Prepared in cooperation with the

NEVADA DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Ground-Water Pumpage and Artificial Recharge

Estimates for Calendar Year 2000 and Average 

Annual Natural Recharge and Interbasin 

Flow by Hydrographic Area, Nevada

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5239
(Back of Cover)
Ground-Water Pumpage and Artificial Recharge

Estimates for Calendar Year 2000 and Average 

Annual Natural Recharge and Interbasin 

Flow by Hydrographic Area, Nevada

by Thomas J. Lopes and David M. Evetts 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Carson City, Nevada

2004

Prepared in cooperation with the

NEVADA DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5239
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

GALE A. NORTON, Secretary

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

CHARLES G. GROAT, Director

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive

purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government

For additional information contact: For more information about the

U.S. Geological Survey and its

District Chief products:

U.S. Geological Survey

333 West Nye Lane, Room 203 Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

Carson City, NV 89706–0866 World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov

Email: GS-W-NVpublic-info@usgs.gov

World Wide Web: http://nevada.usgs.gov
 iii

CONTENTS

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

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Previous Investigations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Reported Estimates of Ground-Water Pumpage, Recharge, and Interbasin Flow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Estimated Ground-Water Pumpage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Assumptions and Accuracy of Ground-Water Pumpage Estimates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Ground-Water Pumpage and Artificial Recharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Natural Recharge and Interbasin Flow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Net Ground-Water Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Selected References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Appendixes:

1. Estimates of natural recharge for hydrographic areas of Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

2. Estimates of interbasin flow for hydrographic areas of Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

3. References used in appendixes 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77

FIGURES

1. Map showing hydrographic areas of Nevada. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2. Graph showing ground-water pumpage as a function of the population served 

by public water systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3. Pie diagram showing percentages of ground-water pumpage by category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

4. Bar chart showing hydrographic areas with the greatest amount of total 

ground-water pumpage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

5. Bar chart showing ground-water pumpage by category in the top 

10 hydrographic areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

TABLES

1. Ground-water pumpage and artificial recharge estimates for Nevada, 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2. Net ground-water flow and designated hydrographic areas of Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
iv 

CONVERSION FACTORS AND VERTICAL DATUM

Multiply By To obtain

acre-foot (acre-ft) 1,233 cubic meter (m3)

acre-foot per year (acre-ft/yr) 1,233 cubic meter per year (m3/yr)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

gallon (gal) 0.00378 cubic meter (m3)

million gallons (Mgal) 3,785 cubic meter (m3)

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

inch per year (in/yr) 25.40 millimeter per year (mm/yr)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

pound (lb) 0.4536 kilogram (kg)

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Temperature: Degrees Celsius (oC) can be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (oF) by using the formula o

F = 1.8(oC)+ 32. Degrees Fahrenheit can be converted to degrees Celsius by using the formula o

C = 0.556(oF-32).

Sea level: In this report, “sea level” refers to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD of 1929, 

formerly called Sea-Level Datum of 1929), which is derived from a general adjustment of the first-order 

leveling networks of the United States and Canada.
ABSTRACT 1

ABSTRACT

Nevada's reliance on ground-water resources has increased 

because of increased development and surface-water resources 

being fully appropriated. The need to accurately quantify 

Nevada's water resources and water use is more critical than 

ever to meet future demands. Estimated ground-water pumpage, artificial and natural recharge, and interbasin flow can be 

used to help evaluate stresses on aquifer systems. In this report, 

estimates of ground-water pumpage and artificial recharge during calendar year 2000 were made using data from a variety of 

sources, such as reported estimates and estimates made using 

Landsat satellite imagery. Average annual natural recharge and 

interbasin flow were compiled from published reports.

An estimated 1,427,100 acre-feet of ground water was 

pumped in Nevada during calendar year 2000. This total was 

calculated by summing six categories of ground-water pumpage, based on water use. Total artificial recharge during 2000 

was about 145,970 acre-feet. At least one estimate of natural 

recharge was available for 209 of the 232 hydrographic areas 

(HAs). Natural recharge for the 209 HAs ranges from 1,793,420 

to 2,583,150 acre-feet. Estimates of interbasin flow were available for 151 HAs.

The categories and their percentage of the total groundwater pumpage are irrigation and stock watering (47 percent), 

mining (26 percent), water systems (14 percent), geothermal 

production (8 percent), self-supplied domestic (4 percent), and 

miscellaneous (less than 1 percent). Pumpage in the top 10 HAs 

accounted for about 49 percent of the total ground-water pumpage. The most ground-water pumpage in an HA was due to mining in Pumpernickel Valley (HA 65), Boulder Flat (HA 61), and 

Lower Reese River Valley (HA 59). Pumpage by water systems 

in Las Vegas Valley (HA 212) and Truckee Meadows (HA 87) 

were the fourth and fifth highest pumpage in 2000, respectively. 

Irrigation and stock watering pumpage accounted for most 

ground-water withdrawals in the HAs with the sixth through 

ninth highest pumpage. Geothermal production accounted for 

most pumpage in the Carson Desert (HA 101).

Reinjection of ground water pumped for geothermal 

energy production accounted for about 64 percent (93,310 acrefeet) of the total artificial recharge. The only artificial recharge 

by water systems was in Las Vegas Valley, where 29,790 acrefeet of water from the Colorado River was injected into the 

aquifer system. Artificial recharge by mining totaled 22,870 

acre-feet.

Net ground-water flow was estimated only for the 143 

HAs with available estimates of both natural recharge and interbasin flow. Of the 143 estimates, 58 have negative net groundwater flow, indicating that ground-water storage could be 

depleted if pumpage continues at the same rate. The State has 

designated HAs where permitted ground-water rights approach 

or exceed the estimated average annual recharge. Ten HAs were 

identified that are not designated and have a net ground-water 

flow between -1,000 to -35,000 acre-feet. Due to uncertainties 

in recharge, the water budgets for these HAs may need refining 

to determine if ground-water storage is being depleted.

INTRODUCTION

Nevada is the driest state in the Nation with an average 

annual precipitation of 9 in. and as little as 3 to 4 in. in the

southern parts of the State (Houghton and others, 1975). 

Nevada also is one of the fastest growing states. The population 

increased from about 1.2 million in 1990 to 2.2 million in 2002 

and is projected to reach 3 million by 2022 (Nevada State 

Demographer, 2004a, b). Nevada's reliance on ground water has 

increased because of increased development and surface-water 

resources being fully appropriated (Nevada Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources, 1999). The need to 

accurately quantify Nevada's water resources and water use 

is more critical than ever to meet future demands.

Most ground water in Nevada is pumped from basin-fill 

aquifer systems. Basin-fill aquifer systems underlie the valleys 

and consist mostly of unconsolidated lacustrine, colluvial, and 

alluvial sediments (Maurer and others, 2004). Bedrock aquifer 

systems are pumped to a lesser extent. However, water suppliers have become interested in bedrock aquifer systems to meet 

future water demands. Bedrock aquifer systems, consisting primarily of carbonate-rock and volcanic-rock aquifers, form 

many of the mountain ranges surrounding the valleys and 

underlie many basin-fill aquifer systems. Basin-fill and bedrock 

aquifer systems vary in productivity due to differences in 

hydraulic properties such as storage and transmissivity, and 

recharge rates. 

Recharge to aquifer systems in Nevada occurs primarily 

by infiltration of precipitation in the ranges that form the boundaries of the hydrographic areas (HAs; fig. 1). Generally, it is 

believed that annual precipitation on the ranges in excess of 

8 in. contributes to ground-water recharge, whereas most 

Ground-Water Pumpage and Artificial Recharge Estimates for 

Calendar Year 2000 and Average Annual Natural Recharge 

and Interbasin Flow by Hydrographic Area, Nevada

by Thomas J. Lopes and David M. Evetts
2 Ground-Water Pumpage and Artificial Recharge Estimates for 2000 and Annual Natural Recharge and Interbasin Flow in NV

Figure 1. Hydrographic areas of Nevada.

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

OREGON IDAHO

UTAH

ARIZONA

40 37

9 35 29 14

189B

33A

67 190

42 189D

28

189C

69 25

30B

44

36

26

189A

31

15

32 63

16 66

64 188 51

191

187

43 62 70 24

61

192

50

177 49

71

65

21

17

45 18

176

72 48 23

131

52

59

60

22 79

46

53 47 78 129

54 178A

186B

98

130

73B

73A

80

19

81

179

20

97 132

55

186A 101A

58

178B

193

153

175

128 57 138

95

185

96

74

184

84

101

77

75

154

56

99

100A

94

139

93

194 92A

100 82

133

92B

85

195

76 100A

86 83

87

134

91

137B

102 174 126

127

152

151

124 155A

103

140A

88

89 90

125

207

104

173B

123

110A

108

122

105

107 150

155C

135

140B

156

155B

196

180

183

110B

109

106

137A

110C

149

141

121A

121B

136

181

120

201 119

172

111A

118

208

111B 202 113

114

171

112

173A

200

170

115

142

199

198

143

116

117

203 148 197

147

145

209 144 157 182

204

169A

205

222

158A 146 232 206 221

228

169B

227B

210

159

231 158B

168

160

161

227A 229

230 220

219 226

211 218

225

212

224

217

216 223

215

162

163

213

164A 167

165 166

164B 214

3

27

4

7

8

30A

68

34

38

2

33B 6 11 10

13 12

1 39 41

5

120° 118° 116° 114°

36°

38°

40°

42°

Modified from Rush (1968)

1

2

3

11

4

10

13

12

14

9

8

5

6 7

Index map showing

hydrographic regions

and basins

102 Number refers to hydrographic area

Hydrographic-area boundary

Hydrographic regions and basins

EXPLANATION

0 50 100 MILES

0 50 100 KILOMETERS
1-NORTHWEST REGION 85. Spanish Springs V. 159. Yucca Flat

 86. Sun V. 160. Frenchman Flat

 1. Pueblo V. 87. Truckee Meadows 161. Indian Springs V. 2. Continental Lake V. 88. Pleasant V. 162. Pahrump V.

 3. Gridley Lake V. 89. Washoe V. 163. Mesquite V. (Sandy V.)

 4. Virgin V. 90. Lake Tahoe Basin 164. Ivanpah V.

 (A) Northern Part

 (B) Southern Part

 5. Sage Hen V. 91. Truckee Canyon Segment 6. Guano V.

 7. Swan Lake V. 7-WESTERN REGION 165. Jean Lake V.

 8. Massacre Lake V. 166. Hidden V. (South)

 9. Long V. 92. Lemmon V.

 (A) Western Part

 (B) Eastern Part

 167. Eldorado V.

 10. Macy Flat 168. Three Lakes V. (Northern Part) 11. Coleman V. 169. Tikapoo V. (Tickaboo V.)

 (A) Northern Part

 (B) Southern Part

 12. Mosquito V. 93. Antelope V.

 13. Warner V. 94. Bedell Flat

 14. Surprise V. 95. Dry V. 170. Penoyer V. (Sand Spring V.)

 15. Boulder V. 96. Newcomb Lake V. 171. Coal V. 16. Duck Lake V. 97. Honey Lake V. 172. Garden V.

 98. Skedaddle Creek V. 173. Railroad V.

 (A) Southern Part

 (B) Northern Part

2-BLACK ROCK DESERT REGION 99. Red Rock V.

 100. Cold Spring V.

 17. Pilgrim Flat (A) Long V. 174. Jakes V. 18. Painter Flat 175. Long V.

 19. Dry V. 8-CARSON RIVER BASIN 176. Ruby V.

 20. Sano V. 177. Clover V.

 21. Smoke Creek Desert 101. Carson Desert

 (A) Packard V.

 178. Butte V.

 (A) Northern Part (Round V.)

 (B) Southern Part 22. San Emidio Desert 23. Granite Basin 102. Churchill V.

 24. Hualapai Flat 103. Dayton V. 179. Steptoe V.

 25. High Rock Lake V. 104. Eagle V. 180. Cave V.

 26. Mud Meadow 105. Carson Valley 181. Dry Lake V.

 27. Summit Lake V. 182. Delamar V.

 28. Black Rock Desert 9-WALKER RIVER BASIN 183. Lake V.

 29. Pine Forest V. 184. Spring V.

 30. Kings River V.

 (A) Rio King Subarea

 (B) Sod House Subarea

 106. Antelope V. 185. Tippett V. 107. Smith V. 186. Antelope V. (White Pine & Elko)

 (A) Southern Part

 (B) Northern Part 108. Mason V. 31. Desert V. 109. East Walker Area

 32. Silver State V. 110. Walker Lake V.

 (A) Schurz Subarea

 (B) Lake Subarea

 (C) Whisky Flat --

 187. Goshute V.

 33. Quinn River V.

 (A) Orovada Subarea

 (B) McDermitt Subarea

 188. Independence V. (Pequop V.)

11-GREAT SALT LAKE BASIN

 Hawthorne Subarea

3-SNAKE RIVER BASIN 189. Thousand Springs V.

 (A) Herrill Siding--Brush Creek Area

 (B) Toano--Rock Spring Area

 (C) Rocky Butte Area

 (D) Montello--Crittenden Creek Area

 (Montello V.)

10-CENTRAL REGION

 34. Little Owyhee River Area

 35. South Fork Owyhee River Area 111. Alkali V. (Mineral).

 (A) Northern Part

 (B) Southern Part

 36. Independence V.

 37. Owyhee River Area

 38. Bruneau River Area 112. Mono V. 190. Grouse Creek V.

 39. Jarbidge River Area 113. Huntoon V. 191. Pilot Creek V.

 40. Salmon Falls Creek Area 114. Teels Marsh V. 192. Great Salt Lake Desert

 41. Goose Creek Area 115. Adobe V. 193. Deep Creek V.

 116. Queen V. 194. Pleasant V. 4-HUMBOLDT RIVER BASIN 117. Fish Lake V. 195. Snake V.

 118. Columbus Salt Marsh V. 196. Hamlin V.

 42. Marys River Area 119. Rhodes Salt Marsh V.

 43. Starr V. Area 120. Garfield Flat 12-ESCALANTE DESERT

 44. North Fork Area 121. Soda Spring V.

 (A) Eastern Part

 (B) Western Part 45. Lamoille V. 197. Escalante Desert 46. South Fork Area

 47. Huntington V. 122. Gabbs V. 13-COLORADO RIVER BASIN

 48. Dixie Creek --

 Tenmile Creek Area 123. Rawhide Flats 124. Fairview V. 198. Dry V.

 49. Elko Segment 125. Stingaree V. 199. Rose V. 50. Susie Creek Area 126. Cowkick V. 200. Eagle V.

 51. Maggie Creek Area 127. Eastgate V. Area 201. Spring V.

 52. Marys Creek Area 128. Dixie V. 202. Patterson V.

 53. Pine V. 129. Buena Vista V. 203. Panaca V.

 54. Crescent V. 130. Pleasant V. 204. Clover V. 55. Carico Lake V. 131. Buffalo V. 205. Lower Meadow Valley Wash

 56. Upper Reese River V. 132. Jersey V. 206. Kane Springs V.

 57. Antelope V. 133. Edwards Creek V. 207. White River V.

 58. Middle Reese River V. 134. Smith Creek V. 208. Pahroc V.

 59. Lower Reese River V. 135. Ione V. 209. Pahranagat V.

 60. Whirlwind V. 136. Monte Cristo V. 210. Coyote Spring V. 61. Boulder Flat 137. Big Smoky V.

 (A) Tonopah Flat

 (B) Northern Part

 211. Three Lakes V. (Southern Part)* 62. Rock Creek V. 212. Las Vegas V.

 63. Willow Creek V. 213. Colorado V.

 64. Clovers Area 138. Grass V. 214. Piute V.

 65. Pumpernickel V. 139. Kobeh V. 215. Black Mountains Area 66. Kelly Creek Area 140. Monitor V.

 (A) Northern Part

 (B) Southern Part

 216. Garnet V. (Dry Lake V.)*

 67. Little Humboldt V. 217. Hidden V. (North)*

 68. Hardscrabble Area 218. California Wash

 69. Paradise V. 141. Ralston V. 219. Muddy River Springs Area (Upper Moapa V.)

 70. Winnemucca Segment 142. Alkali Spring V. (Esmeralda) 220. Lower Moapa V.

 71. Grass V. 143. Clayton V. 221. Tule Desert 72. Imlay Area 144. Lida V. 222. Virgin River V.

 73. Lovelock V.

 (A) Oreana Subarea

 145. Stonewall Flat 223. Gold Butte Area

 146. Sarcobatus Flat 224. Greasewood Basin 74. White Plains 147. Gold Flat

 148. Cactus Flat *Noncontributing part of the 5-WEST CENTRAL REGION 149. Stone Cabin V. Colorado River Basin

 150. Little Fish Lake V.

 75. Bradys Hot Springs Area 151. Antelope V. (Eureka & Nye) 14-DEATH VALLEY BASIN 76. Fernley Area 152. Stevens Basin

 77. Fireball V. 153. Diamond V. 225. Mercury V.

 78. Granite Springs V. 154. Newark V. 226. Rock V.

 79. Kumiva V. 155. Little Smoky V.

 (A) Northern Part

 (B) Central Part

 (C) Southern Part

 227. Fortymile Canyon

 (A) Jackass Flats 6-TRUCKEE RIVER BASIN (B) Buckboard Mesa

 228. Oasis V. 80. Winnemucca Lake V. 156. Hot Creek V. 229. Crater Flat

 81. Pyramid Lake V. 157. Kawich V. 230. Amargosa Desert

 82. Dodge Flat 158. Emigrant V.

 (A) Groom Lake V.

 (B) Papoose Lake V.

 231. Grapevine Canyon

 83. Tracy Segment 232. Oriental Wash

 84. Warm Springs V.

INTRODUCTION 3

STATE OF NEVADA--HYDROGRAPHIC AREAS
4 Ground-Water Pumpage and Artificial Recharge Estimates for 2000 and Annual Natural Recharge and Interbasin Flow in NV

precipitation on the valley floors does not contribute to recharge 

(Maxey and Eakin, 1949; Nichols, 2000). Artificial recharge 

occurs through ground-water injection and rapid-infiltration 

techniques used by water utilities, mining, and geothermal 

companies.

Agriculture, mining, public water systems, and the rural 

domestic population in Nevada rely heavily on ground-water 

withdrawals. Rapid population growth has increased demands 

for ground-water resources in much of the State. To quantify the 

stress applied to the aquifer systems, ground-water pumpage 

and artificial recharge for calendar year 2000 were estimated 

and compared to published estimates of average annual 

recharge and interbasin flow.

Purpose and Scope

This report documents estimates of ground-water pumpage and artificial recharge during calendar year 2000 for the 232 

HAs in Nevada, published estimates of average annual recharge 

and interbasin flow, and estimates of net ground-water flow. 

Ground-water pumpage was estimated for six categories based 

on the primary use of ground water. The categories are irrigation and stock watering, mining, water systems, geothermal 

production, self-supplied domestic, and miscellaneous. The 

total ground-water pumpage for each HA is the summation of 

ground-water pumpage for each of these six categories. Total 

inflow to an HA is the summation of artificial recharge, natural 

recharge, and interbasin inflow. Total outflow is the summation 

of total ground-water pumpage and interbasin outflow. Net 

ground-water flow is the difference between total inflow and 

total outflow excluding evapotranspiration.

Previous Investigations

Many reports have been published that estimate groundwater pumpage and use in Nevada. The U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) publishes water use by state and geologic regions for 

the United States every 5 years, in which water use is estimated 

for eight categories (MacKichan, 1951, 1957; MacKichan and 

Kammerer, 1961; Murray, 1971; Murray and Reeves, 1972, 

1977; Solley and others, 1983, 1993, 1998; and Hutson and 

others, 2004). Every 5 years, the USGS also publishes estimated 

water use for 10 categories for counties, hydrographic regions, 

and hydrologic cataloging units for Nevada (Crompton and 

Frick, 1996). The State of Nevada also has reported water use 

and pumpage, in which water usage is estimated by county and 

hydrographic area (Smales and Harrill, 1971; Harrill and Worts, 

1968; Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources, 1999).

Natural recharge has been estimated for most of the 232 

HAs in Nevada. The primary sources of natural-recharge 

estimates are the Water-Resources Reconnaissance Series 

Reports and the Water-Resources Bulletins published by the 

Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 

Most of these reports also have estimates of interbasin flow. No 

previous report has compiled these recharge and interbasinflow estimates.

METHODS

A variety of data sources were used to estimate groundwater pumpage, artificial recharge, natural recharge, and interbasin flow for the HAs in Nevada. Available ground-water 

pumpage and crop inventory reports were the primary sources 

of pumpage and artificial-recharge data (from the files of the 

State Engineer’s Office, Nevada Division of Water Resources, 

written commun., 2002). In the absence of inventory reports, 

quarterly and monthly pumpage reports submitted by individual 

water users and geothermal operations during 2000 were used. 

Lastly, if no pumpage was reported, pumpage for the HA was 

estimated using Landsat imagery, statistical analysis, and massbalance calculations. Estimates of natural recharge and interbasin flow were compiled from existing publications.

Reported Estimates of Ground-Water Pumpage, 

Recharge, and Interbasin Flow

Ground-water pumpage estimates for 7 percent of 

Nevada’s HAs and 50 percent of the total estimated pumpage 

were obtained from ground-water pumpage inventories. Pumpage inventories are conducted annually by the Nevada Division 

of Water Resources (NDWR) for HAs with large ground-water 

withdrawals. These inventories include estimates in several 

categories such as agriculture, water systems, domestic supply 

(hereafter referred to as self-supplied domestic), mining, and 

miscellaneous. There was no pumpage for some categories of 

use in some HAs. 

Crop inventories are done by NDWR and were available 

for 37 percent of Nevada’s HAs. Annual crop inventories tally 

agricultural acreage by crop type. Nevada’s primary crops are 

alfalfa, hay, wheat, potatoes, garlic, and onions (Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 1999). 

Irrigation pumpage is estimated based on water-application 

rates for each crop type; application rates can vary between HAs 

depending on a variety of factors such as elevation, latitude and 

longitude, and precipitation. When acreage is reported but not 

pumpage, an estimate was made based on acreage of each crop 

type in the HA and the water-application rate reported in crop 

inventories of nearby HAs.

Quarterly pumpage reports are submitted by the larger 

water systems to NDWR as part of the permit agreement. These 

water systems include public, industrial, commercial, and 

mining. Quarterly pumpage reports include the pumpage for 

each metered well and the HA in which the well is located. 

Ground-water pumpage and artificial recharge amounts for 

geothermal operations were provided in monthly pumpage-
METHODS 5

injection reports (from the files of the State Administrator’s 

Office, Nevada Commission on Mineral Resources, written 

commun., 2002).

