, a substantial percentage of withdrawals associated with lower-capacity 

wells might be overlooked in accounting for commercial use. 

Even if underestimated, commercial withdrawals should be 

well less than public-supply withdrawals (about 3,800 Mgal/d, 

or 13 percent of basin totals). Commercial facilities relying on 

private supply wells generally are in less populated areas often 

either not served by public supply or served by comparatively 

small public-supply facilities, and commercial wells typically 

serve only a single facility. Realistically, actual self-supplied 

commercial withdrawals are expected, at most, to approximate 

those of self-supplied domestic or other lower-demand uses in 

the basin, none of which were estimated to exceed 600 Mgal/d 

(or 2 percent of basin totals). In a rigorous accounting of water 

use in a multicounty region of New Hampshire, Horn and others (2008) estimated about 3 percent of total withdrawals were 

self-supplied commercial withdrawals.

Mining

Mining water use is water for the extraction of solid, 

liquid, or gaseous substances, such as coal, iron, sand, and 

gravel; crude petroleum; and natural gas. The category 

includes quarrying, milling (crushing, screening, washing, and 

floatation of extracted minerals), reinjecting extracted water 

for secondary oil recovery, and other operations associated 

with mining activities. Dewatering was not reported as a mining withdrawal unless the water was used beneficially, such as 

for dampening roads for dust control. Water withdrawals were 
Figure 11. Industrial withdrawals by source, watershed, and state in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005. MINNESOTA MINNESOTA MINNESOTA WISCONSIN WISCONSIN WISCONSIN ILLINOIS ILLINOIS ILLINOIS INDIANA INDIANA INDIANA OHIO OHIO OHIO PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA 

NEW YORK NEW YORK 

Lake Superior 14.4 Lake Superior 14.4 Lake Superior 0.00 Lake Michigan 1,430 Lake Michigan 1,430 Lake Michigan 0.32 Lake Huron 19.6 Lake Huron 19.6 Lake Huron 0.00 Lake Ontario 0.22 Lake Ontario 0.22 

EXPLANATION EXPLANATION 

Lake Erie 303 Lake Erie 303 Lake E

0.00 Surface-water withdrawals, in million gallons per day Total water withdrawals, in million gallons per day 

TOTAL WITHDRAWALS,

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

TOTAL WITHDRAWALS,

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

2,500

2,500

1,875

1,875

1,250

1,250

625

625

0

0

Groundwater

5%

Surface water

95%

< 1

< 1

1 to 10

1 to 10

10 to 50

10 to 50

50 to 100

50 to 100

100 to 500

100 to 500

Superior Michigan Huron 

IL IN MI MN NY 

Areas are 8-digit hydrologic

cataloging unit (HUC) watersheds
Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use 33

reported as freshwater or saline water, because the extraction 

of saline water has been indicated in past accountings of mining withdrawals in the basin. 

For 2005, consumptive use was not a mandatory accounting element, and estimates in this category were compiled 

only by the USGS Ohio Water Science Center (provisional 

estimates for basin HUCs in Ohio can be found at http://water.

usgs.gov/watuse/). On the basis of the mining-withdrawal estimates and data available from other sources, consumptive use 

is estimated for the basin and discussed briefly in the report 

section “Consumptive Use.”

Mining withdrawals for 2005 are summarized by Great 

Lakes watershed and by state in table 9. Withdrawals and 

associated elements of water use are listed by individual HUC 

in appendix 1. For 2005, total withdrawals in the Great Lakes 

Basin for mining use were an estimated 514 Mgal/d. Mining 

withdrawals were 2 percent of total withdrawals in the basin 

and 6 percent of total withdrawals for all categories of use 

excluding thermoelectric power. Surface water was the source 

for 89 percent of total withdrawals for mining. An estimated 

309 Mgal/d was withdrawn from HUCs representing the Great 

Lakes (7.24 Mgal/d was reported as groundwater withdrawals), with about 96 percent of the withdrawals from Lake 

Superior. About 2 percent, or 1.20 Mgal/d, of groundwater 

withdrawals for mining were saline; these saline withdrawals represented less than 0.004 percent of total withdrawals in 

the basin.

Table 9. Mining water withdrawals for Great Lakes watersheds and states in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005.

[Figures may not sum to totals because of independent rounding]

Withdrawals, in million gallons per day

By source and type

Great Lakes 

watershed

Surface water Groundwater Total

Fresh Saline Total Fresh Saline Total Fresh Saline Total

Superior 369.74 0.00 369.74 4.37 0.00 4.37 374.11 0.00 374.11

Michigan 49.03 .00 49.03 11.58 .72 12.30 60.61 .72 61.33

Huron 10.45 .00 10.45 .37 .14 .51 10.82 .14 10.96

Erie 22.90 .00 22.90 35.29 .20 35.49 58.19 .20 58.39

Ontario 6.98 .00 6.98 1.70 .14 1.84 8.68 .14 8.82

TOTAL 459.10 .00 459.10 53.31 1.20 54.51 512.41 1.20 513.61

Withdrawals, in million gallons per day

By source and type

 Surface water Groundwater Total

State Fresh Saline Total Fresh Saline Total Fresh Saline Total

Illinois 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Indiana 4.05 .00 4.05 .37 .00 .37 4.42 .00 4.42

Michigan 81.35 .00 81.35 13.20 .95 14.15 94.55 .95 95.50

Minnesota 354.74 .00 354.74 .02 .00 .02 354.76 .00 354.76

New York 8.61 .00 8.61 2.06 .25 2.31 10.67 .25 10.92

Ohio 5.51 .00 5.51 31.42 .00 31.42 36.93 .00 36.93

Pennsylvania .45 .00 .45 .11 .00 .11 .56 .00 .56

Wisconsin 4.39 .00 4.39 6.13 .00 6.13 10.52 .00 10.52

TOTAL 459.10 .00 459.10 53.31 1.20 54.51 512.41 1.20 513.61
34 Estimated Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use in the Great Lakes Basin of the United States in 2005

The Lake Superior watershed accounted for the 

majority of total withdrawals for mining use (73 percent; 

370 Mgal/d), as well as the majority of surface-water withdrawals (81 percent; 370 Mgal/d) for such use. Iron-ore 

mining in Minnesota accounted for the largest surface-water 

withdrawals (Kenny and others, 2009). The Lake Erie watershed accounted for the majority of groundwater withdrawals 

(65 percent; 35.5 Mgal/d), followed by the Lake Michigan 

watershed (23 percent; 12.3 Mgal/d). The majority of salinewater withdrawals (60 percent; 0.72 Mgal/d) occurred in the 

Lake Michigan watershed (solely within Michigan). Only 

minor saline-water groundwater withdrawals were recorded 

in the Lake Huron, Ontario, and Erie watersheds (0.14 to 

0.20 Mgal/d, respectively). Salt production from salt deposits, brine wells, petroleum exploration, and the presence of 

salt springs associated with buried salt deposits account for 

the saline-water withdrawals in the Great Lakes Basin; thick 

salt deposits underlie extensive areas of New York, Ohio, and 

Michigan (Sanford, 1995; Encyclopedia of Cleveland History, 

2003; Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 1994).

The distributions of total, total surface-water, and total 

groundwater withdrawals for mining use by HUC are shown in 

figure 12. The largest total water withdrawal, 296 Mgal/d, was 

from Lake Superior. The largest total water withdrawals from 

land-based HUCs were in the Minnesota area of the St. Louis 

(04010201) (54.8 Mgal/d) and the Escanaba (04030110) of 

Michigan (18.6 Mgal/d). Surface-water withdrawals in these 

HUCs account for no less than 80 percent of the withdrawals 

and, as such, represent the largest surface-water withdrawals 

from land-based HUCs in the basin. The largest groundwater 

withdrawals were in the Sandusky (04100011) and Auglaize 

(04100007), primarily of Ohio (7.99, 5.45 Mgal/d, respectively), and the Ottawa-Stony (04100001), primarily of Michigan (4.18 Mgal/d). The largest saline groundwater withdrawal, 

0.44 Mgal/d, was in the Muskegon (04060102) of Michigan.

Irrigation

Irrigation water use includes water that is applied by an 

irrigation system to sustain plant growth in all agricultural and 

horticultural practices. Irrigation of golf courses, parks, nurseries, turf farms, cemeteries, and other self-supplied landscapewatering uses are included. Various applications associated 

with irrigation use include water applied for pre-irrigation, 

frost protection, application of chemicals, weed control, field 

preparation, crop cooling, harvesting, dust suppression, and 

leaching salts from the root zone; it also accounts for water 

lost in conveyance. Water for irrigation use may be delivered 

from a public supplier or be self-supplied. Irrigation water 

use in the Great Lakes States primarily is from self-supplied 

withdrawals. Deliveries from public supply were considered 

in this accounting of irrigation use only in the context of 

use of reclaimed wastewater (discussed in the report section 

“Reclaimed Wastewater”). All irrigation withdrawals are 

considered freshwater. Irrigated acres were reported by three 

types of irrigation methods: sprinkler, microirrigation, and 

surface flooding. 

For 2005, irrigation consumptive use and conveyance 

losses were not mandatory accounting elements, and estimates 

in these categories were compiled only by the USGS Ohio 

Water Science Center (provisional estimates for basin HUCs 

in Ohio can be found at http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/). On the 

basis of the irrigation-withdrawal estimates and data available 

from other sources, consumptive use is estimated for the basin 

and discussed briefly in the report section “Consumptive Use.”

At the discretion of individual USGS Water Science Centers, golf course irrigation withdrawals could be compiled and 

reported separately from crop-irrigation withdrawals; because 

golf course irrigation withdrawals were not compiled routinely and reported as a separate water-use category, estimates 

for total irrigation withdrawals are presented in this report. 

Withdrawal estimates for golf course irrigation were compiled 

for 97 HUCs within Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, 

and Ohio and thus are included in appendix 1 and discussed 

briefly. Because Michigan’s HUC-designated watersheds represent the largest state area in the Great Lakes Basin, the discussion of golf course irrigation in this report focuses primarily on Michigan withdrawal estimates to indicate the extent of 

withdrawals for this use at the HUC scale in the basin.

Irrigation withdrawals and irrigated acres by irrigation 

system type are summarized by Great Lakes watershed and 

by state in table 10. Withdrawals and associated elements of 

water use are listed by individual HUC in appendix 1. For 

2005, total withdrawals in the Great Lakes Basin for irrigation 

use were an estimated 493 Mgal/d, or 553 thousand acre-feet 

per year. Irrigation withdrawals were 2 percent of total withdrawals in the basin and 6 percent of total withdrawals for all 

categories of use excluding thermoelectric power. Groundwater accounted for 70 percent of the total irrigation withdrawals.

As indicated by the 8:1 proportion of crop to golf 

course irrigation withdrawals in Michigan and approximately 

2:1 ratio in Ohio and New York, a substantial majority of 

the withdrawals in the basin were for agricultural irrigation. 

With 50 to 90 percent of the cropland of the basin states of 

Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio in corn and soybean 

production and with the additional production of these crops in 

many other parts of the basin (U.S. Department of AgricultureNational Agricultural Statistics Service, 2007; 2009b), it is 

evident that the cropland irrigation withdrawals in the basin 

are, in large part, applied to row crops. About 750,000 acres 

were irrigated in 2005, or less than 1 percent of the total land 

area of the basin. Of this total acreage, about 719,000 acres, 

or 96 percent of acres, were irrigated with sprinkler systems. 

Microirrigation mostly accounted for the remainder of irrigated acres. Application rates were estimated by dividing total 

withdrawals by irrigated acres. The average application rate 

for the basin was 0.74 acre-ft/acre.

The moderate climate of the basin restricts the growing 

season, with irrigation generally limited to a 3–4 month period 

from late spring to early fall. However, for consistency with 

the estimated withdrawal rates of other water-use categories, 
Figure 12. Mining withdrawals by source, watershed, and state in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005.

MINNESOTA

MINNESOTA

MINNESOTA

WISCONSIN

WISCONSIN

WISCONSIN

ILLINOIS

ILLINOIS

ILLINOIS

INDIANA

INDIANA

INDIANA

OHIO

OHIO

OHIO

PENNSYLVANIA

PENNSYLVANIA

NEW

YORK

NEW

YORK

Lake

Superior

296

Lake

Superior

296

Lake

Superior

0.00

Lake

Michigan

0.27

Lake

Michigan

0.29

Lake

Michigan

0.02

Lake

Huron

0.16

Lake

Huron

0.17

Lake

Huron

0.01

Lake Ontario

0.00

Lake Ontario

0.00

EXPLANATION

EXPLANATION

Lake Erie

4.41

Lake Erie

11.65

Lake E

7.24

Surface-water withdrawals,

in million gallons per day

Total water withdrawals,

in million gallons per day

TOTAL WITHDRAWALS,

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

TOTAL WITHDRAWALS,

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

500

500

375

375

250

250

125

125

0

0

Groundwater

11%

Surface water

89%

Freshwater

> 99%

Saline water

< 1%

< 0.1

< 0.1

0.1 to 1

0.1 to 1

1 to 10

1 to 10

10 to 50

10 to 50

50 to 100

50 to 100

Superior Michigan Huron 

IL IN MI MN NY 

Areas are 8-digit hydrologic

cataloging unit (HUC) watersheds
Table 10. Irrigation withdrawals for Great Lakes watersheds and states in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005. [Figures may not sum to totals because of independent rounding] Irrigated land, in thousand acres Withdrawals, in million gallons per day Withdrawals, in thousand acre-fee

By type of irrigation By source By source 

Great Lakes watershed Sprinkler Microirrigation Surface Total Surface water Groundwater Total Surface water Groundwater 

Superior 0.90 0.00 0.11 1.01 0.75 0.71 1.46 0.84 0.80 Michigan 576.97 9.14 8.25 594.36 93.42 310.38 403.80 104.72 347.94 Huron 36.80 .67 .40 37.87 13.24 13.87 27.11 14.84 15.55 Erie 77.89 3.50 .27 81.66 30.39 15.37 45.76 34.07 17.23 Ontario 26.24 8.47 .00 34.71 10.70 4.65 15.35 11.99 5.21 TOTAL 718.80 21.78 9.03 749.61 148.50 344.98 493.48 166.47 386.72 

Irrigated land, in thousand acres Withdrawals, in million gallons per day Withdrawals, in thousand acre-fee

By type of irrigation By source By source 

State Sprinkler Microirrigation Surface Total Surface water Groundwater Total Surface water Groundwater 

Illinois 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.27 0.44 0.71 0.30 0.49 Indiana 72.81 .00 .00 72.81 5.23 26.88 32.11 5.86 30.13 Michigan 474.04 10.33 5.85 490.22 110.41 197.67 308.08 123.77 221.59 Minnesota .03 .00 .00 .03 .39 .01 .40 .44 .01 New York 34.97 11.45 .00 46.42 14.05 6.18 20.23 15.75 6.93 Ohio 30.40 .00 .00 30.40 13.65 4.06 17.71 15.30 4.55 Pennsylvania .99 .00 .00 .99 .45 .14 .59 .50 .16 Wisconsin 105.23 .00 3.18 108.41 4.05 109.60 113.65 4.54 122.86 TOTAL 718.80 21.78 9.03 749.61 148.50 344.98 493.48 166.47 386.72 
Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use 37

the estimated irrigation rates are normalized to the year; that 

is, conceptually, the total irrigation withdrawals for the reporting year are distributed across the entire year as if the withdrawals took place every day of the year. Although crop and 

golf course irrigation represents a relatively small percentage 

of total water use in the basin, these withdrawals can have substantial impact on water availability for offstream and instream 

needs because the withdrawals occur primarily during summer 

months—when groundwater, stream, and lake levels generally 

are lower than at other times of the year—and at more intense 

rates than those represented by the annually normalized rates.

The Lake Michigan watershed accounted for the majority of total withdrawals (82 percent; 404 Mgal/d) and irrigated 

acres (79 percent; 594,000) for irrigation use. This watershed 

also accounted for the majority of the surface-water withdrawals (63 percent; 93.4 Mgal/d and groundwater withdrawals (90 percent; 310 Mgal/d) for such use. For states in the 

basin, Michigan accounted for 62 percent of total irrigation 

withdrawals, 74 percent of surface-water withdrawals, and 

57 percent of groundwater withdrawals. Likewise, Michigan 

also accounted for the majority of irrigated acres (65 percent; 

490,000 acres). 

The distributions of total, surface-water, and groundwater 

withdrawals for irrigation use by HUC are shown in figure 13. 

The largest total water withdrawal (175 Mgal/d) was in the St. 

Joseph (04050001) of Michigan and Indiana. This watershed, 

which is extensively farmed and is characterized by extensive 

permeable, coarse-grained soils (Friends of the St. Joe River 

Watershed, 2009), also accounted for the largest surfacewater withdrawal (52.7 Mgal/d) and groundwater withdrawal 

(123 Mgal/d). Irrigation withdrawals were reported in 104 

(97 percent) of the basin’s HUCs. With the exception of the 

St. Joseph and six other watersheds in Michigan and Wisconsin with a maximum of 69.0 Mgal/d, total withdrawals in other 

Great Lakes Basin HUCs were less than 10 Mgal/d per HUC; 

total withdrawals were less than 1 Mgal/d in 54 percent of the 

HUCs. An estimated 6.22 Mgal/d was withdrawn from the 

Great Lakes, with 89 percent of the withdrawals from Lakes 

Michigan and Huron where they bound the State of Michigan.

Available estimates of withdrawals for golf course irrigation in the basin indicate from 11 percent (Michigan) to about 

100 percent (Illinois) of total withdrawals for irrigation were 

for golf course irrigation. Collectively for the five reporting states, 11 percent of irrigation withdrawals were for golf 

course irrigation. Total volumes of water withdrawn for golf 

course irrigation, by state, ranged from less than 0.01 Mgal/d 

(Illinois) to as much as 33.7 Mgal/d (Michigan). Given that 

the basin areas and populations of Indiana and Wisconsin are 

somewhat similar in size to those of New York and Ohio and 

that each of these states has a mix of densely urbanized, suburban, and rural land uses, it might reasonably be assumed that 

the percentages (of total irrigation withdrawals) and volumes 

of golf course irrigation withdrawals in Indiana and Wisconsin, in a relative sense, approximate those in New York and 

Ohio (about 50 percent and 10 Mgal/d, respectively). Given 

the somewhat similarly sized populations of Pennsylvania 

and Minnesota, it might reasonably be assumed that the 

percentages and volumes of golf course irrigation withdrawals in Pennsylvania approximate those in Minnesota (about 

95 percent and less than 1 Mgal/d). For the reporting states, 

withdrawals were from 2 to 4 Mgal/d in six HUCs in Michigan and one each in New York and Ohio; withdrawals were 

less than 1 Mgal/d in 77 percent of the HUCs.

For Michigan HUCs, golf course irrigation represented 

about 8 percent of the total irrigated acres. Groundwater 

accounted for 64 percent of the irrigation withdrawals. The 

largest total water withdrawal for golf course irrigation by 

HUC, 3.23 Mgal/d, was in the Clinton (04090003), which 

accounts for almost 10 percent of total golf course irrigation in 

Michigan. Generally, the most intensive golf course irrigation 

was restricted to heavily populated, southern Michigan watersheds similar to the Clinton watershed. About 1 percent of 

water withdrawn for golf course irrigation in Michigan is from 

the four Great Lakes that bound the State (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2005).

Aquaculture

Aquaculture water use is associated with raising organisms that live in water—principally finfish in the Great Lakes 

Basin—for food, restoration, conservation, or sport. Aquaculture production occurs under controlled feeding, sanitation, 

and harvesting procedures, primarily in ponds, flowthrough 

raceways, and, to a lesser extent, cages, net pens, and closedcirculation tanks. Only freshwater withdrawals were compiled 

as part of the total. For this 2005 compilation, aquaculture 

use combines fish farm water-use activities of the former 

livestock subcategory, animal specialties, with fish-hatchery 

activities of the commercial category, as they were reported 

for the 1990 and 1995 compilations (Solley and others, 1993; 

1998, respectively). For 2005, aquaculture consumptive use 

was not a mandatory accounting element, and estimates in 

this category were compiled only by the USGS Ohio Water 

Science Center (provisional estimates for basin HUCs in Ohio 

can be found at http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/). 

Withdrawals for aquaculture for 2005 are summarized 

by Great Lakes watershed and by state in table 11. Withdrawals and associated elements of water use are listed by individual HUC in appendix 1. For 2005, total withdrawals in 

the Great Lakes Basin for aquaculture use were an estimated 

141 Mgal/d. Surface water was the source for about 80 percent 

of the withdrawals. Aquaculture withdrawals were less than 

1 percent of total water withdrawals in the basin and 2 percent 

of total withdrawals for all categories of use excluding thermoelectric power.

The Lake Michigan watershed accounted for the majority 

of withdrawals for aquaculture use (56 percent; 79.6 Mgal/d). 

For states in the basin, Michigan accounted for 46 percent 

(65.3 Mgal/d) of aquaculture withdrawals, with Wisconsin 

accounting for most of the additional withdrawals (36 percent; 

50.9 Mgal/d).
Figure 13. Irrigation withdrawals by source, watershed, and state in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005. MINNESOTA MINNESOTA MINNESOTA WISCONSIN WISCONSIN WISCONSIN ILLINOIS ILLINOIS ILLINOIS INDIANA INDIANA INDIANA OHIO OHIO OHIO PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA 

NEW YORK NEW YORK 

Lake Superior 0.01 Lake Superior 0.01 Lake Superior 0.00 Lake Michigan 2.47 Lake Michigan 2.47 Lake Michigan 0.00 Lake Huron 3.06 Lake Huron 3.06 Lake Huron 0.00 Lake Ontario 0.03 Lake Ontario 0.04 

EXPLANATION EXPLANATION 

Lake Erie 0.63 Lake Erie 0.64 Lake E

0.01 Surface-water withdrawals, in million gallons per day Total water withdrawals, in million gallons per day 

Groundwater 70% Surface water 30%

TOTAL WITHDRAWALS,

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

TOTAL WITHDRAWALS,

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

500

375

500

250

375

125

250

125

0

0

< 0.1

0.1 to 1

1 to 10

10 to 50

50 to 100

< 0.1

0.1 to 1

1 to 10

10 to 100

100 to 200

Superior Michigan Huron 

IL IN MI MN NY 

Areas are 8-digit hydrologic

cataloging unit (HUC) watersheds
Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use 39

The distributions of total, surface-water, and groundwater withdrawals for aquaculture by HUC are shown in 

figure 14. The largest total withdrawal, 32.4 Mgal/d, was 

in the Boardman-Charlevoix (04060105) of Michigan; all 

withdrawals within this HUC were surface-water withdrawals 

and accounted for the largest of that withdrawal source in the 

basin. The largest groundwater withdrawal, 5.50 Mgal/d, was 

in the Upper Fox of Wisconsin (04030201). About 44 percent 

of withdrawals for aquaculture occurred in three HUCs, the 

Boardman-Charlevoix, and the Wolf (04030202) and Lake 

Superior waters of Wisconsin.

Livestock

Livestock water use is water associated with livestock 

watering, feedlots, dairy operations, and other on-farm needs. 

Livestock includes dairy cows and heifers, beef cattle and 

cows, sheep and lambs, goats, hogs and pigs, horses, and 

poultry. Other livestock uses include cooling of facilities for 

the animals and products, dairy sanitation and washdown 

of facilities, animal waste-disposal systems, and incidental 

water losses. All withdrawals for livestock use are considered 

freshwater and are assumed to be self-supplied. The livestock 

category excludes on-farm domestic use, lawn and garden 

watering, and irrigation water use. 

For 2005, livestock consumptive use was not a mandatory accounting element, and estimates in this category were 

compiled only by the USGS Ohio Water Science Center 

(provisional estimates for basin HUCs in Ohio can be found at 

http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/). On the basis of the livestockwithdrawal estimates and data available from other sources, 

consumptive use is estimated for the basin and discussed 

briefly in the report section “Consumptive Use.”

For the 1990 and 1995 compilation of water use, the 

livestock category was split into the subcategories of livestock 

and animal specialties as specified in the 1987 Standard 

Industrial Classification manual (Office of Management and 

Budget, 1987). Withdrawals for fish farming and for watering 

horses were included in animal specialties. Beginning with 

the 2000 compilation, the livestock category has included 

the types of animals formerly included in animal specialties, 

with the exception of withdrawals for fish farms, which are 

included in aquaculture.

Livestock withdrawals for 2005 are summarized by Great 

Lakes watershed and by state in table 12. Withdrawals and 

associated elements of water use are listed by individual HUC 

in appendix 1. For 2005, total withdrawals in the Great Lakes 

Basin for livestock use were an estimated 67.9 Mgal/d. Livestock withdrawals were less than 1 percent of total withdrawals in the basin, as well as of total withdrawals for all categories of use excluding thermoelectric power. Groundwater was 

the source for 77 percent of livestock withdrawals.

The Lake Michigan watershed accounted for the majority of withdrawals for livestock use (54 percent; 36.7 Mgal/d), 

including 61 percent (31.8 Mgal/d) of the groundwater withdrawals for such use. Surface-water withdrawals for livestock 

(15.6 Mgal/d) were distributed generally equally among the 

Great Lakes watersheds. For states in the basin, Wisconsin 

accounted for 31 percent of total livestock withdrawals and 

36 percent of groundwater withdrawals for livestock; Michigan accounted for 29 percent of total livestock withdrawals 

and 34 percent of groundwater withdrawals. In large part, the 

dairy industry in Wisconsin and Michigan (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture-National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2009a,b) 

drives the comparatively large use of water for livestock in 

these and other states in the basin. Dairy cattle are the largest 

consumers of water on a daily basis among livestock (about 

20–40 gal/d per animal; other livestock require about 10 gal/d 

Table 11. Aquaculture withdrawals for Great Lakes 

watersheds and states in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005.

[Figures may not sum to totals because of independent rounding]

Withdrawals, in million gallons per day

By source

Great Lakes 

watershed Surface water Groundwater Total

Superior 21.44 5.15 26.59

Michigan 65.17 14.48 79.65

Huron 7.25 1.39 8.64

Erie 8.78 4.61 13.39

Ontario 9.68 3.22 12.90

TOTAL 112.32 28.85 141.17

Withdrawals, in million gallons per day

By source

State Surface water Groundwater Total

Illinois 0.00 0.00 0.00

Indiana .00 .00 .00

Michigan 62.39 2.95 65.34

Minnesota .43 .36 .79

New York 9.64 4.70 14.34

Ohio 3.66 .38 4.04

Pennsylvania 3.45 2.34 5.79

Wisconsin 32.75 18.12 50.87

TOTAL 112.32 28.85 141.17
Figure 14. Aquaculture withdrawals by source, watershed, and state in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005. MINNESOTA MINNESOTA MINNESOTA WISCONSIN WISCONSIN WISCONSIN ILLINOIS ILLINOIS ILLINOIS INDIANA INDIANA INDIANA OHIO OHIO OHIO PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA 

NEW YORK NEW YORK 

Lake Superior 11.7 Lake Superior 11.7 Lake Superior 0.00 Lake Michigan 1.84 Lake Michigan 1.84 Lake Michigan 0.00 Lake Huron 0.09 Lake Huron 0.34 Lake Huron 0.25 Lake Ontario 0.00 Lake Ontario 0.00 

EXPLANATION EXPLANATION 

Lake Erie 0.00 Lake Erie 0.00 Lake E

0.00 Surface-water withdrawals, in million gallons per day Total water withdrawals, in million gallons per day 

Groundwater 20% Surface water 80%

TOTAL WITHDRAWALS,

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

TOTAL WITHDRAWALS,

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

100

75

100

50

75

25

50

25

0

0

< 0.1

0.1 to 1

1 to 5

5 to 10

10 to 50

< 0.1

0.1 to 1

1 to 5

5 to 10

10 to 50

Superior Michigan Huron 

IL IN MI MN NY 

Areas are 8-digit hydrologic

cataloging unit (HUC) watersheds
Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use 41

or less) (John K. Lovelace, U.S. Geological Survey, written 

commun., 2007).

The distributions of total, surface-water, and groundwater 

withdrawals for livestock by HUC are shown in figure 15. The 

largest total withdrawals were in the Manitowoc-Sheboygan 

(04030101) of Wisconsin and St. Joseph (04050001) of 

Indiana and Michigan (5.73 and 5.58 Mgal/d, respectively). 

The largest surface-water withdrawal, 1.73 Mgal/d, was 

in the St. Joseph; and the largest groundwater withdrawal, 

5.16 Mgal/d, was in the Manitowoc-Sheboygan. About 34 

percent of withdrawals for livestock occurred in six HUCs 

(three in Wisconsin; one each in Indiana-Michigan, New York, 

and Michigan).

Reclaimed Wastewater

Reclaimed wastewater is wastewater-treatment-plant 

effluent that has been diverted for beneficial use before it 

reaches a natural waterway or aquifer. Wastewater effluent 

can be diverted for various uses, including industrial, irrigation, commercial, thermoelectric power, mining, and public 

and domestic supply. For this compilation and report, use of 

reclaimed wastewater was limited to industrial and irrigation use. For compilation of reclaimed wastewater use, null 

reporting of use was allowed; such reports were used for 

documented or suspected wastewater reuse that could not be 

verified or quantified or for uncertain use. Reclaimed wastewater use was not reported in 2000. 

Reclaimed wastewater use in the Great Lakes Basin was 

estimated on the basis of very limited site-specific or countyaggregated data typically obtained from state or Federal 

permit programs that require reporting of return flows from 

wastewater-treatment plants and from individual facility inquiries. Estimates also were based on news accounts, conference 

presentations, and other qualitative reports regarding the reuse 

of wastewater.

Reclaimed wastewater use is summarized by Great 

Lakes watershed and by state in table 13 and listed by HUC 

in appendix 1. For 2005, no use of reclaimed wastewater in 

the Great Lakes Basin was reported by the USGS Water Science Center water-use specialists for their respective states. 

Five of eight states in the basin provided null reportings for 

all watersheds in their state because of the general absence 

of programs established for systematic accounting of this 

category of water use. Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio reported 

0 Mgal/d for all watersheds, indicating that even if wastewater 

was being used in industrial or irrigation applications, it was at 

rates of less than 0.005 Mgal/d (minimum accounting amount, 

with rounding, was 0.01 Mgal/d). Where use of reclaimed 

wastewater occurs in communities near the basin or in low 

quantities within the basin, its use appears to be principally for 

golf course irrigation (American Water Works Association, 

2008). A notable exception is its substantial use for agricultural irrigation associated with the extensive operations of 

the Muskegon County (Michigan) Wastewater Management 

System (2009) (Muskegon HUC 04060102); recently obtained 

information indicates 18.9 Mgal/d was used in 2005 and an 

average of 18.1 Mgal/d was used during 2005–2009 (Dave 

Kendrick, Muskegon County Public Works, written commun., 

2009). With the exception of the Muskegon, Mich. operations, 

wastewater reuse in and near the basin appears to be restricted 

primarily to a few large metropolitan areas, particularly that of 

Chicago, Ill., where about 17 Mgal/d of wastewater reuse for 

golf course irrigation was reported in 2005 (all of which was 

outside the basin) (Sergio Serafino, Metropolitan Waste Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, written commun., 2007).