Where applicable, artificial recharge during 2000 is documented in quarterly pumpage reports and ground-water pumpage inventories. Artificial recharge from mining operations 

using injection and rapid infiltration techniques are supplied 

through quarterly pumpage reports submitted to NDWR. Injection in Las Vegas Valley is reported in the 2000 pumpage 

inventory for that area (Coache, 2001). Injection of water from 

geothermal plant operations is provided by monthly pumpageinjection reports (from the files of the State Administrator’s 

Office, Nevada Commission on Mineral Resources, written 

commun., 2002).

Most estimates of natural recharge and interbasin flow 

were published in the Nevada Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources Water-Resources Reconnaissance Series 

Reports and Water-Resources Bulletins during the 1960's and 

1970's (apps. 1–3 at back of report). More recent estimates were 

compiled from USGS reports. Estimates also have been made 

by universities, water-resources agencies, and consultants. 

However, it was beyond the scope of this report to compile all 

estimates of recharge and interbasin flow that have been made 

in the State.

Estimated Ground-Water Pumpage

If a pumpage inventory or crop inventory was not available 

for an HA, then pumpage was estimated using various methods. 

Irrigation and stock watering pumpage was estimated by mapping irrigated land using Landsat 7 and 5 Thematic Mapper, 

false color composite imagery taken during April and May 

2000. On these images, agricultural land irrigated by ground 

water appears as large green circles. Agricultural areas that 

were possibly supplied by springs or surface water, indicated by 

irregular coloring of the fields and nongeometric shapes, were 

not included. Gap Analysis Program (GAP) data and a vegetation map for Nevada were used to compare and locate the agricultural areas within the HAs. The acreage of irrigated fields 

were calculated and tallied for each HA. The crop type was 

assumed to be alfalfa, the most common crop in Nevada, with a 

water-application rate of 3.5 acre-ft/yr, which is an average of 

rates used in crop inventories.

The majority of the public water-system pumpage in this 

report was estimated using information from the Safe Drinking 

Water Information System (SDWIS; U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2004) database. The SDWIS database contains information on the public water systems throughout the 

State based on three categories: community water systems, such 

as city water systems and mobile home parks; noncommunity 

nontransient systems, such as schools and community services; 

and noncommunity transient water systems, such as hotels and 

campgrounds. SDWIS includes the county in which the water 

system is located, estimated population served by the water 

system, primary water source (ground water, surface water, or 

both), system status (active, nonactive), and water-system 

identification number. However, SDWIS does not include the 

amount of ground-water pumpage. Thus, pumpage was estimated for active water systems with ground water as their 

primary source of water.

In order to estimate pumpage for public water systems, the 

per-capita pumpage needed to be estimated. NDWR estimated 

315 gal/d/capita (0.35 acre-ft/yr/capita; Nevada Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources, 1999). This estimate was 

calculated by dividing the total amount of water supplied by 

public water systems in 1995 by the estimated population 

served (Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources, 1999). This rate includes public supplied water for 

domestic, industrial, and commercial uses from ground- and 

surface-water sources. The per-capita rate for domestic public 

supplied water was 206 gal/d (0.23 acre-ft/yr), which is 65 percent of the total per-capita pumpage rate. NDWR assumed that 

self-supplied domestic pumpage was 90 percent of the domestic 

public-supplied rate (0.21 acre-ft/yr), which is 58 percent of the 

total per-capita pumpage rate. These per-capita rates were not 

used in this analysis because they are based on water systems 

that use surface and ground water.

For this report, per-capita pumpage was calculated from 

public water systems that use only ground water. Pumpage from 

quarterly pumpage reports and population served from SDWIS 

were compared for 41 water systems throughout Nevada. A 

strong correlation (r2 = 0.88) exists between ground-water 

pumpage and the population served (fig. 2). The correlations 

between per-capita pumpage and location of the water system, 

and between per-capita pumpage and income from the 2000 

census also were considered because climate and income could 

influence the per-capita pumpage rate. Correlations between 

per-capita pumpage and latitude, longitude, and income did not 

exist (r2 < 0.02), indicating location and income did not affect 

per-capita pumpage.

A simple first-order linear regression model (Draper and 

Smith, 1966) was applied to the amount of ground-water pumpage and the population served by the water system with the 

regression line forced through the origin. The slope of the 

regression line (0.40 acre-ft/yr/capita) represents the per-capita 

pumpage rate and compares well with per-capita water use 

estimated by NDWR. The population served by public water 

systems with no pumpage data in the SDWIS database was 

multiplied by the per-capita pumpage rate to estimate the total 

ground-water pumpage by public water systems for the HA. 

Self-supplied domestic pumpage was assumed to be 58 percent 

(0.23 acre-ft/yr/capita) of the per-capita rate for public water 

systems (Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources, 1999).

Reported population served in the SDWIS database was 

estimated by multiplying the number of 3⁄4-in. domestic connections by the average number of people per household. Because 

this population estimate is not based directly on population, 

the 2000 census population estimates were compared with the 

SDWIS population estimates. A demographic data set from 

GeoLytics, Inc. (2001), provided 2000 census population data 
6 Ground-Water Pumpage and Artificial Recharge Estimates for 2000 and Annual Natural Recharge and Interbasin Flow in NV

in the form of population density blocks 100 meters (328 ft) on 

a side. The population value for each block represents the number of people per square kilometer. The geographic location was 

then cross-referenced with a geographic-information-system 

(GIS) dataset containing HA boundaries. The block population 

values then were totaled to estimate the total population in each 

HA. 

Some inconsistencies were found when population data 

from the 2000 census and the SDWIS database were compared. 

In instances where SDWIS population data were available but 

census data were not, the location of the water system in question was verified. If the location was accurate, the population 

for the HA was assumed to be completely on public water systems with no self-supplied domestic pumpage. If the location of 

the water system was inaccurate, the population in the SDWIS 

database was moved to the correct HA under the water-system 

category. In instances where the census data were less than the 

population served in SDWIS, the 2000 census data were used 

because the SDWIS data are estimated from the number of 

domestic connections and not directly from population. In this 

case, it was assumed that the entire population defined by the 

2000 census was served by the water system(s) in that HA and 

no pumpage was from private-domestic wells. In instances 

where the census data were more than the population served in 

SDWIS database, the remainder of the population was assumed 

to use self-supplied domestic water.

Public water systems in the SDWIS database are listed by 

county rather than HA. Three methods were used to correctly 

place the water system within an HA. A GIS dataset of political 

and topographic points was used to locate water systems for 

parks, schools, and communities. These points were then crossreferenced with the GIS dataset of HA boundaries to identify 

the HA containing the specified point. For water systems not 

found in the political and topographic points dataset, a search 

was done on the World Wide Web (WWW) for the physical 

address of the water system. If this search was unsuccessful, the 

location of the water system was assumed to be the contact 

address, provided by the SDWIS database, and assigned to the 

corresponding HA.

Figure 2. Ground-water pumpage as a function of the population served by public water systems.

Pumpage = 0.40 * (Population served)

r

2 = 0.88

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000

POPULATION SERVED

GROUND-WATER PUMPAGE, IN ACRE-FEET

Regression line

95-percent confidence limits

Water system
GROUND-WATER PUMPAGE AND ARTIFICIAL RECHARGE 7

No pumpage reports or inventories were available for a 

lithium mine in Clayton Valley (HA143; fig. 1), which pumps 

large amounts of saline ground water. The lithium mine produced 17 million pounds of lithium carbonate and lithium 

hydroxide in 1998 (Castor, 1999). Lithium constitutes about 22 

percent of this weight, assuming equal weights of lithium compounds. The concentration of lithium in the brine solution is 

about 300 parts per million. The concentration of total dissolved 

solids is about 30 percent with more than 94 percent of the dissolved solids consisting of sodium chloride (Papke, 1976). 

Because the total dissolved solids of the brine primarily is 

sodium chloride, the specific gravity of the brine is assumed to 

be 1.2 (Weast, 1970). The 1998 pumpage for the lithium mine 

was assumed to be the same in 2000, which was estimated using 

the following mass-balance equation and converted to acre-feet.

( ) Q

( ) Pr × ( ) Lwt 1 106 × lbs brine ( )

300lbs Li ( ) × ---------------------------------------------

SG brine ( ) 8.33lbs

1gal water ( ) ------------------------------- ⎝ ⎠ ⎛ ⎞ ×

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10–6 = × ( ) Mgal ⁄ ( ) gal

where Q is ground-water pumpage, in million gallons,

Pr is lithium compound production, in pounds,

Lwt is the fraction of lithium in lithium compounds, and

SG is specific gravity of the brine.

Assumptions and Accuracy of Ground-Water 

Pumpage Estimates

Assumptions were made in estimating the ground-water 

pumpage by HA for Nevada. For the irrigation and stock watering category, when an estimate was not provided by pumpage 

or crop inventory reports, assumed crop-water application rates 

were estimated based on ground-water pumpage data from 

surrounding HAs. An estimated 3.5 acre-ft/yr of ground water 

was assumed to be used on circular fields found using Landsat 

imagery; this amount is the average water application rate for 

alfalfa, the most common crop grown in Nevada.

SDWIS database uses the assumption that 2.8 people are 

supplied by domestic line connections to calculate the population served by a given water system; this is based on the 1995 

census average of 2.8 people per household (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004). To estimate self-supplied domestic pumpage, the per-capita rate was assumed to be 90 percent 

of the domestic per-capita rate of public water systems (Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 1999). 

Estimates of ground-water pumpage and artificial recharge 

were rounded to the nearest 10 acre-ft because higher rounding 

would result in some estimates being eliminated. Eliminating 

these estimates would have negligible effect on the total 

amounts, but the small values could be of interest in certain 

HAs. Estimates of natural recharge and interbasin flow were 

used as reported. The accuracy of estimates presented in this 

report could not be determined, but it is less than indicated by 

the significant figures listed in table 1 (at back of report).

GROUND-WATER PUMPAGE AND 

ARTIFICIAL RECHARGE

An estimated 1,427,100 acre-ft of ground water was 

pumped in Nevada during 2000 (table 1). Irrigation and stock 

watering accounted for about 47.2 percent of the total pumpage, followed by mining (26.1 percent), water systems (13.7 

percent), geothermal production (7.7 percent), self-supplied 

domestic (4.5 percent), and miscellaneous (0.8 percent; fig. 3). 

The 10 HAs with the greatest amount of pumpage accounted for 

about 49 percent of the total ground-water pumpage (fig. 4). 

The most ground-water pumpage in a HA was due to mining in 

Pumpernickel Valley (HA 65), Boulder Flat (HA 61), and 

Lower Reese River Valley (HA 59), which accounted for 

almost 19 percent of the total ground-water pumpage. Pumpage by water systems in Las Vegas Valley (HA 212) and the 

Truckee Meadows (HA 87) had the fourth and fifth highest 

pumpage in 2000, respectively. Irrigation and stock watering 

pumpage accounted for most ground-water withdrawals in the 

HAs with the sixth through ninth highest pumpage. Geothermal 

production accounted for most pumpage in the Carson Desert 

(HA 101).

Total artificial recharge during 2000 was about 145,970 

acre-ft (table 1). About 64 percent (93,310 acre-ft) of artificial 

recharge was reinjection of ground water pumped for geothermal energy production (from the files of Nevada Commission 

on Mineral Resources, written commun., 2002). The only artificial recharge by water systems was in Las Vegas Valley, 

where 29,790 acre-ft of water from the Colorado River was 

injected into the aquifer system (Coache, 2001). Artificial 

recharge by mining totaled 22,870 acre-ft.

Irrigation and stock watering used 674,000 acre-ft of 

ground water in 78 of the 232 HAs in 2000. About 35 percent 

of the irrigation pumpage took place in four HAs (fig. 5): 

Diamond Valley (70,600 acre-ft), Mason Valley (63,170 

acre-ft), Quinn River Valley (51,980 acre-ft), and Paradise 

Valley (51,120 acre-ft). A total of 371,930 acre-ft of ground 

water was pumped by 64 mining operations in 34 HAs. Over 67 

percent of the pumpage for mining occurred in three HAs: 

Pumpernickel Valley (92,550 acre-ft), Boulder Flat (89,890 

acre-ft), and Lower Reese River Valley (68,200 acre-ft).

Total water-system pumpage was 195,590 acre-ft. Although 

Las Vegas relies primarily on surface water from the Colorado 

River, 35 percent (68,500 acre-ft) of the ground-water pumpage 

by water systems occurred in Las Vegas Valley (HA 212; fig. 1; 

Coache, 2001). Truckee Meadows (HA 87) and Eagle Valley 

(HA 104) also primarily rely on surface water, but account for 

about 11 percent (21,220 acre-ft) and 9 percent (18,200 acre-ft), 
8 Ground-Water Pumpage and Artificial Recharge Estimates for 2000 and Annual Natural Recharge and Interbasin Flow in NV

Figure 4. Hydrographic areas with the greatest amount of total ground-water pumpage.

Pumpernickel

Valley

Boulder

Flat

Lower Reese

River Valley

Las Vegas

Valley

Truckee

Meadows

Diamond

Valley

Mason

Valley

Quinn River

Valley

Paradise

Valley

Carson

Desert

HYDROGRAPHIC AREA

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

TOTAL GROUND-WATER PUMPAGE, IN ACRE-FEET

HA 65

HA 61

HA 59

HA 212

HA 87 HA 153

HA 108

HA 33 HA 69

HA 101

IRRIGATION AND STOCK WATERING (47.2)

MINING (26.1)

WATER SYSTEMS (13.7)

GEOTHERMAL PRODUCTION (7.7)

SELF-SUPPLIED DOMESTIC (4.5)

MISCELLANEOUS (0.8)

Figure 3. Percentages of ground-water pumpage by category.
GROUND-WATER PUMPAGE AND ARTIFICIAL RECHARGE 9

Figure 5. Ground-water pumpage by category in the top 10 hydrographic areas.

GROUND-WATER PUMPAGE BY CATEGORY, IN ACRE-FEET

Pumpernickel

Valley

Boulder

Flat

Lower Reese

River Valley

Crescent

Valley

Gold Butte

Area

Maggie Creek

Area

Clayton

Valley

Kelly Creek

Area

Clovers

Area

Big Smoky

Valley

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000 Mining

HA 65 HA 61

HA 59

HA 54

HA 223 HA 51 HA 143 HA 66 HA 64 HA 137

Las Vegas

Valley

Truckee

Meadows

Eagle

Valley

Lake Tahoe

Basin

Carson

Valley

Elko

Segment

Dayton

Valley

Pahrump

Valley

Winnemucca

Segment

Carson

Desert

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

HYDROGRAPHIC AREA

Water systems

HA 212

HA 87 HA 104

HA 90 HA 105 HA 49 HA 103 HA 162 HA 70 HA 101

Diamond

Valley

Mason

Valley

Quinn River

Valley

Paradise

Valley

Kings River

Valley

Smith

Valley

Fish Lake

Valley

Desert

Valley

Middle Reese

River Valley

Pine Forest

Valley

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000 Irrigation and stock watering

HA 153

HA 108

HA 33 HA 69 HA 30

HA 107 HA 117 HA 31 HA 58 HA 29
10 Ground-Water Pumpage and Artificial Recharge Estimates for 2000 and Annual Natural Recharge and Interbasin Flow in NV

Figure 5. Ground-water pumpage by category in the top 10 hydrographic areas—Continued.

HYDROGRAPHIC AREA

GROUND-WATER PUMPAGE BY CATEGORY, IN ACRE-FEET

Truckee

Meadows

Carson

Desert

Dixie

Valley

San Emidio

Desert

Crescent

Valley

Mason

Valley

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Geothermal production

HA 87

HA 101

HA 128

HA 22 HA 54

HA 108

Pahrump

Valley

Las Vegas

Valley

Lemmon

Valley

Carson

Valley

Sun

Valley

Eldorado

Valley

Spanish Springs

Valley

Truckee

Meadows

Carson

Desert

Grass

Valley

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Self-supplied domestic

HA 162

HA 212 HA 92

HA 105 HA 86 HA 167 HA 85 HA 87 HA 101

HA 138

Truckee

Meadows

Carson

Valley

Mason

Valley

Frenchman

Flat

Fortymile

Canyon

Yucca

Flat

Warm Springs

Valley

Churchill

Valley

Crater

Flat

Monitor

Valley

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

Miscellaneous

HA 87

HA 105

HA 108 HA 160 HA 227 HA 159 HA 84 HA 102 HA 229 HA 140
NATURAL RECHARGE AND INTERBASIN FLOW 11

respectively, of the total water-system pumpage (Gallagher, 

2002). Self-supplied domestic pumpage totaled 64,010 acre-ft. 

Pahrump Valley (HA 162) had the highest with about 14 percent (8,820 acre-ft) of the total self-supplied domestic pumpage, followed by Las Vegas Valley (HA 212; 5,100 acre-ft) and 

Lemmon Valley (HA 92; 4,900 acre-ft) both with 8 percent, 

Carson Valley (HA 105; 3,590 acre-ft) with 6 percent, and Sun 

Valley (HA 86; 3,510 acre-ft) with 5 percent. 

In some HAs with geothermal resources, large amounts of 

super-heated water are removed for geothermal power generation. The geothermal water supply usually is in bedrock aquifer 

systems underlying or on the margins of the valleys. The wells 

used to extract the super-heated water tend to be artesian in 

nature. Except for one plant in Mason Valley (HA 108), which 

discharges the ground water into wetlands. This water is reinjected after use to approximately the same depth from which it 

was withdrawn. Little or no loss occurs between extraction and 

reinjection. Twelve geothermal plants pumped 110,060 acre-ft 

of ground water in 6 HAs during 2000. About 69 percent of the 

geothermal ground-water pumpage occurred in the Truckee 

Meadows (HA 87) and Carson Desert (HA 101). 

The miscellaneous category includes ground-water pumpage reported as miscellaneous in pumpage inventories and uses 

in quarterly pumpage reports that do not fall within the other 

categories.

NATURAL RECHARGE AND INTERBASIN 

FLOW

At least one estimate of natural recharge was available for 

209 of the 232 HAs (app. 1). Total natural recharge for these 

HAs ranges from 1,793,420 to 2,583,150 acre-ft. The range in 

recharge mostly is due to the source of precipitation data used 

in the estimate. Early studies used an isohyetal map first 

developed by Hardman (1936), which was updated using 

improved topographic data (Hardman and Mason, 1949; 

George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965). Recent studies have 

used a distribution of precipitation that was estimated by 

regression analysis (Daly and others, 1994). The modeled 

precipitation estimates generally are larger than estimates used 

by early studies, resulting in larger estimates of natural recharge 

(Nichols, 2000).

Estimates of interbasin flow were available for 151 HAs 

(app. 2). Most estimates were calculated from Darcy’s Law or 

as a residual of the water budget. Estimates using Darcy’s Law 

generally were based on little data on aquifer-system geometry, 

a rough estimate of the ground-water gradient, and an assumed 

transmissivity.

NET GROUND-WATER FLOW

Net ground-water flow was estimated only for the 143 

HAs with available estimates of both natural recharge and 

interbasin flow (table 2 at back of report). Where available, 

calculations were made using low and high estimates of natural 

recharge and assume that pumpage does not affect interbasin 

flow. A negative value for net ground-water flow indicates that 

ground-water storage could be depleted if pumpage continues at 

the same rate. NDWR has designated certain HAs, as “basins 

where permitted ground water rights approach or exceed the 

estimated average annual recharge and the water resources are 

being depleted or require additional administration” (Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 2004). Net 

ground-water flow may not be negative for designated HAs 

because current pumpage does not exceed estimated average 

annual recharge.

For net ground-water flow, 58 of the 143 estimates have 

negative values when using either low or high estimates of natural recharge. More HAs would have negative values if evapotranspiration was included in the estimates. HAs that are not 

designated and have a net ground-water flow between -1,000 to 

-35,000 acre-ft include Pueblo Valley (HA 1; fig. 1), Hualapai 

Flat (HA 24), Lower Reese River Valley (HA 59), Little Smoky 

Valley (HA 155), Jakes Valley (HA 174), Long Valley (HA 

175), Tippett Valley (HA 185), Antelope Valley (HA 186), 

Butte Valley (HA 178), and Gold Butte Area (HA 223). Due to 

uncertainties in recharge, the water budgets for these HAs may 

need refining to determine whether ground-water storage is 

being depleted.

SUMMARY

Nevada is the driest state in the nation and also one of the 

fastest growing states. With increasing development and 

Nevada's surface water resources being fully appropriated, 

Nevada's reliance on ground-water resources has increased. 

Recharge to aquifer systems in Nevada occurs primarily from 

precipitation in the ranges that form the boundaries of the 

hydrographic areas. Artificial recharge occurs through groundwater injection and rapid-infiltration techniques used by water 

utilities, mining, and geothermal companies. Agriculture, mining, public water systems, and the rural domestic population in 

Nevada rely heavily on ground-water withdrawals. To quantify 

the stress being applied to the aquifer systems, ground-water 

pumpage and artificial recharge for calendar year 2000 were 

estimated and compared to average annual recharge and interbasin flow estimated for most HAs in the State.
12 Ground-Water Pumpage and Artificial Recharge Estimates for 2000 and Annual Natural Recharge and Interbasin Flow in NV

Estimates of ground-water pumpage and artificial recharge 

during calendar year 2000 were made using data from a variety 

of sources. When available, water-use and crop inventory 

reports were the primary sources of pumpage and artificial 

recharge data for each HA. In the absence of inventory reports, 

quarterly and monthly pumpage reports submitted by individual 

water users and geothermal operations during 2000 were used. 

If no pumpage was reported, pumpage for the HA was estimated using Landsat imagery, statistical analysis, and massbalance calculations. Estimates of average annual natural 

recharge and interbasin flow were compiled from published 

reports. At least one estimate of natural recharge was available 

for 209 of the 232 HAs. Estimates of interbasin flow were available for 151 HAs.

An estimated 1,427,100 acre-ft of ground water was 

pumped in Nevada during calendar year 2000. This total was 

calculated by summing six categories of ground-water pumpage, based on water use. The categories and their percentage of 

the total ground-water pumpage are irrigation and stock watering (47 percent), mining (26 percent), water systems (14 percent), geothermal production (8 percent), self-supplied domestic (4 percent), and miscellaneous (less than 1 percent). 

Pumpage in the top 10 HAs accounted for about 49 percent of 

the total ground-water pumpage. The most ground-water pumpage in a HA was due to mining in Pumpernickel Valley (HA 

65), Boulder Flat (HA 61), and Lower Reese River Valley (HA 

59). Pumpage by water systems in Las Vegas Valley (HA 212) 

and the Truckee Meadows (HA 87) had the fourth and fifth 

highest pumpage in 2000. Irrigation and stock watering pumpage accounted for most ground-water withdrawals in the HAs 

with the sixth through ninth highest pumpage. Geothermal production accounted for most pumpage in the Carson Desert 

(HA 101).