Relative to its status in other parts of the Nation, 

reclaimed wastewater is virtually an unused water resource 

in the Great Lakes Basin. California, Florida, Arizona, and 

Nevada have been using reclaimed wastewater for decades 

Table 12. Livestock withdrawals for Great Lakes watersheds 

and states in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005.

[Figures may not sum to totals because of independent rounding]

Withdrawals, in million gallons per day

By source

Great Lakes 

watershed Surface water Groundwater Total

Superior 0.03 0.71 0.74

Michigan 4.87 31.82 36.69

Huron .47 4.66 5.13

Erie 5.84 6.75 12.59

Ontario 4.46 8.25 12.71

TOTAL 15.67 52.19 67.86

Withdrawals, in million gallons per day

By source

State Surface water Groundwater Total

Illinois 0.00 0.00 0.00

Indiana 2.23 3.57 5.80

Michigan 1.86 17.71 19.57

Minnesota .00 .24 .24

New York 5.38 9.93 15.31

Ohio 4.07 1.65 5.72

Pennsylvania .06 .43 .49

Wisconsin 2.07 18.66 20.73

TOTAL 15.67 52.19 67.86
Figure 15. Livestock withdrawals by source, watershed, and state in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005. Superior Michigan Huron 

MINNESOTA MINNESOTA MINNESOTA WISCONSIN WISCONSIN WISCONSIN ILLINOIS ILLINOIS ILLINOIS INDIANA INDIANA INDIANA OHIO OHIO OHIO PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA 

NEW YORK NEW YORK 

Lake Superior 0.00 Lake Superior 0.00 Lake Superior 0.00 Lake Michigan 0.00 Lake Michigan 0.01 Lake Michigan 0.01 Lake Huron 0.00 Lake Huron 0.01 Lake Huron 0.01 Lake Ontario 0.00 Lake Ontario 0.00 

EXPLANATION EXPLANATION 

Lake Erie 0.00 Lake Erie 0.00 Lake E

0.00 Surface-water withdrawals, in million gallons per day Total water withdrawals, in million gallons per day 

Surface water 23% Groundwater 77%

TOTAL WITHDRAWALS,

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

TOTAL WITHDRAWALS,

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

40

30

40

20

30

10

20

10

0

0

IL IN MI MN NY 

< 0.01

< 0.01

0.01 to 0.1

0.01 to 0.1

0.1 to 0.5

0.1 to 1

0.5 to 1

1 to 5

1 to 2

5 to 10

Areas are 8-digit hydrologic

cataloging unit (HUC) watersheds
Trends in Water Withdrawals, 1985–2005 43

(Washington State Department of Ecology, 2005). In 1995, 

the last year these data were systematically compiled by the 

USGS, total use of reclaimed wastewater in these states, as 

well as Maryland and Texas, ranged from 24 to 260 Mgal/d 

(Solley and others, 1998); total use in the Nation was 

718 Mgal/d. With the exception of a total of about 100 Mgal/d 

used for industrial applications in Maryland and Florida, about 

97 percent of reclaimed wastewater use in the Nation was 

for irrigation. 

Trends in Water Withdrawals, 

1985–2005

The USGS first compiled water-use estimates for 1950 

and since has compiled these estimates every 5 years. As part 

of these compilations, withdrawals in each of the Great Lakes 

HUCs have been estimated and are readily available for 1985, 

1990, 1995, and 2005 (Great Lakes Basin only) (U.S. Geological Survey, 2009). Withdrawals also have been estimated and 

available for the entirety of the basin for 1955–1995 (MacKichan, 1951, 1957; MacKichan and Kammerer, 1961; Murray, 

1968; Murray and Reeves, 1972, 1977; Solley and others, 

1983, 1988, 1993, 1998). Estimated withdrawals within the 

Great Lakes Basin during 1985–2005 are summarized in table 

14 and represented graphically in figures 16 and 17. Additionally, percentage change in withdrawals from 1995 to 2005 for 

each usage category, Great Lakes watershed, and state is presented in table 14. Trends in withdrawals by source of water 

(surface water and groundwater) and population are shown in 

figure 16 and withdrawals by category in figure 17.

Analysis of trends in water withdrawals, population, 

and other elements of water use should be considered with 

respect to the inconsistencies and inaccuracies typically 

associated with their estimation. Throughout the 50-year history of compilation of water use in the Great Lakes Basin by 

the USGS, use categories, their associated elements, and the 

operational boundary of the basin each have changed. The 

number of reported categories has increased, grouping of the 

categories has varied, and the elements that compose those 

categories have evolved. Before 1970 (Murray and Reeves, 

1972; Murray, 1968), additional watersheds in upstate New 

York and Vermont were included in the area that is presently 

(2009) delineated as the basin. Methods of accounting and 

estimating water-use quantities also have differed to various 

extents for each 5-yr compilation. Because of the variability 

in categorizations of water use and basin area, the evaluation 

and discussion of withdrawal and other trends in this report 

focuses on the period 1985–2005, with greatest emphasis on 

the period 1995–2005. Estimates of withdrawals for this more 

recent decadal period are considered to be derived from more 

complete and accurate accountings than estimates for prior 

periods; there seemingly has been an increase in the voluntary 

and mandated reporting of withdrawals and other elements 

and a concurrent decrease in the reliance on usage coefficients 

for the estimations. Additionally, by focusing on this most 

recent decadal period, inconsistencies in the delineation of use 

categories employed for the various compilations are considered to be minimized.

During 1985–2005, total withdrawals in the Great Lakes 

Basin fluctuated to a small extent (−2 to +5 percent) around 

1985 totals but declined almost 7 percent from 1995 to 2005 

(table 14A; fig. 16). As withdrawal totals fluctuated slightly 

during the 20-year period, the basin population steadily 

increased (about 8 percent from 1985 to 2005). These generally divergent trends are reflected in the decrease in gross per 

Table 13. Reclaimed wastewater use for Great Lakes 

watersheds and states in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005.

[U, unknown; Little to no information on use is available. Assumed 

limited, if any, use for the Great Lakes watershed compilation]

Reclaimed wastewater, 

in million gallons per day

By type

Great Lakes 

watershed Industrial Irrigation Total

Superior 0 0 0

Michigan 0 0 0

Huron 0 0 0

Erie 0 0 0

Ontario 0 0 0

TOTAL 0 0 0

Reclaimed wastewater, 

in million gallons per day

By type

State Industrial Irrigation Total

Illinois 0 0 0

Indiana 0 0 0

Michigan U U U

Minnesota U U U

New York U U U

Ohio 0 0 0

Pennsylvania U U U

Wisconsin U U U

TOTAL 0 0 0
44 Estimated Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use in the Great Lakes Basin of the United States in 2005

Table 14A. Trends in withdrawals by category of water use and source in the Great Lakes Basin, 

1985–2005.

[Estimates for 1995 and earlier from Solley and others (1998). Estimates are in million gallons per day; percentage change 

is calculated from unrounded numbers]

Year1 Percentage change

Category 1985 1990 1995 2005 1995–2005

Population, in millions 21.22 21.30 21.72 22.91 6

Offstream use 

Total withdrawals 31,773.56 32,265.75 32,496.42 30,309.52 -7

Thermoelectric power 22437.36 22827.66 22,786.57 21,939.98 -4

Public supply 4071.83 4335.83 4,405.14 3,811.16 -13

Industrial 4399.05 4187.82 4,174.97 2,929.87 -30

Mining 252.61 254.87 395.78 513.61 30

Irrigation 254.01 288.52 314.45 493.48 57

Domestic 281.82 280.31 351.43 412.39 17

Livestock and Aquaculture2 76.88 90.74 68.08 209.03 199

Reclaimed wastewater3 20.63 .00 .00 .00 0

Source of water 

Ground:

Fresh 1,130.81 1,180.69 1,462.90 1,504.44 3

Saline 4.53 4.83 4.59 1.20 -74

Surface:

Fresh 30,638.22 31,080.23 31,028.93 28,803.88 -7

Saline4 .00 .00 .00 .00 0

1

Estimates of water use were not compiled by watershed (hydrologic unit code) in 2000.

2

Livestock only, 1985; includes fish hatcheries, 1990, 1995; includes aquaculture, 2005; excluding aquaculture in 2005, 

livestock is 67.86 Mgal/d (less than 1 percent change from 1995 withdrawals).

3

In 1985, irrigation use only; no reported industrial use. In 1990-2005, no reported irrigation or industrial use.

4

Estimates fom Solley and others (1998) for 1990 and 1995 were revised to properly indicate no saline surface-water 

withdrawals.

capita use (use for all purposes) of about 12 percent during 

1985–2005 (from 1,500 to 1,320 gal/d). This decrease suggests 

more efficient or conservative use of water in recent years. 

There was a continuous increase in groundwater withdrawals of about 33 percent (from 11.4 to 15.1 Bgal/d) between 

1985 and 2005. However, total withdrawals remained about 

95 percent from surface water and 5 percent from groundwater. Saline-water withdrawals, all of which are of groundwater, continue to represent only a small fraction (less than 

0.01 percent) of total water withdrawals.

The increase in groundwater withdrawals is associated primarily with increases in withdrawals for irrigation 

and domestic use. Since 1985, surface-water withdrawals 

have fluctuated around approximately 31 Bgal/d. However, 

from 1995 to 2005 these withdrawals declined 7 percent to 

28.8 Bgal/d. The decrease in surface-water withdrawals is 

associated primarily with decreases in industrial withdrawals, 

but also with decreases in thermoelectric-power and publicsupply withdrawals. It should be noted that a substantial part 

of the decline in industrial surface-water withdrawals likely 

represents a change in accounting for these withdrawals (as 

well as for groundwater withdrawals) in Michigan. For 1995 

and earlier accountings, estimates of self-served industrial 

withdrawals in Michigan based on available limited information included publicly served withdrawals as self-served 

(Carol Luukkonen, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 
Trends in Water Withdrawals, 1985–2005 45

Table 14B. Trends in withdrawals by Great Lakes watershed and state in the Great Lakes Basin, 

1985–2005.

[Estimated withdrawals are a total, for all categories of use. Estimates for 1995 and earlier from Solley and others 

(1998). Estimates are in million gallons per day; percentage change is calculated from unrounded numbers] 

Year

Great Lakes 

watershed 1985 1990 1995 2005 Percentage change 1995–2005

Superior 679.72 808.48 849.55 1,002.37 18

Michigan1 15,932.96 16,170.85 16,553.49 14,998.17 -9

Huron2 1,448.40 1,403.21 1,457.72 1,227.53 -16

Erie1, 3 11,057.49 10,732.33 10,605.35 10,260.17 -3

Ontario4 2,654.99 3,150.88 3,030.31 2,821.28 -7

TOTAL 31,773.56 32,265.75 32,496.42 30,309.52 -7

1

Saline use is less than 0.01 percent of total water use.

2

Saline use is 0.01 percent of total water use.

3

Withdrawals within the St. Clair and Detroit River watersheds are included in the Lake Erie watershed.

4

Saline use is less than 0.02 percent of total water use.

Year Percentage change 

1995–2005 State 1985 1990 1995 2005

Illinois 3,451.22 4,054.84 3,594.03 1,801.34 -50

Indiana 3,377.33 3,239.83 3,060.24 2,593.77 -15

Michigan1 11,384.20 11,593.33 12,022.28 11,659.87 -3

Minnesota 307.03 327.33 500.33 597.81 19

New York2 3,956.41 4,611.66 4,628.96 4,086.23 -12

Ohio 3,876.32 3,489.72 3,071.41 3,532.79 15

Pennsylvania 387.83 172.70 90.87 48.63 -46

Wisconsin 5,033.22 4,776.34 5,528.30 5,989.08 8

TOTAL 31,773.56 32,265.75 32,496.42 30,309.52 -7

1

Saline use is less than 0.01 percent of total water use.

2

Saline use is less than 0.07 percent of total water use.

2009). With consideration of this accounting issue, the noted 

decline in surface-water industrial withdrawals between 1995 

and 2005 (historically about 90 percent of total industrial withdrawals) might be overstated by as much as 1.1 Bgal/d.

Withdrawals among the five Great Lakes watersheds 

also were variable during 1985–2005. Some of the largest 

changes in use occurred from 1995 to 2005, particularly in 

the Lake Superior watershed, with an 18 percent increase 

in withdrawals, and in the Lake Huron watershed, with a 

16 percent decrease in withdrawals (with both estimates presumably affected to some extent by the change that occurred 

in accounting for industrial withdrawals between 1995 and 

2005). The increase in withdrawals in the Lake Superior 

watershed is attributed, in large part, to increases in thermoelectric-power withdrawals in Minnesota and Michigan and 

in mining withdrawals in Minnesota. The decrease in withdrawals in the Lake Huron watershed is attributed, in large 

part, to decreases in industrial withdrawals in Michigan. The 
46 Estimated Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use in the Great Lakes Basin of the United States in 2005

Figure 16. Trends in population and withdrawals by source in the Great Lakes Basin, 

1985–2005.

decrease in total withdrawals throughout the basin during the 

past decade has been in response, in large part, to decreases 

in industrial withdrawals across most of the basin (excluding 

Ohio and Wisconsin), thermoelectric-power withdrawals in 

Illinois (near-shutdown of its one plant in the basin), and public-supply withdrawals in Michigan. By state, the largest volumetric increases in total withdrawals in the basin during the 

past decade were in Ohio and Wisconsin (each 461 Mgal/d); 

the largest decrease was in Illinois (1,790 Mgal/d). In each 

of these states, the changes in total withdrawals primarily 

resulted from changes in thermoelectric-power withdrawals.

Following an increase in public-supply withdrawals in 

the basin during 1985–95, estimated withdrawals decreased by 

about 13 percent (fig. 17) from 1995 to 2005. Throughout the 

1985–2005 period, groundwater use for public supply continued to represent only a small percentage (about 12 percent) of 

total water withdrawals for public supply.

Whereas the withdrawals for public supply decreased 

from 1995 to 2005, the population served by public supply 

during this decade increased by about 5 percent, suggesting 

more conservative use of water, more efficient distribution 

systems, and (or) reductions in deliveries to industrial-type 

users. The percentage of population served by public supply decreased from about 83 percent in 1985 to 77 percent 

in 2005, indicating greater reliance on self-supplied water, 

possibly associated with a population increase in more rural 

parts of the basin. From 1995 to 2005, the available population 

estimates indicate little additional change (1 percent decrease) 

in the percentage of population served by public supply. It is 

uncertain what factors might have contributed to this recent 

trend in percentage of population served by public supply. One 

contributing factor might have been an increase in rural watersupply systems as a source of water for those homeowners 

previously depending on use of their private wells. The reader 

is cautioned to consider the potential uncertainty of trend 

analysis based on population estimates, which is discussed 

further in the report section “Uncertainty in Estimates.”

Estimated withdrawals for self-supplied domestic use 

in the basin increased 46 percent during 1985–2005, with a 

17 percent increase from 1995 to 2005. The increase in selfsupplied withdrawals reflects, in part, the population growth 

in the basin during the period. The self-supplied domestic 

population was about 3.7 million in 1985, or about 17 percent 

of the total population; in 1995, it was about 4.9 million, or 

23 percent of the total population. By 2005, 5.2 million people 

were self-supplied, although this number still represented 

about 23 percent of the total population. As with the trend in 

public-supply use, the 20-year trend in domestic use suggests, 

in part, a residential shift to less urbanized parts of the basin 

during 1985–95, followed by a changing trend in domestic use 

during the subsequent decade. 

Withdrawals for thermoelectric-power generation consistently have represented the largest use of water in the Great 

Lakes Basin since the USGS began specific accounting of this 

basin use in 1965. Throughout this period, almost 100 percent 

of withdrawals have been from surface-water sources. Peak 

use occurred during 1970–80, with maximum annual withdrawals of about 27 Bgal/d. Between 1985 and 1995, estimated withdrawals for power generation increased about 

2 percent, from 22.4 to 22.8 Bgal/d; however, between 1995 

and 2005, they decreased 4 percent to 21.9 Bgal/d. 

Federal legislation (U.S. Congress, 1972, 1977) that 

required stricter water-quality standards for return flows has 

played a role in trends in powerplant cooling-system designs 

and withdrawals in recent decades (Micheletti and Burns, 

2002). Since the inception of that legislation, powerplants 

increasingly were built with, converted to, or added closedloop cooling systems or air-cooled cooling systems instead 

NO DATA

EXPLANATION

Groundwater

Surface water

Total

Population

WITHDRAWALS,

IN BILLION GALLONS PER DAY

POPULATION, IN MILLIONS

40 24

30 23

20 22

10 21

0 20

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Trends in Water Withdrawals, 1985–2005 47

of exclusively using once-through cooling systems. Use of 

recirculated water in a closed-loop system reduces the overall 

intake requirement of a plant. Although resulting in reduced 

withdrawals, consumptive use may increase. Nationally, by 

2000, 91 percent of water withdrawals for thermoelectric 

power were from powerplants equipped with once-through 

cooling systems; an alternative to once-through cooling was 

used in about 60 percent of the installed steam-generation 

capacity in the powerplants (Bozek, 2002). To evaluate historical trends in the use of various powerplant cooling systems in 

the Great Lakes Basin, a simplified approach was taken that 

considered readily available USGS water-use estimates. In 

2005, 82 percent of withdrawals and 96 percent of power generation were from plants equipped with once-through cooling 

systems. From 1995 to 2005, there was a 7 percent increase 

in generated power in the basin coupled with the 4 percent 

decrease in withdrawals. One possible explanation of this 

trend could be that in recent years there has been an increase 

in the number of plants in the basin equipped with closedloop cooling systems or other alternatives to once-through 

cooling. However, during this same period, when all plants in 

the Great Lakes States both within and outside the basin are 

considered, the percentage of withdrawals attributed to plants 

with once-through cooling systems remained at 92 percent. 

Thus, any recent increases in the deployment of alternatives 

to once-through cooling in the basin seemingly are insubstantial. Although also lacking quantitative data, a Great Lakes 

Basin support group has expressed a similar conclusion that 

Figure 17. Trends in withdrawals by water-use category in the Great Lakes Basin, 1985–2005.

NO DATA

WITHDRAWALS, IN BILLION GALLONS PER DAY

TOTAL WITHDRAWALS, IN BILLION GALLONS PER DAY

POPULATION, IN MILLIONS

30

31

32

33

34

35

24.5

23.5

22.5

21.5

20.5

10

15

20

25

0

5

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

EXPLANATION

Public supply

Domestic

Thermoelectric power

Industrial

Mining

Irrigation

Aquaculture and Livestock

Total withdrawals

Population
48 Estimated Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use in the Great Lakes Basin of the United States in 2005

in recent years there have been few, if any, additional deployments of alternatives to once-through cooling systems in the 

basin’s thermoelectric powerplants (Ed Glatfelter, Alliance for 

the Great Lakes, written commun., 2009). Concerns about the 

increased consumption of water associated with these types 

of cooling systems may, in part, account for the seemingly 

limited growth of closed-loop and related cooling systems in 

the basin. Alternatively, the 4 percent decrease in withdrawals during the past decade might be explained by increased 

efficiencies in the operation of the presently outfitted plants. 

Should there be increased use of closed-loop cooling systems 

in the basin’s thermoelectric powerplants in future years, then 

a decrease in basin withdrawals and possibly an increase in 

consumptive use might be expected. 

Industrial withdrawals in the basin have declined since 

their peak of about 9 Bgal/d during about 1965–70 (Murray, 1968; Murry and Reeves, 1972). This trend of declining 

withdrawals reflects the National trend (Solley and others, 

1998; Hutson and others, 2004). During 1985–95, estimated 

withdrawals in the basin decreased 5 percent, from 4.4 to 

4.2 Bgal/d. From 1995 to 2005, the decline was a more dramatic 30 percent, from 4.2 to 2.9 Bgal/d; as noted, as much as 

1.1 Bgal/d (85 percent) of this decline might simply represent a change in how self-supplied industrial withdrawals in 

Michigan were estimated between the two accounting periods. 

During 1985–2005, the distribution between surface-water 

and groundwater withdrawals varied little, with surface-water 

withdrawals representing about 95 percent of total withdrawals. Virtually 100 percent of these withdrawals were freshwater, with saline-water withdrawals (in Michigan for industrial 

use) decreasing from highs of about 3.7 Mgal/d before 2005 

to no reported withdrawals in 2005. Two principal factors 

likely have contributed to the trend of decreasing industrial 

withdrawals in the basin. Passage of Federal pollution-control 

legislation (U.S. Congress, 1972, 1977) required stricter 

water-quality standards for water discharges, which in turn, 

encouraged conservation, greater efficiency, less water-intensive technologies, and greater reliance on industrial deliveries 

from public suppliers. In 1985, 707 Mgal/d was delivered 

from public suppliers to industries in the basin; by 1995, about 

773 Mgal/d was delivered. These deliveries represented about 

16 percent of total industrial water use in 1985 and 19 percent 

by 1995 (delivery estimates for 2005 were not routinely compiled for this assessment). The decline in the number of manufacturing facilities in the basin since the late 1970s possibly 

also has contributed to the decrease in industrial withdrawals 

(City-Data Forum, 2007).

Withdrawals for mining use in the basin increased 

substantially during 1985–2005, with a 103 percent increase 

in estimated withdrawals since 1985 and 30 percent increase 

since 1995 (from 396 to 514 Mgal/d). The largest increases 

in withdrawals have been restricted primarily to the Lake 

Superior watersheds of Minnesota, where the largest mining 

withdrawals occur. Surface-water withdrawals have consistently represented about 90–95 percent of total withdrawals for 

mining use. The percentage of saline water used in mining has 

remained consistently well less than 1 percent of total water 

withdrawals and total mining withdrawals.

With the exception of a decrease of about 15 percent 

from 1980 to 1985, withdrawals for combined crop and 

golf course irrigation in the basin increased steadily during 1960–2005. Estimated withdrawals increased 94 percent 

during 1985–2005 and 57 percent from 1995 to 2005 (from 

314 to 493 Mgal/d). This increase can be attributed primarily to an increase in crop and golf course irrigated acreage in 

the basin, particularly from 1975 to 1980, when irrigated crop 

acreage increased about 150 percent to about 300,000 acres, 

and during the 1990s in conjunction with the national boom 

(about 20-percent growth) in golf course construction (Kosin, 

2008). In 2005, 750,000 acres in the basin were irrigated, an 

increase of 56 percent since 1985. Available estimates of golf 

course irrigation withdrawals from Michigan are indicative of 

recent (about 2000–2004) withdrawal trends throughout the 

basin. These estimates suggest that the rapid expansion of golf 

course development, and thus the increase in withdrawals for 

irrigation, has slowed in the past few years (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2005). The generally normal 

to wet conditions throughout most of the basin in 2005 suggest 

that withdrawals for irrigation were not unusually affected by 

weather in that year, but such conditions can affect the total 

withdrawals in any given year. How meteorological conditions 

might have contributed to the variability of the 5-year use 

estimates were not specifically addressed in this study. Surface 

water historically has been the source of about 60 percent 

of the water withdrawn for irrigation in the basin. However, 

beginning in 1995, groundwater became the primary source, 

accounting for 54 percent of the withdrawals. By 2005, this 

percentage increased to 70 percent.

Since 1985, when the USGS first compiled estimates of 

irrigated acres by system type, most acres in the basin have 

been irrigated with sprinkler systems (96 percent in 2005). 

From 1995 to 2005, the average irrigation application rate 

increased from 0.63 to 0.74 acre-ft/acre. One of a number of 

possible explanations for this increase might be an increase in 

the percentage of crops with relatively larger water demands. 

To a minor extent, the decrease in percentage of acres irrigated 

by the relatively water-conservative method of microirrigation 

during this period (from 3.5 to 2.9 percent) also might have 

contributed to the increase in application rate.

Trend statistics for aquaculture are not included specifically in table 14, because individual withdrawals for its principal subcategories of use—fish farms and fish hatcheries—were 

included with other categories of use before 2005. Those 

categories include livestock/animal specialties use (fish farms) 

and commercial use (fish hatcheries). The greater magnitude 

of withdrawals used for aquaculture in the basin in 2005 

(141 Mgal/d) relative to the 1995 accounting of withdrawals 

for livestock/fish farming use (68 Mgal/d) possibly indicates 

regional growth in withdrawals for aquaculture use in recent 

years. This growth is further indicated in available documents 

from Great Lakes Basin research and support groups (University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute, 2004). Alternatively, 
Consumptive Use 49

the apparent increase in aquaculture withdrawals may, in large 

part, result from the addition of withdrawals for fish-hatchery 

use previously accounted for in commercial use.

Withdrawals for livestock use in the basin remained relatively stable during 1985–2005, averaging about 76 Mgal/d 

(tables 12 and 14A). During this period, the combination of 

animal groups and fish-husbandry operations included in the 

use category varied somewhat. Livestock withdrawals, as presented in table 14, include use for fish farms during 1985–95; 

withdrawals for aquaculture, which include those for fish 

farms (and fish hatcheries), are presented along with livestock 

use for 2005. During 1985–95, water use for fish farms is presumed to have been small relative to other livestock uses. Estimated withdrawals for livestock use decreased from a recent 

high of 91 Mgal/d in 1990 to 68 Mgal/d in 1995, a decline of 

25 percent. Withdrawals for livestock use stabilized during 

1995–2005, with an estimated use of 68 Mgal/d in 2005.

On the basis of the estimates of wastewater reuse compiled by the USGS NWUIP, there seemingly has been very 

limited reuse of wastewater in the basin during the decades 

from 1965 to 2005. The only evidenced reuse during this 

period was about 30 Mgal/d in 1980 and 21 Mgal/d in 1985; 

this reuse was exclusively for irrigation and was restricted 

to Michigan. It is probable that, in these accountings, some 

applications of wastewater reuse may have been overlooked. 

Accounting of wastewater reuse in the basin historically has 

been hampered by the lack of routinely collected and reported 

usage data. However, evidence from discussions with various 

government and nongovernment water-use professionals and 

from newspaper articles and other typically qualitative sources 

of information indicates that even with accurate accounting of 

wastewater reuse, its application in the basin is very limited. 

Available information does suggest recent expansion in wastewater reuse, primarily in urbanized areas of the basin, such 

as the Chicago metropolitan area. Most of this reuse seems 

to be for golf course and landscape irrigation. With increasing concerns about conserving available water supplies in the 

Great Lakes States (Injerd, 2005), notable expansion in the 

use of reclaimed wastewater in the basin in future years may 

be a possibility. Recently the Northeastern Illinois Regional 

Water Supply Planning Group (Meng and others, 2007) has 

shown interest in the subject, and a number of reuse-related 

workshops have been held in the Chicago region (Northeastern Illinois Regional Water Supply Planning Group, 2009). To 

effectively track wastewater reclamation and reuse in future 

years, additional data programs would need to be developed.

Consumptive Use

Consumptive water use is the portion of water withdrawn 

(for a particular category of use) that is evaporated, transpired, 

incorporated into products or crops, consumed by humans or 

livestock, or otherwise removed from the immediate water 

environment. Consumptive-use totals in the Great Lakes Basin 

previously have been estimated by the USGS and the Great 

Lakes Commission, most recently by the USGS for 1995 

(Solley and others, 1998) and by the GLC for 2004 (Great 

Lakes Commission, 2006). Water-use categories, study areas, 

and consumptive-use coefficients used in these assessments 

varied somewhat, but generally the estimates of consumptive use were similar when considered on the basis of total 

water use in the basin (U.S. part) for all categories of use 

(excluding hydroelectric-power withdrawals). For 1995, the 

USGS estimated 5.1 percent of the total water withdrawn, or 

1,580 Mgal/d, were consumed; for 2004, the GLC estimated 

5.6 percent, or 1,460 Mgal/d.

 Consumptive use in the Great Lakes Basin and climatically similar areas also has been extensively explored by Shaffer and Runkle (2007), Shaffer (2009), and Pebbles (2003a,b). 

The investigations by Shaffer and Runkle and by Shaffer were 

thorough reviews and statistical compilations of representative consumptive-use coefficients for the various uses of water 

in the basin. As indicated in table 5 of Shaffer and Runkle 

(2007), the coefficients used and reported by various groups, 

agencies, and researchers for individual categories of use are 

varied. However, the median values of those coefficients are 

very similar to those used by the USGS and GLC in their 

previous estimations of consumptive use in the basin. Pebbles’ 

study assessed the current state of knowledge of consumptive 

use in the basin and compiled information on consumptive use 

and the methods applied in the basin to estimate this aspect of 

water use.

To provide additional understanding of the extent of consumptive use in the basin, this use was estimated on the basis 

of the 2005 water withdrawal estimates of this report. The 

complexity of accurately estimating consumptive use cannot 

be understated. This complexity is well detailed in the abovementioned reports, to which the reader is referred (Shaffer and 

Runkle, 2007; Shaffer, 2009; Pebbles, 2003a,b). A simplified 

approach was taken in the present study to estimate consumptive use. This approach is based on the use of consumptive-use 

coefficients, in a manner that approximates that applied by 

many basin states and provinces for the estimates they annually submit to the GLC (Great Lakes Commission, 2006). 

As stated by Pebbles (2003a), “Notwithstanding the lack of 

documentation or scientific basis for the consumptive use 

coefficients, state and provincial officials generally believe 

that the coefficients are worthwhile for providing a sense of 

consumptive use lost to various water uses.”

For estimation of consumptive use, the total withdrawal 

associated with each category of use was multiplied by a 

single coefficient associated with that category of use. For this, 

the category-specific median consumptive-use coefficients 

derived by Shaffer and Runkle (2007) for the Great Lakes 

Basin and climatically similar areas typically were used (table 

9 of that report). Intracategory variability in consumptive use 

was not specifically considered. This variability includes, for 

example, differences in consumption associated with various 

industrial operations, animal species, or domestic uses (such as 

laundering or car washing). For purposes of this assessment, 
50 Estimated Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use in the Great Lakes Basin of the United States in 2005

intracategory variability was considered to be adequately represented by the use of the single coefficient. 

For estimation of consumptive use associated with public 

supply and domestic use, Shaffer and Runkle (2007) derived 

a single coefficient to represent these combined categories 

of use. Their justification was that many of the reports used 

as sources for statistical derivation of the coefficient did not 

always clearly differentiate between these categories of use. 

For the estimation of consumptive use presented here, these 

categories were assessed separately, as done for the annual 

GLC water-use reports (Great Lakes Commission, 2006). 

The singular coefficient of 13 percent derived by Shaffer and 

Runkle (2007) was applied to both public-supply and domestic 

use. The approach is considered justified, as the same coefficient seemingly is applied to both categories of use by all 

states and provinces contributing consumptive-use estimates 

to the GLC. Additionally, for estimation of consumptive use 

associated with public supply, deliveries of water to other 

users and unaccounted-for use (including conveyance losses) 

were not specifically considered. Deliveries—such as to industrial, domestic, and commercial users—and unaccounted-for 

use were considered as undifferentiated components of publicsupply withdrawals. Thus, the relative contribution of each 

component to overall public-supply consumptive use will not 

be fully accounted for by use of a single coefficient. Although 

simplified, this estimation approach also appears to be similarly used by all contributors to the GLC water-use reports.

Estimates of consumptive use associated with commercial and aquaculture use were considered separately from the 

other categories of use. Commercial use was not routinely 

compiled by the USGS for 2005, so estimates of total withdrawals in the basin required additional assumptions to be 

made regarding these totals. Maximum commercial use in the 

basin was assumed to be 3 percent of total withdrawals (as 

discussed in the report section, “Industrial”); a consumptiveuse coefficient of 10 percent (Shaffer and Runkle, 2007) 

was applied, although another assessment by Shaffer (2009, 

table 5) indicates that average commercial consumptive use 

might be closer to 40 percent. In estimating consumptive use 

associated with aquaculture, consumptive-use coefficients can 

vary widely with respect to fish hatcheries (which generally 

are raceways) and pond-based fish-farm operations. Generally, there is substantially higher consumptive use associated with fish farming because of evaporative losses from 

the shallow ponds that are typically used in these operations 

(Shaffer and Runkle, 2007). Information on the distribution of 

withdrawals in the basin associated with these quite different aquaculture operations was not readily available. Without 

including this distribution information, Shaffer (2009, table 

26) calculates an average aquaculture consumptive use of 5 

percent based on withdrawal and return-flow data from Ohio 

operations. For purposes of the current study, it is assumed 

that this distribution and the derived coefficient of consumptive use are representative of the entirety of the basin. Should 

there be a disproportionately larger percentage of pondbased operations elsewhere in the basin, then basin-wide 

aquaculture consumptive use, as presented here, likely would 

be underestimated.

Table 15 presents an estimate for consumptive use in the 

Great Lakes Basin for 2005 withdrawals. Total consumptive 

use in the basin was an estimated 1,860 Mgal/d, or 6 percent, 

of total withdrawals. Consumptive-use totals were the greatest, about 400–500 Mgal/d each, for public-supply, irrigation, 

and thermoelectric-power uses. Total consumptive use in the 

basin is expected to be somewhat greater than that estimated 

because commercial and aquaculture use are not considered 

in the estimation. On the basis of the noted assumptions, 

commercial consumptive use of about 90 Mgal/d might be 

expected; additional consumptive use of about 7 Mgal/d might 

be expected for aquaculture. As previously noted, commercial 

and aquaculture consumptive use might be somewhat greater 

than these estimated quantities.

Uncertainty in Estimates

Estimates of withdrawal and other elements of water 

use presented in this report for the Great Lakes HUCs were 

compiled and developed by USGS water-use specialists, who 

analyzed data and information from various state, Federal, and 

local agencies and nongovernmental entities. These specialists also made estimates in the case of missing data from the 

various sources of available data, and prepared documentation 

that identified the sources of data and associated water-use 

information and methods used for the water-use estimations 

for their respective states. The availability and type of wateruse data varies by state and is dependent on state law, whether 

there is a water-permitting or water-use inventory program, 

and extent of program funding. This variability in the sources 

and types of available data can lead to substantial variability in 

the accuracy and reliability (referred to collectively as “quality”) of the data and, consequently, uncertainty associated with 

the resulting water-use estimates. With regard to water-use 

estimation, “accuracy” refers to the closeness of measured or 

estimated values to actual values, and it includes comprehensiveness or completeness of the data (as in unaccounted-for 

use because of incomplete reporting by users). “Reliability” refers to the consistency of measurement or estimation, 

including reporting, and “uncertainty” is used qualitatively to 

describe potential errors and biases associated with measurements, calculations, and estimates. 

Water withdrawals by most users are not metered, either 

directly as volumes (flow rates) or indirectly on the basis of 

other measured values (such as power consumption and pump 

rating and run time). Even when metered, these data may not 

be readily available to water-use researchers because users 

may prefer not to report them to established water-inventory 

programs, such inventory programs are not established, or the 

reporting criteria for these programs focuses on selected users 

(biased by the magnitude of withdrawals). When reported 

(“metered”) withdrawal values are unavailable, withdrawals 
Uncertainty in Estimates 51

are often estimated either by using coefficients derived from 

focused representative studies of water use or by methods 

based on various ancillary data and assumptions; for example, 

livestock withdrawals are typically estimated on the basis of 

voluntarily reported and estimated livestock populations and 

animal-specific coefficients considered representative of daily 

water-demand requirements. The extent to which withdrawals are accurately metered or are estimated by other means 

can result in a wide range of uncertainty associated with 

those data.

The analyses and results presented herein include the 

assumption that water-use data reported by users to state 

and Federal inventory programs, or to others that compile 

such data, generally are representative of actual use; that is, 

it is assumed that good-faith efforts to accurately record or 

estimate the data are made by those furnishing the use data. 

However, for the most part, there are no comprehensive procedures in place to fully assess and quantify the quality of such 

efforts and data reporting. It is expected that most governmental and other water-use inventory programs incorporate some 

systematic quality-assurance (QA) procedures to improve the 

accuracy of their compiled data; these might include, among 

others, periodic site-verification visits, statistical analyses 

of data and trends, and comparative estimations. The degree 

and consistency to which these QA procedures are employed 

are uncertain. The USGS, as part of its national compilation, 

reviews the estimates compiled by each Water Science Center 

water-use specialist, with specific use of spatial and temporal 

trend analyses for identification of possible inaccuracies in the 

estimates. Other QA measures, including use of comparative 

estimations for validation purposes, also may be applied by 

various Water Science Center water-use specialists (Marilee 

Horn, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 2009).

The sources of withdrawal and other data, the quality of 

the data, and the resulting uncertainty in estimates for each 

water-use category, as compiled by each Great Lakes State, are 

examined briefly and qualitatively in the following sections 

of this report. The sources of water-use data and estimates by 

category and state are summarized in table 16. The resulting 

discussion and summarized findings are intended to provide 

(1) an understanding of factors that contribute to varied quality 

and uncertainty in water-use estimates, and (2) a means for 

evaluating the relative impact the varied quality and uncertainty may have on water-resource planning and evaluations 

Table 15. Water withdrawals and consumptive use in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005.

[Consumptive-use coefficients are from Shaffer and Runkle (2007, table 9) and represent median 

values for the Great Lakes Basin and climatically similar areas1; commercial use not included in 

totals because this use was not routinely compiled for 2005; aquaculture use not included because 

no coefficient was reported; Mgal/d, million gallons per day; NA, not applicable; figures may not 

sum to totals because of independent rounding]

Water-use category Withdrawals, 

in Mgal/d

Consumptive-use 

coefficient, 

in percent

Consumptive use, 

in Mgal/d

Total withdrawals 30,200 NA 1,860

Public supply 3,810 13 495

Domestic 412 13 54

Thermoelectric power 21,900 2 439

Industrial 2,930 10 293

Mining 514 13 67

Irrigation 493 91 449

Livestock 68 90 61

1

For this report, consumptive-use coefficient is defined as the percentage of water removed from 

the immediate environment (water body, surface-water or groundwater source) by evapotranspiration, transpiration, incorporation into products or crops, or consumption by humans or livestock. 

Great Lakes Basin and climatically similar areas refers to basins, parts of basins and states in the 

Great Lakes Basin as well as basins and states that are climatically similar to the Great Lakes 

Basin but not in this basin. Median values are calculated from about 100 to 200 published coefficients in references after either 1975 (mining), 1980 (industrial, irrigation, thermoelectric, livestock), or 1985 (domestic and public supply). In the above table, consumptive use is approximated 

by multiplying the consumptive-use coefficient by withdrawals and dividing by 100; consumptive 

use for total withdrawals is calculated by summing the consumptive use determined for each 

water-use category.
52 Estimated Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use in the Great Lakes Basin of the United States in 2005

Table 16. Source of water-use data and estimates by category of use for states in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005.—Continued

[Source of data and estimates: 1, typically metered use from most major users are available from inventories compiled as part of State-mandated or voluntary 

reporting; 2, estimates derived from measurements or ancillary data for the majority of users are available from inventories compiled as part of State-mandated 

or voluntary reporting; 3, estimates derived from data or information from various sources for many users, generally using coefficients; 4, estimates generally 

based on limited data, often using assumptions or generalized coefficients. Bold-text ratings indicate estimates for the Great Lakes Basin watersheds (8-digit 

hydrologic cataloging units (HUCs)) are determined from site-specific data; otherwise, estimates generally were derived from county-use estimates on the 

basis of percentage of a watershed within a county; —, not applicable]

Illinois

Water-use category Public supply Domestic Thermoelectric 

power

Industrial Mining Irrigation Aquaculture Livestock

Withdrawals 1 4 1 2 31 31,2 31 31

Population served 2 — — — — — — —

Deliveries from public supply — 4 — — — — — —

Acres irrigated — — — — — 2 — —

Power generated — — 1 — — — — —

Reclaimed water — — — 43 — 43 — —

1

Insubstantial water withdrawals.

2

Crop and golf course irrigation estimates principally derived by using rainfall-deficit approach (Avery, 1999).

3

Insubstantial use of reclaimed wastewater. 

Indiana

Water-use category Public supply Domestic Thermoelectric 

power

Industrial Mining Irrigation Aquaculture Livestock

Withdrawals 1 4 1 1 2 2 21 2

Population served 3 — — — — — — —

Deliveries from public supply — 4 — — — — — —

Acres irrigated — — — — — 2 — —

Power generated — — 1 — — — — —

Reclaimed water — — — 41 — 41 — —

1

Insubstantial water withdrawals and use of reclaimed wastewater.

Michigan

Water-use category Public supply Domestic Thermoelectric 

power

Industrial Mining Irrigation Aquaculture Livestock

Withdrawals 1 4 1 1 3 31 3 3

Population served 22 — — — — — — —

Deliveries from public supply — 4 — — — — — —

Acres irrigated — — — — — 2 — —

Power generated — — 1 — — — — —

Reclaimed water — — — 43 — 43 — —

1

Crop irrigation estimates derived by using rainfall-deficit based agriculture-irrigation model (Andreson, J., Moen, T., and Ritchie, J., Baer, B., Johnson, J., 

Savona, C., Swartz, M., and Van Til, R., 2000); golf-course irrigation determined from site-specific withdrawal data.

2

For watersheds that include the Detroit metropolitan area, estimation must account for substantial water transfers.

3

Insubstantial use of reclaimed wastewater. 
Uncertainty in Estimates 53

Table 16. Source of water-use data and estimates by category of use for states in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005.—Continued

[Source of data and estimates: 1, typically metered use from most major users are available from inventories compiled as part of State-mandated or voluntary 

reporting; 2, estimates derived from measurements or ancillary data for the majority of users are available from inventories compiled as part of State-mandated 

or voluntary reporting; 3, estimates derived from data or information from various sources for many users, generally using coefficients; 4, estimates generally 

based on limited data, often using assumptions or generalized coefficients. Bold-text ratings indicate estimates for the Great Lakes Basin watersheds (8-digit 

hydrologic cataloging units (HUCs)) are determined from site-specific data; otherwise, estimates generally were derived from county-use estimates on the 

basis of percentage of a watershed within a county; —, not applicable]

Minnesota

Water-use category Public supply Domestic Thermoelectric 

power

Industrial Mining Irrigation Aquaculture Livestock

Withdrawals 1 4 1 1 2 1 3 3

Population served 2 — — — — — — —

Deliveries from public supply — 2 — — — — — —

Acres irrigated — — — — — 2 — —

Power generated — — 1 — — — — —

Reclaimed water — — — 41 — 41 — —

1

Insubstantial use of reclaimed wastewater. 

New York

Water-use category Public supply Domestic Thermoelectric 

power

Industrial Mining Irrigation Aquaculture Livestock

Withdrawals 1 4 1 3 3 41 3 3

Population served 2 — — — — — — —

Deliveries from public supply — — 4 — — — — —

Acres irrigated — — — — — 2 — —

Power generated — — 1 — — — — —

Reclaimed water — — — 42 — 42 — —

1

Crop-irrigation estimates derived by using coefficient: average acre-feet per acre of water applied by type of irrigation system.

2

Insubstantial use of reclaimed wastewater. 

Ohio

Water-use category Public supply Domestic Thermoelectric 

power

Industrial Mining Irrigation Aquaculture Livestock

Withdrawals 1 4 1 1 2 2 2 3

Population served 2 — — — — — — —

Deliveries from public supply — 4 — — — — — —

Acres irrigated — — — — — 2 — —

Power generated — — 1 — — — — —

Reclaimed water — — — 41 — 41 — —

1

Insubstantial use of reclaimed wastewater. 
54 Estimated Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use in the Great Lakes Basin of the United States in 2005

Table 16. Source of water-use data and estimates by category of use for states in the Great Lakes Basin, 2005.—Continued

[Source of data and estimates: 1, typically metered use from most major users are available from inventories compiled as part of State-mandated or voluntary 

reporting; 2, estimates derived from measurements or ancillary data for the majority of users are available from inventories compiled as part of State-mandated 

or voluntary reporting; 3, estimates derived from data or information from various sources for many users, generally using coefficients; 4, estimates generally 

based on limited data, often using assumptions or generalized coefficients. Bold-text ratings indicate estimates for the Great Lakes Basin watersheds (8-digit 

hydrologic cataloging units (HUCs)) are determined from site-specific data; otherwise, estimates generally were derived from county-use estimates on the basis 

of percentage of a watershed within a county; —, not applicable]

Pennsylvania

Water-use category Public supply Domestic Thermoelectric 

power

Industrial Mining Irrigation Aquaculture Livestock

Withdrawals 1 4 1 1 3 2 3 3

Population served 2 — — — — — — —

Deliveries from public supply — 4 — — — — — —

Acres irrigated — — — — — 2 — —

Power generated — — 1 — — — — —

Reclaimed water — — — 41 — 41 — —

1

Insubstantial use of reclaimed wastewater. 

Wisconsin

Water-use category Public supply Domestic Thermoelectric 

power

Industrial Mining Irrigation Aquaculture Livestock

Withdrawals 1 4 2 3 3 4 31 3

Population served 3 — — — — — — —

Deliveries from public supply — 3 — — — — — —

Acres irrigated — — — — — 2 — —

Power generated — — 1 — — — — —

Reclaimed water — — — 42 — 42 — —

1

Estimated on the basis of use of selectively available withdrawal data, although often dated (pre-2000). 

2

Insubstantial use of reclaimed wastewater. 

at various spatial scales of interest. Although not specifically 

considered in this examination—but certainly also contributing to the quality of the data—is the extent to which field 

studies, statistical analyses and models, and other tested QA 

measures are used by the USGS and others to enhance or validate estimation of water-use values.

The quality of withdrawal estimates (and associated 

elements of water use) is, in large part, a function of whether 

the estimates were derived from site-specific data attributable 

to specific HUCs (watersheds) or from county-aggregated 

estimates for the USGS national accounting of water use 

(using geographic apportionment or other areal-proportioning 

method). A principal assumption is that the withdrawal estimates of highest quality are those based on site-specific data, 

such as those identified in table 16 by bold typeface. However, 

one must recognize that various factors, including the percentage of reporting water users representing the various category 

of water use and the accuracy of the reported data, could limit 

this assumption to some extent. In some cases, well-tested 

models or other measures using aggregated information, 

particularly at the HUC scale with this study in mind, may 

yield more accurate estimations than those based solely on 

site-specific data.

Additionally, withdrawal estimates derived from direct 

or indirect metering generally are considered of higher quality than those determined by other methods. As with sitespecific data, other factors, including the accuracy of meter 

performance and reporting of metered data could limit this 

assumption to some extent. In such cases, well-tested models 

or other means of estimation might prove to be more accurate. 

Estimates derived from site-specific data compiled by states 

as part of a mandatory or well-established voluntary reporting/

inventory program also generally can be considered of higher 

quality than estimates determined by other methods. Through 
Uncertainty in Estimates 55

mandatory reporting requirements, the States of Indiana, Minnesota, and Ohio inventory site-specific water withdrawals for 

almost all categories of water use; presumably many of the 

users meter their use. The extent to which these state programs 

and others oversee and monitor the completeness and accuracy 

of the reported water withdrawals, however, is unknown and 

possibly differs between states and over the course of time as 

affected by variability in program funding and other factors.

Michigan and Wisconsin inventory site-specific withdrawals for public-supply, industrial, and thermoelectricpower use, with Michigan also inventorying site-specific 

withdrawals for golf course irrigation use. Reporting for 

all categories of use is voluntary in Illinois, with extensive 

site-specific records maintained principally for withdrawals 

associated with public-supply, industrial, and thermoelectricpower use. Mandatory reporting in New York and Pennsylvania within the Great Lakes Basin is limited to site-specific 

withdrawals for public-supply use. It is assumed in the current 

study, on the basis of the Illinois voluntary inventory program (Tim Bryant, Illinois State Water Survey, Illinois Water 

Inventory Program, oral commun., 2009), that compliance 

approaches 90 percent for state-mandated and well-established 

voluntary inventory programs.

In general, the quality of the withdrawal estimates of 

a particular category of use is considered to decrease as 

(1) reporting participation by that category of users in voluntary or state-mandated programs decreases, (2) estimates are 

derived from increasingly nonvalidated or outdated estimation 

methods, or (3) reliance on ancillary data increases. For example, estimates of irrigation withdrawal based on a recently 

validated relation between power consumption and withdrawals generally are considered of higher quality than estimates of 

domestic withdrawal based on estimated populations served 

and a generalized water-demand coefficient. 

To some extent, reporting requirements or user targets 

may bias (underestimate) the withdrawal estimates associated with the data typically compiled by the state-mandated 

or voluntary inventory programs. These programs often target 

facilities or individual users withdrawing more than about 

100,000 gal/d. Collective withdrawals by those overlooked 

users individually withdrawing lesser volumes might be 

notable in some locales.

Public Supply and Self-Supplied Domestic

All public-supply withdrawals are estimated from sitespecific withdrawal data obtained from state-mandated or 

voluntary water-use or drinking-water inventory programs. 

HUC population estimates for 2005 were provided by the 

USGS NWUIP to each USGS Water Science Center. These 

estimates were derived from county (2005) and block group 

(2000) Federal census data (U.S. Department of Commerce, 

2006; 2001, respectively) by using a geographic-proportioning 

method (based on the ratio of HUC and county land area) for 

those counties not fully within a single watershed. Sources of 

data and methods varied by state for estimating populations 

served by public supply. Most USGS Water Science Centers 

relied on 2005 (or 2000) Federal census data as a basis for 

this estimation, with the estimates obtained “as compiled” 

from the assisting state water-use inventory programs. When 

necessary to accommodate area-population constraints or otherwise improve their accuracy, these estimates were adjusted 

by various means. Estimates also were obtained from the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Safe Drinking Water 

Information System (SDWIS) database (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2007); were furnished by public-water 

suppliers using customer-account information; or were derived 

by using Federal census housing data for 1990 (proportion 

of households served by public supply) (U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1992) in conjunction with 2005 census data.

HUC-delineated estimates or data for population served 

by public supply generally were not available from public 

suppliers or other sources. Additionally, appropriate sitespecific ancillary data that might allow reasonably accurate 

estimation of population served by public supply at the HUC 

level typically were not readily available. Such ancillary 

data might include, for example, the number of houses in the 

HUC attached to public supply. In most cases, county-based 

population-served estimates obtained from public suppliers, 

state water-inventory programs, or the SDWIS database served 

as the basis for HUC population-served estimates, with the 

HUC populations determined by using a geographic-proportioning method. Where large quantities of water are transferred 

between HUCs, adjustments to the available public-supplyserved population count often were necessary to ensure that 

these estimates did not exceed the resident population of the 

HUC. This adjustment included, among other methods, use of 

the estimated self-supplied domestic population to derive the 

public-supply-served population and population-proportioning 

statistics from previous years. 

With the legal requirements of the Safe Drinking Water 

Act (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004), including 

the monitoring and public availability of water-quality information, it is expected that relatively complete and accurate 

accountings of various associated aspects of water quality, 

including water withdrawals, are available. Additionally, 

reporting of these data are required in most Great Lakes States 

as part of a state-mandated inventory program. These reported 

withdrawal data were available from all Great Lakes States. 

The public-supply facilities typically monitor withdrawals 

directly by metering or indirectly on the basis of rate and duration of pumping. Given the success of the voluntary inventory 

program in Illinois, where 90 percent of the State’s publicsupply facilities reported their withdrawals in 2005 (Tim 

Bryant, Illinois State Water Survey, Illinois Water Inventory 

Program, oral commun., 2006), a similarly high percentage of 

reporting facilities, and thus accounted-for withdrawals, might 

be expected in other states with mandatory inventory programs. Those facilities not reporting to the Illinois inventory 

program were, to a great extent, smaller facilities serving rural 

populations. Thus, uncertainty associated with estimates for 
56 Estimated Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use in the Great Lakes Basin of the United States in 2005

public-supply withdrawals could very well be least of all the 

water-use categories and of limited concern for water-resource 

evaluations at various spatial scales of interest, particularly 

larger scales.

Given the methods of estimating populations served by 

public supply, these estimates can, in many cases, be quite 

inaccurate, with potential for substantial overestimation or 

underestimation. Generally, estimation uncertainty is expected 

to be least for highly urbanized areas where few residents 

are self-supplied. However, in these and other areas where 

water is transferred between suppliers and across political 

boundaries or watersheds, estimation uncertainty can be compounded—and accounting for the various populations served 

often can be quite difficult. Although typically not applied in 

the basin accountings for 2005, there is potential for improving the accuracy of population-served estimates. For example, 

current site-specific records of households obtaining publicsupply water and information on water transfers might be 

made more available for estimations. Also, from this information and site-specific census data, improved estimation models 

using Geographic Information System (GIS) tools and (or) 

statistical techniques could be developed and applied. Presently, however, uncertainty associated with population-served 

estimates might very well be of concern for water-resource 

evaluations at various spatial scales of interest. 

All self-supplied domestic withdrawals are estimated 

on the basis of the self-supplied domestic population of each 

watershed and a domestic per capita use coefficient. For most 

estimations, the self-supplied population is estimated by 

subtracting the population served by public supply from the 

watershed population. In some cases, such as in Illinois, this 

population is considered more accurately estimated by use of 

directly associated indicators such as domestic-well counts. 

Accounting of the self-supplied domestic population in Illinois 

is complicated by complex interbasin and intrabasin publicsupply water transfers; additionally, there are relatively few 

self-supplied domestic users within the basin that need to be 

considered. As previously discussed, estimates of HUC populations were furnished to each USGS Water Science Center by 

the USGS NWUIP, and populations served by public supply 

were estimated by various methods. Per capita use coefficients were obtained from state agencies, planning or research 

organizations, or technical literature. The coefficients varied 

throughout the basin states. With the exception of Wisconsin, and to a minor extent Pennsylvania and Ohio, a single 

coefficient was applied by each state without consideration 

of locational variability of water use as affected by climate, 

household income, or other factors. These statewide coefficients ranged from about 49 gal/d (Wisconsin average-based 

default) to 90 gal/day (Illinois). Wisconsin typically applied 

variable coefficients (ranging from 7 to 172 gal/d) derived 

from municipality-level domestic-use data. HUC-specific 

coefficients (ranging from 55 to 161 gal/d) were applied to 

seven HUCs in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Typical coefficients 

used in four states ranged from 70 to 76 gal/d. 

Should the use of more regionally consistent coefficients 

be considered to more accurately represent domestic demand, 

then domestic withdrawals in the basin possibly would differ 

from those depicted in table 6. Michigan’s total domestic 

withdrawals would be most affected (decrease) should these 

be estimated using a per capita use coefficient representing 

a regional “norm” of 75 gal/d rather than the presently used 

86 gal/d. Michigan has the largest self-supplied population in 

the basin. Estimated withdrawals for Wisconsin and Illinois 

also would be relatively affected (increase and decrease, 

respectively), on the basis of the difference between their present per capita use coefficient and that of the “norm” used in 

this consideration. Overall ranking of self-supplied withdrawals by individual Great Lakes watershed and state, however, 

likely would differ little, given the large self-supplied domestic population of Michigan and its large percentage of the 

basin’s self-supplied withdrawals. The rankings for Wisconsin 

and Illinois would be affected little, because of their relatively small self-served populations and percentage of the 

basin’s withdrawals.

Given the extent to which self-supplied domestic 

withdrawals are estimated, uncertainty associated with these 

estimates seemingly might be of concern for most waterresource evaluations. However, with self-supplied domestic 

withdrawals representing only about 1 percent of total withdrawals in most Great Lakes watersheds (6 percent in the Lake 

Huron watershed), estimation uncertainty probably would be 

of less concern for such larger-scale evaluations. Estimation 

uncertainty could be of increasingly greater concern as the 

spatial scales of evaluations become more local, particularly 

those of HUC scale or smaller. In 2005, withdrawals greater 

than 10 Mgal/d were restricted to eight HUCs in three states 

(Michigan, Indiana, New York), with maximum withdrawals 

within a single watershed limited to about 30 Mgal/d.

Thermoelectric Power, Industrial, and Mining

Thermoelectric-power withdrawals and associated powergeneration statistics are estimated from site-specific data 

obtained from state-mandated and voluntary water-use inventory programs, state permitting programs, the Federal inventory program of the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (USDOE-EIA), or individual facilities. 

The primary source of withdrawal data was state-mandated 

water-use inventory programs. For other than nuclear-power 

facilities, the primary source of power-generation data, 

including net power-generation and plant-cooling type, was 

the USDOE EIA–767 database report (U.S. Department of 

Energy, Energy Information Administration, 2008a). Waterwithdrawal data for nuclear-power facilities exclusively were 

provided by sources other than the USDOE-EIA, as these data 

were no longer included in their annual EIA–767 database 

reports after 2000. Power-generation data for nuclear facilities were obtained primarily from the EIA–906/920 database 

report (U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration, 2008b).
Uncertainty in Estimates 57

It is expected that relatively complete and accurate 

reports of water withdrawals and associated power-generation 

statistics typically were available from the various data 

sources for 2005. From a survey of powerplant operations 

and a number of plant visits, Dziegielewski and Bik (2006) 

determined that the average cooling-water withdrawal rates 

required to be reported annually to USDOE-EIA are reasonably representative of actual use, because they typically are 

based on either pump-use criteria (capacity ratings and period 

of use) or metered use. Dziegielewski and Bik do note that 

some inaccuracy is inherent in the determining the reported 

withdrawals because of the complexities associated with plant 

operation. Additionally, the withdrawal data available from 

USDOE-EIA likely somewhat underestimate actual withdrawals and power generation associated with thermoelectricpower generation, because the EIA–767 report targets plants 

with generator nameplate ratings of 10 MW or larger. Some 

reports of water withdrawals for net power generation likely 

include additional, but substantially lesser, withdrawal volumes associated with operation and maintenance of the plants 

(gross power generation) and (or) with cogeneration of heat. 

Given the relative completeness and accuracy of the reported 

withdrawals (and proportionally large withdrawal volumes 

required for net power generation), uncertainty associated 

with estimates for thermoelectric-power withdrawals could 

very well be of limited concern for water-resource evaluations 

at various spatial scales of interest, particularly larger scales. 

However, some caution likely should be exercised when 

including these withdrawal estimates in water-resource evaluations. With withdrawals from thermoelectric-power facilities 

representing about 72 percent of total withdrawals in the basin 

and withdrawal rates from these facilities greatly exceeding 

those of most other types of facilities or withdrawals for other 

water uses, errors in the measurement or reporting of these 

withdrawals could contribute to substantial errors in accounting of volumes and distribution of withdrawal stresses in such 

evaluations.

Industrial withdrawals are estimated principally from 

site-specific withdrawal data obtained from state-mandated 

and voluntary water-use inventory programs. Selected data for 

estimates were obtained from individual facilities and state or 

Federal permit programs that require reporting of industrial 

withdrawals or return flows. Additionally, estimates for New 

York were made by using employment numbers classified by 

industry group and per employee water-demand coefficients. 

Because most industrial facilities are privately owned, 

there may be a greater likelihood of lower participation rate 

in voluntary water-inventory reporting programs by these 

facilities than that of public utilities (such as public supply 

and thermoelectric power facilities) that are subject to greater 

regulatory oversight. However, in Illinois, where water-use 

reporting is voluntary, typically about 90 percent of contacted facilities have responded to the State’s recent water-use 

inquiries in recent years (about 2005 to present) (Tim Bryant, 

Illinois State Water Survey, Illinois Water Inventory Program, 

oral commun., 2007). A study by Pacific Institute (Morikawa 

and others, 2007) indicates a growing commitment by large 

companies (often large water users) to public reporting of 

their measured water use. In the Morikawa study, 85 percent 

of respondents indicated making these data available; however, some inconsistencies were identified in how these data 

were measured and reported. The findings of the study, thus, 

suggest a general commitment among most larger industrial 

water users to responsibly quantify and report their water use 

to others. Water use by smaller industrial facilities, however, 

might be somewhat underestimated. In particular, smaller 

facilities typically rely on the use of lower-capacity wells (less 

than 100,000 gal/d), which can be overlooked in established 

inventory programs. Given that site-specific data are available 

in virtually all basin states, and assuming that the response 

rate for mandatory and voluntary water-inventory programs 

elsewhere in the basin approximates the Illinois rate and that 

reported use is reasonably accurate, uncertainty associated 

with industrial withdrawal estimates could be of only limited concern for water-resource evaluations at various spatial 

scales of interest, particularly larger scales. However, with 

potential of underestimating use and with industrial withdrawals accounting for 10 percent of withdrawals in the basin, 

such uncertainty might be of increasing concern for waterresource evaluations as their spatial scale of interest becomes 

more local. 

The USGS NWUIP furnished each USGS Water Science Center with estimates of mining withdrawals for the 

2005 compilation. The estimates were based on coal-, mineral-, and quarry-production data for 2004 obtained from the 

USGS (Geologic Discipline, Minerals Information Team) 

and USDOE-EIA; estimation of withdrawals associated with 

oil and gas production were limited to high-production states 

outside the basin (Lovelace, 2009a). Coefficients derived 

from various sources were used for the estimates; sources 

included U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Mines, reports and withdrawal data collected by the USGS in individual states (Lovelace, 2009a; 

John K. Lovelace, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 

2008). The USGS water-use specialists were responsible for 

determining the most reliable sources of information available 

for estimating water use for their respective states. For some 

States (Ohio, Indiana, Minnesota), site-specific withdrawal 

data, as reported to state-mandated water-inventory programs, 

were available and used for estimates.

Accuracy of estimating mining withdrawals from 

reported data, such as from state inventory programs, is 

affected by difficulty in determining the amount of water 

withdrawn solely for mineral extraction and processing. Water 

withdrawn for nonbeneficial uses, such as dewatering of quarries and mines, should be excluded in the USGS accounting. 

Because these data often are not readily available, withdrawal 

estimates for Minnesota, Indiana, and Ohio, and possibly other 

basin states, include an undetermined quantity of water used 

for dewatering. Although oil and gas production is limited in 

most of the basin, production is notable in parts of Michigan 

and Ohio but the associated water withdrawals typically were 
58 Estimated Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use in the Great Lakes Basin of the United States in 2005

not included in the accounting. For some commodities, including sand, gravel, and stone products, water-use coefficients 

varied greatly (from near zero to several thousand gallons per 

ton) (John K. Lovelace, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 2008), thus necessitating the use of median or average 

coefficient values. These particular commodities are mined 

and processed throughout many parts of the basin. 