Total artificial recharge during 2000 was about 145,970 

acre-ft. About 64 percent (93,310 acre-ft) of artificial recharge 

was reinjection of ground water pumped for geothermal energy 

production. The only artificial recharge by water systems was in 

Las Vegas Valley, where 29,790 acre-ft of water from the Colorado River was injected into the aquifer system. Artificial 

recharge by mining totaled 22,870 acre-ft. Natural recharge for 

the 209 HAs ranges from 1,793,420 to 2,583,150 acre-ft. The 

range in recharge is mostly due to the source of precipitation 

data used in the estimate. 

Net ground-water flow was estimated only for the 143 

HAs with available estimates of both natural recharge and interbasin flow. Of the 143 estimates, 58 have negative values for 

net ground-water flow, indicating that ground-water storage 

could be depleted if pumpage continues at the same rate. The 

State has designated HAs where permitted ground-water rights 

approach or exceed the estimated average annual recharge. Ten 

HAs were identified that are not designated and have a net 

ground-water flow between -1,000 to -35,000 acre-ft. Due to 

uncertainties in recharge, the water budgets for these HAs may 

need refining to determine if ground-water storage is being 

depleted.

SELECTED REFERENCES

Anderson, M.J., undated, Warm Springs Valley ground water 

use inventory water year 2000: Nevada Water Resources 

Report, 53 p.

Castor, S.B., 1999, Industrial minerals in the Nevada mineral 

industry, 1998: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Special Publication MI-1998, p. 39–41.

Coache, R.A., 2001, Las Vegas Valley water usage report, 

Clark County, Nevada, 2000: Nevada Division of Water 

Resources Report, 27 p.

Crompton, J.E., and Frick, E.A., 1996, Estimated use of water 

in Nevada, 1985: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

96-106, 168 p.

Daly, Christopher, Neilson, R.P., and Phillips, D.L., 1994, A 

statistical-topographic model for mapping climatological 

precipitation over mountainous terrain: Journal of Applied 

Meteorology, v. 33, no. 2, p. 140–158.

Draper, Norman, and Smith, Harry, 1966, Applied regression 

analysis: New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 405 p.

Eitenmiller, Karl, Swainston, Polly, and Brown, Steve, undated, 

Carson Valley groundwater pumpage inventory water year 

2000: Nevada Division of Water Resources Report, 101 p.

Gallagher, T.K., 2002, Estimated annual ground-water pumpage 1994–2001 Smith Valley and Mason Valley Lyon 

County, Nevada: Nevada Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources Report, 

68 p.

GeoLytics, Inc., 2001, GeoLytics Census CD 2000 Short Form 

Blocks: GeoLytics, Inc., E. Brunswick, NJ, available at URL 

<http://www.censuscd.com/USCensus,Census-2000-ShortForm-Blocks,Products.asp>.

Hardman, George, and Mason, H.G., 1949, Irrigated lands in 

Nevada: University of Nevada, Reno, Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 183, 57 p.

Harrill, J.R., and Worts, G.F., Jr., 1968, Estimated water use in 

Nevada, 1950–65: Nevada Division of Water Resources 

Information Report 7, 37 p.

Houghton, J.G., Sakamoto, C.M., and Gifford, R.O., 1975, 

Nevada’s weather and climate: Nevada Bureau of Mines and 

Geology, Special Publication 2, 78 p.

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, 

available at URL <http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/cir1268>.

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, 13 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.

Maurer, D.K., Lopes, T.J., Medina, R.L., and Smith, J.L., 2004, 

Hydrogeology and hydrologic landscape regions of Nevada: 
SELECTED REFERENCES 13

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2004-5131, 35 p., 4 pls., available at URL <http://

pubs.water.usgs.gov/sir2004-5131>.

Maxey, G.B., and Eakin, T.E., 1949, Ground water in White 

River Valley, White Pine, Nye, and Lincoln Counties, 

Nevada: Nevada State Engineer, Water Resources Bulletin 8, 

59 p.

Murray, R.C., 1971, Estimated use of water in the United States, 

1965: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 556, 53 p.

Murray, R.C., and Reeves, E.B., 1972, Estimated use of water 

in the United States in 1970: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 

676, 37 p.

Murray, R.C., and Reeves, E.B., 1977, Estimated use of water 

in the United States in 1975: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 

765, 39 p.

Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

1999, Nevada state water plan: Nevada Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Water 

Planning, accessed June 2001–March 2002 at URL <http:// 

water.nv.gov/Water%20planning/wat-plan/con-main.htm>.

Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

2004, County hydrographic basins and areas: Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

Division of Water Resources Report, accessed March 2004 at 

URL <http://water.nv.gov/Water%20planning/cty-bsn/

cty_map.htm>.

Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

undated, Truckee Meadows ground water pumpage report 

water year 1995: Nevada Division of Water Resources 

Report, 27 p.

Nevada State Demographer, 2004a, Nevada county population 

estimates July 1, 1986 to July 1, 2003, includes cities and 

towns: Accessed July 14, 2004, at URL <http://

www.nsbdc.org/demographer/pubs/images/popul03.pdf>.

Nevada State Demographer, 2004b, Population projections for 

Nevada and Nevada’s counties from 2002 to 2022: Accessed 

July 14, 2004, at URL <http://www.nsbdc.org/demographer/

pubs/images/projections02.pdf>.

Nichols, W.D., 2000, Regional ground-water evapotranspiration and ground-water budgets, Great Basin, Nevada: U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 1628, 55 p.

Papke, K.G., 1976, Evaporates and brines in Nevada playas: 

Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin 87, 33 p.

Rush, F.E., 1968, Index of hydrographic areas in Nevada: 

Nevada Division of Water Resources Information Report 6, 

38 p.

Rush, F.E., 1974, Static ground water levels of Nevada: Nevada 

Division of Water Resources map, scale 1:750,000, 1 sheet.

Smales, T.J., and Harrill, J.R., 1971, Estimated water use in 

Nevada: Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

Division of Water Resources, Water for Nevada Report 2, 

32 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., Pierce, R.R., and Perlman, H.A., 1993, Estimated 

use of water in 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.

Thomas, J.M., Carlton, S.M., and Hines, L.B., 1989, Groundwater hydrology and simulated effects of development in 

Smith Creek Valley, a hydrologically closed basin in Lander 

County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

1409-E, 57 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004, Safe drinking 

water information system (SDWIS): Accessed on July 14, 

2004, at URL <http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/

sdw_form.create_page?state_abbr=NV>.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2002, Water use wells, Nevada Test 

Site and vicinity: U.S. Geological Survey, Department of 

Energy, accessed December 2002–March 2003 at URL 

<http://nevada.usgs.gov/doe_nv/wateruse/wu_map.htm>.

Weast, R.C., ed., 1970, Handbook of chemistry and physics—A 

ready-reference book of chemical and physical data (51st 

ed.): Cleveland, Ohio, The Chemical Rubber Co., p. D-207.
14 Ground-Water Pumpage and Artificial Recharge Estimates for 2000 and Annual Natural Recharge and Interbasin Flow in NV
Tables 1–2 15

________________________________________________

Tables 1–2

________________________________________________
16 Ground-Water Pumpage and Artificial Recharge Estimates for 2000 and Annual Natural Recharge and Interbasin Flow in NV
Table 1. Ground-water pumpage and artificial recharge estimates for Nevada, 2000—Continued[Values are in acre-feet per year; pumpage are negative values, artificial recharge are positive values]

Hydrographic

area no.

(see

 fig. 1)

Hydrographic

area name

Categories of ground-water pumpage

Total

pumpage

Categories of artif

Irrigation

and stock

watering

Mining Water systems Geo- thermal production Self- supplied domestic Miscel- laneous Mining Geo- thermal productio

1 Pueblo Valley -2,320

0

0

0 -10

0 -2,330

0

2 Continental Lake Valley

0

0

0

0 -10

0 -10

0

3 Gridley Lake Valley

0

0

0

0 -10

0 -10

0

4 Virgin Valley

0

0

0

0 -30

0 -30

0

5 Sage Hen Valley

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

6 Guano Valley

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

7 Swan Lake Valley

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

8 Massacre Lake Valley

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

9 Long Valley -1,090

0

0

0

0

0 -1,090

0

10 Macy Flat

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

11 Coleman Valley

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

12 Mosquito Valley

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

13 Warner Valley

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

14 Surprise Valley -290

0

0

0

0

0 -290

0

15 Boulder Valley

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

16 Duck Lake Valley

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

17 Pilgrim Flat

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

18 Painter Flat

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

19 Dry Valley

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

20 Sano Valley

0

0

0

0 -10

0 -10

0

21 Smoke Creek Desert -870

0

0

0 -50

0 -920

0

22 San Emidio Desert -2,820 -380

0 -8,110 -120

0 -11,430

0 5,63

23 Granite Basin

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

24 Hualapai Flat -8,840

0

0

0 -10

0 -8,850

0

25 High Rock Lake Valley

0

0

0

0 -10

0 -10

0

Table 1. Ground-water pumpage and artificial recharge estimates for Nevada, 2000
26 Mud Meadow 0 0 0 0 -30 0 -30 0 27 Summit Lake Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 Black Rock Desert 0 -270 0 0 -140 0 -410 0 29 Pine Forest Valley -20,310 0 0 0 -30 0 -20,340 0 30 Kings River Valley -44,550 0 0 0 -20 0 -44,570 0 31 Desert Valley -24,350 -200 0 0 -240 0 -24,790 0 32 Silver State Valley -14,150 0 0 0 -20 0 -14,170 0 33 Quinn River Valley -51,980 0 -30 0 -130 0 -52,140 0 34 Little Owyhee River Area 0 0 0 0 -40 0 -40 0 35 South Fork Owyhee River Area 0 0 0 0 -100 0 -100 0 36 Independence Valley 0 -820 -30 0 -30 0 -880 0 37 Owyhee River Area 0 0 -10 0 -130 0 -140 0 38 Bruneau River Area 0 -1,710 0 0 0 0 -1,710 0 39 Jarbidge River Area 0 0 -40 0 0 0 -40 0 40 Salmon Falls Creek Area 0 0 -180 0 0 0 -180 0 41 Goose Creek Area 0 0 0 0 -80 0 -80 0 42 Marys River Area -1,590 0 -470 0 0 0 -2,060 0 43 Starr Valley Area -540 0 0 0 -460 0 -1,000 0 44 North Fork Area 0 0 0 0 -500 0 -500 0 45 Lamoille Valley 0 0 -70 0 -1,160 0 -1,230 0 46 South Fork Area 0 0 0 0 -80 0 -80 0 47 Huntington Valley 0 0 0 0 -470 0 -470 0 48 Dixie Creek-Tenmile Creek Area 0 -40 -3,400 0 0 0 -3,440 0 

Table 1. Ground-water pumpage and artificial recharge estimates for Nevada, 2000—Continued [Values are in acre-feet per year; pumpage are negative values, artificial recharge are positive values] Hydro- graphic area no. (see fig. 1) Hydrographic area name Categories of ground-water pumpage Total pumpage Categories of artif

Irrigation and stock watering Mining Water systems Geo- thermal production Self- supplied domestic Miscel- laneous Mining Geo- thermal productio
49 Elko Segment -500 0 -7,770 0 0 0 -8,270 0 50 Susie Creek Area 0 0 -200 0 -90 0 -290 0 51 Maggie Creek Area 0 -17,930 0 0 -140 0 -18,070 0 52 Marys Creek Area 0 0 -740 0 0 0 -740 0 53 Pine Valley 0 0 0 0 -150 0 -150 0 54 Crescent Valley -3,100 -35,320 -150 -6,410 0 0 -44,980 0 5,5755 Carico Lake Valley -450 0 0 0 -10 0 -460 0 56 Upper Reese River 

Valley

-5,710 0 -40 0 0 0 -5,750 0 

57 Antelope Valley -18,460 0 0 0 0 0 -18,460 0 58 Middle Reese River 

Valley

-22,060 0 0 0 -10 0 -22,070 0 

59 Lower Reese River 

Valley

-7,890 -68,200 0 0 -150 0 -76,240 19,570 

60 Whirlwind Valley 0 -90 0 0 -20 0 -110 0 61 Boulder Flat -3,200 -89,890 0 0 -60 0 -93,150 30 62 Rock Creek Valley 0 0 0 0 -60 0 -60 0 63 Willow Creek Valley 0 -150 -10 0 0 0 -160 0 64 Clovers Area -6,240 -8,880 -3,050 0 0 0 -18,170 0 65 Pumpernickel Valley -2,200 -92,550 0 0 -70 0 -94,820 1,490 66 Kelly Creek Area -3,840 -10,660 0 0 -60 0 -14,560 350 67 Little Humboldt Valley -7,560 0 0 0 -100 0 -7,660 0 68 Hardscrabble Area 0 0 0 0 -20 0 -20 0 69 Paradise Valley -51,120 0 -20 0 -170 0 -51,310 0 70 Winnemucca Segment -3,630 -1,160 -4,650 0 0 0 -9,440 0 71 Grass Valley -14,730 0 0 0 -1,630 0 -16,360 0 72 Imlay Area -1,420 -1,000 -220 0 -20 0 -2,660 0 

Table 1. Ground-water pumpage and artificial recharge estimates for Nevada, 2000—Continued[Values are in acre-feet per year; pumpage are negative values, artificial recharge are positive values]

Hydrographic

area no.

(see

 fig. 1)

Hydrographic

area name

Categories of ground-water pumpage

Total

pumpage

Categories of artif

Irrigation

and stock

watering

Mining Water systems Geo- thermal production Self- supplied domestic Miscel- laneous Mining Geo- therma

productio
73 Lovelock Valley -240 0 -1,090 0 0 0 -1,330 0 74 White Plains 0 0 0 0 -90 0 -90 0 75 Bradys Hot Springs Area 0 0 0 0 -190 0 -190 0 76 Fernley Area 0 0 -2,790 0 -1,060 0 -3,850 0 77 Fireball Valley 0 0 0 0 -30 0 -30 0 78 Granite Springs Valley 0 0 0 0 -230 0 -230 0 79 Kumiva Valley 0 0 0 0 -30 0 -30 0 80 Winnemucca Lake Valley 0 0 0 0 -100 0 -100 0 81 Pyramid Lake Valley 0 0 0 0 -380 0 -380 0 82 Dodge Flat 0 0 0 0 -50 0 -50 0 83 Tracy Segment 0 0 -920 0 -350 0 -1,270 0 84 Warm Springs Valley -4,280 0 -190 0 -430 -100 -5,000 0 85 Spanish Springs Valley -70 0 -2,310 0 -2,980 0 -5,360 0 86 Sun Valley 0 0 -600 0 -3,510 0 -4,110 0 87 Truckee Meadows -380 0 -21,220 -39,610 -2,820 -7,130 -71,160 0 37,6588 Pleasant Valley 0 0 -1,340 0 -980 0 -2,320 0 89 Washoe Valley 0 0 -330 0 -1,300 0 -1,630 0 90 Lake Tahoe Basin -660 0 -8,740 0 -100 0 -9,500 0 91 Truckee Canyon Segment 0 0 -290 0 -1,590 0 -1,880 0 92 Lemmon Valley 0 0 -1,270 0 -4,900 0 -6,170 0 93 Antelope Valley 0 0 0 0 -50 0 -50 0 94 Bedell Flat 0 0 0 0 -90 0 -90 0 95 Dry Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 Newcomb Lake Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Table 1. Ground-water pumpage and artificial recharge estimates for Nevada, 2000—Continued [Values are in acre-feet per year; pumpage are negative values, artificial recharge are positive values] Hydro- graphic area no. (see fig. 1) Hydrographic area name Categories of ground-water pumpage Total pumpage Categories of artif

Irrigation and stock watering Mining Water systems Geo- thermal production Self- supplied domestic Miscel- laneous Mining Geo- therma

productio
97 Honey Lake Valley -1,450 0 0 0 0 0 -1,450 0 98 Skedaddle Creek Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 Red Rock Valley 0 0 0 0 -70 0 -70 0 

100 Cold Spring Valley 0 0 0 0 -960 0 -960 0 101 Carson Desert -1,560 -2,140 -4,400 -36,020 -2,410 0 -46,530 0 30,46102 Churchill Valley -130 0 -1,420 0 -940 -20 -2,510 0 103 Dayton Valley -610 0 -7,130 0 -1,080 0 -8,820 0 104 Eagle Valley 0 0 -18,200 0 0 0 -18,200 0 105 Carson Valley -8,800 -70 -8,510 0 -3,590 -2,970 -23,940 0 106 Antelope Valley 0 0 -490 0 0 0 -490 0 107 Smith Valley -29,180 0 0 0 0 0 -29,180 0 108 Mason Valley -63,170 0 -40 -2,360 0 -550 -66,120 0 109 East Walker Area 0 0 0 0 -70 0 -70 0 

110 Walker Lake Valley -2,850 0 -1,460 0 0 0 -4,310 0 

111 Alkali Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

112 Mono Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 Huntoon Valley 0 0 0 0 -10 0 -10 0 114 Teels Marsh Valley 0 0 0 0 -20 0 -20 0 115 Adobe Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 Queen Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 117 Fish Lake Valley -28,500 0 -400 0 -140 0 -29,040 0 118 Columbus Salt Marsh 

Valley

0 0 0 0 -20 0 -20 0 

119 Rhodes Salt Marsh 

Valley

0 0 0 0 -10 0 -10 0 

120 Garfield Flat 0 0 0 0 -10 0 -10 0 121 Soda Spring Valley 0 0 -50 0 0 0 -50 0 

Table 1. Ground-water pumpage and artificial recharge estimates for Nevada, 2000—Continued[Values are in acre-feet per year; pumpage are negative values, artificial recharge are positive values]

Hydrographic

area no.

(see

 fig. 1)

Hydrographic

area name

Categories of ground-water pumpage

Total

pumpage

Categories of artif

Irrigation

and stock

watering

Mining Water systems Geo- thermal production Self- supplied domestic Miscel- laneous Mining Geo- therma

productio
122 Gabbs Valley -4,880 0 -90 0 -20 0 -4,990 0 123 Rawhide Flats 0 0 0 0 -130 0 -130 0 124 Fairview Valley 0 0 0 0 -20 0 -20 0 125 Stingaree Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 126 Cowkick Valley -170 0 0 0 -10 0 -180 0 127 Eastgate Valley Area 0 0 0 0 -10 0 -10 0 128 Dixie Valley -2,800 0 -10 -17,550 -100 0 -20,460 0 14,0129 Buena Vista Valley -5,930 -430 0 0 -170 0 -6,530 0 130 Pleasant Valley 0 0 0 0 -50 0 -50 0 131 Buffalo Valley 0 0 0 0 -80 0 -80 0 132 Jersey Valley 0 0 0 0 -20 0 -20 0 133 Edwards Creek Valley -2,010 0 0 0 -20 0 -2,030 0 134 Smith Creek Valley -1,080 0 0 0 0 0 -1,080 0 135 Ione Valley 0 0 0 0 -30 0 -30 0 136 Monte Cristo Valley 0 0 0 0 -20 0 -20 0 137 Big Smoky Valley -8,120 -4,970 -100 0 0 0 -13,190 0 138 Grass Valley 0 0 0 0 -10 0 -10 0 139 Kobeh Valley -2,660 0 0 0 -60 0 -2,720 0 140 Monitor Valley 0 0 0 0 -60 -10 -70 0 141 Ralston Valley 0 0 -370 0 0 0 -370 0 142 Alkali Spring Valley 0 0 -30 0 0 0 -30 0 143 Clayton Valley 0 -13,680 -60 0 0 0 -13,740 1,420 144 Lida Valley 0 0 0 0 -40 0 -40 0 145 Stonewall Flat 0 0 0 0 -10 0 -10 0 146 Sarcobatus Flat 0 0 -10 0 -100 0 -110 0 

Table 1. Ground-water pumpage and artificial recharge estimates for Nevada, 2000—Continued [Values are in acre-feet per year; pumpage are negative values, artificial recharge are positive values] Hydro- graphic area no. (see fig. 1) Hydrographic area name Categories of ground-water pumpage Total pumpage Categories of artif

Irrigation and stock watering Mining Water systems Geo- thermal production Self- supplied domestic Miscel- laneous Mining Geo- therma

productio
147 Gold Flat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 148 Cactus Flat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 149 Stone Cabin Valley -1,530 0 0 0 -60 0 -1,590 0 150 Little Fish Lake Valley 0 0 0 0 -30 0 -30 0 151 Antelope Valley 0 0 0 0 -50 0 -50 0 152 Stevens Basin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 153 Diamond Valley -70,600 -200 -340 0 0 0 -71,140 0 154 Newark Valley -4,230 0 -10 0 -40 0 -4,280 0 155 Little Smoky Valley -2,300 0 0 0 -80 0 -2,380 0 156 Hot Creek Valley -1,420 0 -40 0 -40 0 -1,500 0 157 Kawich Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 158 Emigrant Valley 0 0 0 0 -30 0 -30 0 159 Yucca Flat 0 0 0 0 0 -130 -130 0 160 Frenchman Flat 0 0 0 0 -10 -400 -410 0 161 Indian Springs Valley -100 0 -530 0 -80 0 -710 0 162 Pahrump Valley -7,930 0 -6,050 0 -8,820 0 -22,800 0 163 Mesquite Valley -40 0 -220 0 -350 0 -610 0 164 Ivanpah Valley 0 0 -20 0 -280 0 -300 0 165 Jean Lake Valley 0 0 0 0 -130 0 -130 0 166 Hidden Valley 0 0 0 0 -80 0 -80 0 167 Eldorado Valley 0 0 0 0 -3,220 0 -3,220 0 168 Three Lakes Valley 0 0 0 0 -20 0 -20 0 169 Tikapoo Valley 0 0 0 0 -70 0 -70 0 170 Penoyer Valley -12,490 0 -40 0 -30 0 -12,560 0 171 Coal Valley 0 0 0 0 -30 0 -30 0 172 Garden Valley 0 0 0 0 -30 0 -30 0 

Table 1. Ground-water pumpage and artificial recharge estimates for Nevada, 2000—Continued[Values are in acre-feet per year; pumpage are negative values, artificial recharge are positive values]

Hydrographic

area no.