Accounting issues associated with dewatering, oil and 

gas production, and coefficient variability for selected commodities indicate that estimation uncertainty associated with 

mining water withdrawals could very well be of concern for 

water-resource evaluations at more local spatial scales of 

interest (generally HUC scale or smaller). Given that mining 

withdrawals represent only about 1 percent of total water withdrawals in the basin, it is probable that uncertainty associated 

with these estimates would be of limited concern for evaluations of larger scales of interest, particularly basin-scale evaluations. Withdrawals greater than 5 Mgal/d are restricted to 

nine HUC watersheds in five states, with withdrawals greater 

than 10 Mgal/d restricted to three watersheds in Minnesota 

(maximum of 171 Mgal/d). Of the nine watersheds, three are 

in Ohio and three in Minnesota, where site-specific withdrawal 

data are reported to the state.

Irrigation, Aquaculture, and Livestock

Three States (Indiana, Ohio, and Minnesota) relied 

primarily on site-specific withdrawal data obtained from 

state-mandated and voluntary water-use inventory programs 

to estimate irrigation withdrawals. The extent to which the 

irrigation withdrawals reported to state inventory programs 

were measured or estimated is uncertain. Five states (Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, New York, and Pennsylvania) relied, 

in part or entirety, on other than metered and reported use 

to determine irrigation withdrawals. Often based on coefficients, these estimation methods included use of irrigated 

acreage in conjunction with a crop water-demand coefficient 

and relations between power consumption of a pump and 

withdrawal rate or duration of pump use and the rated capacity of a pump. Irrigated acreage, with few exceptions, was 

obtained from the voluntary, survey-based U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDANASS) Census of Agriculture (2007, 2008a). In Minnesota, 

irrigated acreage was obtained from that reported to the state 

inventory program.

Estimation methods, including coefficient-based methods, ideally include adjustments for climatic variables, system 

efficiencies, conveyance losses, and other irrigation practices such as pre-irrigation. However, there has been limited 

verification of the accuracy of reported withdrawals or testing 

of the estimation coefficients and controlling assumptions by 

comparison to measured withdrawals. In Illinois, comparison of coefficient-based irrigation estimates (rainfall-deficit 

method) to measured withdrawals at five sites in each of 

three counties found that estimates by the coefficient method 

varied from measured withdrawals by +37 to +55 percent 

(Charles F. Avery, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 

2007). A 2005 evaluation of water withdrawals in two counties 

estimated by using the rainfall-deficit method and “measured” 

by using a previously determined power-consumption coefficient (Imperial Valley Water Authority, 2007) found that 

the coefficient-based estimates for the counties varied from 

the measured withdrawals by −10 to +22 percent. Additionally, most coefficient-based methods that require accounting 

of irrigated acreage rely upon the USDA-NASS Census of 

Agriculture for these irrigation data. Typically there is a lag of 

3 years or more between the most recent irrigated-acreage data 

available from the USDA-NASS census and the associated 

USGS 5-year compilation of water-use estimates. For the twocounty evaluation described above, this lag accounted for a 

difference of about +30 percent between withdrawal estimates 

based on more recent 2007 acreage data available from the 

USDA Farm Service Agency and the 2002 census-reported 

acreage. This time lag in acreage-data availability could result 

in notable error in irrigation estimates for areas experiencing 

rapid expansion in irrigation use. 

Another potential source of error in estimation of irrigation withdrawals is the inconsistency in how withdrawals 

are reported from surface-water and groundwater sources, 

particularly for golf course irrigation. In Illinois, an undetermined percentage of groundwater withdrawn to fill or 

provide makeup water to irrigation ponds at golf courses is 

reported as surface-water withdrawals (Tim Bryant, Illinois 

State Water Survey, Illinois Water Inventory Program, written 

commun., 2009). Metering of the water is often at the point of 

pond withdrawal.

These studies suggest that irrigation-withdrawal estimates determined by means other than site-specific, direct 

measurement of withdrawal volumes or well-tested estimation 

methods based on up-to-date ancillary data probably should be 

used with caution. However, despite concerns about possible 

inaccuracies associated with estimation of irrigation withdrawals, uncertainty associated with these estimates could very 

well be of limited concern for water-resource evaluations at 

most spatial scales of interest. Irrigation withdrawals represent 

only about 2 percent of total water use in the basin, with use 

greater than 10 Mgal/d (maximum of about 90 Mgal/d) limited 

to seven HUCs in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Indiana (where 

site-specific withdrawals are reported to the state). Uncertainty 

associated with these estimates could very well be of increasing concern for water-resource evaluations at more local 

spatial scales of interest (generally HUC scale or smaller).

The USGS NWUIP furnished each USGS Water Science 

Center with estimates of aquaculture withdrawals for the 2005 

compilation. These estimates were made by using production 

and facility information from the USDA-NASS Census of 

Aquaculture (2008b) in conjunction with various water-use 

coefficients (Lovelace, 2009b). The USGS water-use specialists were responsible for determining the most reliable sources 

of information available for estimating water use for their 

respective states. For Ohio, withdrawal estimates were made 

by using site-specific data available from its State-mandated 
Uncertainty in Estimates 59

water-inventory program. Given that most of the estimates 

of aquaculture withdrawals for HUC watersheds in the basin 

were derived by using coefficients and that these coefficientbased estimates were derived from county estimates, uncertainty associated with these estimates could be of concern for 

water-resource evaluations at various spatial scales of interest, 

but particularly at more local scales (generally HUC scale or 

smaller). Aquaculture withdrawals occurred in 65 percent of 

the basin HUCs, ranging from 3 to 32 Mgal/d in 10 HUCs 

in five states (Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, 

and Michigan). However, given that aquaculture withdrawals represent less than 1 percent of total water withdrawals 

in the basin, it is probable that uncertainty associated with 

estimates of these withdrawals would be of limited concern 

for evaluations at larger scales of interest, particularly basinscale evaluations.

The USGS NWUIP furnished each USGS Water Science 

Center with estimates of livestock withdrawals for the 2005 

compilation. These estimates were made by using livestock 

population data obtained from the USDA-NASS Census of 

Agriculture (2007) in conjunction with livestock-specific 

water-demand coefficients (gallons of water use per animal per 

day (gal/animal/d)) (Lovelace, 2009c). No basin states require 

reporting of water withdrawals for livestock use or have 

available voluntarily submitted or systematically collected 

withdrawal data for livestock. Coefficients used for estimating 

withdrawals were furnished by agricultural extension agents or 

water-permitting agencies or obtained from research literature.

The coefficients used for the various categories of 

animals classified as livestock vary by Great Lakes State; 

variation within individual categories generally was by a factor of 3 or less. For example, the coefficients used for dairy 

cattle ranged from 18 to 40 gal/animal/d; in Wisconsin, the 

State with the largest dairy cattle population, a coefficient of 

28 gal/animal/d was used. Within the livestock category, dairy 

cattle have the largest water-use requirement and represent 

the majority of livestock withdrawals in the basin. Whereas 

this variation in coefficients used by the various Great Lakes 

States, in part, can be attributed to local effects of climate on 

animal watering and facility maintenance needs, the variation also can be attributed, in part, to inconsistent selection of 

applied coefficients. Possibly, some of the coefficients have 

not been recently updated to account for changes in livestockhusbandry practices. Uncertainty associated with estimation of 

withdrawals for livestock use is compounded by the standard 

use of areal proportioning to derive estimates for HUCs from 

those for counties. 

The use of highly varied water-demand coefficients for 

estimation of livestock withdrawals suggests that uncertainty 

associated with estimates of these withdrawals could be of 

concern for water-resource evaluations at various spatial scales 

of interest. However, with notable dairy operations in various 

watersheds in Wisconsin, New York, and Michigan, the uncertainty of these withdrawal estimates could be of most concern 

for water-resource evaluations at more local spatial scales 

of interest (generally HUC or smaller). About 34 percent of 

withdrawals occurred in six HUCs. Given that livestock withdrawals represent less than 1 percent of total water withdrawals in the basin, it is probable that uncertainty associated with 

these estimates of withdrawals would be of limited concern 

for evaluations at larger scales of interest, particularly basinscale evaluations. 

Comparison with Great Lakes Commission 

Estimates

As an additional indication of estimation uncertainty, 

the estimates of water withdrawals compiled for the USGS 

Great Lakes Basin Pilot were compared with those compiled by the various Great Lakes States for the annual Great 

Lakes Commission water-use report (Great Lakes Commission, 2006). Although both the USGS estimates and the GLC 

estimates are derived, to a great extent, on withdrawal data 

and estimates reported by users to the various Great Lakes 

States, the sources for the USGS and GLC estimates do not 

completely overlap, and unique methods of estimation are 

employed by the USGS for unreported usage. For the comparison, the most recently available estimates from the GLC 

are for 2004, whereas the USGS estimates represent use in 

20052. Therefore, noted discrepancies between the USGS and 

GLC withdrawal estimates can be explained by differences 

in the estimate methodologies, as well as temporal variability 

in use. Discrepancies in the estimates also may be associated 

with differences in category definitions used by the USGS 

and those used by the GLC. For example, the GLC includes 

a category designated “other” to account for certain miscellaneous uses (withdrawals), such as for maintaining levels for 

navigation and creation of fish and wildlife habitat. Some of 

the uses included in this category may be accounted for in one 

of the designated USGS categories, but others may be ones 

considered “nonbeneficial” and thus not included in the USGS 

accounting. For the comparison of estimates, some adjustments were made to associate them as similarly as possible. 

Additionally, withdrawals from the four New York HUCs 

(04159304–04159307) omitted in the accountings elsewhere 

in this report were included to better associate the USGS and 

GLC estimates for New York. For the comparison, the relative 

percent difference (RPD) method was used (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989). Results are presented in table 17.

Although some large discrepancies between the USGS 

and GLC estimates are evident in table 17, most of these are 

associated with categories involving relatively small quantities 

of water, so the differences in water quantities are small. The 

most notable discrepancies are in surface-water withdrawals 

for irrigation, livestock, and industrial use estimated for New 

2

 A recently available report from the GLC (Great Lakes Commission, 

2009) allows comparison of 2005 withdrawals within the Great Lakes Basin, 

as estimated by the USGS and GLC. The USGS estimate of total withdrawals 

is 31.17 Bgal/d; the GLC estimate is 27.34 Bgal/d (RPD of -13). The principal 

discrepancy is between the estimated withdrawals for thermoelectric-power 

generation in Wisconsin (USGS, 5,987 Mgal/d; GLC, 3,578 Mgal/d).
Table 17A. Comparison of surface-water-withdrawal estimates by the U.S. Geological Survey, 2005, and Great Lakes Commission, 2004, for the Grea[U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimates for 2005 and Great Lakes Commission (GLC) estimates for 20041. Estimation methods and water-use categories differ to some extenmillion gallons per day; relative percent difference2 is calculated from unrounded numbers; NA, not applicable; NE, not estimated] Illlinois Indiana Michigan 

Great Lakes Commission water use category USGS GLC Relative percent difference USGS GLC Relative percent difference USGS GLC Relative percent difference USGS 

Total withdrawals 1,800.56 1,826.29 1 2,479.70 2,649.80 7 10,758.87 10,420.80 -3 589.2

Public supply3 1,021.04 1,003.65 -2 110.08 125.09 13 882.61 896.95 2 34.3Domestic4 2.68 3.87 36 16.74 13.86 -19 NA NE NA 1.3Thermoelectric power 758.32 799.95 5 727.86 766.10 5 9,144.84 8,880.89 -3 190.2Industrial5 18.52 18.82 2 1,617.56 1,738.74 7 621.01 539.66 -14 362.5Irrigation6 NA NE NA 5.23 4.65 -12 110.41 103.30 -7 .3Livestock7 NA NE NA 2.23 1.36 -48 NA NE NA .4

New York Ohio Pennsylvania 

Great Lakes Commission water use category USGS GLC Relative percent difference USGS GLC Relative percent difference USGS GLC Relative percent difference USGS 

Total withdrawals 3,995.94 4,231.80 6 3,407.72 2,991.18 -13 40.98 43.34 6 5,712.9

Public supply 500.98 649.76 26 533.44 526.90 -1 31.36 32.31 3 246.9Domestic4 .00 63.75 200 8.69 .00 -200 .00 .00 0 .0Thermoelectric power 3,362.80 3,252.03 -3 2,517.99 2,293.50 -9 .00 .00 0 5,232.4Industrial5 94.43 254.67 92 326.22 156.85 -70 5.66 7.79 32 194.6Irrigation6 14.44 4.35 -107 13.65 11.95 -13 .45 1.04 79 4.0Livestock7 23.29 7.24 -105 7.73 1.98 -118 3.51 2.20 -46 34.8

1Great Lakes Commission (2006); as estimated for “All Facilities”; GLC “other” use may be included in USGS estimates; USGS estimates include those New York 8-digit wa

04150307) not included elsewhere in this report. 2U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989). 3For Illinois, public-supply withdrawals are included as an “Interbasin Diversion” in GLC accounting and public-supply withdrawals at one institution are excluded because thresidential withdrawals, as defined by the GLC.

4Includes self-supplied residential, commercial, institutional use; for Pennsylvania and New York, does not include unreported withdrawals for commercial use.5Includes manufacturing and mining use.6Includes agriculture, landscape, and golf course use.7Includes fish-hatchery and other aquaculture use.
Table 17B. Comparison of groundwater-withdrawal estimates by the U.S. Geological Survey, 2005, and Great Lakes Commission, 2004, for the Great [U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimates for 2005 and Great Lakes Commission (GLC) estimates for 20041. Estimation methods and water-use categories differ to some extenlion gallons per day; relative percent difference2 is calculated from unrounded numbers; NA, not applicable; NE, not estimated]

Illlinois Indiana Michigan 

Great Lakes Commission 

water use category USGS GLC

Relative 

percent 

difference

USGS GLC

Relative 

percent 

difference

USGS GLC

Relative 

percent 

difference

USGS 

Total withdrawals 0.09 0.02 -127 144.39 124.15 -15 564.19 527.44 -7 10.02 Public supply .01 .00 -200 60.74 54.30 -11 260.15 247.25 -5 5.99 Domestic3 .08 .02 -120 41.48 35.94 -14 NA NE NA 3.28 Thermoelectric power .00 .00 0 .27 .27 0 4.07 4.11 1 .11 Industrial4 .00 .00 0 11.45 13.64 -17 102.3 89.10 -14 .03 Irrigation5 NA NE NA 26.88 15.67 -53 197.67 186.98 -6 .01 Livestock6 NA NE NA 3.57 4.33 -19 NA NE NA .60 

New York Ohio Pennsylvania 

Great Lakes Commission 

water use category USGS GLC

Relative 

percent

difference

USGS GLC

Relative 

percent 

difference

USGS GLC

Relative 

percent

difference

USGS 

Total withdrawals 119.04 133.88 12 102.36 143.70 34 7.65 6.23 -20 273.91 Public supply 27.78 44.89 47 33.56 38.12 13 2.25 1.85 -20 69.44 Domestic3 55.48 63.52 14 47.88 56.70 17 2.36 3.10 27 32.34 Thermoelectric power .00 .00 0 .00 .05 200 .00 .03 200 1.03 Industrial4 13.20 11.99 -10 14.83 35.54 82 .13 .04 -106 24.72 Irrigation5 6.39 .15 -191 4.06 2.89 -34 .14 .01 -173 109.60 Livestock6 16.19 13.33 -19 2.03 10.40 135 2.77 1.20 -79 36.78 

1Great Lakes Commission (2006); as estimated for “All Facilities”; GLC “other” use may be included in USGS estimates; USGS estimates include those New York 8-digit HU

04150307) not included elsewhere in this report.

2U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989).3Includes self-supplied residential, commercial, institutional use; for Pennsylvania and New York, does not include unreported withdrawals for commercial use.4Includes manufacturing and mining use.5Includes agriculture, landscape, and golf course use.6Includes fish-hatchery and other aquaculture use.
62 Estimated Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use in the Great Lakes Basin of the United States in 2005

York (RPD of +92) and Ohio (RPD of −70) and for thermoelectric-power use estimated for Wisconsin (RPD of −56). For 

groundwater withdrawals, the most notable discrepancies are 

for irrigation and industrial use estimated for Wisconsin (RPD 

of −88 and +200, respectively) and industrial use estimated for 

New York (RPD of +82). Reasons for the discrepant estimates are uncertain. When the larger, more statistically robust 

basin-scale quantities are compared, then it is evident that the 

USGS and GLC estimates generally are in good agreement. 

Between estimates of both total withdrawals and total surfacewater withdrawals, the RPD is −10; between estimates of total 

groundwater withdrawals, the RPD is −8. These discrepancies 

can be explained, in large part, by the unique characteristics of 

the USGS and GLC estimate sets used in the comparison.

Data-Quality Summary and Suggested 

Improvements for Estimations of Use

In summary, the USGS-determined estimates of withdrawals and other elements of Great Lakes Basin water use 

presented in this report can be used with reasonable confidence for water-resources planning and evaluations of large 

spatial scales of interest. That is, the estimates reasonably 

represent the relative differences in and quantities of water 

withdrawals and other elements of water use at the basin scale 

and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the Great Lakes watershed 

and Great Lakes State scale. As spatial scales of interest 

become increasingly smaller, particularly as one approaches 

HUC-scale or smaller evaluations, uncertainty associated with 

the withdrawal and other estimates could be of increasingly 

greater concern. Those categories of use for which withdrawal 

estimates for the basin, in part or entirety, are derived using 

non-site-specific data most typically pose the greatest concern 

to planning and resource evaluations at various spatial scales 

of interest, but particularly smaller scales. Those categories 

include domestic and livestock use—for which withdrawal 

estimates in all basin states presently (2005) are derived by 

using coefficient-based methods—as well as aquaculture, 

mining, irrigation, and industrial use—for which the estimates 

in one or more basin states are derived by using coefficientbased methods. 

For the most part, those water users that potentially have 

the greatest impact on available water resources and related 

planning and evaluation—the largest water users (thermoelectric power, public supply, industry)—seemingly report a 

reasonably complete and accurate accounting of their water 

use. The apparent quality of withdrawal and other data made 

available by these users is attributable, in part, to various 

programs of regulatory and (or) public oversight. Additionally, 

the majority of states in the basin maintain either mandatory or 

well-developed voluntary water-use inventory programs that 

account for those uses. 

The most comprehensive accounting of water withdrawals in basin states seems to be from Indiana, Minnesota, and 

Ohio. Through mandatory reporting requirements, these 

states inventory site-specific water withdrawals for almost all 

categories of water use (although possibly with varying QA 

and oversight of the reportings). The quality and completeness 

of the reported and (or) estimated water-use data by all basin 

states likely have improved over the past several decades. 

However, these improvements may have been constrained 

by variable budget support for the programs during this time. 

Improvements are driven, in part, by an increasing public 

awareness of the societal benefits of accurate accounting of 

present water use, as necessary to manage water resources in a 

sustainable manner. 

Regardless of the scale of interest or level of waterresource planning and evaluations in the basin, the benefits—and in some cases, need—of continued improvements 

in the collection (measurement), availability (reporting), and 

methods for estimating water withdrawals and related use data 

for all categories of use should be evident. Likewise, it also 

should be evident that these estimations could benefit from 

improved methods of data analysis aimed at validating estimates and checking errors in measurement, estimation, reporting, and (or) tabulation of data. A notable challenge to improving the quality and reducing the uncertainty of withdrawal 

estimates in the basin seems to be improvement of the quality 

of those estimates representing typically unregulated use 

categories such as site-specific domestic and livestock use and 

to a lesser extent, irrigation use. In addition to limited regulatory oversight of their water use, these categories of use rely 

greatly on wells of relatively low pumping capacity that can be 

overlooked by inventory programs that focus on higher-capacity wells. As a consequence, there is a greater dependency on 

employing typically less accurate, coefficient-based methods 

for estimation of the water withdrawals associated with these 

uses. Although these uses collectively represent only about 

4 percent or less of total withdrawals in the basin, improvements in the quality of their estimated withdrawals should help 

reduce uncertainty associated with applying these estimates to 

variously scaled water-resource evaluations in the basin, particularly local-scale evaluations. Domestic-use estimates could 

be well served by improved accounting of the public-supply 

and self-served domestic populations, particularly in regard to 

the geographic location of the served populations. Details on 

populations that are served by public water that is brokered 

through many water-supply companies distributed throughout 

various counties and HUCs are particularly wanting. All the 

coefficient-based estimation methods would seem to benefit 

from review and possible updating of the applied coefficients, 

particularly the per-capita use (demand) coefficients applied 

to estimation of domestic and livestock water use. In some 

applications, such as for livestock use, there seems to be a 

need for more standardization of those coefficients (regionalized climate-based), and in others, such as for domestic use, 

the need for more local variation (climate and (or) urban-rural 

based). Finally, with use of reclaimed wastewater possibly 

increasing in the basin in future years, there seems to be 

increasing need throughout the basin states for establishment 

and (or) substantial improvements in inventory programs for 

the collection and availability of water-reuse data.
Summary 63

Summary

The USGS National Assessment of Water Availability 

and Use Program was asked by Congress to improve the 

ability to forecast water availability for future economic and 

environmental uses. With the Great Lakes Basin as a pilotstudy area, a principal objective of this effort is to improve 

the fundamental knowledge of the water balance of the basin, 

including the flows, storage, and water use by humans. This 

report contains estimates of water withdrawals in the basin 

during 2005, aggregated by 107 (of 111) 8-digit hydrologic 

(cataloging) units (HUCs) that constitute the United States 

part of the basin. Estimates of various associated elements of 

water use also are contained herein. The U.S. part of the basin 

encompasses parts of Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, 

and Ontario and their connecting channels, and it lies within 

eight states (Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Michigan, New 

York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin). Understanding 

how water use, including withdrawals, varies categorically, 

spatially, and temporally is important to the overall analysis of 

water availability in the basin.

Water-withdrawal estimates are included for the following categories of use: public supply, self-supplied domestic, 

thermoelectric power, industrial, irrigation, mining, livestock, 

aquaculture, and reclaimed wastewater; and, in part, for commercial use. Estimates of associated elements of water use 

include, among others, intensity of withdrawals (water use), 

publicly supplied and self-supplied domestic populations, 

irrigated acres, and consumptive use. Also discussed are trends 

in water withdrawals during 1985–2005 and the uncertainty of 

withdrawals and associated water-use data and estimates, by 

category of use and source of the estimates, for each state. 

Estimates of water withdrawals in the Great Lakes Basin 

indicate that about 30.3 Bgal/d was withdrawn for practically 

all categories of use in 2005. Less than 0.004 percent of the 

water withdrawn was saline, all of which was groundwater. 

Surface-water withdrawals totaled 28.8 Bgal/d or 95 percent 

of total withdrawals; about 24 Bgal/d was withdrawn from 

the Great Lakes or their connecting channels. Total withdrawals, and total surface-water withdrawals, have decreased 7 

percent since 1995, generally following the withdrawal trends 

of industrial use and that of the largest use—thermoelectric 

power (76 percent of surface-water withdrawals in 2005). 

Groundwater withdrawals have increased 3 percent since 1995 

and 33 percent since 1985. The substantial increase since 1985 

primarily results from increases in irrigation and domesticsupply withdrawals. In 2005, public-supply, self-supplied 

domestic, and irrigation withdrawals accounted for 81 percent 

of groundwater withdrawals. 

Gross per capita use in the basin (for all categories of 

use) was 1,320 gal/d, compared to the high of 1,510 gal/d in 

1990. The intensity of withdrawals (water use), measured as 

a function of land area, was 0.27 Mgal/d/mi2. Estimates of 

consumptive use in the basin, based solely on withdrawals and 

application of representative coefficients of use, indicated total 

consumptive use of about 1,950 Mgal/d, or 6 percent of total 

withdrawals. Consumptive-use totals were the greatest, about 

400–500 Mgal/d each, for public supply (excluding deliveries), irrigation, and thermoelectric power.

About 21.9 Bgal/d, or 72 percent of total withdrawals for 

2005, was used for thermoelectric-power generation. Essentially all of this water was derived from surface water and used 

for once-through cooling at powerplants. As such, the reuse 

potential of this water in the basin is high, with the majority of 

the withdrawn water returned to its surface-water source.

Public-supply withdrawals were 3.81 Bgal/d (13 percent of total withdrawals), with withdrawals declining by 

about 6 percent since 1985 and 13 percent since 1995. The 

population served by public supply increased about 5 percent from 1995 to 2005, suggesting more conservative use 

of water, more efficient distribution systems, and (or) reductions in deliveries to industrial users. About 77 percent of the 

population in the Great Lakes Basin obtained drinking water 

from public suppliers, compared to 83 percent in 1985 and 

78 percent in 1995. Surface water has consistently provided 

about 88 percent of the total withdrawals for public supply 

since 1985.

Self-supplied industrial withdrawals totaled 2.93 Bgal/d, 

about 33 percent less than in 1985 and possibly as much as 

30 percent less than in 1995. Surface water was the source for 

95 percent of industrial withdrawals. Industrial withdrawals 

peaked during about 1965–70 at 9 Bgal/d, with the peak in 

industrial activity in the basin. 

Combined withdrawals for mining, self-supplied 

domestic, irrigation, aquaculture, and livestock (in order of 

decreasing withdrawal rate) amounted to 1.63 Bgal/d, or only 

5 percent of total withdrawal. These combined withdrawals 

were distributed almost equally between surface-water and 

groundwater sources. Withdrawals in each of these categories, except livestock, increased almost continuously during 1985–2005. Mining withdrawals increased 103 percent 

and irrigation withdrawals 94 percent since 1985; livestock 

withdrawals decreased 26 percent from their peak in 1990. 

The number of irrigated acres for agriculture and golf courses, 

750,000 in 2005, increased continuously since 1985, with 

an increase of 56 percent during this period. Associated with 

this increase in irrigated acreage is a 94-percent increase in 

irrigation withdrawals. 

There appears to be virtually no use of reclaimed 

wastewater in the basin for industrial or irrigation applications; however, this assessment may be a function of the lack 

of available wastewater-reuse data. News media and other 

information sources suggest an increasing use of reclaimed 

wastewater in and near the basin in recent years. Although not 

accounted for by all states for 2005, self-supplied commercial 

withdrawals appear to represent only a fraction of total withdrawals in the basin. Past basin accountings (1995 and earlier) 

and available accountings from selected states for 2005 indicate that commercial withdrawals represent less than 1 percent 

of total withdrawals. Other studies indicate that commercial 

withdrawals may be somewhat underestimated because of 

accounting limitations.
64 Estimated Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use in the Great Lakes Basin of the United States in 2005

Within the Great Lakes Basin, the Lake Michigan 

watershed (39 percent of the basin land area) accounted for 

15.0 Bgal/d, or 49 percent, of total water withdrawals; an 

estimated 12.3 Bgal/d was withdrawn directly from Lake 

Michigan. The State of Michigan (51 percent of the basin land 

area) accounted for about 38 percent of total water withdrawals, representing the largest surface-water and groundwater 

withdrawals in the basin. Surface-water withdrawals primarily 

were for thermoelectric power, and groundwater withdrawals 

were primarily for public-supply and self-supplied domestic 

purposes. A disproportionately large percentage of surfacewater withdrawals (6 percent, 1.80 Bgal/d) were in Illinois, 

given that this state represents less than 1 percent of the land 

area of the basin. Ninety percent of the Illinois population 

served by the water withdrawn from Lake Michigan for public 

supply resides outside the basin. Within land-based HUCs, the 

Lower Maumee (04100009) of Ohio accounted for the largest 

total withdrawal and total surface-water withdrawal (about 

0.75 Bgal/d). The St. Joseph (04050001) of Michigan and 

Indiana accounted for the largest total groundwater withdrawal 

(0.25 Bgal/d).

The largest thermoelectric-power, public-supply, and 

industrial withdrawals by HUC were directly from Lake 

Michigan; the largest mining withdrawals were directly from 

Lake Superior. For irrigation and self-supplied domestic, the 

largest withdrawals were from the St. Joseph; for aquaculture, 

the Boardman-Charlevoix (04060105); and for livestock, the 

Manitowoc (04030101) and St. Joseph.

The degree of uncertainty associated with estimates 

of water withdrawal varies by state and by category of use. 

Reported site-specific withdrawal data generally are available 

for major users, including thermoelectric-power, public-supply, and industrial users. Estimates for domestic and livestock 

withdrawals typically are derived at the county level by use 

of coefficients, population and (or) other data, then reapportioned at the watershed level on the basis of the percentage 

of the land area of a watershed within a county. The least 

uncertainty may be associated with withdrawal estimates for 

thermoelectric power and public supply; often these withdrawals are directly or indirectly measured and publicly reported by 

the facility. The greatest uncertainty might be associated with 

self-supplied domestic withdrawal estimates, because most 

withdrawals are estimated from per capita use coefficients and 

uncertain estimates of population served. 

References Cited

American Water Works Association, 2008, Water reuse rates 

and charges, survey results: 24 p., accessed August 25, 

2009, at http://www.awwa.org/files/Resources/Waterwiser/

references/PDFs/AWWAWaterReusePaperSept2008.pdf

Andreson, J., Moen, T., Ritchie, J., Baer, B., Johnson, J., 

Savona, C., Swartz, M., and Van Til, R., 2000, Estimated 

water use for agriculture irrigation in Michigan 1997–1999: 

Michigan Department of Agriculture, Michigan State University, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 

unpublished report [variously paged].

Arihood, L.D., 2009, Processing, analysis, and general evaluation of well-driller logs for estimating hydrogeologic 

parameters of the glacial sediments in a ground-water flow 

model of the Lake Michigan Basin: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5184, 26 p.

Avery, Charles, 1999, Estimated water withdrawals and use 

in Illinois, 1992: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

99–97, 49 p.

Bozek, C.R., 2002, A towering challenge: ElectricPerspectives, v. 27, no. 1, accessed December 18, 2003, at http://

www.eei./magazine/editorial_content/nonav_stories/2002-

01-01-tower.htm

City-Data Forum, 2007, The Great Lakes—Industrial wasteland or national treasure?: Accessed April 11, 2008, at 

http://www.city-data.com/forum/general-u-s/211055-greatlakes-industrial-wasteland-natural-treasure.html

Coon, W.F., and Sheets, R.A., 2006, Estimate of ground water 

in storage in the Great Lakes Basin, United States, 2006: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2006–5180, 19 p.

Coordinating Committee on Great Lakes Basic Hydraulic and 

Hydrologic Data, 1977, Coordinated Great Lakes physical data: Accessed February 13, 2008, at http://www.lre.

usace.army.mil/_kd/Items/actions.cfm?action=Show&item_

id=3566&destination=ShowItem

Council of Great Lakes Governors, 2001, The Great Lakes 

Charter Annex: Accessed December 6, 2007, at http://www.

cglg.org/projects/water/docs/GreatLakesCharterAnnex.pdf

Dziegielewski, Ben, and Bik, Thomas, 2006, Water use benchmarks for thermoelectric power generation, project completion report: Accessed August 26, 2009, at http://www.geog.

siu.edu/geography_info/research/documents/ThermoReport.

pdf
References Cited 65

Encyclopedia of Cleveland History, 2003, Rock salt: Cleveland, Ohio, Case Western Reserve University and the Western Reserve Historical Society, accessed April 28, 2009, at 

http://ech.cwru.edu/ech-cgi/article.pl?id=RS6

Friends of the St. Joe River Watershed, 2009, About the watershed: Accessed April 6, 2009, at http://www.stjoeriver.net/

about.htm

Grannemann, N.G., Hunt, R.J., Nicholas, J.R., Reilly, T.E., 

and Winter, T.C., 2000, The importance of ground water 

in the Great Lakes Region: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 00–4008, 14 p.

Grannemann, N.G., and Reeves, H.W., 2005, Great Lakes 

Basin water availability and use—A study of the National 

Assessment of Water Availability and Use Program: 

U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2005–3113, 4 p.

Great Lakes Commission, 2003, Toward a water resources 

management decision support system for the Great LakesSt. Lawrence River Basin—Status of data and information on water resources, water use, and related ecological 

impacts: Ann Arbor, Mich., 142 p.

Great Lakes Commission, 2006, Annual report of the Great 

Lakes regional water use database repository representing 

2004 water use data in gallons: Accessed January 8, 2006, at 

http://www.glc.org/wateruse/database/pdf/2004-gallons.pdf

Great Lakes Commission, 2009, Annual report of the Great 

Lakes regional water use database repository representing 2005 water use data in gallons: Accessed December 

3, 2009, at http://glc.org/wateruse/database/pdf/2005%20

Water%20Use%20Report.pdf

Great Lakes Information Network, 2008, People in the Great 

Lakes region: Accessed February 24, 2008, at http://www.

great-lakes.net/envt/flora-fauna/people.html

Horn, M.A.; Moore, R.B.; Hayes, Laura; and Flanagan, S.M., 

2008, Methods for and estimates of 2003 projected water 

use in the Seacoast region, southeastern New Hampshire: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2007–5157, 87 p.

Hough, J.L., 1958, Geology of the Great Lakes: Urbana, Ill., 

University of Illinois Press, 313 p.

Hutson, S.S., 2007, Guidelines for preparation of State wateruse estimates for 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques 

and Methods 4–E1, 28 p., accessed November 26, 2007, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/2007/tm4e1/pdf/tm4-e1.pdf

Hutson, S.S., Barber, N.L., Kenny, J.F., Linsey, K.S., Lumia, 

D.S., and Maupin, M.A., 2004, Estimated use of water in 

the United States in 2000: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 

1268, 46 p.

Imperial Valley Water Authority, 2007, Agricultural irrigation use data: Accessed November 29, 2007, at http://www.

outfitters.com/~ivwa/Agricul.html

Injerd, Daniel, 2005, Annex 2001—An update: Presentation 

from the conference Straddling the Divide—Water Supply 

Planning in the Lake Michigan Region, Chicago, Ill., February 15–16, 2005, accessed December 3, 2007, at http://www.

nipc.org/environment/slmrwsc/conferences/1C_Injerd.pdf

International Joint Commission, 2000, Protection of the waters 

of the Great Lakes—Final report to the governments of 

Canada and the United States: Accessed February 13, 2008, 

at http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/html/finalreport.html

Kenny, J.F., Barber, N.L., Hutson, S.S., Linsey, K.S., 

Lovelace, J.K., and Maupin, M.A., 2009, Estimated use of 

water in the United States in 2005: U.S. Geological Survey 

Circular 1344, 52 p.

Kosin, Phil, 2007, Taking a tough look at golf industry—

Bloom is off rose for golf; courses face adversity: 

Chicagoland Golf, October 2007, accessed April 15, 2008, 

at http://www.chicagolandgolf.com/toughlookgolfindustry.

html

Lovelace, J.K., 2009a, Methods for estimating water withdrawals for aquaculture in the United States, 2005: U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–

5042, 13 p.

Lovelace, J.K., 2009b, Methods for estimating water 

withdrawals for mining in the United States, 2005: U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–

5053, 7 p.

Lovelace, J.K., 2009c, Method for estimating water withdrawals for livestock in the United States, 2005: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5041, 7 p.

MacKichan, K.A., 1951, Estimated use of water in the United 

States, 1950: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 115, 13 p.

MacKichan, K.A., 1957, Estimated use of water in the United 

States, 1955: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 398, 18 p.

MacKichan, K.A., and Kammerer, J.C., 1961, Estimated use 

of water in the United States, 1960: U.S. Geological Survey 

Circular 456, 26 p.

Meng, Yi; Luo, Shihui; and Huang, Feng, 2007, Water reuse—

An integral part of sustainable water resource planning: Presentation to the NE Illinois Regional Water Supply Planning 

Group, June 26, 2007, accessed August 26, 2009, at http://

www.chicagoareaplanning.org/watersupply/documents/

presentations/2007-06-26_water_reuse.pdf
66 Estimated Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use in the Great Lakes Basin of the United States in 2005

Micheletti, W.C., and Burns, J.M., 2002, Emerging issues and 

needs in power plant cooling systems in Proceedings of the 

workshop on Electric Utilities and Water—Emerging Issues 

and R&D Needs, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, July 23–24, 

2002: 14 p., accessed April 27, 2009, at http://www.netl.doe.

gov/publications/proceedings/02/EUW/Micheletti_JMB.

PDF

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 1994, 

Salt—A Michigan resource: 2 p., accessed April 28, 2009, 

at http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-ogs-gimdlGGSB.pdf

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2005, Water 

withdrawals for golf course irrigation in Michigan in 2004: 

9 p., accessed September 17, 2008, at http://www.deq.state.

mi.us/documents/deq-wd-wurp-golf04.pdf

Michigan Sea Grant Program, 1985, The Great Lakes, an 

environmental atlas and resource book: Michigan Sea Grant 

Extension Bulletins E–1866–70, 5 sheets. 

Miller, J.A., ed., 2000, Ground water atlas of the United 

States: U.S. Geological Survey [variously paged]. 

Morikawa, Mari; Morrison, Jason; and Gleick, Peter, 2007, 

Corporate reporting on water—A review of eleven global 

industries: Oakland, Calif., Pacific Institute [variously 

paged], accessed August 26, 2009, at http://www.pacinst.

org/reports/water_reporting/corporate_reporting_on_water.

pdf

Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium, 2003, 

National Land Cover Database: Accessed January 31, 2008, 

at http://www.mrlc.gov/

Murray, C.R., 1968, Estimated use of water in the United 

States, 1965: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 556, 53 p.

Murray, C.R., and Reeves, E.B., 1972, Estimated use of water 

in the United States in 1970: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 676, 37 p.

Murray, C.R., and Reeves, E.B., 1977, Estimated use of water 

in the United States in 1975: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 765, 39 p.

Muskegon County Wastewater Management System, 2009, 

Treatment system: Accessed November 3, 2009, at http://

www.muskegoncountywastewater.com/treatmentservice.

shtml

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2007, 

U.S. climate at a glance: National Climatic Data Center, 

accessed November 27, 2007, at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/

oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2009, 

Land cover data sets for the Great Lakes region—Change 

Analysis Program (C-CAP): Accessed March 3, 2009, at 

http://www.csc.noaa.gov/crs/lca/ccap.html and http://www.

csc.noaa.gov/crs/lca/tech_cls.html

Natural Resources Canada, 2003, Welcome to GeoGratis: 

Accessed February 14, 2008, at http://geogratis.cgdi.gc.ca/

geogratis/en/index.html

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2008, Watershed 

Boundary Dataset (WBD): Accessed April 7, 2008, at http://

www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/watershed/

Neff, B.P., and Killian, J.R., 2003, The Great Lakes water 

balance—Data availability and annotated bibliography 

of selected references: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 02–4296, 37 p.

Neff, B. P., and Nicholas, J.R., 2005, Uncertainty in the Great 

Lakes water balance: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2004–5100, 42 p. 

Neff, B.P., Piggott, A.R., and Sheets, R.A., 2006, Estimation 

of shallow ground-water recharge in the Great Lakes Basin: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2005–5284, 20 p.

Northeastern Illinois Regional Water Supply Planning Group, 

2009, October newsletter: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for 

Planning, accessed August 26, 2009, at http://www.cmap.

illinois.gov/OctoberNewsletter.aspx

Sanford, K.F., 1995, Solution salt mining in New York [abs], 

presentation from joint meeting of New York State Geological Association and Eastern Section—American Association of Petroleum Geologists, October 1995: New York 

State Department of Environmental Conservation, accessed 

April 28, 2009, at http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/1558.html

Office of Management and Budget, 1987, Standard industrial 

classification manual: Washington, D.C., U.S. Government 

Printing Office, 705 p.

Pebbles, Victoria, 2003a, Measuring and estimating consumptive use of the Great Lakes water: Ann Arbor, Mich., Great 

Lakes Commission, 18 p., accessed August 27, 2009, at 

http://www.glc.org/wateruse/wrmdss/finalreport/pdf/CU_

Briefing.pdf

Pebbles, Victoria, 2003b, Consumptive use in the Great lakes 

region and basin—Annotated bibliography of selected references: Ann Arbor, Mich., Great Lakes Commission, 11 p., 

accessed August 27, 2009, at http://www.glc.org/wateruse/

wrmdss/finalreport/pdf/CU_biblio.pdf

Seaber, P.R., Kapinos, F.P., and Knapp, G.L., 1987, Hydrologic unit maps: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply 

Paper 2294, 63 p.
References Cited 67

Shaffer, K.H., 2009, Variations in withdrawal, return flow, and 

consumptive use of water in Ohio and Indiana, with selected 

data from Wisconsin, 1999–2004: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5096, 93 p.

Shaffer, K.H., and Runkle, D.L., 2007, Consumptive water-use 

coefficients for the Great Lakes Basin and climatically similar areas: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2007–5197, 191 p.

Sheets, R.A., and Simonson, L.A., 2006, Compilation of 

regional ground-water divides for principal aquifers 

corresponding to the Great Lakes Basin, United States: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2006–5102, 23 p.

Solley, W.B., Chase, E.B., and Mann, W.B., IV, 1983, Estimated use of water in the United States in 1980: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1001, 56 p.

Solley, W.B., Merk, C.F., and Pierce, R.R., 1988, Estimated 

use of water in the United States in 1985: U.S. Geological 

Survey Circular 1004, 82 p.

Solley, W.B., Pierce, R.R., and Perlman, H.A., 1993, Estimated use of water in the United States in 1990: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1081, 76 p.

Solley, W.B., Pierce, R.R., and Perlman, H.A., 1998, Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1200, 71 p.

University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute, 2004, Aquaculture: Accessed April 16, 2009, at http://www.seagrant.wisc.

edu/aquaculture/

U.S. Congress, 1972, Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Public Law 92–500, Title 33, 

Chapter 26, subchapter III, Section 1326 (a) and 1326 (b) 

[Thermal discharges]: Accessed April 27, 2009, at http://

www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/33/1326.html

U.S. Congress, 1977, Clean Water Act of 1977, Public Law 

92–217, Title 33, Chapter 26, subchapter I, Section 1251: 

Accessed April 27, 2009, at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/

uscode/33/1251.html

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2007, 2002 Census of agriculture, volume 1, 

county level data: Accessed November 30, 2007, at http://

www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/index2.htm

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2008a, 2002 Census of agriculture, volume 1, 

geographic area series, farm and ranch irrigation survey: 

Accessed February 12, 2008, at http://www.nass.usda.gov/

Census/Create_Census_FRIS.jsp

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2008b, 2005 Census of aquaculture: Accessed 

February 12, 2008, at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/

Publications/2002/Aquaculture/index.asp

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural 

Statistics Service, 2009a, 2002 Census of agriculture, 

2002 Census publications, Census quick stats 2.0 beta: 

Accessed April 3, 2009, at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/

Publications/2002/

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2009b, 2002 Census of agriculture, 2002 

Census publications, Ag atlas maps, livestock and animals: 

Accessed April 3, 2009, at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/

Publications/2002/Ag_Atlas_Maps/Livestock_and_Animals/ 

index.asp

U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 1992, 

Census of population and housing, 1990, summary social, 

economic, and housing characteristics: U.S. Bureau of the 

Census 1990 CPH–5–16, 314 p., apps.

U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, 

United States Census 2000: Accessed August 16, 2007, at 

http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html

U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005, 

Table 1. Annual estimates of the population of metropolitan 

and micropolitan statistical areas—April 1, 2000 to July 1, 

2005: Accessed February 7, 2008, at http://www.census.gov/

population/www/estimates/metropop/2005/cbsa-01-fmt.xls

U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 2006, 

County population and estimated components of population 

change, all counties: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005, accessed 

March 21, 2006, at http://www.census.gov/popest/datasets.

html

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, 2007, Energy Information Administration glossary: 

Accessed November 29, 2007, at http://www.eia.doe.gov/

glossary/glossary_n.htm 

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, 2008a, Form EIA–767 database: Accessed February 

12, 2008, at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/

eia767.html

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, 2008b, Form EIA–906 and EIA–920 databases: 

Accessed February 12, 2008, at http://www.eia.doe.gov/

cneaf/electricity/page/eia906_920.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989, Preparing perfect project plans—Pocket guide for preparation of quality 

assurance project plans: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA/600/9–89/087, 62 p.
68 Estimated Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use in the Great Lakes Basin of the United States in 2005

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004, Public access 

to information & public involvement: Office of Water, EPA 

816–F–04–039, 3 p., accessed August 30, 2009, at http://

www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwa/pdfs/fs_30ann_publicinvolve_

web.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006a, References 

for Great Lakes statistics: Accessed February 21, 2008, at 

http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/statsrefs.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006b, Senate Committee report on S.1316 Report 104–169, Section 24. Definitions: Accessed March 29, 2008, at http://www.epa.gov/

OGWDW/guide/sen104.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007, Safe drinking 

water information system (SDWIS), query form, search the 

SDWIS database: Accessed February 12, 2008, at http://

www.epa.gov/enviro/html/sdwis/sdwis_query.html

U.S. Geological Survey, 2007, Hydrologic unit maps—What 

are hydrologic units?: Accessed February, 11, 2008, at 

http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html

U.S. Geological Survey, 2009, Water use in the United States: 

Accessed October 31, 2009, at http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/

Washington State Department of Ecology, 2005, Frequently 

asked questions about reclaimed water use: 10 p., accessed 

December 3, 2007, at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0510012.

pdf

Wilcox, D.A., Thompson, T.A., Booth, R.K., and Nicholas, 

J.R., 2007, Lake-level variability and water availability in 

the Great Lakes: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1311, 

25 p.
Glossary 69

Glossary

Water-use terminology has changed over time in the series of USGS circulars on water 

use (MacKichan, 1951, 1957; MacKichan and Kammerer, 1961; Murray, 1968; Murray and 

Reeves, 1972, 1977; Solley and others, 1983, 1988, 1993, 1998; Hutson and others, 2004; and 

Kenny and others, 2009). For the 1950 and 1955 circulars, water use was defined only as water 

withdrawals. In the 1960 circular, the term was redefined to include consumptive use of water 

as well as withdrawals. With the beginning of the USGS NWUIP in 1978, the term was again 

redefined to include return flow and offstream and instream uses. In the 1985 circular, the term 

was redefined to include withdrawals plus deliveries from public suppliers. For the 2000 circular, the definition of water use returned to that in the earliest reports: water withdrawals. For the 

2005 circular, on which this report on water use in the Great Lakes Basin is based, water use 

is defined as withdrawals plus deliveries from public suppliers to domestic (residential) users. 

The following terms are referenced in this report and also can be found in the more extensive 

glossary of terms in the water-use circulars.

A

animal-specialties water use Water use 

associated with the production of fish in captivity, except for fish hatcheries, and the raising of horses and such fur-bearing animals, as 

rabbits and pets. Animal-specialties water-use 

estimates were included in some previous 

water-use circulars but were combined with 

the livestock or aquaculture categories for 

2000 and 2005. See also aquaculture water 

use, fish-farm water use, livestock water use, 

and rural water use.

aquaculture water use Water use associated with the farming of organisms that live in 

water—such as finfish and shellfish—and offstream water use associated with fish hatcheries. See also fish-farm water use, fish-hatchery 

water use, animal-specialties water use, and 

livestock water use.

B

blowdown The continuous or intermittent 

discharge, or purging, of a small amount of 

circulating water, such as in a boiler. Blowdown normally is expressed as a percentage 

of the water being circulated. Its purpose is 

to prevent an increase in the concentration 

of solids in the water due to evaporation. 

See also evaporation.

C

commercial water use Water for motels, 

hotels, restaurants, office buildings, 

other commercial facilities, military and 

nonmilitary institutions—and in water-use circulars for 1990 and 1995, water for offstream 

fish hatcheries. Water may be obtained from 

a public-supply system or may be self-supplied. Commercial water-use estimates were 

included in some previous water-use circulars 

but were omitted for 2000 and 2005; available 

estimates from reporting states are included 

in this report. See also fish-hatchery water 

use, public-supply water use, public-supply 

deliveries, and self-supplied water use.

consumptive use The part of water withdrawn [for a particular use] that is evaporated, 

transpired, incorporated into products or 

crops, consumed by humans or livestock, or 

otherwise removed from the immediate water 

environment. Consumptive use estimates 

were included in some previous water-use 

circulars but were omitted for 2000 and 2005. 

Also referred to as “water consumed.”

conveyance loss Water lost in transit from 

a pipe, canal, conduit, or ditch by leakage or 

evaporation (a negative conveyance loss). 

Generally, the water is not available for further use; however, leakage from an irrigation 

ditch, for example, may percolate to a groundwater source and be available for further use. 

Also represents water that infiltrates a distribution system and is usually water from a 

high water table (a positive conveyance loss). 

Conveyance-loss estimates were included in 

some previous water-use circulars but were 

omitted for 2000 and 2005. See also evaporation and irrigation water use.
70 Estimated Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use in the Great Lakes Basin of the United States in 2005

cooling system An equipment system that 

provides water for cooling purposes, such 

as to condensers at powerplants or at factories, and includes water intakes and outlets; 

cooling towers; and ponds, pumps, and pipes. 

Cooling systems are designated by one of two 

principal types (designs), which are delineated 

on the basis of whether or not water used in 

the system as steam to drive power-generating 

turbines and to cool condensers is recycled 

(recirculated) and measures are taken to 

reduce the temperature of the heated water. 

See closed-loop cooling systems and oncethrough cooling systems.

closed-loop Cooling systems where 

water is withdrawn from a source, 

circulated through heat exchangers, then 

cooled, and recycled. A cooling pond 

(a shallow reservoir with a large surface area) or cooling tower (into which 

heated water is sprayed and then cooled 

by evaporation) may be used to reduce 

the heat of water circulated through heat 

exchangers. Subsequent water withdrawals are used to replace water lost to 

evaporation, blowdown, drift, and leakage and, accordingly, results in a much 

smaller return flow than once-through 

cooling. This type of cooling-system 

typically uses less water than a oncethrough system, but has a higher percentage of consumptive use (evaporation), 

typically greater than 60 percent (Solley 

and others, 1998). See also cooling system, cooling-system type, once-through 

cooling system, industrial water use, and 

thermoelectric-power water use. See also 

cooling system and evaporation.

once-through Cooling systems in which 

the water is withdrawn from a source, 

circulated through heat exchangers, 

and then returned to a body of water 

at a higher temperature. Water is used 

only one time in the turbine-driving 

and condenser-cooling processes before 

it is returned to the water source. The 

water source typically is a river or large 

lake or reservoir. Once-through cooling 

systems may be referred to as open-loop 

systems. Although once-through cooling 

requires substantial water withdrawals, 

the consumption is low—usually less 

than 3 percent (Solley and others, 1998). 

See also cooling system, cooling system 

type, closed-loop cooling system, industrial water use, and thermoelectric-power 

water use. See also cooling system.

D

domestic water use Water used for all 

such indoor household purposes as drinking, 

food preparation, bathing, washing clothes 

and dishes, flushing toilets, and such outdoor 

purposes as watering lawns and gardens. 

Term used in water-use circulars before 

2000 to describe the combined public-supply 

deliveries to domestic (residential) users and 

self-supplied domestic withdrawals. For 2000 

and 2005, domestic water use refers only to 

self-supplied domestic withdrawals. See also

public-supply deliveries, public-supply 

water use, rural water use, and self-supplied 

water use.

drift Fine water droplets blown out of a 

cooling tower along with exhaust air, usually 

expressed as a percentage of water circulated.

E

elements of use Those data that detail 

the various aspects water use. Includes the 

components of the water cycle from removal 

of water from its source to its disposal, the 

factors that may contribute to water use, and 

indicators of the extent of water use. For the 

USGS National Water Use Inventory Program, estimation of the quantities of certain 

elements of use is considered mandatory. 

For the 2005 compilation for counties and 

watersheds designated by 8-digit hydrologic (cataloging) unit code, these elements 

included self-supplied withdrawals for all 

categories of use by source (surface water 

and groundwater) and type (freshwater and 

saline) of water; reclaimed wastewater (for 

irrigation and industrial use); total population; population served by public supply; 

public-supply deliveries for domestic use; 

self-supplied domestic population; withdrawals by cooling-system type (once-through and 

closed-loop) and power generated for thermoelectric power; and irrigated acreage by type 

of irrigation (sprinkler, microirrigation, and 

surface). Estimates for each of these elements 

are presented in this study. Other elements for 
Glossary 71

which estimates are presented include land 

acreage (basin, watershed, and state), intensity of withdrawals, gross per capita use, and 

application rate for irrigated lands. 

evaporation The change of water from a 

liquid form into a vapor state, such as water 

evaporating from pools, large bodies of water, 

and runoff from car-washing or irrigation 

systems; also includes evaporation through 

dehumidifiers and from heating and cooling 

processes in industrial facilities and thermoelectric powerplants. See also evapotranspiration and transpiration. 

evapotranspiration A collective term used 

to include water discharged to the atmosphere 

as a result of plant transpiration and evaporation from soil and surface-water bodies. 

See also evaporation and transpiration. 

F

fish-farm water use Water used for the 

production of finfish and shellfish under controlled feeding, sanitation, and harvesting procedures for commercial purposes. Water use 

by fish farms is classified in the aquaculture 

category. See also animal-specialties water 

use, aquaculture water use, and fish-hatchery 

water use. 

fish-hatchery water use Water used for 

raising fish for later release and in association with the operation of fish hatcheries or 

fishing preserves. Fish-hatchery water use is 

classified in the aquaculture category. See also 

aquaculture water use, commercial water use, 

and fish-farm water use. 

freshwater Water that contains less than 

1,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of dissolved 

solids; generally, more than 500 mg/L of dissolved solids is undesirable for drinking and 

many industrial uses. For 2005, the dissolvedsolids limit does not define freshwater for 

public-water supply use; for this use, freshwater is considered water that does not require 

desalination or dilution to make it potable. 

See also saline water. 

G

gigawatt-hour (GWh) An electrical energy 

unit of measure equal to 1,000,000 watts of 

power supplied to, or taken from, an electric 

circuit steadily for 1 hour.

Great Lakes Basin In a general sense, watersheds within eight states of the United States 

(Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New 

York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin) and 

two Canadian provinces (Ontario and Quebec) that directly or indirectly drain surface 

water or streamflow to one or more of the five 

Great Lakes (Erie, Huron, Michigan, Ontario, 

Superior). In this report, Great Lakes Basin 

water-use data are limited to the United States 

part of 107 watersheds described by 8-digit 

hydrologic unit codes (HUCs). 

Great Lakes watershed Combination of 

individual watersheds cataloged by 8-digit 

hydrologic (cataloging) unit codes (HUCs) 

that directly or indirectly drain surface water 

or streamflow to one of the five Great Lakes 

(Erie, Huron, Michigan, Ontario, Superior). In 

this report, Great Lakes watershed water-use 

data are limited to the United States part of 

107 watersheds described by HUCs. 

gross per capita use For this report, an indicator of intensity of water use, measured as a 

function of population. Includes total water 

withdrawals by all categories of use and total 

population, expressed as the average amount 

of water used per person during the standard 

time period of a day, in gallons per day per 

person. Gross per capita use is not an accounting of that amount of water specifically used 

by individuals for purposes such as drinking 

and other domestic activities. That amount is 

often termed simply “per capita use.”

H

hydroelectric-power use The use of water 

in the generation of electricity at plants where 

the turbine generators are driven by falling 

water. Hydroelectric use is classified as an 

instream use. See also instream use.

hydrologic unit codes Hydrologic divisions 

and subdivisions of the United States in a 

hierarchy of successively smaller hydrologic 

units, which are classified into four levels: 

regions, sub-regions, accounting units, and 

cataloging units. The hydrologic units are 

arranged within each other, from the smallest (cataloging units) to the largest (regions). 

Each hydrologic unit is identified by a unique 

hydrologic unit code consisting of two to 

eight digits based on the four levels of classification in the hydrologic unit system. The 
72 Estimated Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use in the Great Lakes Basin of the United States in 2005

fourth level of classification is the 8-digit cataloging unit (HUC, in this report), the smallest element in the hierarchy of hydrologic 

units considered in this report. A cataloging 

unit is a geographic area representing part of 

all of a surface drainage basin, a combination 

of drainage basins, or a distinct hydrologic 

feature. There are 2,264 cataloging units in 

the Nation and 111 in the Great Lakes Basin, 

four of which drain into Canada and are not 

fully considered in this report. Cataloging 

units sometimes are called watersheds, as they 

are in selected applications this report.

I

industrial water use Water used for fabrication, processing, washing, and cooling, and 

includes such industries as chemical and 

allied products, food, mining, paper and allied 

products, petroleum refining, and steel. Term 

used in water-use circulars before 2000 to 

describe the combined public-supply deliveries to industrial users and self-supplied 

industrial withdrawals. For 2000 and 2005, 

industrial water use refers only to selfsupplied industrial withdrawals. See also

cooling system, cooling-system type, mining 

water use, public-supply deliveries, publicsupply water use, self-supplied water use, and 

thermoelectric-power water use.

instream water use Water used, but not 

withdrawn, from a surface-water source for 

such purposes as hydroelectric-power generation, navigation, water-quality improvement, 

fish propagation, biodiversity and habitat 

protection, and recreation. Instream wateruse estimates for hydroelectric power were 

included in water-use circulars before 2000.

intensity of withdrawals For this report, an 

indicator of intensity of water use, measured 

as a function of land area. Includes total water 

withdrawals by all categories of use and total 

land area, expressed as the average amount 

of water withdrawn within the standard 

area of a square mile, in gallons per day per 

square mile.

irrigation water use Water applied by an 

irrigation system to assist in the growing of 

crops, horticulture, and pastures or to maintain vegetative growth in recreational lands 

such as parks and golf courses. Irrigation 

includes water applied for pre-irrigation, frost 

protection, chemical application, weed control, field preparation, crop cooling, harvesting, dust suppression, leaching of salts from 

the root zone, and water lost in conveyance. 

See also conveyance loss, and irrigation systems: microirrigation, sprinkler, and surface.

irrigation systems Equipment used to 

distribute water to crops or other irrigated 

lands. Irrigation systems are grouped into the 

following three broad categories:

microirrigation A system that wets 

only a discrete portion of the soil surface 

in the vicinity of the plant by means of 

applicators operated under low pressure. The applicators can be placed on or 

below the surface of the ground or can 

be suspended from supports. Subsurface systems that control the height 

of the water table are included in this 

category. See also irrigation water use, 

sprinkler irrigation system, and surface 

irrigation system.

sprinkler A system in which water is 

applied by means of perforated pipes 

or nozzles operated under pressure as 

to form a spray pattern. See also irrigation water use, microirrigation, and 

surface irrigation.

surface A system by which water is 

distributed by flood, furrow, or gravity. 

Flood irrigation applies ponded water to 

the entire soil surface. Furrow irrigation 

uses furrows or rows to distribute water 

and restrict ponding to design locations 

and capacities. Gravity irrigation distributes water by gravity, not pumping, 

through networks of ditches or pipes. 

See also irrigation water use, microirrigation, and sprinkler irrigation.

J

K

L

livestock water use Water for livestock 

watering, feedlots, dairy operations, and other 

on-farm needs. Types of livestock include 

dairy cows and heifers, beef cattle and calves, 

sheep and lambs, goats, hogs and pigs, horses, 

and poultry. See also animal-specialties 
Glossary 73

water use, aquaculture water use, and rural 

water use.

M

mining water use Water used for the extraction of naturally occurring minerals including 

solids, such as coal, sand, gravel, and other 

ores; liquids, such as crude petroleum; and 

gases, such as natural gas. Also includes uses 

associated with quarrying, milling, and other 

preparations customarily done at the mine 

site or as part of a mining activity. Does not 

include water associated with dewatering of 

the aquifer that is not put to beneficial use. 

Also does not include water used in processing, such as smelting, refining petroleum, or 

slurry pipeline operations. These processing 

uses are included in industrial water use. 

See also industrial water use and self-supplied 

water use.

N

O

offstream water use Water withdrawn or 

diverted from a groundwater or surface-water 

source for aquaculture, commercial, domestic 

self-supply, industrial, irrigation, livestock, 

mining, public supply, thermoelectric power, 

and other uses. See also entries for each of the 

previously mentioned uses.

P

public-supply deliveries Amount of water 

delivered from a public supplier to users for 

domestic (residential), commercial, industrial, 

thermoelectric-power, irrigation or public-use 

purposes. Delivery estimates were included 

in some water-use circulars before 2000 but 

were omitted for 2000; deliveries to domestic 

users are included in the circular for 2005. 

See also commercial water use, domestic 

water use, industrial water use, thermoelectric-power water use, public-supply water use, 

and public water use.

public-supply water use Water withdrawn 

by public and private water suppliers that 

furnish water to at least 25 people or have 

a minimum of 15 connections. Public suppliers provide water for a variety of uses, 

such as domestic, commercial, industrial, 

thermoelectric-power, and public water use. 

See also commercial water use, domestic 

water use, industrial water use, thermoelectric-power water use, public-supply deliveries, 

and public water use.

public water use Water supplied from a 

public supplier and used for such purposes as 

firefighting, street washing, flushing of water 

lines, and maintaining municipal parks and 

swimming pools. Generally, public-use water 

is not billed by the public supplier. See also

public-supply deliveries, and public-supply 

water use.

Q

R

reclaimed wastewater Wastewater-treatment-plant effluent that has been diverted 

for beneficial use before it reaches a natural 

waterway or aquifer. Term used in previous 

water-use circulars. See also water use.

return flow Water that reaches a groundwater or surface-water source after release from 

the point of use and thus becomes available 

for further use. Return flow may be from 

industries, wastewater treatment plants, and 

other, often large, water users. Term used in 

previous water-use circulars. See also wastewater returns and water use.

rural water use Water used in suburban 

or farm areas for domestic and livestock 

needs. The water generally is self-supplied 

and includes domestic use, drinking water 

for livestock, and other uses such as dairy 

sanitation, cleaning, and waste disposal. Term 

used in previous water-use circulars. See also

animal-specialties water use, domestic water 

use, livestock water use, and self-supplied 

water use.

S

saline water use Use of water that contains 

1,000 mg/L, or more, of dissolved solids. 

Term used in previous water-use circulars. 

For 2005, water for public-supply use that 

requires desalination or dilution to make it 

potable is considered saline water. Generally, 

more than 500 mg/L of dissolved solids is 

undesirable for drinking and many industrial 

uses. See also freshwater.
74 Estimated Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use in the Great Lakes Basin of the United States in 2005 

self-supplied water use Water withdrawn 

from a groundwater or surface-water source 

by a user rather than being obtained from a 

public supply.

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 

codes Four-digit codes established by the 

Office of Management and Budget, published 

in 1987, and used in the classification of 

establishments by type of activity in which 

they are engaged.