(see

 fig. 1)

Hydrographic

area name

Categories of ground-water pumpage

Total

pumpage

Categories of artif

Irrigation

and stock

watering

Mining Water systems Geo- thermal production Self- supplied domestic Miscel- laneous Mining Geo- therma

productio
173 Railroad Valley -2,090 0 0 0 -160 0 -2,250 0 174 Jakes Valley 0 0 0 0 -30 0 -30 0 175 Long Valley 0 0 0 0 -40 0 -40 0 176 Ruby Valley -4,760 0 -30 0 -100 0 -4,890 0 177 Clover Valley -9,230 0 0 0 -50 0 -9,280 0 178 Butte Valley -3,560 0 0 0 -80 0 -3,640 0 179 Steptoe Valley -3,560 0 -2,800 0 0 0 -6,360 0 180 Cave Valley 0 0 0 0 -40 0 -40 0 181 Dry Lake Valley 0 0 0 0 -60 0 -60 0 182 Delamar Valley 0 0 0 0 -30 0 -30 0 183 Lake Valley -12,990 0 0 0 -30 0 -13,020 0 184 Spring Valley -4,170 0 -20 0 -90 0 -4,280 0 185 Tippett Valley 0 0 0 0 -20 0 -20 0 186 Antelope Valley 0 0 0 0 -120 0 -120 0 187 Goshute Valley -580 -120 -1,400 0 -310 0 -2,410 0 188 Independence Valley 0 0 0 0 -90 0 -90 0 189 Thousand Springs Valley -2,770 0 -60 0 -410 0 -3,240 0 190 Grouse Creek Valley 0 0 0 0 -20 0 -20 0 191 Pilot Creek Valley -180 0 0 0 -120 0 -300 0 192 Great Salt Lake Desert 0 0 -320 0 0 0 -320 0 193 Deep Creek Valley 0 0 0 0 -30 0 -30 0 194 Pleasant Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 195 Snake Valley -470 0 -30 0 -30 0 -530 0 196 Hamlin Valley 0 0 0 0 -20 0 -20 0 197 Escalante Desert 0 0 0 0 -40 0 -40 0 

Table 1. Ground-water pumpage and artificial recharge estimates for Nevada, 2000—Continued [Values are in acre-feet per year; pumpage are negative values, artificial recharge are positive values] Hydro- graphic area no. (see fig. 1) Hydrographic area name Categories of ground-water pumpage Total pumpage Categories of artif

Irrigation and stock watering Mining Water systems Geo- thermal production Self- supplied domestic Miscel- laneous Mining Geo- therma

productio
198 Dry Valley -5,170 0 0 0 -10 0 -5,180 0 199 Rose Valley -1,370 0 0 0 0 0 -1,370 0 200 Eagle Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 201 Spring Valley 0 0 0 0 -20 0 -20 0 202 Patterson Valley -2,170 0 -40 0 0 0 -2,210 0 203 Panaca Valley -9,250 0 -470 0 -70 0 -9,790 0 204 Clover Valley 0 0 -120 0 0 0 -120 0 205 Lower Meadow Valley 

Wash

-330 0 0 0 -120 0 -450 0 

206 Kane Springs Valley 0 0 0 0 -30 0 -30 0 207 White River Valley -3,340 0 -50 0 -140 0 -3,530 0 208 Pahroc Valley 0 0 0 0 -30 0 -30 0 209 Pahranagat Valley -2,320 0 -390 0 -80 0 -2,790 0 210 Coyote Spring Valley 0 -50 -150 0 0 0 -200 0 

211 Three Lakes Valley 0 0 -520 0 0 0 -520 0 

212 Las Vegas Valley 0 -220 -68,500 0 -5,100 0 -73,820 0 213 Colorado Valley 0 0 -1,770 0 -1,150 0 -2,920 0 214 Piute Valley 0 -20 -520 0 -100 0 -640 0 215 Black Mountains Area 0 0 -1,700 0 -1,090 0 -2,790 0 216 Garnet Valley 0 0 0 0 -40 0 -40 0 217 Hidden Valley 0 0 0 0 -10 0 -10 0 218 California Wash 0 0 0 0 -160 0 -160 0 219 Muddy River Springs 

Area

0 0 -130 0 0 0 -130 0 

220 Lower Moapa Valley 0 0 0 0 -960 0 -960 0 221 Tule Desert 0 0 0 0 -20 0 -20 0 

Table 1. Ground-water pumpage and artificial recharge estimates for Nevada, 2000—Continued[Values are in acre-feet per year; pumpage are negative values, artificial recharge are positive values]

Hydrographic

area no.

(see

 fig. 1)

Hydrographic

area name

Categories of ground-water pumpage

Total

pumpage

Categories of artif

Irrigation

and stock

watering

Mining Water systems Geo- thermal production Self- supplied domestic Miscel- laneous Mining Geo- therma

productio
222 Virgin River Valley 0 0 -4,370 0 0 0 -4,370 0 223 Gold Butte Area 0 -20,350 0 0 -200 0 -20,550 0 224 Greasewood Basin 0 0 0 0 -40 0 -40 0 225 Mercury Valley 0 0 0 0 -50 0 -50 0 226 Rock Valley 0 0 0 0 -10 0 -10 0 227 Fortymile Canyon 0 0 -10 0 -10 -180 -200 0 228 Oasis Valley 0 -80 0 0 -50 0 -130 0 229 Crater Flat 0 0 0 0 -70 -20 -90 0 230 Amargosa Desert -9,710 -350 0 0 -790 0 -10,850 0 231 Grapevine Canyon 0 0 0 0 -20 0 -20 0 232 Oriental Wash 0 0 0 0 -10 0 -10 0 

Total -674,000 -371,930 -195,590 -110,060 -64,010 -11,510 -1,427,100 22,850 93,3Percentage of total 47.2 26.1 13.7 7.7 4.5 0.8 100 16 

Table 1. Ground-water pumpage and artificial recharge estimates for Nevada, 2000—Continued [Values are in acre-feet per year; pumpage are negative values, artificial recharge are positive values] Hydro- graphic area no. (see fig. 1) Hydrographic area name Categories of ground-water pumpage Total pumpage Categories of arti

Irrigation and stock watering Mining Water systems Geo- thermal production Self- supplied domestic Miscel- laneous Mining Geo- therma

producti
Tables 1–2 27

Table 2. Net ground-water flow and designated hydrographic areas of Nevada

[Values are in acre-feet per year; inflow are positive and outflow are negative values. Abbreviations: --, placeholder; HA, hydrographic area]

Hydrographic

area no.

(see

fig. 1)

Hydrographic area name

Natural

recharge

(high)

Natural 

recharge 

(low)

Total

artificial

recharge

 Net 

interbasin 

flowa

Total 

pumpage

Net groundwater flowb

(high natural

recharge)

Net groundwater flowc

(low natural

recharge)

Designated

HA?

1 Pueblo Valley 2,000 -- 0 -1,000 -2,330 -1,330 -- No

2 Continental Lake Valley 11,000 -- 0 -- -10 -- -- No

3 Gridley Lake Valley 4,500 -- 0 -- -10 -- -- No

4 Virgin Valley 7,000 -- 0 -- -30 -- -- No

5 Sage Hen Valley -- -- 0 -- 0 -- -- No

6 Guano Valley 7,500 -- 0 -- 0 -- -- No

7 Swan Lake Valley -- -- 0 -- 0 -- -- No

8 Massacre Lake Valley 3,500 -- 0 -- 0 -- -- No

9 Long Valley 6,000 -- 0 -- -1,090 -- -- No

10 Macy Flat -- -- 0 -- 0 -- -- No

11 Coleman Valley 1,000 -- 0 -- 0 -- -- No

12 Mosquito Valley 700 -- 0 -- 0 -- -- No

13 Warner Valley -- -- 0 -- 0 -- -- No

14 Surprise Valley 1,500 -- 0 -- -290 -- -- No

15 Boulder Valley 2,000 -- 0 -- 0 -- -- No

16 Duck Lake Valley 9,000 8,900 0 -- 0 -- -- No

17 Pilgrim Flat 500 -- 0 -500 0 0 -- No

18 Painter Flat 1,300 -- 0 -- 0 -- -- No

19 Dry Valley 200 -- 0 -180 0 20 -- No

20 Sano Valley 4 -- 0 -- -10 -- -- No

21 Smoke Creek Desert 13,000 -- 0 5,680 -920 17,760 -- No

22 San Emidio Desert 2,100 -- 5,630 -300 -11,430 -4,000 -- Yes

23 Granite Basin 2,000 -- 0 -- 0 -- -- No

24 Hualapai Flat 7,000 4,000 0 -400 -8,850 -2,250 -5,250 No

25 High Rock Lake Valley 13,000 -- 0 -- -10 -- -- No

26 Mud Meadow 8,000 -- 0 -- -30 -- -- No

27 Summit Lake Valley 4,200 -- 0 -- 0 -- -- No

28 Black Rock Desert 13,900 -- 0 3,860 -410 17,350 -- No

29 Pine Forest Valley 10,000 -- 0 -2,000 -20,340 -12,340 -- Yes

30 Kings River Valley 15,000 -- 0 -250 -44,570 -29,820 -- Yes

31 Desert Valley 7,000 3,300 0 -510 -24,790 -18,300 -22,000 Yes

32 Silver State Valley 1,400 -- 0 -100 -14,170 -12,870 -- Yes

33 Quinn River Valley 62,000 -- 0 -300 -52,140 9,560 -- Yes

34 Little Owyhee River Area 2,700 -- 0 -- -40 -- -- No

35 South Fork Owyhee 

River Area

28,000 -- 0 -- -100 -- -- No

36 Independence Valley 10,000 9,700 0 -- -880 -- -- No
28 Ground-Water Pumpage and Artificial Recharge Estimates for 2000 and Annual Natural Recharge and Interbasin Flow in NV

37 Owyhee River Area 17,000 -- 0 -- -140 -- -- No

38 Bruneau River Area 26,000 -- 0 -- -1,710 -- -- No

39 Jarbidge River Area 32,000 -- 0 -- -40 -- -- No

40 Salmon Falls Creek Area 44,000 -- 0 -- -180 -- -- Yes

41 Goose Creek Area 6,700 -- 0 -- -80 -- -- No

42 Marys River Area -- -- 0 -- -2,060 -- -- Yes

43 Starr Valley Area -- -- 0 -- -1,000 -- -- Yes

44 North Fork Area -- -- 0 -- -500 -- -- Yes

45 Lamoille Valley -- -- 0 -- -1,230 -- -- Yes

46 South Fork Area 3,000 -- 0 -9,000 -80 -6,080 -- Yes

47 Huntington Valley 14,000 -- 0 -19,000 -470 -5,470 -- Yes

48 Dixie Creek-Tenmile 

Creek Area

13,000 -- 0 -- -3,440 -- -- Yes

49 Elko Segment -- -- 0 300 -8,270 -- -- Yes

50 Susie Creek Area 9,700 -- 0 -- -290 -- -- Yes

51 Maggie Creek Area 23,000 -- 0 -- -18,070 -- -- Yes

52 Marys Creek Area 2,100 -- 0 -- -740 -- -- Yes

Sum of HAs 50, 51, 52 34,800 -- 0 -8,600 -19,100 7,100 -- --

53 Pine Valley 79,300 46,000 0 -14,300 -150 64,850 31,550 Yes

54 Crescent Valley 26,200 14,000 5,570 700 -44,980 -12,510 -24,710 Yes

55 Carico Lake Valley 20,400 4,300 0 2,700 -460 22,640 6,540 No

56 Upper Reese River Valley 110,000 30,000 0 -3,500 -5,750 100,750 20,750 Yes

57 Antelope Valley 25,200 11,000 0 -6,000 -18,460 740 -13,460 Yes

58 Middle Reese River 

Valley

13,200 7,000 0 -2,500 -22,070 -11,370 -17,570 Yes

59 Lower Reese River 

Valley

19,000 13,000 19,570 14,000 -76,240 -23,670 -29,670 No

60 Whirlwind Valley 3,800 2,000 0 -1,200 -110 2,490 690 Yes

61 Boulder Flat 19,300 11,000 30 -12,000 -93,150 -85,820 -94,120 Yes

62 Rock Creek Valley 17,100 9,000 0 -2,800 -60 14,240 6,140 No

63 Willow Creek Valley 28,000 20,000 0 -4,300 -160 23,540 15,540 No

64 Clovers Area 18,400 13,000 0 19,100 -18,170 19,330 13,930 Yes

65 Pumpernickel Valley 9,000 7,500 1,490 -- -94,820 -- -- No

66 Kelly Creek Area 13,200 11,000 350 -- -14,560 -- -- Yes

67 Little Humboldt Valley 24,000 -- 0 -300 -7,660 16,040 -- No

68 Hardscrabble Area 9,000 -- 0 -- -20 -- -- No

69 Paradise Valley 10,000 -- 0 -3,200 -51,310 -44,510 -- Yes

70 Winnemucca Segment -- -- 0 -3,000 -9,440 -- -- Yes

Table 2. Net ground-water flow and designated hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued

[Values are in acre-feet per year; inflow are positive and outflow are negative values. Abbreviations: --, placeholder; HA, hydrographic area]

Hydrographic

area no.

(see

fig. 1)

Hydrographic area name

Natural

recharge

(high)

Natural 

recharge 

(low)

Total

artificial

recharge

 Net 

interbasin 

flowa

Total 

pumpage

Net groundwater flowb

(high natural

recharge)

Net groundwater flowc

(low natural

recharge)

Designated

HA?
Tables 1–2 29

71 Grass Valley 12,000 -- 0 -6,000 -16,360 -10,360 -- Yes

72 Imlay Area 4,000 -- 0 2,000 -2,660 3,340 -- Yes

73 Lovelock Valley 3,200 -- 0 -1,060 -1,330 810 -- Yesd

74 White Plains 3 -- 0 40 -90 -47 -- Yes

75 Bradys Hot Springs Area 160 -- 0 1,200 -190 1,170 -- Yes

76 Fernley Area 600 -- 0 -6,000 -3,850 -9,250 -- Yes

77 Fireball Valley 200 -- 0 -200 -30 -30 -- No

78 Granite Springs Valley 3,500 -- 0 1,000 -230 4,270 -- No

79 Kumiva Valley 1,000 -- 0 -1,000 -30 -30 -- No

80 Winnemucca Lake Valley 2,900 -- 0 400 -100 3,200 -- No

81 Pyramid Lake Valley 6,600 -- 0 1,600 -380 7,820 -- No

82 Dodge Flat 1,400 -- 0 2,500 -50 3,850 -- No

83 Tracy Segment 6,000 -- 0 1,400 -1,270 6,130 -- Yes

84 Warm Springs Valley 6,000 -- 0 80 -5,000 1,080 -- Yes

85 Spanish Springs Valley 830 600 0 -380 -5,360 -4,910 -5,140 Yes

86 Sun Valley 50 -- 0 -25 -4,110 -4,085 -- Yes

87 Truckee Meadows 27,000 -- 37,650 1,125 -71,160 -5,385 -- Yes

88 Pleasant Valley 10,000 -- 0 -250 -2,320 7,430 -- Yes

89 Washoe Valley 15,000 -- 0 -50 -1,630 13,320 -- Yes

90 Lake Tahoe Basin -- -- 0 -- -9,500 -- -- Yes

91 Truckee Canyon Segment 27,000 -- 0 -300 -1,880 24,820 -- Yes

92 Lemmon Valley 1,800 1,500 0 -- -6,170 -- -- Yes

93 Antelope Valley 300 -- 0 -- -50 -- -- Yes

94 Bedell Flat 1,100 -- 0 -200 -90 810 -- Yes

95 Dry Valley 2,400 -- 0 -2,200 0 200 -- No

96 Newcomb Lake Valley 300 -- 0 -- 0 -- -- No

97 Honey Lake Valley 1,500 -- 0 -6,200 -1,450 -6,150 -- Yes

98 Skedaddle Creek Valley 600 -- 0 -- 0 -- -- No

99 Red Rock Valley 900 -- 0 200 -70 1,030 -- Yes

100 Cold Spring Valley 900 -- 0 -- -960 -- -- Yes

101 Carson Desert 2,010 -- 30,460 2,820 -46,530 -11,240 -- Yes

102 Churchill Valley 1,300 -- 0 320 -2,510 -890 -- Yes

103 Dayton Valley 26,000 7,900 0 1,975 -8,820 19,155 1,055 Yes

104 Eagle Valley 10,000 5,600 0 -5,100 -18,200 -13,300 -17,700 Yes

105 Carson Valley 49,000 25,000 0 10,035 -23,940 35,095 11,095 Yes

106 Antelope Valley 5,000 -- 0 800 -490 5,310 -- Yes

107 Smith Valley 17,000 -- 0 -50 -29,180 -12,230 -- Yes

Table 2. Net ground-water flow and designated hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued

[Values are in acre-feet per year; inflow are positive and outflow are negative values. Abbreviations: --, placeholder; HA, hydrographic area]

Hydrographic

area no.

(see

fig. 1)

Hydrographic area name

Natural

recharge

(high)

Natural 

recharge 

(low)

Total

artificial

recharge

 Net 

interbasin 

flowa

Total 

pumpage

Net groundwater flowb

(high natural

recharge)

Net groundwater flowc

(low natural

recharge)

Designated

HA?
30 Ground-Water Pumpage and Artificial Recharge Estimates for 2000 and Annual Natural Recharge and Interbasin Flow in NV

108 Mason Valley 2,000 -- 0 -450 -66,120 -64,570 -- Yes

109 East Walker Area 22,000 -- 0 50 -70 21,980 -- No

110 Walker Lake Valley 6,500 -- 0 2,050 -4,310 4,240 -- Yese

111 Alkali Valley 1,800 -- 0 -1,400 0 400 -- No

112 Mono Valley 700 -- 0 -700 0 0 -- No

113 Huntoon Valley 800 -- 0 -350 -10 440 -- No

114 Teels Marsh Valley 1,300 -- 0 350 -20 1,630 -- No

115 Adobe Valley 300 -- 0 -300 0 0 -- No

116 Queen Valley 2,000 -- 0 -2,000 0 0 -- No

117 Fish Lake Valley 33,000 26,800 0 -3,200 -29,040 760 -5,440 Yes

118 Columbus Salt Marsh 

Valley

700 -- 0 3,200 -20 3,880 -- No

119 Rhodes Salt Marsh Valley 500 -- 0 400 -10 890 -- No

120 Garfield Flat 300 -- 0 -300 -10 -10 -- No

121 Soda Spring Valley 700 -- 0 -400 -50 250 -- Yes

122 Gabbs Valley 5,000 4,900 0 -- -4,990 -- -- Yes

123 Rawhide Flats 150 -- 0 -- -130 -- -- No

124 Fairview Valley 2,300 500 0 -2,300 -20 -20 -1,820 Yes

125 Stingaree Valley -- -- 0 -- 0 -- -- Yes

126 Cowkick Valley -- -- 0 -- -180 -- -- Yes

127 Eastgate Valley Area -- -- 0 -- -10 -- -- Yes

Sum of HAs 125, 126, 

127

6,700 6,000 0 -6,300 -190 210 -490 --

128 Dixie Valley 8,900 6,000 14,010 10,800 -20,460 13,250 10,350 Yes

129 Buena Vista Valley 10,000 -- 0 -- -6,530 -- -- Yes

130 Pleasant Valley 3,300 3,000 0 -1,100 -50 2,150 1,850 Yes

131 Buffalo Valley -- -- 0 -8,000 -80 -- -- No

132 Jersey Valley 1,400 800 0 -1,100 -20 280 -320 Yes

133 Edwards Creek Valley 8,000 -- 0 -- -2,030 -- -- No

134 Smith Creek Valley 12,000 8,300 0 0 -1,080 10,920 7,220 No

135 Ione Valley 8,000 -- 0 -2,500 -30 5,470 -- No

136 Monte Cristo Valley 500 -- 0 -- -20 -- -- No

137 Big Smoky Valley 77,000 74,000 0 -200 -13,190 63,610 60,610 Yes

138 Grass Valley 13,000 -- 0 -- -10 -- -- No

139 Kobeh Valley 11,000 -- 0 5,850 -2,720 14,130 -- Yes

140 Monitor Valley 23,300 -- 0 -6,000 -70 17,230 -- No

141 Ralston Valley 16,000 5,000 0 -3,500 -370 12,130 1,130 Yes

142 Alkali Spring Valley 100 -- 0 500 -30 570 -- No

Table 2. Net ground-water flow and designated hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued

[Values are in acre-feet per year; inflow are positive and outflow are negative values. Abbreviations: --, placeholder; HA, hydrographic area]

Hydrographic

area no.

(see

fig. 1)

Hydrographic area name

Natural

recharge

(high)

Natural 

recharge 

(low)

Total

artificial

recharge

 Net 

interbasin 

flowa

Total 

pumpage

Net groundwater flowb

(high natural

recharge)

Net groundwater flowc

(low natural

recharge)

Designated

HA?
Tables 1–2 31

143 Clayton Valley 1,500 -- 1,420 18,000 -13,740 7,180 -- No

144 Lida Valley 1,900 500 0 -500 -40 1,360 -40 No

145 Stonewall Flat 800 100 0 -300 -10 490 -210 No

146 Sarcobatus Flat 1,500 1,200 0 900 -110 2,290 1,990 Yes

147 Gold Flat 6,600 3,800 0 -- 0 -- -- No

148 Cactus Flat 3,100 600 0 -600 0 2,500 0 No

149 Stone Cabin Valley 16,000 5,000 0 -2,800 -1,590 11,610 610 Yes

150 Little Fish Lake Valley 11,000 9,700 0 -200 -30 10,770 9,470 No

151 Antelope Valley 4,100 -- 0 200 -50 4,250 -- No

152 Stevens Basin 200 -- 0 -200 0 0 -- No

153 Diamond Valley 21,000 10,500 0 9,350 -71,140 -40,790 -51,290 Yes

154 Newark Valley 49,000 17,500 0 11,500 -4,280 56,220 24,720 No

155 Little Smoky Valley 13,000 5,400 0 -7,000 -2,380 3,620 -3,980 No

156 Hot Creek Valley 10,600 5,800 0 -800 -1,500 8,300 3,500 No

157 Kawich Valley 7,500 3,500 0 1,000 0 8,500 4,500 No

158 Emigrant Valley 13,000 3,204 0 -- -30 -- -- No

159 Yucca Flat 1,900 700 0 -- -130 -- -- No

160 Frenchman Flat 1,000 100 0 -- -410 -- -- No

161 Indian Springs Valley 10,000 4,700 0 -- -710 -- -- Yes

162 Pahrump Valley 23,000 20,200 0 -700 -22,800 -500 -3,300 Yes

163 Mesquite Valley 2,200 1,400 0 700 -610 2,290 1,490 Yes

164 Ivanpah Valley 700 -- 0 -700 -300 -300 -- Yes

165 Jean Lake Valley 100 -- 0 -100 -130 -130 -- Yes

166 Hidden Valley -- -- 0 -- -80 -- -- Yes

167 Eldorado Valley 1,100 -- 0 -1,100 -3,220 -3,220 -- Yes

168 Three Lakes Valley 2,000 1,200 0 -- -20 -- -- No

169 Tikapoo Valley 9,800 6,000 0 -- -70 -- -- No

170 Penoyer Valley 13,500 3,200 0 -- -12,560 -- -- Yes

171 Coal Valley 2,000 -- 0 -1,700 -30 270 -- No

172 Garden Valley 10,000 -- 0 -8,300 -30 1,670 -- No

173 Railroad Valley f

61,000 33,300 0 19,000 -2,250 77,750 50,050 No

174 Jakes Valley 38,500 13,000 0 -37,900 -30 570 -24,930 No

175 Long Valley 48,000 10,000 0 -44,800 -40 3,160 -34,840 No

176 Ruby Valley 146,000 68,000 0 21,000 -4,890 162,110 84,110 Yes

177 Clover Valley 59,000 20,700 0 25,500 -9,280 75,220 36,920 Yes

178 Butte Valley 69,000 14,600 0 -25,300 -3,640 40,060 -14,340 No

179 Steptoe Valley 132,000 85,000 0 -4,000 -6,360 121,640 74,640 Yes

180 Cave Valley 14,000 -- 0 -13,700 -40 260 -- No

Table 2. Net ground-water flow and designated hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued

[Values are in acre-feet per year; inflow are positive and outflow are negative values. Abbreviations: --, placeholder; HA, hydrographic area]

Hydrographic

area no.

(see

fig. 1)

Hydrographic area name

Natural

recharge

(high)

Natural 

recharge 

(low)

Total

artificial

recharge

 Net 

interbasin 

flowa

Total 

pumpage

Net groundwater flowb

(high natural

recharge)

Net groundwater flowc

(low natural

recharge)

Designated

HA?
32 Ground-Water Pumpage and Artificial Recharge Estimates for 2000 and Annual Natural Recharge and Interbasin Flow in NV

181 Dry Lake Valley 5,000 -- 0 -4,800 -60 140 -- No

182 Delamar Valley 1,000 -- 0 -900 -30 70 -- No

183 Lake Valley 13,000 -- 0 -3,000 -13,020 -3,020 -- Yes

184 Spring Valley 104,000 61,600 0 -12,000 -4,280 87,720 45,320 No

185 Tippett Valley 12,500 6,900 0 -11,600 -20 880 -4,720 No

186 Antelope Valley 17,000 4,700 0 -13,000 -120 3,880 -8,420 No

187 Goshute Valley 41,000 -- 0 500 -2,410 39,090 -- Yes

188 Independence Valley 50,000 9,300 0 -3,000 -90 46,910 6,210 Yes

189 Thousand Springs Valley 12,000 -- 0 -1,800 -3,240 6,960 -- Yes

190 Grouse Creek Valley 700 -- 0 -- -20 -- -- No

191 Pilot Creek Valley 2,400 -- 0 700 -300 2,800 -- Yes

192 Great Salt Lake Desert 4,800 -- 0 21,800 -320 26,280 -- No

193 Deep Creek Valley 2,200 -- 0 -- -30 -- -- No

194 Pleasant Valley -- -- 0 -- 0 -- -- No

195 Snake Valley -- -- 0 7,600 -530 -- -- No

196 Hamlin Valley -- -- 0 10,000 -20 -- -- No

197 Escalante Desert 2,300 -- 0 -2,300 -40 -40 -- No

198 Dry Valley -- -- 0 -- -5,180 -- -- No

199 Rose Valley -- -- 0 -- -1,370 -- -- No

200 Eagle Valley -- -- 0 -- 0 -- -- No

201 Spring Valley 10,000 -- 0 -- -20 -- -- No

202 Patterson Valley 6,000 -- 0 3,000 -2,210 6,790 -- No

203 Panaca Valley -- -- 0 -- -9,790 -- -- Yes

204 Clover Valley -- -- 0 -- -120 -- -- No

205 Lower Meadow Valley 

Wash

-- -- 0 -7,000 -450 -- -- Yes

206 Kane Springs Valley 500 -- 0 -- -30 -- -- No

207 White River Valley 40,000 -- 0 33,700 -3,530 70,170 -- No

208 Pahroc Valley 2,200 -- 0 17,500 -30 19,670 -- No

209 Pahranagat Valley 1,800 -- 0 -- -2,790 -- -- No

210 Coyote Spring Valley 2,100 -- 0 -- -200 -- -- Yes

211 Three Lakes Valley 7,300 6,000 0 -- -520 -- -- Yes

212 Las Vegas Valley 35,000 25,000 29,790 -400 -73,820 -9,430 -19,430 Yes

213 Colorado Valley 200 -- 0 -- -2,920 -- -- Yes

214 Piute Valley 1,700 -- 0 -1,700 -640 -640 -- Yes

215 Black Mountains Area 70 -- 0 1,900 -2,790 -820 -- Yes

216 Garnet Valley 400 -- 0 -400 -40 -40 -- No

217 Hidden Valley 400 -- 0 -400 -10 -10 -- No

Table 2. Net ground-water flow and designated hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued

[Values are in acre-feet per year; inflow are positive and outflow are negative values. Abbreviations: --, placeholder; HA, hydrographic area]

Hydrographic

area no.

(see

fig. 1)

Hydrographic area name

Natural

recharge

(high)

Natural 

recharge 

(low)

Total

artificial

recharge

 Net 

interbasin 

flowa

Total 

pumpage

Net groundwater flowb

(high natural

recharge)

Net groundwater flowc

(low natural

recharge)

Designated

HA?
Tables 1–2 33

218 California Wash 60 -- 0 7,800 -160 7,700 -- No

219 Muddy River Springs 

Area

-- -- 0 -- -130 -- -- Yes

220 Lower Moapa Valley 40 -- 0 -1,100 -960 -2,020 -- Yes

221 Tule Desert 2,100 -- 0 -2,100 -20 -20 -- No

222 Virgin River Valley 3,600 -- 0 13,100 -4,370 12,330 -- Yes

223 Gold Butte Area 1,000 -- 0 -1,000 -20,550 -20,550 -- No

224 Greasewood Basin 600 -- 0 -600 -40 -40 -- No

225 Mercury Valley 250 -- 0 -- -50 -- -- No

226 Rock Valley 30 -- 0 -- -10 -- -- No

Sum of 225, 226 400 -- 0 -- -60 -- --

227 Fortymile Canyon 2,300 700 0 -- -200 -- -- No

228 Oasis Valley 3,000 1,000 0 -- -130 -- -- Yes

229 Crater Flat 220 100 0 -- -90 -- -- No

230 Amargosa Desert 1,500 400 0 -- -10,850 -- -- Yes

231 Grapevine Canyon 50 -- 0 100 -20 130 -- No

232 Oriental Wash 300 -- 0 -300 -10 -10 -- No

a

Sum of interbasin flow estimates in appendix 2. The most recent estimate was used for multiple estimates of flow between the same basins. The average value was used when a range in values was reported.

b

Sum of natural recharge (high), total artificial recharge, net interbasin flow, and total pumpage.

c

Sum of natural recharge (low), total artificial recharge, net interbasin flow, and total pumpage.

d

Hydrographic Subarea 73A (Oreana Subarea) not included.

e

Only Hydrographic Subarea 110C (Whisky Flat–Hawthorne Subarea).

f

Estimate is for the Hydrographic Subarea 173B (Railroad Valley, Northern Part).

Table 2. Net ground-water flow and designated hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued

[Values are in acre-feet per year; inflow are positive and outflow are negative values. Abbreviations: --, placeholder; HA, hydrographic area]

Hydrographic

area no.

(see

fig. 1)

Hydrographic area name

Natural

recharge

(high)

Natural 

recharge 

(low)

Total

artificial

recharge

 Net 

interbasin 

flowa

Total 

pumpage

Net groundwater flowb

(high natural

recharge)

Net groundwater flowc

(low natural

recharge)

Designated

HA?
34 Ground-Water Pumpage and Artificial Recharge Estimates for 2000 and Annual Natural Recharge and Interbasin Flow in NV
Appendixes 1–3 35

________________________________________________

Appendixes 1–3

________________________________________________
36 Ground-Water Pumpage and Artificial Recharge Estimates for 2000 and Annual Natural Recharge and Interbasin Flow in NV
Appendix 1. Estimates of natural recharge for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued[Abbreviations: HA, hydrographic area; --, placeholder; ET, evapotranspiration; PRISM, Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model; acre-ft/yr, acre-feet per ye

>; greater than; ≥, greater than or equal to. Precipitation volume where precipitation is ≥8 in/yr unless noted otherwise]

HA 

no.

(see

fig. 1)

Hydrographic area 

name

Precipitation,

acre-ft/yr

Recharge,

acre-ft/yr Source of precipitation data Comments 

1 Pueblo Valley 48,300 2,000 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method 2 Continental Lake Valley 254,200 11,000 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method 3 Gridley Lake Valley 97,900 4,500 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method 4 Virgin Valley 230,000 7,000 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method 5 Sage Hen Valley -- -- -- No estimate available 6 Guano Valley 206,000 7,500 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method 7 Swan Lake Valley -- -- -- No estimate available 8 Massacre Lake Valley 88,200 3,500 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method 9 Long Valley 168,000 6,000 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method 

10 Macy Flat -- -- -- No estimate available 

11 Coleman Valley 28,000 1,000 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method 

12 Mosquito Valley 14,300 700 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method 13 Warner Valley -- -- -- No estimate available 14 Surprise Valley 37,500 1,500 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method 15 Boulder Valley 50,400 2,000 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method 16 Duck Lake Valley 247,000 9,000 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method 

243,000 8,900 Altitude-precipitation relation Chloride-balance method 

17 Pilgrim Flat 7,000 500 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >12 in. 

assumed equal to 1.1 ft

18 Painter Flat 31,000 1,300 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >12 in. 

assumed equal to 1.1 ft

19 Dry Valley 5,900 200 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >12 in. 

assumed equal to 1.1 ft

20 Sano Valley 130 4 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >8 in. 

assumed equal to 0.8 ft

21 Smoke Creek Desert 275,100 13,000 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. 

assumed equal to 1.8 ft

 Appendix 1. Estimates of natural recharge for hydrographic areas of Nevada
22 San Emidio Desert 47,900 2,100 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >15 in. assumed equal to 1.5 ft 23 Granite Basin 45,400 2,000 Hardman, 1936; Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method 24 Hualapai Flat 62,700 4,000 Hardman, 1936 Maxey-Eakin method 

106,200 7,000 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.8 ft 

25 High Rock Lake Valley 435,000 13,000 Hardman, 1936; Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method 26 Mud Meadow 130,600 8,000 Hardman, 1936; Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method 27 Summit Lake Valley 42,700 4,200 Hardman, 1936; Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method 28 Black Rock Desert 260,900 13,900 Hardman, 1936; Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method 29 Pine Forest Valley 197,000 10,000 Hardman, 1936; modified by subsequent unpublished data Maxey-Eakin method 30 Kings River Valley 260,000 15,000 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >18 in. assumed equal to 1.75 ft 31 Desert Valley 100,000 5,000 Hardman, 1936 Maxey-Eakin method 

110,000 7,000 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method 110,000 3,300 Altitude-precipitation relation Chloride-balance method 

32 Silver State Valley 35,000 1,400 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >15 in. assumed equal to 1.4 ft; precipitation <10 in. not used in recharge estimate 33 Quinn River Valley 880,000 62,000 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >12, 19, 24 in. assumed equal to 1.1, 1.8, 2.2 ft, respectively; precipitation <12 in. assumed equal to 0.9 ft 34 Little Owyhee River Area 357,000 2,700 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method 

Appendix 1. Estimates of natural recharge for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued [Abbreviations: HA, hydrographic area; --, placeholder; ET, evapotranspiration; PRISM, Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model; acre-ft/yr, acre-feet per ye

>; greater than; ≥, greater than or equal to. Precipitation volume where precipitation is ≥8 in/yr unless noted otherwise] HA no. (see fig. 1) Hydrographic area name Precipitation, acre-ft/yr Recharge, acre-ft/yr Source of precipitation data Comments 
35 South Fork Owyhee 

River Area

1,004,000 28,000 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method 

36 Independence Valley -- 10,000 -- Water-balance method 

251,000 9,700 Altitude-precipitation relation Chloride-balance method 

37 Owyhee River Area 458,000 17,000 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method 38 Bruneau River Area 497,000 26,000 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method 39 Jarbidge River Area 334,000 32,000 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method 40 Salmon Falls Creek Area 1,021,000 44,000 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method 41 Goose Creek Area 198,000 6,700 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, includes drainage 

area in Idaho

42 Marys River Area -- -- -- No estimate available 43 Starr Valley Area -- -- -- No estimate available 44 North Fork Area -- -- -- No estimate available 45 Lamoille Valley -- -- -- No estimate available 46 South Fork Area 98,000 3,000 Altitude-precipitation relation Water-budget method, recharge equals ET, 

precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 2.0 ft

47 Huntington Valley 554,000 14,000 Altitude-precipitation relation Water-budget method, recharge equals ET, 

precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 2.0 ft

48 Dixie Creek-Tenmile 

Creek Area

235,000 13,000 Altitude-precipitation relation Water-budget method, recharge equals ET, 

precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 2.0 ft

49 Elko Segment -- -- -- No estimate available 50 Susie Creek Area 147,000 9,700 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, used precipitation >8 in., 

precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.7 ft

51 Maggie Creek Area 280,000 23,000 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, used precipitation >8 in., 

precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.7 ft

52 Marys Creek Area 37,000 2,100 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, used precipitation >8 in., 

precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.7 ft

Appendix 1. Estimates of natural recharge for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued[Abbreviations: HA, hydrographic area; --, placeholder; ET, evapotranspiration; PRISM, Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model; acre-ft/yr, acre-feet per ye

>; greater than; ≥, greater than or equal to. Precipitation volume where precipitation is ≥8 in/yr unless noted otherwise]

HA 

no.

(see

fig. 1)

Hydrographic area 

name

Precipitation,

acre-ft/yr

Recharge,

acre-ft/yr Source of precipitation data Comments 
53 Pine Valley 654,000 46,000 Hardman, written commun., 1960 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.75 ft 

688,000 52,500 PRISM 1997 Water-budget method, minimum estimate 688,000 79,300 PRISM 1997 Water-budget method, maximum estimate 688,000 66,000 PRISM 1997 Revised Maxey-Eakin method (Nichols, 2000) 

54 Crescent Valley 200,000 14,000 Hardman, 1936 Assumed 40 percent of runoff is recharge 

446,000 25,200 PRISM 1997 Water-budget method, minimum estimate 446,000 26,200 PRISM 1997 Water-budget method, maximum estimate 446,000 21,000 PRISM 1997 Revised Maxey-Eakin method (Nichols, 2000) 

55 Carico Lake Valley 86,600 4,300 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.75 ft 

239,000 18,700 PRISM 1997 Water-budget method, minimum estimate 239,000 20,400 PRISM 1997 Water-budget method, maximum estimate 239,000 18,000 PRISM 1997 Revised Maxey-Eakin method (Nichols, 2000) 

56 Upper Reese River Valley 591,500 37,000 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method adjusted to equal discharge, precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.75 ft 

592,000 30,000 Altitude-precipitation relation Chloride-balance method 803,000 71,400 PRISM 1997 Water-budget method, minimum estimate 803,000 110,000 PRISM 1997 Water-budget method, maximum estimate 803,000 93,000 PRISM 1997 Revised Maxey-Eakin method (Nichols, 2000) 

57 Antelope Valley 240,000 11,000 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.75 ft 

279,000 17,200 PRISM 1997 Water-budget method, minimum estimate 279,000 25,200 PRISM 1997 Water-budget method, maximum estimate 279,000 19,000 PRISM 1997 Revised Maxey-Eakin method (Nichols, 2000) 

Appendix 1. Estimates of natural recharge for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued [Abbreviations: HA, hydrographic area; --, placeholder; ET, evapotranspiration; PRISM, Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model; acre-ft/yr, acre-feet per ye

>; greater than; ≥, greater than or equal to. Precipitation volume where precipitation is ≥8 in/yr unless noted otherwise] HA no. (see fig. 1) Hydrographic area name Precipitation, acre-ft/yr Recharge, acre-ft/yr Source of precipitation data Comments 
58 Middle Reese River 

Valley

142,000 7,000 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. 

assumed equal to 1.75 ft

186,000 12,800 PRISM 1997 Water-budget method, minimum estimate 186,000 13,200 PRISM 1997 Water-budget method, maximum estimate 186,000 10,000 PRISM 1997 Revised Maxey-Eakin method (Nichols, 2000) 

59 Lower Reese River 

Valley

341,000 18,500 PRISM 1997 Water-budget method, minimum estimate 341,000 19,000 PRISM 1997 Water-budget method, maximum estimate 341,000 13,000 PRISM 1997 Revised Maxey-Eakin method (Nichols, 2000) 

60 Whirlwind Valley 55,000 3,700 PRISM 1997 Water-budget method, minimum estimate 

55,000 3,800 PRISM 1997 Water-budget method, maximum estimate 55,000 2,000 PRISM 1997 Revised Maxey-Eakin method (Nichols, 2000) 

61 Boulder Flat 291,000 14,000 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, used precipitation >8 in., 

precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.7 ft

308,000 19,100 PRISM 1997 Water-budget method, minimum estimate 308,000 19,300 PRISM 1997 Water-budget method, maximum estimate 308,000 11,000 PRISM 1997 Revised Maxey-Eakin method (Nichols, 2000) 

62 Rock Creek Valley 256,000 17,100 PRISM 1997 Water-budget method 

256,000 9,000 PRISM 1997 Revised Maxey-Eakin method (Nichols, 2000) 270,000 13,000 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, used precipitation >8 in., 

precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.7 ft

63 Willow Creek Valley 279,000 20,000 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, used precipitation >8 in., 

precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.7 ft

280,000 27,500 PRISM 1997 Water-budget method 280,000 28,000 PRISM 1997 Revised Maxey-Eakin method (Nichols, 2000) 

64 Clovers Area 401,000 17,900 PRISM 1997 Water-budget method, minimum estimate 

401,000 18,400 PRISM 1997 Water-budget method, maximum estimate 401,000 13,000 PRISM 1997 Revised Maxey-Eakin method (Nichols, 2000) 

Appendix 1. Estimates of natural recharge for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued[Abbreviations: HA, hydrographic area; --, placeholder; ET, evapotranspiration; PRISM, Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model; acre-ft/yr, acre-feet per ye

>; greater than; ≥, greater than or equal to. Precipitation volume where precipitation is ≥8 in/yr unless noted otherwise]

HA 

no.

(see

fig. 1)

Hydrographic area 

name

Precipitation,

acre-ft/yr

Recharge,

acre-ft/yr Source of precipitation data Comments 
65 Pumpernickel Valley 169,000 8,800 PRISM 1997 Water-budget method, minimum estimate 

169,000 9,000 PRISM 1997 Water-budget method, maximum estimate 169,000 7,500 PRISM 1997 Revised Maxey-Eakin method (Nichols, 2000) 

66 Kelly Creek Area 181,000 12,700 PRISM 1997 Water-budget method, minimum estimate 

181,000 13,200 PRISM 1997 Water-budget method, maximum estimate 181,000 11,000 PRISM 1997 Revised Maxey-Eakin method (Nichols, 2000) 

67 Little Humboldt Valley 443,000 24,000 Hardman, 1936 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.8 ft 68 Hardscrabble Area 115,000 9,000 Hardman, 1936 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.8 ft 69 Paradise Valley 121,000 10,000 Hardman, 1936 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.8 ft 70 Winnemucca Segment -- -- -- No estimate available 71 Grass Valley 180,000 12,000 Hardman, 1936 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.75 ft 72 Imlay Area 82,000 4,000 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >15 in. assumed equal to 1.46 ft 73 Lovelock Valley 60,000 3,200 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1964 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.75 ft 74 White Plains 100 3 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, used precipitation >8 in. assumed equal to 0.8 ft 75 Bradys Hot Springs Area 4,800 160 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method 76 Fernley Area 13,000 600 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method 77 Fireball Valley 6,000 200 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method 78 Granite Springs Valley 97,600 3,500 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method 79 Kumiva Valley 28,000 1,000 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method 80 Winnemucca Lake Valley 61,000 2,900 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method 

Appendix 1. Estimates of natural recharge for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued [Abbreviations: HA, hydrographic area; --, placeholder; ET, evapotranspiration; PRISM, Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model; acre-ft/yr, acre-feet per ye

>; greater than; ≥, greater than or equal to. Precipitation volume where precipitation is ≥8 in/yr unless noted otherwise] HA no. (see fig. 1) Hydrographic area name Precipitation, acre-ft/yr Recharge, acre-ft/yr Source of precipitation data Comments 
81 Pyramid Lake Valley 100,000 6,600 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. 

assumed equal to 1.8 ft

82 Dodge Flat 21,000 1,400 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method 83 Tracy Segment 121,000 6,000 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method 84 Warm Springs Valley 96,000 6,000 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method 85 Spanish Springs Valley 16,000 600 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, does not include Dry 

Lakes Area of HA

26,000 830 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >12 in. 

assumed equal to 1.1 ft or 1.08 ft

26,000 770 Altitude-precipitation relation Chloride balance, precipitation >12 in. assumed 

equal to 1.1 ft or 1.08 ft

86 Sun Valley 1,800 50 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method 87 Truckee Meadows 161,000 27,000 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >39 in. 

assumed equal to 3.3 ft

88 Pleasant Valley 46,000 10,000 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >39 in. 

assumed equal to 3.3 ft

89 Washoe Valley 87,000 15,000 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >32 in. 

assumed equal to 2.8 ft

90 Lake Tahoe Basin -- -- -- No estimate available 91 Truckee Canyon

Segment

110,000 27,000 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >39 in. 

assumed equal to 3.3 ft

92 Lemmon Valley 43,400 1,800 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method 

44,000 1,500 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. 

assumed equal to 1.7 ft

30,800 1,600 Altitude-precipitation relation Chloride-balance method 

93 Antelope Valley 9,000 300 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method 94 Bedell Flat 27,000 1,100 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method 

Appendix 1. Estimates of natural recharge for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued[Abbreviations: HA, hydrographic area; --, placeholder; ET, evapotranspiration; PRISM, Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model; acre-ft/yr, acre-feet per ye

>; greater than; ≥, greater than or equal to. Precipitation volume where precipitation is ≥8 in/yr unless noted otherwise]

HA 

no.