T

thermoelectric-power water use Water used 

in the process of generating electricity with 

steam-driven turbine generators. Term used 

in water-use circulars before 2000 to describe 

the combined public-supply deliveries to 

thermoelectric powerplants and self-supplied 

thermoelectric-power water withdrawals. For 

2000 and 2005, thermoelectric-power water 

use refers only to self-supplied thermoelectric-power withdrawals. See also cooling 

system, cooling-system type, public-supply 

water use, and self-supplied water use.

transpiration The process in which water 

is absorbed by plants, usually from the roots 

and evaporated into the atmosphere from 

the plant surface. Transpiration occurs in all 

types of plants including trees, crops, grass 

(lawns, golf courses), landscaping plants, 

and nursery plants. See also evaporation and 

evapotranspiration.

U

uncertainty Used qualitatively to describe 

potential errors and biases associated with 

measurements, calculations, and estimates.

V

W

wastewater returns Water returned to the 

hydrologic system by wastewater-treatment 

facilities. See also return flow.

water use (1) In a restrictive sense, the term 

refers to water that is withdrawn for a specific 

purpose, such as for public supply, domestic 

use, irrigation, thermoelectric-power cooling, 

or industrial processing. In water-use circulars 

before 2000, water use for the domestic commercial, industrial, and thermoelectric-power 

categories included both self-supplied withdrawals and deliveries from public supply. 

(2) More broadly, water use pertains to the 

interaction of humans with and influence on 

the hydrologic cycle, and includes elements 

such as water withdrawal, delivery, consumptive use, wastewater release, reclaimed wastewater, return flow, and instream use. See also

offstream use, instream use, and water-use 

category. 

water-use category The type of specific 

use (facility or consumer) for which water is 

withdrawn. For the USGS National Water Use 

Inventory Program, estimation of the quantities of certain elements of use is considered 

mandatory. For the 2005 compilation for 

counties and watersheds designated by 8-digit 

hydrologic (cataloging) unit code, these 

categories are public supply, self-supplied 

domestic, thermoelectric power, industrial, 

mining, irrigation, aquaculture, livestock, and 

reclaimed wastewater. Commercial use was 

not a mandatory category in 2005; however, 

selected estimates withdrawals and other elements of commercial use are available and are 

presented in this report. 

withdrawal Removal of water from either 

a surface-water or groundwater source. 

See also offstream use and self-supplied 

water use.

X

Y

Z
Appendix 1. Estimates of Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use by 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Codes 75

Appendix 1. Estimates of Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use by 

8-Digit Hydrologic (Cataloging) Unit Codes (HUC) in the Great Lakes Basin, 

2005. A, Data Dictionary. B, Estimates by State. C, Estimates by Watershed 

(8-digit HUC).

Appendix 1A: Data Dictionary

The following listings describe the columns of water-use 

estimates for hydrologic (cataloging) units (HUC, 8 digit) 

in the Great Lakes Basin contained in the spreadsheet data 

files included as appendixes 1B and 1C. The first line of the 

spreadsheet file contains “Column Tags,” which match those 

presented below. The descriptions for the column tags are 

presented under “Data Description” in the listing.

All data are expressed in million gallons per day 

(Mgal/d), except area, which are in square miles (mi2) and 

percent; population values, which are in thousands; per capita 

values, which are in gallons per day (gal/d); power-generated 

values, which are in gigawatt-hours (GWh); acres irrigated, 

which are in thousands; and intensity of withdrawal values, 

which are in million gallons per day per square mile (Mgal/d/

mi2) and gal/d.

Column and data descriptors for Appendix 1B: Estimates by State 

Column tag Data description

YEARH Year of data

STATE State postal abbreviation

HUC8Code HUC code (8 digit)

HUC8Name HUC name (8 digit)

AREA Area of HUC (8 digit) in the state, in mi2

AREA% Area of HUC (8 digit) in the state relative to total area of HUC, in percent

TP-TotalPop Total population of HUC (8 digit), in thousands 

PS-TOPop Public supply, total population served, in thousands

PS-WGWFr Public supply, groundwater withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d

PS-WSWFr Public supply, surface-water withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d

PS-PrCap Public supply, per capita use (withdrawal), in gal/d 

DO-SSPop Domestic, self-supplied population, in thousands 

DO-WGWFr Domestic, groundwater self-supplied withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d 

DO-WSWFr Domestic, surface-water self-supplied withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d

DO-SSPCp Domestic, per capita use (withdrawal), self-supplied, in gal/d

DO-PSDel Domestic, deliveries from public supplies, in Mgal/d

PT-WGWFr Thermoelectric power, groundwater withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d 

PT-WSWFr Thermoelectric power, surface-water withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d

PT-Power Power generation, in GWh

PO-WGWFr Thermoelectric power once-through, groundwater withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d 

PO-WSWFr Thermoelectric power once-through, surface-water withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d
76 Estimated Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use in the Great Lakes Basin of the United States in 2005

Column and data descriptors for Appendix 1B: Estimates by State 

Column tag Data description

PO-Power Power generation once-through, in GWh

PC-WGWFr Thermoelectric power closed-loop, groundwater withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d 

PC-WSWFr Thermoelectric power closed-loop, surface-water withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d

PC-Power Power generation closed-loop, in GWh

IN-WGWFr Industrial, groundwater self-supplied withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d 

IN-WSWFr Industrial, surface-water self-supplied withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d

IN-RecWW Industrial use, reclaimed wastewater, in Mgal/d

MI-GWFr Mining, groundwater withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d

MI-GWSa Mining, groundwater withdrawals, saline, in Mgal/d

MI-SWFr Mining, surface-water withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d

MI-SWSa Mining, surface-water withdrawals, saline, in Mgal/d

IG-WGWFr Irrigation, golf course, groundwater withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d 

IG-WSWFr Irrigation, golf course, surface-water withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d 

IT-WGWFr Irrigation, all, groundwater withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d 

IT-WSWFr Irrigation, all, surface-water withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d

IT-IrSpr Irrigation, all, acres irrigated, sprinkler, in thousands

IT-IRMic Irrigation, all, acres irrigated, microirrigation, in thousands

IT-IrSur Irrigation, all, acres irrigated, surface, in thousands

IT-RecWW Irrigation use, reclaimed wastewater, in Mgal/d

LA-WGWFr Aquaculture, groundwater withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d 

LA-WSWFr Aquaculture, surface-water withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d

LS-WGWFr Livestock, groundwater withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d 

LS-WSWFr Livestock, surface-water withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d

CO-WGWFr Commercial, groundwater withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d

CO-WSWFr Commercial, surface-water withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d
Appendix 1. Estimates of Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use by 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Codes 77

Column and data descriptors for Appendix 1C: Estimates by Watershed (8-digit HUC)

Column tag Data description

HUC8Code HUC code (8 digit)

HUC8Name HUC name (8 digit)

AREA Area of HUC (8 digit) in the state, in mi2

INTEN-A Intensity of water withdrawals, as a function of land area, in Mgal/d/mi2

INTEN-PC Intensity of water withdrawals, as a function of per capita use, in gal/d

TP-TotalPop Total population of HUC (8 digit), in thousands 

PS-Wtotal Public supply, total withdrawals, in Mgal/d 

PS-WGWFr Public supply, groundwater withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d

PS-WSWFr Public supply, surface-water withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d 

DO-SSPop Domestic, self-supplied population, in thousands 

DO-Wtotal Domestic, total self-supplied withdrawals, in Mgal/d

DO-WGWFr Domestic, groundwater self-supplied withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d 

DO-WSWFr Domestic, surface-water self-supplied withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d 

DO-PSDel Domestic, deliveries from public supplies, in Mgal/d

PT-Wtotal Thermoelectric power, total withdrawals, in Mgal/d

PT-WGWFr Thermoelectric power, groundwater withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d 

PT-WSWFr Thermoelectric power, surface-water withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d

IN-Wtotal Industrial, total withdrawals, in Mgal/d

IN-WGWFr Industrial, groundwater self-supplied withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d 

IN-WSWFr Industrial, surface-water self-supplied withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d

MI-Wtotal Mining, total withdrawals, in Mgal/d

MI-WGWto Mining, groundwater withdrawals, total (fresh and saline), in Mgal/d 

MI-WSWto Mining, surface-water withdrawals, total (fresh and saline), in Mgal/d 

IT-Wtotal Irrigation, all, total withdrawals, in Mgal/d

IT-WGWFr Irrigation, all, groundwater withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d 

IT-WSWFr Irrigation, all, surface-water withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d

LA-Wtotal Aquaculture, total withdrawals, in Mgal/d

LA-WGWFr Aquaculture, groundwater withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d 

LA-WSWFr Aquaculture, surface-water withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d

LS-Wtotal Livestock, total withdrawals, in Mgal/d

LS-WGWFr Livestock, groundwater withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d 

LS-WSWFr Livestock, surface-water withdrawals, fresh, in Mgal/d
Appendix 1B. Estimates of Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use by State.—Continued [The following is a selected listing of the estimates of water use in 2005 compiled by each U.S. Geological Survey Water Science Center in the Great Lakes Basin. These estimates findings presented elsewhere in this report. The compiled values from selected New York watersheds (8-digit HUCs) are preliminary; these values are identified by bold typeface. A including final, approved values from New York HUCs, is available for download from the U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Use Information Web site (http://water.usgs.govof HUCs were obtained from http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc_name.html. Geographic Information System (GIS) coverages of HUC areas and state boundaries were used to proportividual Great Lakes States. Column tags are defined in appendix 1A. Data Dictionary; NA, not applicable; NR, not reported; NULL, value unknown, not reported] STATE HUC8Code HUC8Name AREA AREA% TP-Total- Pop PS- TOPop PS- WGWFr PS- WSWFr PS- PrCap DO- SSPop DO- WGWFr DO- WSWFr DO- SSPCp DO- PSDel PT- WGWFr PT- WSWFr PT- Power PO- WGWFr PO- WSWFr 

IL 04040001 Little Calumet- Galien 28 4 40.196 40.20 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 3.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IL 04040002 Pike-Root 62 16 624.009 623.17 0.01 0.00 0 0.84 0.08 0.00 96 56.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IL 04060200 Lake Michigan 1,560 7 3.295 3.30 0.00 1,023.70 NA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.30 0.00 758.32 4,560.50 0.00 758.32 4

IN 04040001 Little Calumet- Galien 521 74 445.745 391.23 1.00 0.00 3 54.52 4.14 0.00 76 29.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IN 04050001 St. Joseph 1,682 36 541.578 307.94 48.51 0.00 158 233.64 17.76 0.00 76 23.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IN 04100003 St. Joseph 591 56 137.059 82.12 8.15 33.27 504 54.94 4.17 0.00 76 6.24 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IN 04100004 St. Marys 384 47 159.889 148.85 2.97 0.00 20 11.04 0.84 0.00 76 11.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IN 04100005 Upper Maumee 201 52 82.686 71.50 0.00 0.00 0 11.19 0.85 0.00 76 5.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IN 04100007 Auglaize 104 6 2.837 1.04 0.11 0.00 106 1.80 0.14 0.00 78 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IN 04060200 Lake Michigan 231 1 0.000 0.00 0.00 76.81 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 727.86 7,974.68 0.00 721.87 5

MI 04010302 Bad-Montreal 106 8 8.933 8.90 0.96 0.00 108 0.03 0.00 0.00 0 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04020101 Black- Presque Isle 959 93 7.239 7.20 0.69 0.00 96 0.04 0.00 0.00 0 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04020102 Ontonagon 1,349 97 5.910 3.77 0.14 0.00 127 2.14 0.19 0.00 89 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04020103 Keweenaw Peninsula 1,130 100 38.237 29.32 3.53 0.00 121 8.92 0.77 0.00 86 2.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04020104 Sturgeon 710 100 2.602 0.04 0.00 0.00 0 2.56 0.22 0.00 86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04020105 Dead-Kelsey 946 100 47.498 45.00 1.42 0.00 117 2.49 0.22 0.00 88 3.13 0.00 0.00 3,760.48 0.00 270.13 3MI 04020201 Betsy-Chocolay 1,180 100 19.706 4.50 0.56 0.00 124 15.21 1.31 0.00 86 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04020202 Tahquamenon 832 100 5.775 3.15 0.55 0.00 175 2.63 0.23 0.00 88 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04020203 Waiska 324 100 8.194 0.72 0.05 0.00 69 7.47 0.64 0.00 86 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04030106 Brule 872 82 13.405 12.25 2.03 0.00 166 1.16 0.10 0.00 86 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04030107 Michigamme 734 100 2.189 0.70 0.15 0.00 214 1.49 0.13 0.00 87 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04030108 Menominee 987 43 39.376 21.38 3.00 0.00 140 18.00 1.55 0.00 86 1.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04030109 Cedar-Ford 1,010 100 19.069 10.30 0.06 0.00 127 8.77 0.76 0.00 87 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04030110 Escanaba 935 100 19.058 5.83 0.91 0.00 156 13.22 1.14 0.00 86 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04030111 TacooshWhitefish 656 100 23.849 18.98 0.12 0.00 142 4.86 0.42 0.00 86 1.21 0.00 0.00 159.89 0.00 21.96 MI 04030112 FishdamSturgeon 556 100 1.752 0.27 0.03 0.00 111 1.48 0.13 0.00 88 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 
Appendix 1B. Estimates of Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use by State.—Continued[The following is a selected listing of the estimates of water use in 2005 compiled by each U.S. Geological Survey Water Science Center in the Great Lakes Basin. These estimates are findings presented elsewhere in this report. The compiled values from selected New York watersheds (8-digit HUCs) are preliminary; these values are identified by bold typeface. A cincluding final, approved values from New York HUCs, is available for download from the U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Use Information Web site (http://water.usgs.gov/wHUCs were obtained from http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc_name.html. Geographic Information System (GIS) coverages of HUC areas and state boundaries were used to proportion the Great Lakes States. Column tags are defined in appendix 1A. Data Dictionary; NA, not applicable; NR, not reported; NULL, value unknown, not reported] 

STATE HUC8Code HUC8Name IN- WGWFr IN- WSWFr IN- RecWW MI- WGWFr MI- WGWSa MI- WSWFr MI- WSWSa IG- WGWFr IG- WSWFr IT- WGWFr IT- WSWFr IT- IrSpr IT- IrMic IT- IrSur IT- RecWW LA- WGWFr LA- WSWFr 

IL 04040001 Little CalumetGalien 0.00 7.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IL 04040002 Pike-Root 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.02 0.44 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IL 04060200 Lake Michigan 0.00 11.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

IN 04040001 Little CalumetGalien 1.95 301.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NR NR 0.24 0.09 2.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IN 04050001 St. Joseph 4.22 1.71 0.00 0.37 0.00 2.51 0.00 NR NR 26.48 5.09 68.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IN 04100003 St. Joseph 3.86 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 NR NR 0.14 0.03 1.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IN 04100004 St. Marys 0.10 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 NR NR 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IN 04100005 Upper Maumee 0.63 1.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.00 NR NR 0.02 0.02 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IN 04100007 Auglaize 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NR NR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IN 04060200 Lake Michigan 0.32 1,307.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NR NR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

MI 04010302 Bad-Montreal 0.08 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.83 MI 04020101 BlackPresque Isle 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 4.68 MI 04020102 Ontonagon 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 3.52 MI 04020103 Keweenaw 

Peninsula

0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.10 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 

MI 04020104 Sturgeon 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 MI 04020105 Dead-Kelsey 0.00 0.00 NULL 2.71 0.00 10.88 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.13 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 MI 04020201 Betsy-Chocolay 0.35 0.00 NULL 0.84 0.00 3.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.14 0.05 MI 04020202 Tahquamenon 0.04 0.00 NULL 0.01 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.07 0.13 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.35 0.12 MI 04020203 Waiska 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.01 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.39 0.14 MI 04030106 Brule 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.03 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.08 MI 04030107 Michigamme 0.00 0.00 NULL 1.14 0.00 4.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.52 0.73 0.02 0.02 NULL 0.00 0.00 MI 04030108 Menominee 0.43 21.76 NULL 0.01 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.06 0.11 0.12 0.23 0.15 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 MI 04030109 Cedar-Ford 0.03 0.00 NULL 0.31 0.00 1.35 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 MI 04030110 Escanaba 0.16 18.92 NULL 3.70 0.00 14.86 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.09 0.47 0.55 0.01 0.01 NULL 0.00 0.00 MI 04030111 TacooshWhitefish 0.11 0.40 NULL 0.39 0.00 1.61 0.00 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.21 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 MI 04030112 FishdamSturgeon 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 
Appendix 1B. Estimates of Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use by State.—Continued [The following is a selected listing of the estimates of water use in 2005 compiled by each U.S. Geological Survey Water Science Center in the Great Lakes Basin. These estimates findings presented elsewhere in this report. The compiled values from selected New York watersheds (8-digit HUCs) are preliminary; these values are identified by bold typeface. A including final, approved values from New York HUCs, is available for download from the U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Use Information Web site (http://water.usgs.govof HUCs were obtained from http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc_name.html. Geographic Information System (GIS) coverages of HUC areas and state boundaries were used to proportividual Great Lakes States. Column tags are defined in appendix 1A. Data Dictionary; NA, not applicable; NR, not reported; NULL, value unknown, not reported] STATE HUC8Code HUC8Name AREA AREA% TP-Total- Pop PS- TOPop PS- WGWFr PS- WSWFr PS- PrCap DO- SSPop DO- WGWFr DO- WSWFr DO- SSPCp DO- PSDel PT- WGWFr PT- WSWFr PT- Power PO- WGWFr PO- WSWFr 

MI 04040001 Little Calumet- Galien 157 22 25.856 13.64 0.18 0.00 260 12.22 1.05 0.00 86 1.05 0.00 0.00 18,057.27 0.00 2,290.65 18MI 04050001 St. Joseph 2,988 64 403.193 254.95 25.31 0.00 132 148.25 12.79 0.00 86 17.36 1.26 0.05 425.70 1.26 0.05 MI 04050002 Black-Macatawa 600 100 170.797 90.49 0.68 0.00 580 80.31 6.93 0.00 86 6.61 0.82 0.00 16,315.34 0.82 854.98 16MI 04050003 Kalamazoo 2,030 100 492.608 266.44 39.50 0.00 148 226.17 19.52 0.00 86 19.49 0.01 0.00 10.39 0.01 0.00 MI 04050004 Upper Grand 1,730 100 566.357 373.64 56.02 0.11 150 192.72 16.63 0.00 86 27.15 0.00 190.90 2,480.98 0.00 190.90 2MI 04050005 Maple 924 100 69.158 22.22 2.46 0.00 111 46.94 4.05 0.00 86 1.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04050006 Lower Grand 1,990 100 802.359 538.44 15.51 0.00 123 263.92 22.77 0.00 86 39.25 0.00 45.48 484.38 0.00 45.48 MI 04050007 Thornapple 874 100 93.403 35.50 4.06 0.00 114 57.90 5.00 0.00 86 3.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04060101 Pere Marquette- White 2,100 100 165.436 65.48 4.03 0.00 244 99.95 8.63 0.00 86 5.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04060102 Muskegon 2,680 100 237.836 99.83 10.12 0.00 176 138.01 11.91 0.00 86 6.82 0.67 0.00 2,283.51 0.67 261.66 2MI 04060103 Manistee 1,970 100 54.802 11.61 2.21 0.00 190 43.19 3.73 0.00 86 0.86 0.00 0.00 478.49 0.00 1.20 MI 04060104 Betsie-Platte 819 100 51.238 9.78 1.53 0.00 156 41.46 3.58 0.00 86 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04060105 Boardman- Charlevoix 1,650 100 152.899 69.60 9.12 0.00 221 83.30 7.19 0.00 86 4.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04060106 Manistique 1,480 100 11.895 4.54 0.06 0.42 106 7.35 0.63 0.00 86 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04060107 Brevoort- Millecoquins 578 100 4.557 0.05 0.00 0.00 0 4.51 0.39 0.00 87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04070001 St. Marys 853 100 28.398 22.50 1.00 0.00 133 5.90 0.51 0.00 86 1.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04070002 Carp-Pine 641 100 5.623 3.66 0.04 0.00 347 1.96 0.17 0.00 87 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04070003 Lone Lake- Ocqueoc 810 100 34.674 4.85 0.52 0.00 107 29.82 2.57 0.00 86 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04070004 Cheboygan 918 100 41.461 7.49 1.00 0.00 134 33.97 2.93 0.00 86 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04070005 Black 618 100 6.814 1.48 0.23 0.00 155 5.33 0.46 0.00 86 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 MI 04070006 Thunder Bay 1,270 100 31.136 17.64 0.71 0.00 162 13.49 1.16 0.00 86 1.21 0.00 0.00 294.03 0.00 110.16 MI 04070007 Au Sable 2,000 100 58.742 18.61 2.17 0.00 120 40.13 3.46 0.00 86 1.08 0.89 0.00 398.81 0.89 0.00 MI 04080101 Au Gres-Rifle 1,030 100 44.500 14.43 0.38 0.00 2,410 30.07 2.60 0.00 86 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04080102 Kawkawlin-Pine 503 100 57.623 8.85 0.02 0.00 14 48.78 4.21 0.00 86 3.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04080103 Pigeon- Wiscoggin 853 100 45.597 16.21 1.04 0.00 93 29.39 2.54 0.00 86 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04080104 Birch-Willow 572 100 31.946 19.71 0.30 0.00 8,229 12.24 1.06 0.00 87 1.45 0.00 0.00 392.81 0.00 84.03 MI 04080201 Tittabawassee 1,430 100 162.325 72.53 1.65 0.00 24 89.79 7.75 0.00 86 7.39 0.00 4.84 6,301.70 0.00 4.84 6MI 04080202 Pine 1,040 100 111.236 50.66 4.65 0.68 105 60.58 5.23 0.00 86 4.04 0.12 0.00 5.64 0.12 0.00 
Appendix 1B. Estimates of Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use by State.—Continued[The following is a selected listing of the estimates of water use in 2005 compiled by each U.S. Geological Survey Water Science Center in the Great Lakes Basin. These estimates arfindings presented elsewhere in this report. The compiled values from selected New York watersheds (8-digit HUCs) are preliminary; these values are identified by bold typeface. A cincluding final, approved values from New York HUCs, is available for download from the U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Use Information Web site (http://water.usgs.gov/wHUCs were obtained from http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc_name.html. Geographic Information System (GIS) coverages of HUC areas and state boundaries were used to proportion the Great Lakes States. Column tags are defined in appendix 1A. Data Dictionary; NA, not applicable; NR, not reported; NULL, value unknown, not reported] 

STATE HUC8Code HUC8Name IN- WGWFr IN- WSWFr IN- RecWW MI- WGWFr MI- WGWSa MI- WSWFr MI- WSWSa IG- WGWFr IG- WSWFr IT- WGWFr IT- WSWFr IT- IrSpr IT- IrMic IT- IrSur IT- RecWW LA- WGWFr LA- WSWFr 

MI 04040001 Little CalumetGalien 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.02 0.12 0.21 0.27 0.53 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 MI 04050001 St. Joseph 11.20 0.29 NULL 0.01 0.00 2.87 0.00 0.81 1.01 96.14 47.63 230.92 5.47 3.08 NULL 0.05 0.00 MI 04050002 Black-Macatawa 0.17 6.66 NULL 0.01 0.00 1.10 0.00 0.21 0.21 6.76 4.02 14.40 0.34 0.19 NULL 0.03 0.00 MI 04050003 Kalamazoo 35.55 9.32 NULL 0.00 0.00 3.72 0.00 1.63 0.71 7.68 8.57 26.39 0.57 0.32 NULL 0.01 0.04 MI 04050004 Upper Grand 0.79 0.02 NULL 0.04 0.00 2.12 0.00 0.81 0.34 2.90 2.08 7.87 0.14 0.08 NULL 0.02 0.17 MI 04050005 Maple 0.82 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.07 0.03 2.40 1.26 5.70 0.13 0.07 NULL 0.00 0.00 MI 04050006 Lower Grand 1.78 1.72 NULL 0.00 0.00 2.03 0.00 1.40 0.70 28.85 8.17 56.85 1.30 0.73 NULL 0.02 0.36 MI 04050007 Thornapple 0.17 0.47 NULL 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.21 0.19 1.10 1.06 3.58 0.07 0.05 NULL 0.00 0.00 MI 04060101 Pere MarquetteWhite 1.86 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.96 0.21 3.47 1.83 8.43 0.18 0.10 NULL 0.07 1.11 MI 04060102 Muskegon 4.64 4.19 NULL 0.01 0.44 1.28 0.00 1.34 0.49 15.96 4.15 30.79 0.69 0.39 NULL 0.06 6.17 MI 04060103 Manistee 3.25 18.78 NULL 0.00 0.10 0.64 0.00 0.46 0.02 2.20 0.41 4.18 0.08 0.05 NULL 0.00 3.57 MI 04060104 Betsie-Platte 0.76 0.01 NULL 0.13 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.80 0.19 1.60 0.30 2.36 0.03 0.02 NULL 0.00 0.18 MI 04060105 BoardmanCharlevoix 11.35 0.00 NULL 0.04 0.03 1.19 0.00 1.85 0.28 4.46 0.43 7.40 0.11 0.07 NULL 0.01 32.41 MI 04060106 Manistique 0.00 5.70 NULL 0.00 0.13 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.12 0.07 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 MI 04060107 BrevoortMillecoquins 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.01 0.50 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 MI 04070001 St. Marys 0.05 0.00 NULL 0.01 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.17 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.44 0.16 MI 04070002 Carp-Pine 0.02 0.00 NULL 0.01 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.37 0.13 MI 04070003 Lone LakeOcqueoc 0.01 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 1.58 0.00 0.12 0.05 0.42 0.25 1.14 0.02 0.01 NULL 0.00 0.52 MI 04070004 Cheboygan 0.07 0.25 NULL 0.02 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.59 0.02 0.59 0.02 0.82 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.01 0.41 MI 04070005 Black 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.01 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.09 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 MI 04070006 Thunder Bay 0.00 4.04 NULL 0.01 0.00 1.09 0.00 0.13 0.31 0.72 0.50 0.51 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.01 1.45 MI 04070007 Au Sable 0.55 0.07 NULL 0.01 0.03 0.27 0.00 0.82 0.59 1.04 0.60 1.84 0.01 0.01 NULL 0.06 2.12 MI 04080101 Au Gres-Rifle 0.00 0.09 NULL 0.02 0.08 0.37 0.00 0.39 0.17 0.57 0.23 0.52 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.17 0.52 MI 04080102 Kawkawlin-Pine 0.19 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.08 0.04 0.16 0.75 1.75 0.03 0.02 NULL 0.00 0.00 MI 04080103 PigeonWiscoggin 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.06 0.09 1.17 1.29 6.24 0.15 0.08 NULL 0.00 0.00 MI 04080104 Birch-Willow 0.04 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.18 0.06 0.29 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.02 0.00 MI 04080201 Tittabawassee 0.14 6.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.10 0.21 0.21 0.26 0.72 0.02 0.00 NULL 0.03 0.05 MI 04080202 Pine 0.57 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.03 0.38 0.00 0.04 0.56 3.53 1.84 8.86 0.20 0.12 NULL 0.00 1.80 
Appendix 1B. Estimates of Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use by State.—Continued [The following is a selected listing of the estimates of water use in 2005 compiled by each U.S. Geological Survey Water Science Center in the Great Lakes Basin. These estimates findings presented elsewhere in this report. The compiled values from selected New York watersheds (8-digit HUCs) are preliminary; these values are identified by bold typeface. A including final, approved values from New York HUCs, is available for download from the U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Use Information Web site (http://water.usgs.govof HUCs were obtained from http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc_name.html. Geographic Information System (GIS) coverages of HUC areas and state boundaries were used to proportividual Great Lakes States. Column tags are defined in appendix 1A. Data Dictionary; NA, not applicable; NR, not reported; NULL, value unknown, not reported] STATE HUC8Code HUC8Name AREA AREA% TP-Total- Pop PS- TOPop PS- WGWFr PS- WSWFr PS- PrCap DO- SSPop DO- WGWFr DO- WSWFr DO- SSPCp DO- PSDel PT- WGWFr PT- WSWFr PT- Power PO- WGWFr PO- WSWFr 

MI 04080203 Shiawassee 1,220 100 198.153 78.86 10.99 0.00 139 119.29 10.29 0.00 86 7.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04080204 Flint 1,340 100 519.051 316.72 4.00 0.00 13 202.33 17.46 0.00 86 24.78 0.21 0.00 233.59 0.21 0.00 MI 04080205 Cass 881 100 70.655 34.77 2.80 0.00 81 35.89 3.10 0.00 86 2.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04080206 Saginaw 250 100 167.077 135.72 0.00 0.00 165 31.36 2.71 0.00 86 10.83 0.00 0.00 6,287.73 0.00 615.39 6MI 04090001 St. Clair 1,210 100 175.839 99.79 2.11 0.00 157 76.04 6.56 0.00 86 8.00 0.00 0.00 16,700.70 0.00 1,472.83 16MI 04090002 Lake St. Clair 413 100 619.321 585.50 0.01 0.00 11 33.82 2.91 0.00 86 49.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04090003 Clinton 742 100 1,069.471 933.44 18.98 0.00 28 136.03 11.74 0.00 86 67.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04090004 Detroit 685 100 2,105.501 2,104.90 0.86 0.00 215 0.60 0.05 0.00 83 170.62 0.00 162.10 10,465.14 0.00 1,112.24 10MI 04090005 Huron 909 100 602.781 465.50 13.81 13.42 59 137.28 11.85 0.00 86 35.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04100001 Ottawa-Stony 541 79 163.004 12.74 0.06 0.00 278 150.26 12.97 0.00 86 2.02 0.09 0.00 31,186.30 0.09 1,808.34 31MI 04100002 Raisin 1,046 98 172.057 150.37 7.04 2.89 135 21.69 1.87 0.00 86 9.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04100003 St. Joseph 251 24 11.035 0.86 0.07 0.00 81 10.17 0.88 0.00 87 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04100006 Tiffin 225 29 17.925 6.63 0.72 0.00 109 11.29 0.97 0.00 86 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04020300 Lake Superior 16,448 78 0.000 0.00 0.00 4.18 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 270.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04060200 Lake Michigan 13,179 59 0.564 0.00 0.00 143.51 0 0.56 0.05 0.00 89 0.00 0.00 3430.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04080300 Lake Huron 8,920 100 2.274 0.00 0.00 224.75 0 2.27 0.20 0.00 88 0.00 0.00 809.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 MI 04120200 Lake Erie 118 2 0.890 0.00 0.00 492.65 0 0.89 0.08 0.00 90 0.00 0.00 4231.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 

MN 04010101 Baptism-Brule 1,620 100 6.635 1.76 0.01 0.00 148 4.88 0.34 0.00 70 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MN 04010102 Beaver-Lester 635 100 67.555 63.90 0.00 0.00 451 3.66 0.26 0.00 71 2.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MN 04010201 St. Louis 2,939 98 126.477 103.45 5.98 5.23 108 23.03 1.61 0.00 70 5.37 0.11 190.23 863.03 0.00 190.23 MN 04010202 Cloquet 796 100 10.304 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 10.30 0.72 0.00 70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MN 04010301 Beartrap-Nemadji 263 14 2.745 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2.74 0.19 0.00 69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MN 04020300 Lake Superior 2,595 12 1.378 0.00 0.00 29.07 0 1.38 0.10 0.00 73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