(see

fig. 1)

Hydrographic area 

name

Precipitation,

acre-ft/yr

Recharge,

acre-ft/yr Source of precipitation data Comments 
95 Dry Valley 37,000 2,400 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method 96 Newcomb Lake Valley 4,500 300 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method 97 Honey Lake Valley 24,000 1,500 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method 98 Skedaddle Creek Valley 17,680 600 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >12 in. assumed equal to 1.1 ft 99 Red Rock Valley 7,700 900 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method 

100 Cold Spring Valley 18,000 900 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method 101 Carson Desert 43,000 2,010 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >15 in. assumed equal to 1.5 ft 102 Churchill Valley 32,000 1,300 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >15 in. assumed equal to 1.5 ft 103 Dayton Valley 125,300 7,900 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.8 ft 

127,000 7,900 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.8 ft 163,000 11,000 Distance-altitude relation Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.8 ft 229,000 26,000 PRISM 1996 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.8 ft 

Stagecoach subbasina 9,700 320 Altitude-precipitation relation Chloride-balance method 

12,200 440 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Chloride-balance method 12,200 580 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method 12,000 560 Glancy and Katzer, 1976 Maxey-Eakin method 18,000 800 Distance-altitude relation Maxey-Eakin method 22,000 1,500 PRISM 1996 Maxey-Eakin method 

104 Eagle Valley 58,000 8,700 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >30 in. assumed equal to 2.6 ft 

-- 5,600 Altitude-precipitation relation Water-budget method, includes recharge after agricultural and municipal water use 

67,000 8,000 Altitude-precipitation relation Water-budget method, minimum estimate 

Appendix 1. Estimates of natural recharge for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued[Abbreviations: HA, hydrographic area; --, placeholder; ET, evapotranspiration; PRISM, Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model; acre-ft/yr, acre-feet per ye

>; greater than; ≥, greater than or equal to. Precipitation volume where precipitation is ≥8 in/yr unless noted otherwise]

HA 

no.

(see

fig. 1)

Hydrographic area 

name

Precipitation,

acre-ft/yr

Recharge,

acre-ft/yr Source of precipitation data Comments 
67,000 10,000 Altitude-precipitation relation Water-budget method, maximum estimate 

105 Carson Valley 254,000 25,000 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >24 in. 

assumed equal to 2.0 ft; >30 in. assumed equal to 2.6 ft

350,000 49,000 Spane, 1977 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >26 in. 

assumed equal to 2.2 ft; >40 in. assumed equal to 3.3 ft

106 Antelope Valley 66,700 5,000 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >24 in. 

assumed equal to 2.0 ft

107 Smith Valley 210,000 17,000 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. 

assumed equal to 2.0 ft; >12 in. assumed equal to 1.1 ft

108 Mason Valley 32,000 2,000 Not specified Maxey-Eakin method 109 East Walker Area 191,000 22,000 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. 

assumed equal to 1.8 ft; >15 in. assumed equal to 1.5

110 Walker Lake Valley 101,000 6,500 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. 

assumed equal to 1.75 ft; assumed minor recharge on west side Walker Lake subarea

111 Alkali Valley 32,400 1,800 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >15 in. 

assumed equal to 1.5 ft

112 Mono Valley 16,000 700 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >12 in. 

assumed equal to 1.1 ft

113 Huntoon Valley 22,200 800 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >12 in. 

assumed equal to 1.1 ft

114 Teels Marsh Valley 38,400 1,300 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >12 in. 

assumed equal to 1.1 ft

115 Adobe Valley 6,400 300 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >12 in. 

assumed equal to 1.1 ft

116 Queen Valley 25,100 2,000 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. 

assumed equal to 1.8 ft

117 Fish Lake Valley 255,000 33,000 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. 

assumed equal to 1.8 ft

Appendix 1. Estimates of natural recharge for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued[Abbreviations: HA, hydrographic area; --, placeholder; ET, evapotranspiration; PRISM, Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model; acre-ft/yr, acre-feet per ye

>; greater than; ≥, greater than or equal to. Precipitation volume where precipitation is ≥8 in/yr unless noted otherwise]

HA 

no.

(see

fig. 1)

Hydrographic area 

name

Precipitation,

acre-ft/yr

Recharge,

acre-ft/yr Source of precipitation data Comments 
251,000 26,800 Altitude-precipitation relation Chloride-balance method 

118 Columbus Salt Marsh Valley 13,300 700 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method 119 Rhodes Salt Marsh Valley 11,600 500 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method 

120 Garfield Flat 9,400 300 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >12 in. assumed equal to 1.1 ft 121 Soda Spring Valley 19,600 700 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >15 in. assumed equal to 1.5 ft; >8 in. assumed equal to 0.8 ft 122 Gabbs Valley 383,000 5,000 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method 

381,000 4,900 Altitude-precipitation relation Chloride-balance method 

123 Rawhide Flats 5,000 150 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method 124 Fairview Valley 16,600 500 Hardman, 1936 Maxey-Eakin method 

74,000 2,300 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method 

125 Stingaree Valley -- -- -- See sum of HAs 126 Cowkick Valley -- -- -- See sum of HAs 127 Eastgate Valley Area -- -- -- See sum of HAs 

Sum of HAs 125, 126, 127 94,100 6,000 Hardman, 1936 Maxey-Eakin method 

171,000 6,700 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >15 in. assumed equal to 1.46 ft 

128 Dixie Valley 116,200 6,000 Hardman, 1936 Maxey-Eakin method 

246,900 8,900 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >15 in. assumed equal to 1.46 ft 

129 Buena Vista Valley 10,000 Hardman, 1936 Maxey-Eakin method 130 Pleasant Valley 44,900 3,000 Hardman, 1936 Maxey-Eakin method 

92,000 3,300 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >15 in. assumed equal to 1.46 ft 

Appendix 1. Estimates of natural recharge for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued [Abbreviations: HA, hydrographic area; --, placeholder; ET, evapotranspiration; PRISM, Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model; acre-ft/yr, acre-feet per ye

>; greater than; ≥, greater than or equal to. Precipitation volume where precipitation is ≥8 in/yr unless noted otherwise] HA no. (see fig. 1) Hydrographic area name Precipitation, acre-ft/yr Recharge, acre-ft/yr Source of precipitation data Comments 
131 Buffalo Valley -- -- -- No estimate available 132 Jersey Valley 16,970 800 Hardman, 1936 Maxey-Eakin method 

41,000 1,400 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method 

133 Edwards Creek Valley 111,400 8,000 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1962 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. 

assumed equal to 1.75 ft

134 Smith Creek Valley 119,000 12,000 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1962 Maxey-Eakin method, used precipitation ≥12 in

precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.75 ft

92,000 9,600 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, used precipitation ≥10 in92,000 8,300 Altitude-precipitation relation Chloride-balance method 

135 Ione Valley 90,000 8,000 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1962 Maxey-Eakin method, used precipitation ≥12 in

precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.75 ft

136 Monte Cristo Valley 12,200 500 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >12 in. 

assumed equal to 1.1 ft

137 Big Smoky Valley 741,000 77,000 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. 

assumed equal to 2 ft, >15 in. assumed equal to 1.5 ft

-- 74,000 Not specified Model results 

138 Grass Valley 211,000 13,000 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. 

assumed equal to 1.75 ft

139 Kobeh Valley 110,000 11,000 Hardman, 1936 Maxey-Eakin method, used precipitation ≥12 in

precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.75 ft

140 Monitor Valley 392,500 23,300 Hardman, 1936 Maxey-Eakin method, used precipitation ≥7 in., 

precipitation >18 in. assumed equal to 1.7 ft

141 Ralston Valley 340,000 16,000 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1962 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. 

assumed equal to 1.75 ft

115,000 5,000 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >15 in. 

assumed equal to 1.5 ft

142 Alkali Spring Valley 2,800 100 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >8 in. 

assumed equal to 0.8 ft

143 Clayton Valley 34,700 1,500 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >15 in. 

assumed equal to 1.5 ft

Appendix 1. Estimates of natural recharge for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued[Abbreviations: HA, hydrographic area; --, placeholder; ET, evapotranspiration; PRISM, Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model; acre-ft/yr, acre-feet per ye

>; greater than; ≥, greater than or equal to. Precipitation volume where precipitation is ≥8 in/yr unless noted otherwise]

HA 

no.

(see

fig. 1)

Hydrographic area 

name

Precipitation,

acre-ft/yr

Recharge,

acre-ft/yr Source of precipitation data Comments 
144 Lida Valley 13,400 500 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >12 in. assumed equal to 1.1 ft 

-- 1,900 Altitude-precipitation relation Modified Maxey-Eakin method 

145 Stonewall Flat 1,900 100 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >12 in. assumed equal to 1.1 ft 

-- 800 Altitude-precipitation relation Modified Maxey-Eakin method 

146 Sarcobatus Flat 37,500 1,200 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method 

-- 1,500 Altitude-precipitation relation Modified Maxey-Eakin method 

147 Gold Flat 94,000 3,800 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >15 in. assumed equal to 1.5 ft 

-- 6,600 Altitude-precipitation relation Modified Maxey-Eakin method 

148 Cactus Flat 15,000 600 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >15 in. assumed equal to 1.5 ft 

-- 3,100 Altitude-precipitation relation Modified Maxey-Eakin method 

149 Stone Cabin Valley 362,000 16,000 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1962 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.75 ft 

103,000 5,000 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >15 in. assumed equal to 1.5 ft 

150 Little Fish Lake Valley 181,000 11,000 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.75 ft 

236,430 9,700 PRISM 1997 Revised Maxey-Eakin method 

151 Antelope Valley 108,100 4,100 Hardman, 1936 Maxey-Eakin method, used precipitation ≥7 in., precipitation >18 in. assumed equal to 1.7 ft 152 Stevens Basin 8,500 200 Hardman, 1936 Maxey-Eakin method, used precipitation ≥7 in. 153 Diamond Valley 304,000 16,000 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.75 ft 

319,000 21,000 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.8 ft 227,000 10,500 Altitude-precipitation relation Chloride-balance method, southern part of HA 

Appendix 1. Estimates of natural recharge for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued [Abbreviations: HA, hydrographic area; --, placeholder; ET, evapotranspiration; PRISM, Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model; acre-ft/yr, acre-feet per ye

>; greater than; ≥, greater than or equal to. Precipitation volume where precipitation is ≥8 in/yr unless noted otherwise] HA no. (see fig. 1) Hydrographic area name Precipitation, acre-ft/yr Recharge, acre-ft/yr Source of precipitation data Comments 
154 Newark Valley 335,000 17,500 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method 

515,471 49,000 PRISM 1997 Revised Maxey-Eakin method 

155 Little Smoky Valley 140,000 5,400 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method 

523,359 13,000 PRISM 1997 Revised Maxey-Eakin method 

156 Hot Creek Valley -- 10,600 Hardman, 1936 Maxey-Eakin method 

153,000 7,000 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method 424,067 5,800 PRISM 1997 Revised Maxey-Eakin method 

157 Kawich Valley 88,000 3,500 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >15 in. 

assumed equal to 1.5 ft

-- 7,500 Altitude-precipitation relation Modified Maxey-Eakin method 

158 Emigrant Valley 75,720 3,204 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. 

assumed equal to 1.8 ft; >8 in. assumed equal to 0.8 ft

-- 13,000 Altitude-precipitation relation Modified Maxey-Eakin method 

159 Yucca Flat 19,300 700 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >12 in. 

assumed equal to 1.1 ft

-- 1,900 Altitude-precipitation relation Modified Maxey-Eakin method 

160 Frenchman Flat 3,200 100 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >8 in. 

assumed equal to 0.8 ft

-- 1,000 Altitude-precipitation relation Modified Maxey-Eakin method 

161 Indian Springs Valley -- 4,700 Not specified Maxey-Eakin method 

115,000 10,000 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. 

assumed equal to 1.8 ft

-- 8,200 Altitude-precipitation relation Modified Maxey-Eakin method 

162 Pahrump Valley -- 23,000 Not specified Maxey-Eakin method 

-- 20,200 Altitude-precipitation relation Modified Maxey-Eakin method 

Appendix 1. Estimates of natural recharge for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued[Abbreviations: HA, hydrographic area; --, placeholder; ET, evapotranspiration; PRISM, Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model; acre-ft/yr, acre-feet per ye

>; greater than; ≥, greater than or equal to. Precipitation volume where precipitation is ≥8 in/yr unless noted otherwise]

HA 

no.

(see

fig. 1)

Hydrographic area 

name

Precipitation,

acre-ft/yr

Recharge,

acre-ft/yr Source of precipitation data Comments 
163 Mesquite Valley 28,400 1,400 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.8 ft 

30,000 1,600 Altitude-precipitation relation Chloride-balance method 

-- 2,200 Altitude-precipitation relation Modified Maxey-Eakin method 

164 Ivanpah Valley 13,350 700 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.8 ft 165 Jean Lake Valley 2,200 100 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >12 in. assumed equal to 1.1 ft 166 Hidden Valley 0 minor George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method 167 Eldorado Valley 37,000 1,100 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >12 in. assumed equal to 1.08 ft 168 Three Lakes Valley 41,100 2,000 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.8 ft 

-- 1,200 Altitude-precipitation relation Modified Maxey-Eakin method 

169 Tikapoo Valley 115,000 6,000 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.8 ft 

-- 9,800 Altitude-precipitation relation Modified Maxey-Eakin method 

170 Penoyer Valley 95,300 4,300 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.8 ft 

97,300 3,200 Altitude-precipitation relation Chloride-balance method 

13,500 Hardman, 1936 Maxey-Eakin method 

171 Coal Valley 62,000 2,000 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1962 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.75 ft 172 Garden Valley 137,000 10,000 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1962 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.75 ft 173 Railroad Valley 817,200 50,400 Hardman, 1936 Maxey-Eakin method 

750,500 52,000 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.8 ft 746,000 33,300 Altitude-precipitation relation Chloride-balance method 

Appendix 1. Estimates of natural recharge for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued [Abbreviations: HA, hydrographic area; --, placeholder; ET, evapotranspiration; PRISM, Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model; acre-ft/yr, acre-feet per ye

>; greater than; ≥, greater than or equal to. Precipitation volume where precipitation is ≥8 in/yr unless noted otherwise] HA no. (see fig. 1) Hydrographic area name Precipitation, acre-ft/yr Recharge, acre-ft/yr Source of precipitation data Comments 
173B Railroad Valley 

(Northern Part)

618,000 46,000 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. 

assumed equal to 1.8 ft

616,000 28,400 Altitude-precipitation relation Chloride-balance method 

1,089,249 61,000 PRISM 1997 Revised Maxey-Eakin method 

174 Jakes Valley -- 13,000 Hardman, 1936 Maxey-Eakin method 

289,477 38,500 PRISM 1997 Revised Maxey-Eakin method 

175 Long Valley 297,000 10,000 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >15 in. 

assumed equal to 1.33 ft

452,367 48,000 PRISM 1997 Revised Maxey-Eakin method 

176 Ruby Valley 696,000 68,000 Hardman, 1936 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. 

assumed equal to 2.1 ft

867,225 146,000 PRISM 1997 Revised Maxey-Eakin method 

177 Clover Valley 224,000 20,700 Hardman, 1936 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. 

assumed equal to 2.1 ft

363,328 59,000 PRISM 1997 Revised Maxey-Eakin method 

178 Butte Valley 240,000 19,000 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. 

assumed equal to 1.8 ft

243,000 14,600 Altitude-precipitation relation Chloride-balance method 700,905 69,000 PRISM 1997 Revised Maxey-Eakin method 

179 Steptoe Valley 810,000 85,000 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. 

assumed equal to 1.75 ft

1,344,191 132,000 PRISM 1997 Revised Maxey-Eakin method 

180 Cave Valley 206,000 14,000 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1962 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. 

assumed equal to 1.75 ft

181 Dry Lake Valley 118,000 5,000 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1962 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. 

assumed equal to 1.75 ft

182 Delamar Valley 34,000 1,000 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1962 Maxey-Eakin method 183 Lake Valley 229,000 13,000 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1962 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. 

assumed equal to 1.75 ft

Appendix 1. Estimates of natural recharge for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued[Abbreviations: HA, hydrographic area; --, placeholder; ET, evapotranspiration; PRISM, Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model; acre-ft/yr, acre-feet per ye

>; greater than; ≥, greater than or equal to. Precipitation volume where precipitation is ≥8 in/yr unless noted otherwise]

HA 

no.

(see

fig. 1)

Hydrographic area 

name

Precipitation,

acre-ft/yr

Recharge,

acre-ft/yr Source of precipitation data Comments 
184 Spring Valley 791,000 75,000 Hardman, 1936 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.75 ft 

787,000 61,600 Altitude-precipitation relation Chloride-balance method 

1,141,444 104,000 PRISM 1997 Revised Maxey-Eakin method 

185 Tippett Valley 114,000 6,900 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.8 ft 

211,905 12,500 PRISM 1997 Revised Maxey-Eakin method 

186 Antelope Valley 117,000 4,700 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.8 ft 

246,551 17,000 PRISM 1997 Revised Maxey-Eakin method 

187 Goshute Valley 592,875 41,000 PRISM 1997 Revised Maxey-Eakin method 188 Independence Valley 203,000 9,300 Hardman, 1936 Maxey-Eakin method 

394,414 50,000 PRISM 1997 Revised Maxey-Eakin method 

189 Thousand Springs Valley 325,000 12,000 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >15 in. assumed equal to 1.5 ft; >12 in. assumed equal to 1.1 ft 190 Grouse Creek Valley 19,100 700 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >12 in. assumed equal to 1.1 ft 191 Pilot Creek Valley 40,000 2,400 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.8 ft 192 Great Salt Lake Desert 77,600 4,800 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.8 ft 193 Deep Creek Valley 44,700 2,200 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. assumed equal to 1.8 ft 194 Pleasant Valley -- -- -- Estimate for Nevada and Utah parts combined 195 Snake Valley -- -- -- Estimate for Nevada and Utah parts combined 196 Hamlin Valley -- -- -- Estimate for Nevada and Utah parts combined 197 Escalante Desert 76,000 2,300 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >15 in. assumed equal to 1.3 ft 198 Dry Valley -- -- -- No estimate available 

Appendix 1. Estimates of natural recharge for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued [Abbreviations: HA, hydrographic area; --, placeholder; ET, evapotranspiration; PRISM, Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model; acre-ft/yr, acre-feet per ye

>; greater than; ≥, greater than or equal to. Precipitation volume where precipitation is ≥8 in/yr unless noted otherwise] HA no. (see fig. 1) Hydrographic area name Precipitation, acre-ft/yr Recharge, acre-ft/yr Source of precipitation data Comments 
199 Rose Valley -- -- -- No estimate available 200 Eagle Valley -- -- -- No estimate available 201 Spring Valley 177,000 10,000 Hardman, 1936 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. 

assumed equal to 1.75 ft

202 Patterson Valley 137,000 6,000 Hardman, 1936 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. 

assumed equal to 1.75 ft

203 Panaca Valley -- -- -- No estimate available 204 Clover Valley -- -- -- No estimate available 205 Lower Meadow Valley 

Wash

-- -- -- No estimate available 

206 Kane Springs Valley 10,000 500 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1962 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. 

assumed equal to 1.75 ft

207 White River Valley -- 40,000 Hardman, 1936 Maxey-Eakin method 208 Pahroc Valley 57,000 2,200 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1962 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >15 in. 

assumed equal to 1.46 ft

209 Pahranagat Valley 43,000 1,800 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1962 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >15 in. 

assumed equal to 1.46 ft

210 Coyote Spring Valley 39,000 2,100 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1962 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. 

assumed equal to 1.75 ft

211 Three Lakes Valley 56,000 6,000 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >20 in. 

assumed equal to 1.8 ft

7,300 Altitude-precipitation relation Modified Maxey-Eakin method 

212 Las Vegas Valley 161,200 30,000 Not specified Maxey-Eakin method, minimum recharge from 

Spring and Sheep Mountains

161,200 35,000 Not specified Maxey-Eakin method, maximum recharge from 

Spring and Sheep Mountains

-- 25,000 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Average of 3 methods -- 30,000 -- Model results 

332,500 28,000 Altitude-precipitation relation Chloride-balance method 

Appendix 1. Estimates of natural recharge for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued[Abbreviations: HA, hydrographic area; --, placeholder; ET, evapotranspiration; PRISM, Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model; acre-ft/yr, acre-feet per ye

>; greater than; ≥, greater than or equal to. Precipitation volume where precipitation is ≥8 in/yr unless noted otherwise]

HA 

no.

(see

fig. 1)

Hydrographic area 

name

Precipitation,

acre-ft/yr

Recharge,

acre-ft/yr Source of precipitation data Comments 
-- 33,000 -- Model results 

213 Colorado Valley 5,800 200 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >12 in. assumed equal to 1.0 ft 214 Piute Valley 55,800 1,700 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >8 in. assumed equal to 0.75 ft. Amounts are total fo

basin, half of recharge occurs in Nevada 

215 Black Mountains Area 2,200 70 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >8 in. assumed equal to 0.8 ft 216 Garnet Valley 11,000 400 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >12 in. assumed equal to 1.1 ft 217 Hidden Valley 11,000 400 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >12 in. assumed equal to 1.1 ft 218 California Wash 2,000 60 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >8 in. assumed equal to 0.8 ft 219 Muddy River Springs Area -- -- -- No estimate available 220 Lower Moapa Valley 1,200 40 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >8 in. assumed equal to 0.8 ft 221 Tule Desert 62,000 2,100 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >15 in. assumed equal to 1.3 ft 222 Virgin River Valley 98,700 3,600 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >15 in. assumed equal to 1.3 ft 223 Gold Butte Area 27,600 1,000 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >12 in. assumed equal to 1.1 ft 224 Greasewood Basin 14,900 600 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >12 in. assumed equal to 1.1 ft 225 Mercury Valley 5,200 250 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >15 in. assumed equal to 1.5 ft 226 Rock Valley 900 30 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >8 in. assumed equal to 0.8 ft 

Sum of HAs 225, 226 -- 400 Altitude-precipitation relation Modified Maxey-Eakin method 

Appendix 1. Estimates of natural recharge for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued[Abbreviations: HA, hydrographic area; --, placeholder; ET, evapotranspiration; PRISM, Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model; acre-ft/yr, acre-feet per ye

>; greater than; ≥, greater than or equal to. Precipitation volume where precipitation is ≥8 in/yr unless noted otherwise]

HA 

no.

(see

fig. 1)

Hydrographic area 

name

Precipitation,

acre-ft/yr

Recharge,

acre-ft/yr Source of precipitation data Comments 
227 Fortymile Canyon 61,000 2,300 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >12 in. 

assumed equal to 1.1 ft; >15 in. assumed equal to 1.5 ft

-- 700 Altitude-precipitation relation Modified Maxey-Eakin method 

228 Oasis Valley 33,500 1,000 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >12 in. 

assumed equal to 1.1 ft

-- 3,000 Altitude-precipitation relation Modified Maxey-Eakin method 

229 Crater Flat 6,700 220 George Hardman, unpublished map, 1965 Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >12 in. 

assumed equal to 1.1 ft

-- 100 Altitude-precipitation relation Modified Maxey-Eakin method 

230 Amargosa Desert 90,000 1,500 Hardman and Mason, 1949 Maxey-Eakin method 

-- 400 Altitude-precipitation relation Modified Maxey-Eakin method 

231 Grapevine Canyon 1,070 50 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >12 in. 

assumed equal to 1.1 ft

232 Oriental Wash 8,500 300 Altitude-precipitation relation Maxey-Eakin method, precipitation >12 in. 

assumed equal to 1.1 ft

aStagecoach subbasin is an unofficial name.