NY 04120101 Chautauqua- Conneaut 311 36 51.392 32.89 0.08 2.88 78 18.50 1.39 0.00 75 3.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NY 04120102 Cattaraugus 548 100 43.613 33.41 2.35 0.72 92 10.20 0.92 0.00 75 3.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NY 04120103 Buffalo- Eighteenmile 732 100 500.252 443.98 0.37 0.00 1 56.27 4.22 0.00 75 53.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NY 04120104 Niagara 774 100 609.875 544.08 0.42 17.77 33 65.79 4.93 0.00 75 63.85 0.00 595.13 2,692.36 0.00 595.13 2NY 04130001 Oak OrchardTwelvemile 1,040 100 281.246 240.75 0.45 39.08 164 40.49 3.03 0.00 75 24.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NY 04130002 Upper Genesee 1,339 94 69.615 49.11 2.25 2.46 132 20.50 1.54 0.00 75 4.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 
Appendix 1B. Estimates of Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use by State.—Continued[The following is a selected listing of the estimates of water use in 2005 compiled by each U.S. Geological Survey Water Science Center in the Great Lakes Basin. These estimates arfindings presented elsewhere in this report. The compiled values from selected New York watersheds (8-digit HUCs) are preliminary; these values are identified by bold typeface. A cincluding final, approved values from New York HUCs, is available for download from the U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Use Information Web site (http://water.usgs.gov/wHUCs were obtained from http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc_name.html. Geographic Information System (GIS) coverages of HUC areas and state boundaries were used to proportion the Great Lakes States. Column tags are defined in appendix 1A. Data Dictionary; NA, not applicable; NR, not reported; NULL, value unknown, not reported] 

STATE HUC8Code HUC8Name IN- WGWFr IN- WSWFr IN- RecWW MI- WGWFr MI- WGWSa MI- WSWFr MI- WSWSa IG- WGWFr IG- WSWFr IT- WGWFr IT- WSWFr IT- IrSpr IT- IrMic IT- IrSur IT- RecWW LA- WGWFr LA- WSWFr 

MI 04080203 Shiawassee 0.21 0.00 NULL 0.11 0.00 2.21 0.00 0.73 0.72 2.63 2.47 5.71 0.10 0.07 NULL 0.00 0.00 MI 04080204 Flint 0.13 0.00 NULL 0.16 0.00 1.60 0.00 0.25 0.76 1.43 1.52 4.05 0.06 0.04 NULL 0.00 0.00 MI 04080205 Cass 0.00 0.08 NULL 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.10 0.16 0.82 0.20 3.01 0.06 0.04 NULL 0.03 0.00 MI 04080206 Saginaw 0.00 2.65 NULL 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.27 0.13 1.08 0.02 0.01 NULL 0.00 0.00 MI 04090001 St. Clair 0.08 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.00 0.11 0.15 0.78 1.11 2.91 0.05 0.03 NULL 0.04 0.00 MI 04090002 Lake St. Clair 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.01 0.24 0.00 0.19 0.16 0.28 0.20 0.69 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.01 0.00 MI 04090003 Clinton 0.66 0.00 NULL 0.55 0.00 2.77 0.00 1.14 2.09 1.83 3.52 7.22 0.09 0.03 NULL 0.02 0.00 MI 04090004 Detroit 0.20 1.46 NULL 0.28 0.06 2.18 0.00 0.90 1.24 1.10 1.36 3.90 0.02 0.00 NULL 0.02 0.08 MI 04090005 Huron 2.98 8.80 NULL 0.34 0.01 3.25 0.00 1.48 1.00 2.43 1.46 6.38 0.05 0.03 NULL 0.18 0.94 MI 04100001 Ottawa-Stony 8.59 0.00 NULL 1.50 0.01 2.25 0.00 0.74 0.02 1.40 1.74 5.21 0.10 0.06 NULL 0.04 0.17 MI 04100002 Raisin 1.07 1.37 NULL 0.69 0.00 1.75 0.00 0.35 0.17 1.15 2.34 6.52 0.15 0.08 NULL 0.10 0.52 MI 04100003 St. Joseph 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.19 0.58 0.01 0.01 NULL 0.00 0.00 MI 04100006 Tiffin 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.04 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.33 0.55 2.13 0.05 0.03 NULL 0.00 0.00 MI 04020300 Lake Superior 0.00 12.73 NULL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 MI 04060200 Lake Michigan 0.00 107.26 NULL 0.02 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 2.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 MI 04080300 Lake Huron 0.00 19.55 NULL 0.01 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 3.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.25 0.09 MI 04120200 Lake Erie 0.00 287.07 NULL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 

MN 04010101 Baptism-Brule 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.36 MN 04010102 Beaver-Lester 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 3.43 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.02 0.03 MN 04010201 St. Louis 0.01 6.13 NULL 0.01 0.00 54.78 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.27 0.02 MN 04010202 Cloquet 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.06 0.01 MN 04010301 Beartrap-Nemadji 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.01 0.01 MN 04020300 Lake Superior 0.00 1.63 NULL 0.00 0.00 296.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 

NY 04120101 ChautauquaConneaut 0.89 0.14 NULL 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.06 0.16 0.08 0.20 0.37 0.08 0.00 NULL 0.98 0.98 NY 04120102 Cattaraugus 0.50 0.59 NULL 0.10 0.05 0.43 0.00 0.10 0.26 0.16 0.42 0.94 0.29 0.00 NULL 0.48 0.48 NY 04120103 BuffaloEighteenmile 0.14 10.06 NULL 0.13 0.03 0.60 0.00 0.30 0.80 0.46 1.23 2.67 0.79 0.00 NULL 0.01 0.01 NY 04120104 Niagara 0.45 8.16 NULL 0.13 0.03 0.57 0.00 0.46 0.48 0.82 1.47 4.71 1.81 0.00 NULL 0.01 0.01 NY 04130001 Oak OrchardTwelvemile 0.27 6.17 NULL 0.17 0.03 0.69 0.00 0.74 0.59 1.30 2.14 7.31 2.86 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 NY 04130002 Upper Genesee 0.86 0.61 NULL 0.16 0.02 0.65 0.00 0.12 0.30 0.31 0.81 2.40 0.94 0.00 NULL 0.24 0.05 
Appendix 1B. Estimates of Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use by State.—Continued [The following is a selected listing of the estimates of water use in 2005 compiled by each U.S. Geological Survey Water Science Center in the Great Lakes Basin. These estimates findings presented elsewhere in this report. The compiled values from selected New York watersheds (8-digit HUCs) are preliminary; these values are identified by bold typeface. A including final, approved values from New York HUCs, is available for download from the U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Use Information Web site (http://water.usgs.govof HUCs were obtained from http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc_name.html. Geographic Information System (GIS) coverages of HUC areas and state boundaries were used to proportividual Great Lakes States. Column tags are defined in appendix 1A. Data Dictionary; NA, not applicable; NR, not reported; NULL, value unknown, not reported] STATE HUC8Code HUC8Name AREA AREA% TP-Total- Pop PS- TOPop PS- WGWFr PS- WSWFr PS- PrCap DO- SSPop DO- WGWFr DO- WSWFr DO- SSPCp DO- PSDel PT- WGWFr PT- WSWFr PT- Power PO- WGWFr PO- WSWFr 

NY 04130003 Lower Genesee 1,070 100 330.646 299.15 0.65 45.59 155 31.49 4.12 0.00 75 27.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NY 04140101 Irondequoit- Ninemile 708 100 397.747 351.27 3.81 0.00 11 46.48 3.48 0.00 75 35.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NY 04140102 Salmon-Sandy 969 100 54.107 53.56 1.98 9.20 355 0.55 0.04 0.00 75 5.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NY 04140201 Seneca 3,430 100 757.155 576.69 7.90 116.74 216 180.46 13.50 0.00 75 67.82 0.00 307.77 3,300.05 0.00 307.77 3NY 04140202 Oneida 1,470 100 236.306 169.98 2.78 12.00 87 66.32 4.97 0.00 75 17.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NY 04140203 Oswego 131 100 38.371 17.30 0.03 0.00 1 21.08 1.58 0.00 75 1.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NY 04150101 Black 1,920 100 70.270 39.52 1.73 8.30 254 30.74 2.31 0.00 75 3.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NY 04150102 Chaumont-Perch 380 100 22.767 13.60 0.08 0.00 6 9.17 0.68 0.00 75 1.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NY 04150301 Upper St. Law- rence 506 100 28.003 2.23 0.00 0.17 11 25.77 1.94 0.00 75 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NY 04150302 Oswegatchie 1,040 100 27.604 8.61 0.27 0.36 43 18.99 1.42 0.00 75 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NY 04150303 Indian 558 100 33.016 13.31 0.79 0.50 67 19.71 1.48 0.00 75 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NY 04150304 Grass 630 100 28.326 15.33 0.41 4.89 346 12.99 0.97 0.00 75 1.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NY 04150305 Raquette 1,250 100 35.055 21.84 0.84 2.35 166 13.22 0.99 0.00 75 2.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NY 04150306 St. Regis 853 100 16.025 2.38 0.27 0.00 31 13.65 1.03 0.00 75 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NY 04150307 English-Salmon 811 100 33.270 20.81 0.31 3.10 184 12.46 0.94 0.00 75 2.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NY 04120200 Lake Erie 573 22 0.000 0.00 0.01 164.81 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 426.77 3,345.52 0.00 426.77 3NY 04150200 Lake Ontario 3,430 100 0.000 0.00 0.00 70.06 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 2,033.13 32,786.88 0.00 2,033.13 32

OH 04100001 Ottawa-Stony 148 21 235.769 222.73 0.00 0.06 0 13.04 1.03 0.02 81 21.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OH 04100002 Raisin 24 2 1.280 0.66 0.00 0.00 0 0.62 0.05 0.00 81 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OH 04100003 St. Joseph 218 20 14.373 8.13 1.13 0.00 139 6.24 0.46 0.01 75 1.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OH 04100004 St. Marys 436 53 35.065 20.51 2.30 0.00 112 14.56 1.07 0.02 75 1.53 0.00 5.64 43.31 0.00 5.64 OH 04100005 Upper Maumee 184 48 10.936 7.71 0.74 4.09 627 3.23 0.51 0.01 161 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OH 04100006 Tiffin 556 71 43.307 24.27 2.23 2.03 176 19.04 1.40 0.03 75 1.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OH 04100007 Auglaize 1,556 94 195.092 138.92 4.86 21.88 192 56.17 4.13 0.08 75 9.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OH 04100008 Blanchard 757 100 92.257 54.40 1.19 7.76 165 37.85 2.78 0.06 75 4.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OH 04100009 Lower Maumee 1,080 100 298.637 240.83 1.02 9.71 45 57.80 4.25 0.09 75 20.41 0.00 730.69 4,165.48 0.00 730.69 4OH 04100010 Cedar-Portage 958 100 169.879 117.26 1.08 5.37 55 52.62 3.87 0.08 75 5.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OH 04100011 Sandusky 1,850 100 217.856 153.35 1.43 9.99 74 64.51 4.74 0.10 75 7.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OH 04100012 Huron-Vermilion 754 100 92.201 88.10 0.39 3.87 48 4.10 0.30 0.01 76 5.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OH 04110001 Black-Rocky 888 100 729.358 662.73 0.39 3.77 6 66.63 4.90 0.10 75 41.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 
Appendix 1B. Estimates of Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use by State.—Continued[The following is a selected listing of the estimates of water use in 2005 compiled by each U.S. Geological Survey Water Science Center in the Great Lakes Basin. These estimates arfindings presented elsewhere in this report. The compiled values from selected New York watersheds (8-digit HUCs) are preliminary; these values are identified by bold typeface. A cincluding final, approved values from New York HUCs, is available for download from the U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Use Information Web site (http://water.usgs.gov/wHUCs were obtained from http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc_name.html. Geographic Information System (GIS) coverages of HUC areas and state boundaries were used to proportion the Great Lakes States. Column tags are defined in appendix 1A. Data Dictionary; NA, not applicable; NR, not reported; NULL, value unknown, not reported] 

STATE HUC8Code HUC8Name IN- WGWFr IN- WSWFr IN- RecWW MI- WGWFr MI- WGWSa MI- WSWFr MI- WSWSa IG- WGWFr IG- WSWFr IT- WGWFr IT- WSWFr IT- IrSpr IT- IrMic IT- IrSur IT- RecWW LA- WGWFr LA- WSWFr 

NY 04130003 Lower Genesee 0.83 6.51 NULL 0.18 0.01 0.76 0.00 0.34 0.91 0.72 1.96 5.25 1.94 0.00 NULL 0.01 0.07 NY 04140101 IrondequoitNinemile 0.77 8.28 NULL 0.08 0.01 0.31 0.00 0.20 0.57 0.32 0.89 1.94 0.58 0.00 NULL 0.07 0.27 NY 04140102 Salmon-Sandy 0.37 0.70 NULL 0.07 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.11 0.27 0.15 0.38 0.79 0.21 0.00 NULL 0.00 1.66 NY 04140201 Seneca 2.88 22.79 NULL 0.69 0.04 2.91 0.00 0.71 1.75 0.99 2.48 5.12 1.36 0.00 NULL 0.29 0.74 NY 04140202 Oneida 1.15 6.00 NULL 0.13 0.02 0.52 0.00 0.38 0.95 0.45 1.14 1.91 0.34 0.00 NULL 1.24 2.61 NY 04140203 Oswego 0.26 0.64 NULL 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.04 0.11 0.22 0.06 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.30 NY 04150101 Black 0.50 1.11 NULL 0.08 0.01 0.32 0.00 0.11 0.30 0.13 0.35 0.55 0.08 0.00 NULL 1.24 1.94 NY 04150102 Chaumont-Perch 0.09 0.35 NULL 0.03 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.11 0.16 0.01 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 NY 04150301 Upper St. Lawrence 0.12 0.43 NULL 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.07 0.12 0.01 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.02 NY 04150302 Oswegatchie 0.13 0.42 NULL 0.04 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.11 0.22 0.04 0.00 NULL 0.13 0.27 NY 04150303 Indian 0.14 0.50 NULL 0.03 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.06 0.11 0.06 0.12 0.19 0.02 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.23 NY 04150304 Grass 0.13 0.43 NULL 0.02 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.13 0.02 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.05 NY 04150305 Raquette 0.15 0.46 NULL 0.03 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.11 0.22 0.04 0.00 NULL 0.09 1.30 NY 04150306 St. Regis 0.06 0.18 NULL 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.10 0.24 0.06 0.00 NULL 0.19 2.73 NY 04150307 English-Salmon 0.11 0.27 NULL 0.02 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.09 0.04 0.13 0.28 0.08 0.00 NULL 0.26 3.64 NY 04120200 Lake Erie 0.00 10.46 NULL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 NY 04150200 Lake Ontario 0.00 0.22 NULL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 

OH 04100001 Ottawa-Stony 0.03 0.00 0.00 2.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.17 0.47 0.17 1.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OH 04100002 Raisin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OH 04100003 St. Joseph 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OH 04100004 St. Marys 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.05 0.15 0.05 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.23 OH 04100005 Upper Maumee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OH 04100006 Tiffin 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 1.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OH 04100007 Auglaize 1.14 0.20 0.00 5.45 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.28 0.25 0.28 0.25 1.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OH 04100008 Blanchard 5.30 26.62 0.00 2.62 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.12 0.28 0.13 0.34 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OH 04100009 Lower Maumee 0.01 6.70 0.00 2.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.37 0.55 0.42 3.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OH 04100010 Cedar-Portage 5.82 47.51 0.00 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.07 0.49 0.16 1.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OH 04100011 Sandusky 0.43 8.95 0.00 7.99 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.22 2.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.43 OH 04100012 Huron-Vermilion 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 2.34 0.39 2.90 3.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OH 04110001 Black-Rocky 0.08 100.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 1.51 0.12 3.14 4.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 
Appendix 1B. Estimates of Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use by State.—Continued [The following is a selected listing of the estimates of water use in 2005 compiled by each U.S. Geological Survey Water Science Center in the Great Lakes Basin. These estimates findings presented elsewhere in this report. The compiled values from selected New York watersheds (8-digit HUCs) are preliminary; these values are identified by bold typeface. A including final, approved values from New York HUCs, is available for download from the U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Use Information Web site (http://water.usgs.govof HUCs were obtained from http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc_name.html. Geographic Information System (GIS) coverages of HUC areas and state boundaries were used to proportividual Great Lakes States. Column tags are defined in appendix 1A. Data Dictionary; NA, not applicable; NR, not reported; NULL, value unknown, not reported] STATE HUC8Code HUC8Name AREA AREA% TP-Total- Pop PS- TOPop PS- WGWFr PS- WSWFr PS- PrCap DO- SSPop DO- WGWFr DO- WSWFr DO- SSPCp DO- PSDel PT- WGWFr PT- WSWFr PT- Power PO- WGWFr PO- WSWFr 

OH 04110002 Cuyahoga 804 100 1,040.667 910.75 15.59 37.22 58 129.91 9.55 0.19 75 58.62 0.00 0.00 125.72 0.00 0.00 OH 04110003 Ashtabula- Chagrin 623 99 699.297 629.38 0.97 0.00 2 69.92 5.14 0.10 75 45.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OH 04110004 Grand 710 100 120.473 88.30 0.24 0.05 3 32.17 2.36 0.05 75 7.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OH 04120101 Chautauqua- Conneaut 54 6 17.176 12.37 0.00 0.00 0 4.80 0.35 0.01 75 5.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OH 04120200 Lake Erie 3,401 71 0.751 0.57 0.00 427.64 NA 0.18 0.01 0.00 55 0.01 0.00 1,781.66 22,043.53 0.00 1,635.79 1

PA 04110003 Ashtabula- Chagrin 7 1 0.440 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.44 0.03 0.00 68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PA 04120101 Chautauqua- Conneaut 509 58 260.407 223.39 2.13 0.20 10 37.02 2.22 0.00 60 13.55 0.00 0.00 28.19 0.00 0.00 PA 04130002 Upper Genesee 91 6 2.975 1.08 0.12 0.00 111 1.89 0.11 0.00 58 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PA 04120200 Lake Erie 718 15 0.000 0.00 0.00 31.16 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

WI 04010201 St. Louis 71 2 19.980 14.38 0.01 0.00 1 5.60 0.04 0.00 7 1.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 WI 04010301 Beartrap-Nemadji 1,587 86 40.521 26.16 0.37 0.00 14 14.36 0.69 0.00 48 1.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 WI 04010302 Bad-Montreal 1,224 92 11.425 3.92 0.27 0.00 69 7.51 0.28 0.00 37 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 WI 04020101 Black- Presque Isle 71 100 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 WI 04020102 Ontonagon 41 3 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.44 2.96 0.00 0.44 WI 04030101 Manitowoc- Sheboygan 1,650 100 243.540 164.27 7.35 0.00 45 79.27 3.99 0.00 50 9.95 1.02 0.00 102.05 0.00 0.00 WI 04030102 Door-Kewaunee 776 100 56.888 19.11 2.59 0.00 136 37.78 1.37 0.00 36 1.06 0.01 0.00 1.13 0.00 0.00 WI 04030103 Duck-Pensaukee 483 100 15.890 5.83 0.51 0.00 88 10.06 0.45 0.00 45 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 WI 04030104 Oconto 1,040 100 31.386 11.04 1.50 0.00 136 20.35 1.03 0.00 51 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 WI 04030105 Peshtigo 1,170 100 35.373 18.12 0.86 0.00 47 17.25 0.85 0.00 49 0.97 0.00 1.31 8.76 0.00 1.31 WI 04030106 Brule 188 18 2.042 1.81 0.08 0.00 44 0.23 0.04 0.00 172 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 WI 04030108 Menominee 1,323 57 17.310 3.27 0.39 0.00 119 14.04 0.67 0.00 48 0.10 0.00 24.87 234.61 0.00 24.87 WI 04030201 Upper Fox 1,610 100 136.991 101.53 4.42 0.00 44 35.46 2.98 0.00 84 5.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 WI 04030202 Wolf 3,720 100 162.604 67.51 10.95 0.00 162 95.09 5.26 0.00 55 3.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 WI 04030203 Lake Winnebago 570 100 82.220 54.64 6.00 21.15 497 27.58 1.52 0.00 55 2.58 0.00 8.29 55.24 0.00 8.29 WI 04030204 Lower Fox 438 100 420.220 397.74 19.68 2.77 56 22.49 1.57 0.00 70 20.95 0.00 448.42 3,123.92 0.00 448.42 WI 04040002 Pike-Root 337 84 436.729 346.04 0.60 0.00 2 90.69 2.71 0.00 30 19.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 WI 04040003 Milwaukee 861 100 993.940 931.68 13.86 0.00 15 62.27 5.02 0.00 81 63.60 0.00 167.42 1,554.58 0.00 167.42 WI 04020300 Lake Superior 2,057 10 0.000 0.00 0.00 4.01 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 50.56 337.08 0.00 50.56 WI 04060200 Lake Michigan 7,330 33 0.000 0.00 0.00 219.01 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 4,531.15 30,147.38 0.00 4,531.15 3
Appendix 1B. Estimates of Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use by State.—Continued[The following is a selected listing of the estimates of water use in 2005 compiled by each U.S. Geological Survey Water Science Center in the Great Lakes Basin. These estimates are findings presented elsewhere in this report. The compiled values from selected New York watersheds (8-digit HUCs) are preliminary; these values are identified by bold typeface. A coincluding final, approved values from New York HUCs, is available for download from the U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Use Information Web site (http://water.usgs.gov/wHUCs were obtained from http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc_name.html. Geographic Information System (GIS) coverages of HUC areas and state boundaries were used to proportion the Great Lakes States. Column tags are defined in appendix 1A. Data Dictionary; NA, not applicable; NR, not reported; NULL, value unknown, not reported] 

STATE HUC8Code HUC8Name IN- WGWFr IN- WSWFr IN- RecWW MI- WGWFr MI- WGWSa MI- WSWFr MI- WSWSa IG- WGWFr IG- WSWFr IT- WGWFr IT- WSWFr IT- IrSpr IT- IrMic IT- IrSur IT- RecWW LA- WGWFr LA- WSWFr 

OH 04110002 Cuyahoga 1.70 120.38 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.42 0.82 0.72 0.85 2.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OH 04110003 AshtabulaChagrin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.00 0.30 4.41 3.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OH 04110004 Grand 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.20 0.10 0.54 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OH 04120101 ChautauquaConneaut 0.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OH 04120200 Lake Erie 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.24 0.00 4.41 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.18 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

PA 04110003 AshtabulaChagrin 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 NR NR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.03 0.03 PA 04120101 ChautauquaConneaut 0.02 0.01 NULL 0.10 0.00 0.44 0.00 NR NR 0.14 0.45 0.99 0.00 0.00 NULL 2.31 1.90 PA 04130002 Upper Genesee 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 NR NR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 1.52 PA 04120200 Lake Erie 0.00 5.20 NULL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NR NR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 

WI 04010201 St. Louis 0.00 0.06 NULL 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 NR NR 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 WI 04010301 Beartrap-Nemadji 0.02 0.96 NULL 0.54 0.00 0.07 0.00 NR NR 0.30 0.02 0.21 0.00 0.00 NULL 3.91 0.00 WI 04010302 Bad-Montreal 0.04 1.11 NULL 0.21 0.00 0.02 0.00 NR NR 0.17 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.11 NULL 0.00 0.00 WI 04020101 BlackPresque Isle 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NR NR 0.08 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 WI 04020102 Ontonagon 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NR NR 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 WI 04030101 ManitowocSheboygan 2.21 18.14 NULL 0.89 0.00 0.81 0.00 NR NR 1.26 0.82 0.68 0.00 0.46 NULL 2.54 0.40 WI 04030102 Door-Kewaunee 0.64 6.11 NULL 0.20 0.00 0.19 0.00 NR NR 1.68 0.09 1.34 0.00 0.07 NULL 0.50 0.00 WI 04030103 Duck-Pensaukee 0.40 8.64 NULL 0.23 0.00 0.21 0.00 NR NR 0.25 0.05 0.15 0.00 0.05 NULL 0.00 0.00 WI 04030104 Oconto 0.23 2.04 NULL 0.15 0.00 0.14 0.00 NR NR 1.41 0.08 1.30 0.00 0.07 NULL 0.05 0.60 WI 04030105 Peshtigo 0.76 4.58 NULL 0.08 0.00 0.07 0.00 NR NR 0.92 0.14 0.81 0.00 0.12 NULL 1.57 2.55 WI 04030106 Brule 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 NR NR 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.01 NULL 0.00 0.00 WI 04030108 Menominee 0.72 4.16 NULL 0.08 0.00 0.07 0.00 NR NR 0.93 0.11 0.84 0.00 0.10 NULL 0.00 0.00 WI 04030201 Upper Fox 3.35 15.91 NULL 0.89 0.00 0.80 0.00 NR NR 29.74 0.29 29.31 0.00 0.27 NULL 5.50 0.36 WI 04030202 Wolf 6.87 48.48 NULL 0.94 0.00 0.68 0.00 NR NR 67.52 1.44 66.73 0.00 1.31 NULL 3.67 14.29 WI 04030203 Lake Winnebago 1.63 10.18 NULL 0.10 0.00 0.09 0.00 NR NR 0.48 0.11 0.33 0.00 0.05 NULL 0.00 0.00 WI 04030204 Lower Fox 2.85 60.74 NULL 0.31 0.00 0.27 0.00 NR NR 0.55 0.30 0.09 0.00 0.23 NULL 0.00 0.04 WI 04040002 Pike-Root 1.90 4.45 NULL 0.66 0.00 0.60 0.00 NR NR 2.74 0.21 2.37 0.00 0.19 NULL 0.38 1.00 WI 04040003 Milwaukee 3.10 4.69 NULL 0.83 0.00 0.35 0.00 NR NR 1.45 0.25 0.76 0.00 0.14 NULL 0.00 0.00 WI 04020300 Lake Superior 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NR NR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 11.67 WI 04060200 Lake Michigan 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NR NR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NULL 0.00 1.84 
Appendix 1C. Estimates of Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use by Watershed (8-digit HUC).—Continued [The following is a listing of estimates of water use in 2005 derived from those compiled by each U.S. Geological Survey Water Science Center in the Great Lakes Basin and includix 1B. These estimates support the summarized findings presented elsewhere in this report. The compiled values from selected New York watersheds (8-digit HUCs) within the LaLake Ontario watersheds are preliminary and have since been revised and approved as final; the following water-use estimates based in part or whole on the preliminary values are bold typeface. This listing of estimates is available for download from the U.S.Geological Survey National Water-Use Information Web site (http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/). Columdefined in appendix 1A. Data Dictionary; NA, not applicable; NULL, value unknown, not reported] HUC8Code HUC8Name AREA INTEN- A INTEN- PC TP- TotalPop PS- Wtotal PS- WGWFr PS- WSWFr DO- SSPop DO- Wtotal DO- WGWFr DO- WSWFr DO- PSDel PT- Wtotal PT- WGW

04010101 Baptism-Brule 1,620 0.00 115 6.635 0.01 0.01 0.00 4.88 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 04010102 Beaver-Lester 635 0.01 57 67.555 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.66 0.26 0.26 0.00 2.95 0.00 0.00 04010201 St. Louis 3,010 0.09 1,809 146.457 11.22 5.99 5.23 28.63 1.65 1.65 0.00 6.76 190.34 0.11 04010202 Cloquet 796 0.00 86 10.304 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.30 0.72 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 04010301 Beartrap-Nemadji 1,850 0.00 171 43.266 0.37 0.37 0.00 17.10 0.88 0.88 0.00 1.81 0.00 0.00 04010302 Bad-Montreal 1,330 0.00 207 20.358 1.23 1.23 0.00 7.54 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.00 04020101 Black-Presque Isle 1,030 0.01 760 7.239 0.69 0.69 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 04020102 Ontonagon 1,390 0.00 750 5.910 0.14 0.14 0.00 2.14 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.44 0.00 04020103 Keweenaw Pen- insula 1,130 0.00 115 38.237 3.53 3.53 0.00 8.92 0.77 0.77 0.00 2.19 0.00 0.00 04020104 Sturgeon 710 0.00 111 2.602 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.56 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 04020105 Dead-Kelsey 946 0.02 323 47.498 1.42 1.42 0.00 2.49 0.22 0.22 0.00 3.13 0.00 0.00 04020201 Betsy-Chocolay 1,180 0.01 341 19.706 0.56 0.56 0.00 15.21 1.31 1.31 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 04020202 Tahquamenon 832 0.00 281 5.775 0.55 0.55 0.00 2.63 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 04020203 Waiska 324 0.00 182 8.194 0.05 0.05 0.00 7.47 0.64 0.64 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 04020300 Lake Superior 21,100 NA NA 1.378 37.26 0.00 37.26 1.38 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 320.69 0.00 04030101 Manitowoc 1,650 0.03 185 243.540 7.35 7.35 0.00 79.27 3.99 3.99 0.00 9.95 1.02 1.02 04030102 Door-Kewaunee 776 0.02 265 56.888 2.59 2.59 0.00 37.78 1.37 1.37 0.00 1.06 0.01 0.01 04030103 Duck-Pensaukee 483 0.02 705 15.890 0.51 0.51 0.00 10.06 0.45 0.45 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 04030104 Oconto 1,040 0.01 256 31.386 1.50 1.50 0.00 20.35 1.03 1.03 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 04030105 Peshtigo 1,170 0.01 401 35.373 0.86 0.86 0.00 17.25 0.85 0.85 0.00 0.97 1.31 0.00 04030106 Brule 1,060 0.00 168 15.447 2.11 2.11 0.00 1.39 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.00 04030107 Michigamme 734 0.01 3,033 2.189 0.15 0.15 0.00 1.49 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 04030108 Menominee 2,310 0.03 1,055 56.686 3.39 3.39 0.00 32.04 2.22 2.22 0.00 2.01 24.87 0.00 04030109 Cedar-Ford 1,010 0.00 145 19.069 0.06 0.06 0.00 8.77 0.76 0.76 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.00 

04030110 Escanaba 935 0.04 2,114 19.058 0.91 0.91 0.00 13.22 1.14 1.14 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.00 

04030111 Tacoosh-Whitefish 656 0.00 134 23.849 0.12 0.12 0.00 4.86 0.42 0.42 0.00 1.21 0.00 0.00 

04030112 Fishdam-Sturgeon 556 0.00 211 1.752 0.03 0.03 0.00 1.48 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 

04030201 Upper Fox 1,610 0.04 482 136.991 4.42 4.42 0.00 35.46 2.98 2.98 0.00 5.52 0.00 0.00 04030202 Wolf 3,720 0.04 1,007 162.604 10.95 10.95 0.00 95.09 5.26 5.26 0.00 3.15 0.00 0.00 04030203 Lake Winnebago 570 0.09 620 82.220 27.15 6.00 21.15 27.58 1.52 1.52 0.00 2.58 8.29 0.00 04030204 Lower Fox 438 1.23 1,284 420.220 22.45 19.68 2.77 22.49 1.57 1.57 0.00 20.95 448.42 0.00 
Appendix 1C. Estimates of Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use by Watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code).—Continued[The following is a listing of estimates of water use in 2005 derived from those compiled by each U.S. Geological Survey Water Science Center in the Great Lakes Basin and includix 1B. These estimates support the summarized findings presented elsewhere in this report. The compiled values from selected New York watersheds (8-digit HUCs) within the LaLake Ontario watersheds are preliminary and have since been revised and approved as final; the following water-use estimates based in part or whole on the preliminary values are bold typeface. This listing of estimates is available for download from the U.S.Geological Survey National Water-Use Information Web site (http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/). Columdefined in appendix 1A. Data Dictionary; NA, not applicable; NULL, value unknown, not reported]

HUC8Code HUC8Name IN- Wtotal IN- WGWFr IN- WSWFr MI- Wtotal MI- WGWto MI- WSWFr IT- Wtotal IT- WGWFr IT- WSWFr LA- Wtotal LA- WGWFr LA- WSWFr LS- Wtotal LS- WGW

04010101 Baptism-Brule 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.36 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 04010102 Beaver-Lester 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.43 0.00 3.43 0.08 0.01 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 04010201 St. Louis 6.20 0.01 6.19 54.81 0.02 54.79 0.28 0.02 0.26 0.29 0.27 0.02 0.15 0.15 04010202 Cloquet 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.02 04010301 Beartrap-Nemadji 0.98 0.02 0.96 0.61 0.54 0.07 0.34 0.30 0.04 3.93 3.92 0.01 0.27 0.25 04010302 Bad-Montreal 1.23 0.12 1.11 0.23 0.21 0.02 0.30 0.17 0.13 0.83 0.00 0.83 0.12 0.11 04020101 Black-Presque Isle 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.08 0.08 0.00 4.68 0.00 4.68 0.01 0.01 04020102 Ontonagon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 3.52 0.00 3.52 0.03 0.03 04020103 Keweenaw Peninsula 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 04020104 Sturgeon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 04020105 Dead-Kelsey 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.59 2.71 10.88 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 04020201 Betsy-Chocolay 0.35 0.35 0.00 4.26 0.84 3.42 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.14 0.05 0.03 0.03 04020202 Tahquamenon 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.23 0.01 0.22 0.08 0.01 0.07 0.47 0.35 0.12 0.02 0.02 04020203 Waiska 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.01 0.19 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.53 0.39 0.14 0.02 0.02 04020300 Lake Superior 14.36 0.00 14.36 296.45 0.00 296.45 0.01 0.00 0.01 11.67 0.00 11.67 0.00 0.00 04030101 Manitowoc 20.35 2.21 18.14 1.70 0.89 0.81 2.08 1.26 0.82 2.94 2.54 0.40 5.73 5.16 04030102 Door-Kewaunee 6.75 0.64 6.11 0.39 0.20 0.19 1.77 1.68 0.09 0.50 0.50 0.00 1.67 1.50 04030103 Duck-Pensaukee 9.04 0.40 8.64 0.44 0.23 0.21 0.30 0.25 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.42 04030104 Oconto 2.27 0.23 2.04 0.29 0.15 0.14 1.49 1.41 0.08 0.65 0.05 0.60 0.81 0.73 04030105 Peshtigo 5.34 0.76 4.58 0.15 0.08 0.07 1.06 0.92 0.14 4.12 1.57 2.55 0.48 0.43 04030106 Brule 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.04 0.12 0.09 0.08 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.02 0.02 04030107 Michigamme 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.73 1.14 4.59 0.62 0.10 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 04030108 Menominee 27.07 1.15 25.92 0.29 0.09 0.20 1.39 1.05 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.50 04030109 Cedar-Ford 0.03 0.03 0.00 1.66 0.31 1.35 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.19 

04030110 Escanaba 19.08 0.16 18.92 18.56 3.70 14.86 0.56 0.09 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 

04030111 Tacoosh-Whitefish 0.51 0.11 0.40 2.00 0.39 1.61 0.10 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.04 

04030112 Fishdam-Sturgeon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.01 0.14 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.03 

04030201 Upper Fox 19.26 3.35 15.91 1.69 0.89 0.80 30.03 29.74 0.29 5.86 5.50 0.36 1.74 1.57 04030202 Wolf 55.35 6.87 48.48 1.62 0.94 0.68 68.96 67.52 1.44 17.96 3.67 14.29 3.62 3.26 04030203 Lake Winnebago 11.81 1.63 10.18 0.19 0.10 0.09 0.59 0.48 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.42 1.28 04030204 Lower Fox 63.59 2.85 60.74 0.58 0.31 0.27 0.85 0.55 0.30 0.04 0.00 0.04 2.20 1.98 
Appendix 1C. Estimates of Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use by Watershed (8-digit HUC).—Continued [The following is a listing of estimates of water use in 2005 derived from those compiled by each U.S. Geological Survey Water Science Center in the Great Lakes Basin and includix 1B. These estimates support the summarized findings presented elsewhere in this report. The compiled values from selected New York watersheds (8-digit HUCs) within the LaLake Ontario watersheds are preliminary and have since been revised and approved as final; the following water-use estimates based in part or whole on the preliminary values are bold typeface. This listing of estimates is available for download from the U.S.Geological Survey National Water-Use Information Web site (http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/). Columdefined in appendix 1A. Data Dictionary; NA, not applicable; NULL, value unknown, not reported] HUC8Code HUC8Name AREA INTEN- A INTEN- PC TP- TotalPop PS- Wtotal PS- WGWFr PS- WSWFr DO- SSPop DO- Wtotal DO- WGWFr DO- WSWFr DO- PSDel PT- Wtotal PT- WGW

04040001 Little Calumet- Galien 706 0.45 622 511.797 1.18 1.18 0.00 66.74 5.19 5.19 0.00 34.40 0.00 0.00 04040002 Pike-Root 399 0.04 15 1,060.738 0.61 0.61 0.00 91.53 2.79 2.79 0.00 75.37 0.00 0.00 04040003 Milwaukee 861 0.23 200 993.940 13.86 13.86 0.00 62.27 5.02 5.02 0.00 63.60 167.42 0.00 04050001 St. Joseph 4,670 0.07 328 944.771 73.82 73.82 0.00 381.89 30.55 30.55 0.00 40.76 1.31 1.26 04050002 Black-Macatawa 600 0.05 164 170.797 0.68 0.68 0.00 80.31 6.93 6.93 0.00 6.61 0.82 0.82 04050003 Kalamazoo 2,030 0.06 255 492.608 39.50 39.50 0.00 226.17 19.52 19.52 0.00 19.49 0.01 0.01 04050004 Upper Grand 1,730 0.16 482 566.357 56.13 56.02 0.11 192.72 16.63 16.63 0.00 27.15 190.90 0.00 04050005 Maple 924 0.01 187 69.158 2.46 2.46 0.00 46.94 4.05 4.05 0.00 1.60 0.00 0.00 04050006 Lower Grand 1,990 0.06 160 802.359 15.51 15.51 0.00 263.92 22.77 22.77 0.00 39.25 45.48 0.00 04050007 Thornapple 874 0.02 141 93.403 4.06 4.06 0.00 57.90 5.00 5.00 0.00 3.18 0.00 0.00 04060101 Pere Marquette- White 2,100 0.01 134 165.436 4.03 4.03 0.00 99.95 8.63 8.63 0.00 5.44 0.00 0.00 04060102 Muskegon 2,680 0.02 256 237.836 10.12 10.12 0.00 138.01 11.91 11.91 0.00 6.82 0.67 0.67 04060103 Manistee 1,970 0.02 663 54.802 2.21 2.21 0.00 43.19 3.73 3.73 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.00 04060104 Betsie-Platte 819 0.01 172 51.238 1.53 1.53 0.00 41.46 3.58 3.58 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.00 04060105 Boardman- Charlevoix 1,650 0.04 434 152.899 9.12 9.12 0.00 83.30 7.19 7.19 0.00 4.92 0.00 0.00 04060106 Manistique 1,480 0.01 678 11.895 0.48 0.06 0.42 7.35 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 04060107 Brevoort- Millecoquine 578 0.00 219 4.557 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.51 0.39 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 04060200 Lake Michigan 22,300 NA NA 3.859 1463.03 0.00 1463.03 0.56 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.30 9447.78 0.00 04070001 St. Marys 853 0.00 89 28.398 1.00 1.00 0.00 5.90 0.51 0.51 0.00 1.64 0.00 0.00 04070002 Carp-Pine 641 0.00 222 5.623 0.04 0.04 0.00 1.96 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 04070003 Lone Lake- Ocqueoc 810 0.01 172 34.674 0.52 0.52 0.00 29.82 2.57 2.57 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 04070004 Cheboygan 918 0.01 135 41.461 1.00 1.00 0.00 33.97 2.93 2.93 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.00 04070005 Black 618 0.00 216 6.814 0.23 0.23 0.00 5.33 0.46 0.46 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 04070006 Thunder Bay 1,270 0.01 317 31.136 0.71 0.71 0.00 13.49 1.16 1.16 0.00 1.21 0.00 0.00 04070007 Au sable 2,000 0.01 195 58.742 2.17 2.17 0.00 40.13 3.46 3.46 0.00 1.08 0.89 0.89 04080101 Au Gres-Rifle 1,030 0.01 120 44.500 0.38 0.38 0.00 30.07 2.60 2.60 0.00 1.04 0.00 0.00 04080102 Kawkawlin-Pine 503 0.01 95 57.623 0.02 0.02 0.00 48.78 4.21 4.21 0.00 3.15 0.00 0.00 04080103 Pigeon-Wiscoggin 853 0.01 156 45.597 1.04 1.04 0.00 29.39 2.54 2.54 0.00 1.25 0.00 0.00 
Appendix 1C. Estimates of Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use by Watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code).—Continued[The following is a listing of estimates of water use in 2005 derived from those compiled by each U.S. Geological Survey Water Science Center in the Great Lakes Basin and includix 1B. These estimates support the summarized findings presented elsewhere in this report. The compiled values from selected New York watersheds (8-digit HUCs) within the LaLake Ontario watersheds are preliminary and have since been revised and approved as final; the following water-use estimates based in part or whole on the preliminary values are bold typeface. This listing of estimates is available for download from the U.S.Geological Survey National Water-Use Information Web site (http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/). Columdefined in appendix 1A. Data Dictionary; NA, not applicable; NULL, value unknown, not reported]

HUC8Code HUC8Name IN- Wtotal IN- WGWFr IN- WSWFr MI- Wtotal MI- WGWto MI- WSWFr IT- Wtotal IT- WGWFr IT- WSWFr LA- Wtotal LA- WGWFr LA- WSWFr LS- Wtotal LS- WGW

04040001 Little CalumetGalien 310.38 1.95 308.43 0.15 0.00 0.15 1.06 0.45 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.13 04040002 Pike-Root 6.35 1.90 4.45 1.26 0.66 0.60 3.41 3.18 0.23 1.38 0.38 1.00 0.18 0.16 04040003 Milwaukee 7.79 3.10 4.69 1.18 0.83 0.35 1.70 1.45 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.70 1.53 04050001 St. Joseph 17.42 15.42 2.00 5.76 0.38 5.38 175.34 122.62 52.72 0.05 0.05 0.00 5.58 3.85 04050002 Black-Macatawa 6.83 0.17 6.66 1.11 0.01 1.10 10.78 6.76 4.02 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.81 0.73 04050003 Kalamazoo 44.87 35.55 9.32 3.72 0.00 3.72 16.25 7.68 8.57 0.05 0.01 0.04 1.88 1.69 04050004 Upper Grand 0.81 0.79 0.02 2.16 0.04 2.12 4.98 2.90 2.08 0.19 0.02 0.17 1.05 0.94 04050005 Maple 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.88 3.66 2.40 1.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.03 0.92 04050006 Lower Grand 3.50 1.78 1.72 2.03 0.00 2.03 37.02 28.85 8.17 0.38 0.02 0.36 2.02 1.82 04050007 Thornapple 0.64 0.17 0.47 0.75 0.00 0.75 2.16 1.10 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.51 04060101 Pere MarquetteWhite 1.86 1.86 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.30 5.30 3.47 1.83 1.18 0.07 1.11 0.80 0.73 04060102 Muskegon 8.83 4.64 4.19 1.73 0.45 1.28 20.11 15.96 4.15 6.23 0.06 6.17 1.26 1.14 04060103 Manistee 22.03 3.25 18.78 0.74 0.10 0.64 2.61 2.20 0.41 3.57 0.00 3.57 0.24 0.23 04060104 Betsie-Platte 0.77 0.76 0.01 0.80 0.13 0.67 1.90 1.60 0.30 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.07 0.07 04060105 BoardmanCharlevoix 11.35 11.35 0.00 1.26 0.07 1.19 4.89 4.46 0.43 32.42 0.01 32.41 0.17 0.17 04060106 Manistique 5.70 0.00 5.70 1.10 0.13 0.97 0.13 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 04060107 BrevoortMillecoquine 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.01 0.50 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 04060200 Lake Michigan 1426.59 0.32 1426.27 0.29 0.02 0.27 2.47 0.00 2.47 1.84 0.00 1.84 0.01 0.01 04070001 St. Marys 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.27 0.01 0.26 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.60 0.44 0.16 0.02 0.02 04070002 Carp-Pine 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.49 0.01 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.37 0.13 0.03 0.03 04070003 Lone LakeOcqueoc 0.01 0.01 0.00 1.58 0.00 1.58 0.67 0.42 0.25 0.52 0.00 0.52 0.11 0.10 04070004 Cheboygan 0.32 0.07 0.25 0.23 0.02 0.21 0.61 0.59 0.02 0.42 0.01 0.41 0.09 0.09 04070005 Black 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.01 0.61 0.11 0.09 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 04070006 Thunder Bay 4.04 0.00 4.04 1.10 0.01 1.09 1.22 0.72 0.50 1.46 0.01 1.45 0.18 0.17 04070007 Au Sable 0.62 0.55 0.07 0.31 0.04 0.27 1.64 1.04 0.60 2.18 0.06 2.12 0.18 0.17 04080101 Au Gres-Rifle 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.47 0.10 0.37 0.80 0.57 0.23 0.69 0.17 0.52 0.32 0.28 04080102 Kawkawlin-Pine 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.91 0.16 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 04080103 Pigeon-Wiscoggin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.21 2.46 1.17 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.78 
Appendix 1C. Estimates of Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use by Watershed (8-digit HUC).—Continued [The following is a listing of estimates of water use in 2005 derived from those compiled by each U.S. Geological Survey Water Science Center in the Great Lakes Basin and includix 1B. These estimates support the summarized findings presented elsewhere in this report. The compiled values from selected New York watersheds (8-digit HUCs) within the LaLake Ontario watersheds are preliminary and have since been revised and approved as final; the following water-use estimates based in part or whole on the preliminary values are bold typeface. This listing of estimates is available for download from the U.S.Geological Survey National Water-Use Information Web site (http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/). Columdefined in appendix 1A. Data Dictionary; NA, not applicable; NULL, value unknown, not reported] HUC8Code HUC8Name AREA INTEN- A INTEN- PC TP- TotalPop PS- Wtotal PS- WGWFr PS- WSWFr DO- SSPop DO- Wtotal DO- WGWFr DO- WSWFr DO- PSDel PT- Wtotal PT- WGW

04080104 Birch-Willow 572 0.00 80 31.946 0.30 0.30 0.00 12.24 1.06 1.06 0.00 1.45 0.00 0.00 04080201 Tittabawassee 1,430 0.02 134 162.325 1.65 1.65 0.00 89.79 7.75 7.75 0.00 7.39 4.84 0.00 04080202 Pine 1,040 0.02 175 111.236 5.33 4.65 0.68 60.58 5.23 5.23 0.00 4.04 0.12 0.12 04080203 Shiawassee 1,220 0.02 148 198.153 10.99 10.99 0.00 119.29 10.29 10.29 0.00 7.53 0.00 0.00 04080204 Flint 1,340 0.02 52 519.051 4.00 4.00 0.00 202.33 17.46 17.46 0.00 24.78 0.21 0.21 04080205 Cass 881 0.01 113 70.655 2.80 2.80 0.00 35.89 3.10 3.10 0.00 2.45 0.00 0.00 04080206 Saginaw 250 0.02 35 167.077 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.36 2.71 2.71 0.00 10.83 0.00 0.00 04080300 Lake Huron 8,920 NA NA 2.274 224.75 0.00 224.75 2.27 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 809.58 0.00 04090001 St. Clair 1,210 0.01 69 175.839 2.11 2.11 0.00 76.04 6.56 6.56 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 04090002 Lake St. Clair 413 0.01 6 619.321 0.01 0.01 0.00 33.82 2.91 2.91 0.00 49.64 0.00 0.00 04090003 Clinton 742 0.05 38 1,069.471 18.98 18.98 0.00 136.03 11.74 11.74 0.00 67.02 0.00 0.00 04090004 Detroit 685 0.25 81 2,105.501 0.86 0.86 0.00 0.60 0.05 0.05 0.00 170.62 162.10 0.00 04090005 Huron 909 0.07 99 602.781 27.23 13.81 13.42 137.28 11.85 11.85 0.00 35.01 0.00 0.00 04100001 Ottawa-Stony 689 0.05 84 398.773 0.12 0.06 0.06 163.30 14.02 14.00 0.02 23.96 0.09 0.09 04100002 Raisin 1,070 0.02 123 173.337 9.93 7.04 2.89 22.31 1.92 1.92 0.00 9.58 0.00 0.00 04100003 St. Joseph 1,060 0.05 339 162.467 42.62 9.35 33.27 71.35 5.52 5.51 0.01 7.92 0.27 0.27 04100004 St. Marys 820 0.02 98 194.954 5.27 5.27 0.00 25.60 1.93 1.91 0.02 12.84 5.64 0.00 04100005 Upper Maumee 385 0.02 96 93.622 4.83 0.74 4.09 14.42 1.37 1.36 0.01 5.85 0.00 0.00 04100006 Tiffin 781 0.01 149 61.232 4.98 2.95 2.03 30.33 2.40 2.37 0.03 1.96 0.00 0.00 04100007 Auglaize 1,660 0.02 201 197.929 26.85 4.97 21.88 57.97 4.35 4.27 0.08 9.65 0.00 0.00 04100008 Blanchard 757 0.06 512 92.257 8.95 1.19 7.76 37.85 2.84 2.78 0.06 4.57 0.00 0.00 04100009 Lower Maumee 1,080 0.70 2531 298.637 10.73 1.02 9.71 57.80 4.34 4.25 0.09 20.41 730.69 0.00 04100010 Cedar-Portage 958 0.07 388 169.879 6.45 1.08 5.37 52.62 3.95 3.87 0.08 5.11 0.00 0.00 

04100011 Sandusky 1,850 0.02 177 217.856 11.42 1.43 9.99 64.51 4.84 4.74 0.10 7.77 0.00 0.00 

04100012 Huron-Vermilion 754 0.01 90 92.201 4.26 0.39 3.87 4.10 0.31 0.30 0.01 5.57 0.00 0.00 

04110001 Black-Rocky 888 0.13 156 729.358 4.16 0.39 3.77 66.63 5.00 4.90 0.10 41.95 0.00 0.00 04110002 Cuyahoga 804 0.23 180 1,040.667 52.81 15.59 37.22 129.91 9.74 9.55 0.19 58.62 0.00 0.00 04110003 Ashtabula-Chagrin 630 0.02 16 699.737 0.97 0.97 0.00 70.36 5.27 5.17 0.10 45.91 0.00 0.00 04110004 Grand 710 0.01 34 120.473 0.29 0.24 0.05 32.17 2.41 2.36 0.05 7.16 0.00 0.00 

04120101 ChautauquaConneaut 874 0.03 84 328.975 5.29 2.21 3.08 60.32 3.97 3.96 0.01 21.99 0.00 0.00 04120102 Cattaraugus 548 0.01 176 43.613 3.07 2.35 0.72 10.20 0.92 0.92 0.00 3.47 0.00 0.00 
Appendix 1C. Estimates of Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use by Watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code).—Continued[The following is a listing of estimates of water use in 2005 derived from those compiled by each U.S. Geological Survey Water Science Center in the Great Lakes Basin and includix 1B. These estimates support the summarized findings presented elsewhere in this report. The compiled values from selected New York watersheds (8-digit HUCs) within the LaLake Ontario watersheds are preliminary and have since been revised and approved as final; the following water-use estimates based in part or whole on the preliminary values are bold typeface. This listing of estimates is available for download from the U.S.Geological Survey National Water-Use Information Web site (http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/). Columdefined in appendix 1A. Data Dictionary; NA, not applicable; NULL, value unknown, not reported]

HUC8Code HUC8Name IN- Wtotal IN- WGWFr IN- WSWFr MI- Wtotal MI- WGWto MI- WSWFr IT- Wtotal IT- WGWFr IT- WSWFr LA- Wtotal LA- WGWFr LA- WSWFr LS- Wtotal LS- WGW

04080104 Birch-Willow 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.24 0.18 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.66 0.59 04080201 Tittabawassee 6.14 0.14 6.00 0.37 0.00 0.37 0.47 0.21 0.26 0.08 0.03 0.05 0.39 0.35 04080202 Pine 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.41 0.03 0.38 5.37 3.53 1.84 1.80 0.00 1.80 0.68 0.61 04080203 Shiawassee 0.21 0.21 0.00 2.32 0.11 2.21 5.10 2.63 2.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.37 04080204 Flint 0.13 0.13 0.00 1.76 0.16 1.60 2.95 1.43 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.36 04080205 Cass 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.37 0.00 0.37 1.02 0.82 0.20 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.57 0.51 04080206 Saginaw 2.65 0.00 2.65 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.40 0.27 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 04080300 Lake Huron 19.55 0.00 19.55 0.17 0.01 0.16 3.06 0.00 3.06 0.34 0.25 0.09 0.01 0.01 04090001 St. Clair 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.82 0.00 0.82 1.89 0.78 1.11 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.65 0.58 04090002 Lake St. Clair 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.01 0.24 0.48 0.28 0.20 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.03 04090003 Clinton 0.66 0.66 0.00 3.32 0.55 2.77 5.35 1.83 3.52 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.08 0.07 04090004 Detroit 1.66 0.20 1.46 2.52 0.34 2.18 2.46 1.10 1.36 0.10 0.02 0.08 0.04 0.04 04090005 Huron 11.78 2.98 8.80 3.60 0.35 3.25 3.89 2.43 1.46 1.12 0.18 0.94 0.23 0.20 04100001 Ottawa-Stony 8.62 8.62 0.00 6.43 4.18 2.25 3.78 1.87 1.91 0.21 0.04 0.17 0.15 0.10 04100002 Raisin 2.44 1.07 1.37 2.44 0.69 1.75 3.49 1.15 2.34 0.62 0.10 0.52 0.55 0.47 04100003 St. Joseph 4.28 4.00 0.28 0.70 0.00 0.70 0.68 0.46 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.56 04100004 St. Marys 1.54 0.10 1.44 2.01 1.63 0.38 0.20 0.15 0.05 0.61 0.38 0.23 1.91 1.12 04100005 Upper Maumee 1.79 0.63 1.16 0.73 0.00 0.73 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.10 04100006 Tiffin 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.28 0.04 0.24 0.90 0.35 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.21 04100007 Auglaize 1.34 1.14 0.20 5.72 5.45 0.27 0.53 0.28 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.29 04100008 Blanchard 31.92 5.30 26.62 2.68 2.62 0.06 0.47 0.13 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.06 04100009 Lower Maumee 6.71 0.01 6.70 2.19 2.19 0.00 0.97 0.55 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.07 04100010 Cedar-Portage 53.33 5.82 47.51 1.43 1.43 0.00 0.65 0.49 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.04 

04100011 Sandusky 9.38 0.43 8.95 8.17 7.99 0.18 0.42 0.20 0.22 3.43 0.00 3.43 0.84 0.14 

04100012 Huron-Vermilion 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.29 0.39 2.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.10 

04110001 Black-Rocky 101.03 0.08 100.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.26 0.12 3.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.15 04110002 Cuyahoga 122.08 1.70 120.38 0.74 0.20 0.54 1.57 0.72 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.08 04110003 Ashtabula-Chagrin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 4.71 0.30 4.41 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.19 0.09 04110004 Grand 0.40 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.10 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.13 

04120101 ChautauquaConneaut 10.06 0.91 9.15 0.63 0.11 0.52 0.89 0.22 0.67 6.17 3.29 2.88 0.78 0.60 04120102 Cattaraugus 1.09 0.50 0.59 0.58 0.15 0.43 0.58 0.16 0.42 0.96 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.31 
Appendix 1C. Estimates of Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use by Watershed (8-digit HUC).—Continued [The following is a listing of estimates of water use in 2005 derived from those compiled by each U.S. Geological Survey Water Science Center in the Great Lakes Basin and includix 1B. These estimates support the summarized findings presented elsewhere in this report. The compiled values from selected New York watersheds (8-digit HUCs) within the LaLake Ontario watersheds are preliminary and have since been revised and approved as final; the following water-use estimates based in part or whole on the preliminary values are bold typeface. This listing of estimates is available for download from the U.S.Geological Survey National Water-Use Information Web site (http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/). Columdefined in appendix 1A. Data Dictionary; NA, not applicable; NULL, value unknown, not reported] HUC8Code HUC8Name AREA INTEN- A INTEN- PC TP- TotalPop PS- Wtotal PS- WGWFr PS- WSWFr DO- SSPop DO- Wtotal DO- WGWFr DO- WSWFr DO- PSDel PT- Wtotal PT- WGW

04120103 Buffalo- Eighteenmile 732 0.02 36 500.252 0.37 0.37 0.00 56.27 4.22 4.22 0.00 53.41 0.00 0.00 04120104 Niagara 774 0.82 1035 609.875 18.19 0.42 17.77 65.79 4.93 4.93 0.00 63.85 595.13 0.00 04120200 Lake Erie 4,810 NA NA 1.641 1116.27 0.01 1116.26 1.07 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.01 6439.74 0.00 04130001 Oak Orchard- Twelvemile 1,040 0.05 192 281.246 39.53 0.45 39.08 40.49 3.03 3.03 0.00 24.08 0.00 0.00 04130002 Upper Genesee 1,430 0.01 183 72.590 4.83 2.37 2.46 22.39 1.65 1.65 0.00 4.96 0.00 0.00 04130003 Lower Genesee 1,070 0.06 190 330.646 46.24 0.65 45.59 31.49 4.12 4.12 0.00 27.52 0.00 0.00 04140101 Irondequoit- Ninemile 708 0.03 47 397.747 3.81 3.81 0.00 46.48 3.48 3.48 0.00 35.10 0.00 0.00 04140102 Salmon-Sandy 969 0.02 285 54.107 11.18 1.98 9.20 0.55 0.04 0.04 0.00 5.34 0.00 0.00 04140201 Seneca 3,430 0.14 638 757.155 124.64 7.90 116.74 180.46 13.50 13.50 0.00 67.82 307.77 0.00 04140202 Oneida 1,470 0.02 145 236.306 14.78 2.78 12.00 66.32 4.97 4.97 0.00 17.70 0.00 0.00 04140203 Oswego 131 0.02 81 38.371 0.03 0.03 0.00 21.08 1.58 1.58 0.00 1.79 0.00 0.00 04150101 Black 1,920 0.01 274 70.270 10.03 1.73 8.30 30.74 2.31 2.31 0.00 3.85 0.00 0.00 04150102 Chaumont-Perch 380 0.01 83 22.767 0.08 0.08 0.00 9.17 0.68 0.68 0.00 1.35 0.00 0.00 04150301 Upper St. Law- rence 506 0.01 113 28.003 0.17 0.00 0.17 25.77 1.94 1.94 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 04150302 Oswegatchie 1,040 0.00 146 27.604 0.63 0.27 0.36 18.99 1.42 1.42 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.00 04150303 Indian 558 0.01 135 33.016 1.29 0.79 0.50 19.71 1.48 1.48 0.00 1.33 0.00 0.00 04150200 Lake Ontario 3,430 NA NA 0.000 70.06 0.00 70.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2033.13 0.00 
Appendix 1C. Estimates of Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use by Watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code).—Continued[The following is a listing of estimates of water use in 2005 derived from those compiled by each U.S. Geological Survey Water Science Center in the Great Lakes Basin and includix 1B. These estimates support the summarized findings presented elsewhere in this report. The compiled values from selected New York watersheds (8-digit HUCs) within the LaLake Ontario watersheds are preliminary and have since been revised and approved as final; the following water-use estimates based in part or whole on the preliminary values are bold typeface. This listing of estimates is available for download from the U.S.Geological Survey National Water-Use Information Web site (http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/). Columdefined in appendix 1A. Data Dictionary; NA, not applicable; NULL, value unknown, not reported]

HUC8Code HUC8Name IN- Wtotal IN- WGWFr IN- WSWFr MI- Wtotal MI- WGWto MI- WSWFr IT- Wtotal IT- WGWFr IT- WSWFr LA- Wtotal LA- WGWFr LA- WSWFr LS- Wtotal LS- WGW

04120103 BuffaloEighteenmile 10.20 0.14 10.06 0.76 0.16 0.60 1.69 0.46 1.23 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.77 0.50 04120104 Niagara 8.61 0.45 8.16 0.73 0.16 0.57 2.29 0.82 1.47 0.02 0.01 0.01 1.09 0.71 04120200 Lake Erie 302.73 0.00 302.73 11.65 7.24 4.41 0.64 0.01 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 04130001 Oak OrchardTwelvemile 6.44 0.27 6.17 0.89 0.20 0.69 3.44 1.30 2.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.40 04130002 Upper Genesee 1.47 0.86 0.61 0.84 0.19 0.65 1.12 0.31 0.81 1.81 0.24 1.57 1.57 1.03 04130003 Lower Genesee 7.34 0.83 6.51 0.95 0.19 0.76 2.68 0.72 1.96 0.08 0.01 0.07 1.49 0.97 04140101 IrondequoitNinemile 9.05 0.77 8.28 0.40 0.09 0.31 1.21 0.32 0.89 0.34 0.07 0.27 0.43 0.28 04140102 Salmon-Sandy 1.07 0.37 0.70 0.34 0.07 0.27 0.53 0.15 0.38 1.66 0.00 1.66 0.60 0.39 04140201 Seneca 25.67 2.88 22.79 3.64 0.73 2.91 3.47 0.99 2.48 1.03 0.29 0.74 3.68 2.38 04140202 Oneida 7.15 1.15 6.00 0.67 0.15 0.52 1.59 0.45 1.14 3.85 1.24 2.61 1.25 0.81 04140203 Oswego 0.90 0.26 0.64 0.07 0.01 0.06 0.15 0.04 0.11 0.30 0.00 0.30 0.06 0.04 04150101 Black 1.61 0.50 1.11 0.41 0.09 0.32 0.48 0.13 0.35 3.18 1.24 1.94 1.22 0.79 04150102 Chaumont-Perch 0.44 0.09 0.35 0.15 0.03 0.12 0.16 0.05 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.25 04150301 Upper St. Lawrence 0.55 0.12 0.43 0.09 0.02 0.07 0.11 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.28 0.18 04150302 Oswegatchie 0.55 0.13 0.42 0.21 0.04 0.17 0.19 0.08 0.11 0.40 0.13 0.27 0.63 0.41 04150303 Indian 0.64 0.14 0.50 0.16 0.03 0.13 0.18 0.06 0.12 0.23 0.00 0.23 0.49 0.32 04150200 Lake Ontario 0.22 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 


—Estimated Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use, Great Lakes Basin of the United States, 2005—SIR 2010–5031

Printed on recycled paper