Appendix 1. Estimates of natural recharge for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued[Abbreviations: HA, hydrographic area; --, placeholder; ET, evapotranspiration; PRISM, Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model; acre-ft/yr, acre-feet per ye

>; greater than; ≥, greater than or equal to. Precipitation volume where precipitation is ≥8 in/yr unless noted otherwise]

HA 

no.

(see

fig. 1)

Hydrographic area 

name

Precipitation,

acre-ft/yr

Recharge,

acre-ft/yr Source of precipitation data Comments 
Appendix 2. Estimates of interbasin flow for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued[Values are in acre-feet per year; inflow are positive and outflow are negative values. Abbreviations: --, placeholder; HA, hydrographic area; <, less than] HAno. (see fig. 1) Hydrographic area name Interbasin flow Direction of flow Comments 

1 Pueblo Valley -1,000 To Oregon Estimated as residual Sinclair2 Continental Lake Valley -- -- No interbasin flow discussed Sinclair3 Gridley Lake Valley -- -- No interbasin flow discussed Sinclair4 Virgin Valley -- -- No interbasin flow discussed Sinclair5 Sage Hen Valley -- -- No estimate available6 Guano Valley -- -- No interbasin flow discussed Sinclair7 Swan Lake Valley -- -- No estimate available --8 Massacre Lake Valley -- -- Possible outflow to Long Valley Sinclair9 Long Valley -- -- Possible inflow from New Year Lake area, 

Massacre Lake, and Boulder Valley

Sinclair

10 Macy Flat -- -- No estimate available --

11 Coleman Valley -- -- No interbasin flow discussed Sinclair

12 Mosquito Valley -- -- Possible inflow from Warner Valley Sinclair13 Warner Valley -- -- No estimate available --14 Surprise Valley -- -- Discharges to California Sinclair15 Boulder Valley -- -- Possible outflow to Long Valley Sinclair16 Duck Lake Valley -- -- No interbasin flow discussed Sinclair17 Pilgrim Flat -500 To California Darcy’s Law Glancy 18 Painter Flat -- -- Probably no significant underflow to Sano 

Valley

Glancy 

19 Dry Valley -180 To Smoke Creek Desert Darcy’s Law Glancy 20 Sano Valley -- -- Probably no significant underflow to 

Painters Flat

Glancy 

21 Smoke Creek Desert 200 From San Emidio Desert Darcy’s Law Glancy 

180 From Dry Valley (HA 19) Darcy’s Law Glancy 

5,300 From Honey Lake Valley Ground-water model Handm

Appendix 2. Estimates of interbasin flow for hydrographic areas of Nevada
22 San Emidio Desert -200 To Smoke Creek Desert Darcy’s Law Glancy 

<-100 To Black Rock Desert Darcy’s Law Glancy 

23 Granite Basin -- -- No interbasin flow discussed Sinclair24 Hualapai Flat -- -- Assumed negligible Sinclair

-400 To Black Rock Desert -- Harrill, 

25 High Rock Lake Valley -- -- No interbasin flow discussed Sinclair26 Mud Meadow -- -- No interbasin flow discussed Sinclair27 Summit Lake Valley -- -- No interbasin flow discussed Sinclair28 Black Rock Desert 2,700 From Pine Forest Valley Darcy’s Law Sinclair

-- -- Underflow from San Emidio Desert 

negligible

Sinclair

<100 From San Emidio Desert Darcy’s Law Glancy 

400 From Hualapi Flat Darcy’s Law Harrill, 

120 to 1,200 From Desert Valley Ground-water model Berger, 

29 Pine Forest Valley 200 to 300 From Kings River Valley Estimate not described Sinclair

<200 From Desert Valley Assumed value Sinclair

100 to 400 From Desert Valley Ground-water model Berger, 

-2,700 To Black Rock Desert Darcy’s Law Sinclair

30 Kings River Valley 1,000 From HA 30 (A) Rio King 

Subarea

Darcy’s Law Malmb

-1,000 To HA 30 (B) Sod House 

Subarea

Darcy’s Law Malmb

-200 to -300 To Pine Forest Valley Estimate method not described Sinclair

31 Desert Valley 300 From Quinn River Valley Darcy’s Law Huxel a

<100 From Silver State Valley Darcy’s Law Huxel a

Appendix 2. Estimates of interbasin flow for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued[Values are in acre-feet per year; inflow are positive and outflow are negative values. Abbreviations: --, placeholder; HA, hydrographic area; <, less than]

HA

no.

(see

fig. 1)

Hydrographic area name Interbasin flow Direction of flow Comments 
<-200 To Pine Forest Valley Assumed value Sinclai

-100 to -400 To Pine Forest Valley Ground-water model Berger, 

-120 to -1,200 To southwest, presumably to Black Rock Desert Ground-water model Berger, 

32 Silver State Valley <-100 To Desert Valley Darcy’s Law Huxel a33 Quinn River Valley minor From Oregon Canyon Darcy’s Law Huxel a

5,000 From HA 33 (B) Orovada Subarea Darcy’s Law Huxel a

-5,000 To HA 33(A) McDermitt Subarea Darcy’s Law Huxel a

-300 To Desert Valley Darcy’s Law Huxel a

34 Little Owyhee River Area -- -- Underflow possible, small, not estimated Moore 35 South Fork Owyhee River Area -- -- Underflow possible, small, not estimated Moore 36 Independence Valley -- -- No interbasin flow discussed Eakin, 37 Owyhee River Area -- -- Underflow possible, small, not estimated Moore 38 Bruneau River Area -- -- Underflow possible, small, not estimated Moore 39 Jarbidge River Area -- -- Underflow possible, small, not estimated Moore 40 Salmon Falls Creek Area -- -- Underflow possible, small, not estimated Moore 41 Goose Creek Area -- -- Underflow possible, small, not estimated Moore 42 Marys River Area -- -- No estimate available -- 43 Starr Valley Area -- -- No estimate available -- 44 North Fork Area -- -- No estimate available -- 45 Lamoille Valley -- -- No estimate available -- 46 South Fork Area -9,000 To S. Fork Humboldt River Stream measurements Rush a47 Huntington Valley -- -- No interbasin flow discussed Rush a

Appendix 2. Estimates of interbasin flow for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued [Values are in acre-feet per year; inflow are positive and outflow are negative values. Abbreviations: --, placeholder; HA, hydrographic area; <, less than] HAno. (see fig. 1) Hydrographic area name Interbasin flow Direction of flow Comments 
-19,000 To Ruby Valley -- Nichol

48 Dixie Creek-Tenmile Creek 

Area

-- -- No interbasin flow discussed Rush a

49 Elko Segment 300 From Pine Valley Darcy’s Law Eakin, 50 Susie Creek Area -- -- Ground-water discharges to Humboldt 

River

Maurer 

51 Maggie Creek Area -- -- Ground-water discharges to Humboldt 

River

Maurer 

52 Marys Creek Area -- -- Ground-water discharges to Humboldt 

River

Maurer 

Sum of 50, 51, 52 -8,600 To Humboldt River Total discharge to river Maurer 

53 Pine Valley -300 To Elko Segment Darcy’s Law Eakin, 

-5,000 To Pine Creek Stream measurements Eakin, -9,000 To Diamond Valley Estimated as residual Harrill, 

54 Crescent Valley 300 From Carico Lake Valley Assumed value Zones, 

400 From Whirlwind Valley Assumed value equal to recharge Olmste

55 Carico Lake Valley 3,000 From Upper Reese River Valley Darcy’s Law Berger, 

-300 To Crescent Valley Assumed value Zones, 

56 Upper Reese River Valley -500 To Middle Reese River Valley Assumed value Crosthw

<-500 To Middle Reese River Valley Assumed value Eakin a

-3,000 To Carico Lake Valley Darcy’s Law Berger, 

57 Antelope Valley -6,000 To Middle Reese River Valley Darcy’s Law, estimate not supported by 

Plume and Ponce (1999)

Crosthw

58 Middle Reese River Valley 6,000 From Antelope Valley (HA 57) Darcy’s Law, estimate not supported by 

Plume and Ponce (1999)

Crosthw

500 From Upper Reese River Valley Assumed value Crosthw

Appendix 2. Estimates of interbasin flow for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued[Values are in acre-feet per year; inflow are positive and outflow are negative values. Abbreviations: --, placeholder; HA, hydrographic area; <, less than]

HA

no.

(see

fig. 1)

Hydrographic area name Interbasin flow Direction of flow Comments 
<500 From Upper Reese River Valley Assumed value Eakin a

-9,000 To Lower Reese River Valley Darcy’s Law Crosthw

59 Lower Reese River Valley 9,000 From Middle Reese River Valley Darcy’s Law Crosthw

8,000 From Buffalo Valley Estimate not supported by Plume and Ponce (1999) Rush a

-3,000 Presumably to Humboldt River Total outflow from Lower Reese River and Buffalo Valley Eakin a

60 Whirlwind Valley -400 To Humboldt River Darcy’s Law Olmste

-400 To Crescent Valley Assumed value equal to recharge Olmste

61 Boulder Flat -12,000 To Clovers Area Darcy’s Law Maurer 62 Rock Creek Valley -2,800 To Clovers Area Darcy’s Law Maurer 63 Willow Creek Valley -4,300 To Clovers Area Darcy’s Law Maurer 64 Clovers Area 4,300 From Willow Creek Valley Darcy’s Law Maurer 

2,800 From Rock Creek Valley Darcy’s Law Maurer 

12,000 From Boulder Flat Darcy’s Law Maurer 

65 Pumpernickel Valley -- -- No estimate available -- 66 Kelly Creek Area -- -- No estimate available -- 67 Little Humboldt Valley -300 To Paradise Valley Darcy’s Law Harrill 68 Hardscrabble Area trace To Paradise Valley Harrill 69 Paradise Valley 300 From Little Humboldt Valley Darcy’s Law Harrill 

trace From Hardscrabble Area Darcy’s Law Harrill 

-3,500 To Humboldt River Stream measurements Cohen, 

70 Winnemucca Segment -3,000 To Imlay Area Not described Eakin, 71 Grass Valley -6,000 To Humboldt River Stream measurements Cohen, 

Appendix 2. Estimates of interbasin flow for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued [Values are in acre-feet per year; inflow are positive and outflow are negative values. Abbreviations: --, placeholder; HA, hydrographic area; <, less than] HAno. (see fig. 1) Hydrographic area name Interbasin flow Direction of flow Comments 
72 Imlay Area 3,000 From Winnemucca Segment Not described Eakin, 

-1,000 To Lovelock Valley Assumed value Eakin, 

73 Lovelock Valley 1,000 From Imlay Area Assumed value Eakin, 

-2,000 To Carson Desert Darcy’s Law Everett 

-60 To White Plains Darcy’s Law Glancy 

74 White Plains 60 From Lovelock Valley Darcy’s Law Glancy 

-20 To Carson Desert Darcy’s Law Glancy 

75 Bradys Hot Springs Area 1,000 From Fernley Area Darcy’s Law Harrill, 

200 From Fireball Valley Assumed value equal to recharge Harrill, 

76 Fernley Area -1,000 To Bradys Hot Springs Area Darcy’s Law Harrill, 

-2,100 To Tracy Segment Darcy’s Law Van De-2,100 To Dodge Flat Darcy’s Law Van De

-800 To Carson Desert Darcy’s Law Glancy 

77 Fireball Valley -200 To Bradys Hot Springs Area Assumed value equal to recharge Harrill, 78 Granite Springs Valley 1,000 From Kumiva Valley Assumed value equal to recharge Harrill, 79 Kumiva Valley -1,000 To Granite Springs Valley Assumed value equal to recharge Harrill, 80 Winnemucca Lake Valley 400 From Pyramid Lake Valley Darcy’s Law Van De81 Pyramid Lake Valley 200 From Warm Springs Valley Darcy’s Law Rush a

300 From Dodge Flat Darcy’s Law Van De

1,500 From Honey Lake Valley Ground-water model Handm

-400 To Winnemucca Lake Valley Darcy’s Law Van De

82 Dodge Flat 700 From Tracy Segment Darcy’s Law Van De

2,100 From Fernley Area Darcy’s Law Van De

-300 To Pyramid Lake Valley Darcy’s Law Van De

Appendix 2. Estimates of interbasin flow for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued[Values are in acre-feet per year; inflow are positive and outflow are negative values. Abbreviations: --, placeholder; HA, hydrographic area; <, less than]

HA

no.

(see

fig. 1)

Hydrographic area name Interbasin flow Direction of flow Comments 
83 Tracy Segment 2,100 From Fernley Area Darcy’s Law Van De

-700 To Dodge Flat Darcy’s Law Van De

84 Warm Springs Valley 280 From Spanish Springs Valley Ground-water model Hardiar

-200 To Pyramid Lake Valley Darcy’s Law Rush a

85 Spanish Springs Valley -100 To Truckee Meadows Darcy’s Law Rush a

-280 To Warm Springs Valley Ground-water model Hardiar

86 Sun Valley -25 To Truckee Meadows Darcy’s Law Rush a87 Truckee Meadows 25 From Sun Valley Darcy’s Law Rush a

100 From Spanish Springs Valley Darcy’s Law Rush a700 From Truckee Canyon Segment Darcy’s Law Van De300 From Pleasant Valley Darcy’s Law Van De

88 Pleasant Valley 50 From Washoe Valley Darcy’s Law Van De

-300 To Truckee Meadows Darcy’s Law Van De

89 Washoe Valley -50 To Pleasant Valley Darcy’s Law Van De

minor -- Assumed value Rush, 1

90 Lake Tahoe Basin -- -- No estimate available -- 91 Truckee Canyon Segment 400 From California Darcy’s Law Van De

-700 To Truckee Meadows Darcy’s Law Van De

92 Lemmon Valley -- -- No outflow identified Rush a93 Antelope Valley -- -- No outflow identified Rush a94 Bedell Flat <-200 To Red Rock Valley Darcy’s Law Rush a95 Dry Valley -2,200 To California Darcy’s Law Rush a96 Newcomb Lake Valley -- -- No outflow identified Rush a97 Honey Lake Valley 600 From California side of basin Darcy’s Law Rush a

Appendix 2. Estimates of interbasin flow for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued [Values are in acre-feet per year; inflow are positive and outflow are negative values. Abbreviations: --, placeholder; HA, hydrographic area; <, less than] HAno. (see fig. 1) Hydrographic area name Interbasin flow Direction of flow Comments 
-- -- No outflow identified Rush a

-5,300 To Smoke Creek Desert Ground-water model Handm-1,500 To Pyramid Lake Valley Ground-water model Handm

98 Skedaddle Creek Valley -- -- No interbasin flow discussed Glancy 99 Red Rock Valley <200 From Bedell Flat Darcy’s Law Rush a

100 Cold Spring Valley -- -- No outflow identified Rush a101 Carson Desert 2,000 From Lovelock Valley Darcy’s Law Everett 

20 From White Plains Darcy’s Law Glancy 

800 From Fernley Area Darcy’s Law Glancy 

102 Churchill Valley 150 From Mason Valley Darcy’s Law Huxel a

70 From Dayton Valley Darcy’s Law Glancy 

170 From Dayton Valley Ground-water model Harrill 

103 Dayton Valley 1,600 From Eagle Valley Darcy’s Law Worts a

1,500 From Eagle Valley Darcy’s Law Arteag2,200 From Eagle Valley Darcy’s Law Maurer

15 From Carson Valley Darcy’s Law Glancy 

-70 To Churchill Valley Darcy’s Law Glancy 

-170 To Churchill Valley Ground-water model Harrill 

104 Eagle Valley -1,200 To Carson Valley near Clear 

Creek

Stream measurements Arteag

-400 To Carson Valley from beneath 

Clear Creek

Darcy’s Law Maurer 

-600 To Carson Valley beneath upper 

Clear Creek watershed

Darcy’s Law Worts a

Appendix 2. Estimates of interbasin flow for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued[Values are in acre-feet per year; inflow are positive and outflow are negative values. Abbreviations: --, placeholder; HA, hydrographic area; <, less than]

HA

no.

(see

fig. 1)

Hydrographic area name Interbasin flow Direction of flow Comments 
-2,500 To Carson Valley beneath upper Clear Creek watershed Estimated as residual Maurer -1,600 To Dayton Valley Darcy’s Law Worts a-1,500 To Dayton Valley Darcy’s Law Arteaga -2,200 To Dayton Valley Darcy’s Law Maurer

105 Carson Valley 400 From Eagle Valley beneath Clear Creek Darcy’s Law Maurer 

2,500 From Eagle Valley from beneath upper Clear Creek watershed Estimated as residual Maurer 7,150 From California Darcy’s Law Glancy 

600 From Eagle Valley beneath Clear Creek Darcy’s Law Worts a

-15 To Dayton Valley Darcy’s Law Glancy 

1,200 From Eagle Valley near Clear Creek Stream measurements Arteaga 

106 Antelope Valley 1,000 From California Darcy’s Law Glancy

-200 To Smith Valley Darcy’s Law Glancy

107 Smith Valley 200 From Antelope Valley (HA 106) Darcy’s Law Glancy

-250 To Mason Valley Darcy’s Law, total outflow divided evenly with East Walker Area Huxel a

108 Mason Valley 150 From East Walker Area Darcy’s Law Glancy

250 From East Walker Area Darcy’s Law, total inflow divided evenly with Smith Valley Huxel a250 From Smith Valley Darcy’s Law, total inflow divided evenly with East Walker Area Huxel a

-150 To Churchill Valley Darcy’s Law Huxel a

Appendix 2. Estimates of interbasin flow for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued[Values are in acre-feet per year; inflow are positive and outflow are negative values. Abbreviations: --, placeholder; HA, hydrographic area; <, less than]

HA

no.

(see

fig. 1)

Hydrographic area name Interbasin flow Direction of flow Comments 
-700 To Walker Lake Valley through 

Walker Gap

Darcy’s Law Huxel a

-700 To Walker Lake Valley through 

Parker Gap

Darcy’s Law Huxel a

109 East Walker Area 200 From California Darcy’s Law Glancy

-150 To Mason Valley Darcy’s Law Glancy-250 To Mason Valley Darcy’s Law, total outflow divided evenly 

with East Walker Area

Huxel a

110 Walker Lake Valley 600 From Mason Valley beneath 

Walker River

Not described Everett 

700 From Mason Valley through 

Walker Gap

Darcy’s Law Huxel a

700 From Mason Valley through 

alluvial divide 3 miles southeast of river

Not described Everett 

700 From Mason Valley through 

Parker Gap

Darcy’s Law Huxel a

300 to 400 From Huntoon Valley, some 

may go to Teels Marsh Valley

Estimated as residual Van De

300 From Soda Springs Valley Estimated as residual Van De

111 Alkali Valley -1,400 To California Estimated as residual Van De

112 Mono Valley -700 To California Estimated as residual Van De113 Huntoon Valley -300 to -400 To Teels Marsh or Walker Lake 

Valleys

Estimated as residual Van De

114 Teels Marsh Valley 300 to 400 From Huntoon Valley, some 

may go to Walker Lake

Estimated as residual Van De

115 Adobe Valley -300 To California Estimated as residual Van De116 Queen Valley -2,000 To California Estimated as residual Van De

Appendix 2. Estimates of interbasin flow for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued[Values are in acre-feet per year; inflow are positive and outflow are negative values. Abbreviations: --, placeholder; HA, hydrographic area; <, less than]

HA

no.

(see

fig. 1)

Hydrographic area name Interbasin flow Direction of flow Comments 
117 Fish Lake Valley -200 To Columbus Salt Marsh Valley through alluvium Darcy’s Law Van De

-3,000 To Columbus Salt Marsh Valley through bedrock, total amount from Fish Lake and Big Smoky Valleys Estimated as residual Van De-3,000 To unidentified basins Assumed value Rush a

118 Columbus Salt Marsh Valley 200 From Fish Lake Valley Darcy’s Law Van De

3,000 From Fish Lake and Big Smoky Valleys Estimated as residual Van De

119 Rhodes Salt Marsh Valley 300 From eastern Soda Spring Valley Darcy’s Law Van De

100 From Garfield Flat Assumed value Van De

120 Garfield Flat -100 To Rhodes Salt Marsh Valley Assumed value Van De

-200 To eastern Soda Spring Valley Assumed value Van De

121 Soda Spring Valley 300 From HA 121(A) Eastern Part Darcy’s Law Van De

200 From Garfield Flat Assumed value Van De

-300 To HA 121 (B) Western Part Darcy’s Law Van De-300 To Rhodes Salt Marsh Valley Darcy’s Law Van De-300 To Walker Lake Estimated as residual Van De

122 Gabbs Valley -- -- No interbasin flow discussed Eakin, 123 Rawhide Flats -- -- Possible inflow from Fallon area Everett 124 Fairview Valley -500 To Dixie Valley Estimated as residual Cohen 

-2,300 To Dixie Valley Estimated as residual Harrill 

125 Stingaree Valley -- -- See sum of HAs -- 126 Cowkick Valley -- -- See sum of HAs -- Appendix 2. Estimates of interbasin flow for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued [Values are in acre-feet per year; inflow are positive and outflow are negative values. Abbreviations: --, placeholder; HA, hydrographic area; <, less than] HAno. (see fig. 1) Hydrographic area name Interbasin flow Direction of flow Comments 
127 Eastgate Valley Area -- -- See sum of HAs --

Sum of HAs 125, 126, 127 -5,600 To Dixie Valley Estimated as residual Cohen 

-6,300 To Dixie Valley Estimated as residual Harrill 

128 Dixie Valley 500 From Fairview Valley Estimated as residual Cohen 

2,300 From Fairview Valley Estimated as residual Harrill 5,600 From HAs 125, 126, 127 Estimated as residual Cohen 6,300 From HAs 125, 126, 127 Estimated as residual Harrill 

800 From Pleasant Valley Estimated as residual Cohen 

1,100 From Pleasant Valley Estimated as residual Harrill 

500 From Jersey Valley Estimated as residual Cohen 

1,100 From Jersey Valley Estimated as residual Harrill 

129 Buena Vista Valley -- -- No interbasin flow discussed Loeltz 130 Pleasant Valley -800 To Dixie Valley Estimated as residual Cohen 

-1,100 To Dixie Valley Estimated as residual Harrill 

131 Buffalo Valley -8,000 To Lower Reese River Valley Estimate not supported by Plume and Ponce 

(1999)

Rush a

132 Jersey Valley -1,100 To Dixie Valley Estimated as residual Harrill 

-500 To Dixie Valley Estimated as residual Cohen 

133 Edwards Creek Valley -- -- No interbasin flow discussed Everett134 Smith Creek Valley 0 Reported value Everett 

-- -- No interbasin flow discussed Thoma

135 Ione Valley -2,000 to 

-3,000

To Big Smoky Valley Darcy’s Law Everett 

136 Monte Cristo Valley -- -- No interbasin flow discussed Van De

Appendix 2. Estimates of interbasin flow for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued[Values are in acre-feet per year; inflow are positive and outflow are negative values. Abbreviations: --, placeholder; HA, hydrographic area; <, less than]

HA

no.

(see

fig. 1)

Hydrographic area name Interbasin flow Direction of flow Comments 
137 Big Smoky Valley 2,000 to 3,000 From Ione Valley Darcy’s Law Everett 

2,500 From regional system Ground-water model Handm

-13,000 To Clayton Valley Estimated as residual, checked against Darcy’s Law Rush, 1

-3,000 To Columbus Salt Marsh Valley, total amount from Fish Lake and Big Smoky Valleys Estimated as residual Van De-2,700 To south, HA not specified Ground-water model Handm

138 Grass Valley -- -- No interbasin flow discussed Everett 139 Kobeh Valley 6,000 From Monitor Valley Darcy’s Law Rush a

-150 To Diamond Valley Darcy’s Law and assumed stream inflow recharges Harrill, 

140 Monitor Valley -6,000 To Kobeh Valley Darcy’s Law Rush a141 Ralston Valley -- -- No estimate, but could be large flow to Stonewall Flat and toward Clayton Valley Eakin, 

-1,000 To Death Valley regional flow system Ground-water model D’Agn-2,500 To Alkali Springs Valley Estimated as residual Rush, 1

142 Alkali Spring Valley 2,500 From Ralston Valley Estimated as residual Rush, 1

3,000 From Stone Cabin Valley Estimated as residual Rush, 1

-5,000 To Clayton Valley Estimated as residual Rush, 1

143 Clayton Valley 13,000 From Big Smoky Valley Estimated as residual, checked against Darcy’s Law Rush, 1

5,000 From Alkali Springs Valley Estimated as residual Rush, 1

144 Lida Valley 200 From Stonewall Flat Darcy’s Law Rush, 1

-700 To Sarcobatus Flat Equal to recharge plus inflow Rush, 1

Appendix 2. Estimates of interbasin flow for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued [Values are in acre-feet per year; inflow are positive and outflow are negative values. Abbreviations: --, placeholder; HA, hydrographic area; <, less than] HAno. (see fig. 1) Hydrographic area name Interbasin flow Direction of flow Comments 
145 Stonewall Flat 600 From Cactus Flat Equal to recharge Rush, 1

-200 To Lida Valley Darcy’s Law Rush, 1-700 To Sarcobatus Flat Equal to recharge plus inflow Rush, 1

146 Sarcobatus Flat 700 From Lida Valley Equal to recharge plus inflow Rush, 1

700 From Stonewall Flat Equal to recharge plus inflow Rush, 1

-500 To Grapevine Canyon Estimated as residual Malmb

147 Gold Flat -- -- No estimate, contributes to Ash Meadow 

Springs 

Rush, 1

148 Cactus Flat -600 To Stonewall Flat Equal to recharge Rush, 1149 Stone Cabin Valley -- -- No estimate, but could be large flow to 

Stonewall Flat and toward Clayton Valley

Eakin, 

200 From Little Fish Lake Valley Darcy’s Law Rush an

-3,000 To Alkali Spring Valley Estimated as residual Rush, 1

150 Little Fish Lake Valley -200 To Stone Cabin Valley Darcy’s Law Rush an

0 To and from other basins -- Nichols

151 Antelope Valley 200 From Stevens Basin Equal to recharge Rush an

-- -- Outflow restricted by recent faulting Rush an

152 Stevens Basin -200 To Antelope Valley or Diamond 

Valley

Equal to recharge Rush an

153 Diamond Valley -- -- No interbasin flow discussed Eakin, 

200 From Stevens Basin Equal to recharge Rush an

9,000 From Pine Valley Estimated as residual Harrill, 

150 From Kobeh Valley Darcy’s Law and assume stream inflow 

recharges

Harrill, 

154 Newark Valley 1,000 From Little Smoky Valley Darcy’s Law Eakin, 

10,000 From Long Valley -- Nichols

Appendix 2. Estimates of interbasin flow for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued[Values are in acre-feet per year; inflow are positive and outflow are negative values. Abbreviations: --, placeholder; HA, hydrographic area; <, less than]

HA

no.

(see

fig. 1)

Hydrographic area name Interbasin flow Direction of flow Comments 
1,500 From Little Smoky Valley -- Nichol

0 Outflow -- Nichol

155 Little Smoky Valley 0 Inflow -- Nichol

-1,000 To Newark Valley Darcy’s Law Eakin, -1,500 To Newark Valley -- Nichol-2,300 To Railroad Valley Assumed value equal to spring discharge Rush a-5,500 To Railroad Valley -- Nichol

156 Hot Creek Valley 0 Inflow -- Nichol

-700 To Railroad Valley -- Eakin a-800 To HA 173 (A) Northern Part -- Nichol

157 Kawich Valley 1,000 From Railroad Valley Interbasin flow may be more Blanke158 Emigrant Valley -- -- -- -- 159 Yucca Flat -- -- -- -- 160 Frenchman Flat -- -- -- -- 161 Indian Springs Valley -- -- -- -- 162 Pahrump Valley -700 To Mesquite Valley Estimated as residual Glancy163 Mesquite Valley 700 From Pahrump Valley Estimated as residual Glancy164 Ivanpah Valley 800 From California Equal to recharge in California side of basin Glancy

-1,500 To Las Vegas Valley Equal to recharge Glancy

165 Jean Lake Valley -100 To Las Vegas Valley Equal to recharge Glancy166 Hidden Valley minor To Eldorado Valley Equal to recharge east of McClanahan fault Glancy167 Eldorado Valley minor From Hidden Valley Equal to recharge east of McClanahan fault Glancy

-1,100 To Colorado River Equal to recharge Rush a

168 Three Lakes Valley -- -- -- -- Appendix 2. Estimates of interbasin flow for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued [Values are in acre-feet per year; inflow are positive and outflow are negative values. Abbreviations: --, placeholder; HA, hydrographic area; <, less than] HAno. (see fig. 1) Hydrographic area name Interbasin flow Direction of flow Comments 
169 Tikapoo Valley -- -- -- --170 Penoyer Valley -- -- No outflow identified Van De171 Coal Valley -1,700 To Carbonate aquifer Estimated as residual, proportioned by 

recharge to each valley

Eakin, 

172 Garden Valley -8,300 To Carbonate aquifer Estimated as residual, proportioned by 

recharge to each valley

Eakin, 

173 Railroad Valley 13,000 From Long Valley to HA 173 

(A) Northern Part

-- Nichol

2,300 From Little Smoky Valley Equal to spring discharge Rush a5,500 From Little Smoky Valley to 

HA 173 (A) Northern Part

-- Nichol

700 From Hot Creek Valley -- Eakin a800 From Hot Creek Valley to 

HA 173 (A) Northern Part

-- Nichol

700 From Jakes Valley to HA 173 

(A) Northern Part

-- Nichol

4,000 From HA 173 (A) Northern Part Not described Van De4,000 From HA 173 (A) Northern Part -- Nichol

-4,000 To HA 173 (B) Southern Part Not described Van De-4,000 To HA 173 (B) Southern Part -- Nichol

0 Outflow from northern part -- Nichol

-1,000 To Kawich Valley Interbasin flow may be more Blanke

174 Jakes Valley 14,000 From Long Valley -- Nichol

-51,200 To White River Valley -- Nichol

-700 To HA 173 (A) Northern Part-- Nichol

175 Long Valley 0 Inflow -- Nichol

Appendix 2. Estimates of interbasin flow for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued[Values are in acre-feet per year; inflow are positive and outflow are negative values. Abbreviations: --, placeholder; HA, hydrographic area; <, less than]

HA

no.

(see

fig. 1)

Hydrographic area name Interbasin flow Direction of flow Comments 
-7,800 To bedrock Estimated as residual Eakin, 

-10,000 To Newark Valley -- Nichol-14,000 To Jakes Valley -- Nichol-13,000 To HA173 (A) Northern Part -- Nichol

176 Ruby Valley 800 From Butte Valley Darcy’s Law Glancy

19,000 From Huntington Valley -- Nichol

2,000 From Butte Valley -- Nichol

0 Outflow -- Nichol

177 Clover Valley 22,500 From Butte Valley -- Nichol

3,000 From Independence Valley (HA 188) -- Nichol

0 Outflow -- Nichol

178 Butte Valley 0 Inflow -- Nichol

-22,500 To Clover Valley -- Nichol

-2,000 To Ruby Valley -- Nichol

-800 To Ruby Valley Darcy’s Law Glancy

179 Steptoe Valley 0 Inflow -- Nichol

-4,000 To Goshute Valley -- Nichol

180 Cave Valley -13,700 To bedrock Estimated as residual Eakin, 181 Dry Lake Valley -4,800 To Carbonate Estimated as residual, proportionate to recharge Eakin, 182 Delamar Valley -900 To Carbonate Estimated as residual, proportionate to recharge Eakin, 183 Lake Valley -3,000 To Patterson Valley Darcy’s Law Rush a184 Spring Valley 2,000 From Tippett Valley Equal to recharge Harrill, 

Appendix 2. Estimates of interbasin flow for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued [Values are in acre-feet per year; inflow are positive and outflow are negative values. Abbreviations: --, placeholder; HA, hydrographic area; <, less than] HAno. (see fig. 1) Hydrographic area name Interbasin flow Direction of flow Comments 
0 Inflow -- Nichol

-4,000 To Hamlin Valley -- Rush a

-10,000 To Hamlin Valley -- Nichol

-4,000 To Snake Valley -- Nichol

185 Tippett Valley 0 Inflow -- Nichol

-2,000 To Spring Valley (HA 184) Equal to recharge Harrill, -5,000 To Great Salt Lake Desert Equal to recharge Harrill, -6,000 To Great Salt Lake Desert -- Nichol-3,600 To Snake Valley -- Nichol

186 Antelope Valley 300 From Goshute Valley Darcy’s Law Harrill, 

500 From Goshute Valley -- Nichol

-5,000 To Great Salt Lake Desert Estimated as residual Harrill, 

-13,500 To Great Salt Lake Desert -- Nichol

187 Goshute Valley 4,000 From Steptoe Valley -- Nichol

-1,000 To Pilot Creek Valley Ground-water model Harrill, 

-300 To Antelope Valley (HA 186) Darcy’s Law Harrill, -500 To Antelope Valley (HA 186) -- Nichol

-1,000 To Great Salt Lake Desert Ground-water model Harrill, -2,000 To Great Salt Lake Desert -- Nichol

188 Independence Valley 0 Inflow -- Nichol

-3,000 To Clover Valley -- Nichol

189 Thousand Springs Valley -- -- No indication of inflow Rush, 1

-1,800 To Utah Darcy’s Law, could be large interbasin flow 

through carbonates

Rush, 1

190 Grouse Creek Valley -- -- -- --

Appendix 2. Estimates of interbasin flow for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued[Values are in acre-feet per year; inflow are positive and outflow are negative values. Abbreviations: --, placeholder; HA, hydrographic area; <, less than]

HA

no.

(see

fig. 1)

Hydrographic area name Interbasin flow Direction of flow Comments 
191 Pilot Creek Valley 1,000 From Goshute Valley Ground-water model Harrill, 

-300 To Great Salt Lake Desert Darcy’s Law Harrill, 

192 Great Salt Lake Desert 300 From Pilot Creek Valley Darcy’s Law Harrill, 

1,000 From Goshute Valley Ground-water model Harrill, 2,000 From Goshute Valley -- Nichols5,000 From Tippett Valley Equal to recharge Harrill, 6,000 From Tippett Valley -- Nichols5,000 From Antelope Valley (HA 186) Estimated as residual Harrill, 

13,500 From Antelope Valley (HA 186) -- Nichols

193 Deep Creek Valley -- -- -- -- 194 Pleasant Valley -- -- -- -- 195 Snake Valley 4,000 From Spring Valley (HA 184) -- Nichols

3,600 From Tippett Valley -- Nichols

196 Hamlin Valley 4,000 From Spring Valley (HA 184) Darcy’s Law Rush an

10,000 From Spring Valley (HA 184) -- Nichols

197 Escalante Desert -2,300 To Utah Equal to recharge Glancy 198 Dry Valley -- -- -- -- 199 Rose Valley -- -- -- -- 200 Eagle Valley -- -- -- -- 201 Spring Valley -- -- -- -- 202 Patterson Valley 3,000 From Lake Valley Darcy’s Law Rush an203 Panaca Valley -- -- -- -- 204 Clover Valley -- -- -- --205 Lower Meadow Valley Wash -7,000 To California Wash -- Rush, 1

Appendix 2. Estimates of interbasin flow for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued[Values are in acre-feet per year; inflow are positive and outflow are negative values. Abbreviations: --, placeholder; HA, hydrographic area; <, less than]

HA

no.

(see

fig. 1)

Hydrographic area name Interbasin flow Direction of flow Comments 
206 Kane Springs Valley -- -- -- --207 White River Valley 51,200 From Jakes Valley -- Nichol

-17,500 To Pahroc Valley Estimated as residual Maxey 

208 Pahroc Valley 17,500 From White River Valley Estimated as residual Maxey 209 Pahranagat Valley -- -- May be large outflow through carbonates,

small outflow through alluvium at southend

Eakin, 

210 Coyote Spring Valley -- -- -- --

211 Three Lakes Valley -- -- -- --

212 Las Vegas Valley 1,500 From Ivanpah Valley Equal to recharge Glancy

100 From Jean Lake Valley Equal to recharge Glancy

-400 To Black Mountains Area Darcy’s Law Rush, 1

-1,200 To Black Mountains Area Ground-water model Harrill, -2,000 To Black Mountains Area Ground-water model Morgan 

213 Colorado Valley -- -- 200 acre-feet recharge lost to evapotranspiration or underflow to Colorado River Rush a214 Piute Valley 700 From California -- Rush a

-2,400 To California Equal to recharge Rush a

215 Black Mountains Area 400 From Las Vegas Valley Darcy’s Law Rush, 1

1,200 From Las Vegas Valley Ground-water model Harrill, 2,000 From Las Vegas Valley Ground-water model Morgan 

-100 To Lake Mead Assumed value equal to recharge Rush, 1

216 Garnet Valley 400 From Hidden Valley Equal to recharge Rush, 1

-800 To California Wash Equal to recharge plus inflow Rush, 1

217 Hidden Valley -400 To Garnet Valley Equal to recharge Rush, 1

Appendix 2. Estimates of interbasin flow for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued[Values are in acre-feet per year; inflow are positive and outflow are negative values. Abbreviations: --, placeholder; HA, hydrographic area; <, less than]

HA

no.

(see

fig. 1)

Hydrographic area name Interbasin flow Direction of flow Comments 
218 California Wash 800 From Garnet Valley -- Rush, 1

7,000 From Lower Meadow Valley Wash -- Rush, 1

219 Muddy River Springs Area -- -- -- -- 220 Lower Moapa Valley -1,100 To Lake Mead Darcy’s Law Rush, 1221 Tule Desert -2,100 To Virgin River Valley Equal to recharge Glancy 222 Virgin River Valley 2,100 From Tule Desert Equal to recharge Glancy 

50,000 From Utah Equal to spring discharge to Virgin River Glancy 

1,000 From Utah Darcy’s Law, through alluvium Glancy 

-40,000 To Lake Mead Estimated as residual, may be too large Glancy 

223 Gold Butte Area -1,000 To Lake Mead Equal to recharge Rush, 1224 Greasewood Basin -600 To Arizona Equal to recharge Rush, 1225 Mercury Valley -- -- -- -- 226 Rock Valley -- -- -- -- 227 Fortymile Canyon -- -- -- -- 228 Oasis Valley -- -- -- -- 229 Crater Flat -- -- -- -- 230 Amargosa Desert -- -- -- -- 231 Grapevine Canyon 500 From Sarcobatus Flat Estimated as residual Malmb

-400 To Death Valley Equal to spring discharge Rush, 1

232 Oriental Wash -300 To Death Valley Estimated as residual Rush, 1

Appendix 2. Estimates of interbasin flow for hydrographic areas of Nevada—Continued [Values are in acre-feet per year; inflow are positive and outflow are negative values. Abbreviations: --, placeholder; HA, hydrographic area; <, less than] HAno. (see fig. 1) Hydrographic area name Interbasin flow Direction of flow Comments 
Arteaga, F.E., and Durbin, T.J., 1978, Development of a 

relation for steady-state pumping rate for Eagle Valley 

ground-water basin, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 79-261, 44 p.

Berger, D.L., 1995, Ground-water conditions and effects of 

mine dewatering in Desert Valley, Humboldt and Pershing 

Counties, northwestern Nevada, 1962–91: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4119, 

94 p.

Berger, D.L., 2000, Water-budget estimates for the 14 

hydrographic areas in the middle Humboldt River Basin, 

north-central Nevada: Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 00-4168, 55 p.

Berger, D.L., Ross, W.C., Thodal, C.E., and Robledo, A.R., 

1997, Hydrogeology and simulated effects of urban 

development on water resources of Spanish Springs Valley, 

Washoe County, west-central Nevada: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4297, 

80 p.

Blankennagel, R.K., and Weir, J.E., Jr., 1973, Geohydrology of 

the eastern part of Pahute Mesa, Nevada Test Site, Nevada: 

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 712-B, 35 p.

Cohen, Philip, 1963, An evaluation of the water resources of the 

Humboldt River Valley near Winnemucca, Nevada: Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Water 

Resources Bulletin 24, 103 p.

Cohen, Philip, 1964, A brief appraisal of the ground-water 

resources of the Grass Valley area, Humboldt and Pershing 

Counties, Nevada: Nevada Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources, Ground-Water Resources – Reconnaissance Series Report 29, 40 p.

Cohen, Philip, and Everett, D.E., 1963, A brief appraisal of the 

ground-water hydrology of the Dixie-Fairview Valley area, 

Nevada: Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources, Ground-Water Resources – Reconnaissance 

Series Report 23, 40 p.

Crosthwaite, E.G., 1963, Ground-water appraisal of Antelope 

and Middle Reese River Valleys, Lander County, Nevada: 

Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

Ground-Water Resources – Reconnaissance Series Report 

19, 33 p.

D'Agnese, F.A., Faunt, C.C., Turner, A.K., and Hill, M.C., 

1997, Hydrogeologic evaluation and numerical simulation of 

the Death Valley regional ground-water flow system, Nevada 

and California: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 96-4300, 124 p.

Daly, C., Neilson, R.P., and Phillips, D.L., 1994, A statisticaltopographic model for mapping climatological precipitation 

over mountainous terrain: Journal of Applied Meteorology, 

v. 33, p. 140–158.

Dettinger, M.D., 1989, Reconnaissance estimates of natural 

recharge to desert basins in Nevada, U.S.A., by using 

chloride-balance calculations: Journal of Hydrology, v. 106, 

no. 1/2, p. 55–78.

Eakin, T.E., 1960, Ground-water appraisal of Newark Valley, 

White Pine County, Nevada: Nevada Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources, Ground-Water 

Resources – Reconnaissance Report 1, 33 p.

Eakin, T.E., 1961a, Ground-water appraisal of Pine Valley, 

Eureka and Elko Counties, Nevada: Nevada Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources, Ground-Water 

Resources – Reconnaissance Report 2, 41 p.

Eakin, T.E., 1961b, Ground-water appraisal of Long Valley, 

White Pine and Elko Counties, Nevada: Nevada Department 

of Conservation and Natural Resources, Ground-Water 

Resources – Reconnaissance Report 3, 35 p.

Eakin, T.E., 1962a, Ground-water appraisal of Independence 

Valley, western Elko County, Nevada: Nevada Department 

of Conservation and Natural Resources, Ground-Water 

Resources – Reconnaissance Report 8, 31 p.

Eakin, T.E., 1962b, Ground-water appraisal of the Imlay Area, 

Humboldt River Basin, Pershing County, Nevada: Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, GroundWater Resources – Reconnaissance Report 5, 54 p.

Eakin, T.E., 1962c, Ground-water appraisal of Gabbs Valley, 

Mineral and Nye Counties, Nevada: Nevada Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources, Ground-Water 

Resources – Reconnaissance Report 9, 27 p.

Eakin, T.E., 1962d, Ground-water appraisal of Ralston and 

Stone Cabin Valleys, Nye County, Nevada: Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, GroundWater Resources – Reconnaissance Report 12, 32 p.

Eakin, T.E., 1962e, Ground-water appraisal of Diamond 

Valley, Eureka and Elko Counties, Nevada: Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, GroundWater Resources – Reconnaissance Report 6, 60 p.

Eakin, T.E., 1962f, Ground-water appraisal of Cave Valley in 

Lincoln and White Pine Counties, Nevada: Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, GroundWater Resources – Reconnaissance Report 13, 19 p.

Eakin, T.E., 1963a, Ground-water appraisal of Garden and Coal 

Valleys, Lincoln and Nye Counties, Nevada: Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, GroundWater Resources – Reconnaissance Report 18, 29 p.

Eakin, T.E., 1963b, Ground-water appraisal of Dry Lake and 

Delamar Valleys, Lincoln County, Nevada: Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, GroundWater Resources – Reconnaissance Report 16, 26 p.

Eakin, T.E., 1963c, Ground-water appraisal of Pahranagat and 

Pahroc Valleys, Lincoln and Nye Counties, Nevada: Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, GroundWater Resources – Reconnaissance Report 21, 36 p.

Eakin, T.E., 1964, Ground-water appraisal of Coyote Spring 

and Kane Springs Valleys and Muddy River Springs area, 

Lincoln and Clark Counties, Nevada: Nevada Department of 

Appendix 3. References used in appendixes 1 and 2

Appendixes 1–3 77
Conservation and Natural Resources, Ground-Water 

Resources – Reconnaissance Report 25, 40 p.

Eakin, T.E., Hughes, J.L., and Moore, D.O., 1967, Waterresources appraisal of Steptoe Valley, White Pine and Elko 

Counties, Nevada: Nevada Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources, Water Resources – Reconnaissance 

Report 42, 48 p.

Eakin, T.E., and Lamke, R.D., 1966, Hydrologic 

reconnaissance of the Humboldt River Basin, Nevada: 

Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

Water Resources Bulletin 32, 107 p.

Eakin, T.E., and Maxey, G.B., 1951, Ground water in Clover 

and Independence Valleys, Elko County, Nevada, in Eakin, 

T.E., Maxey, G.B., Robinson, T.W., Fredericks, J.C., and 

Loeltz, O.J., Contributions to the hydrology of eastern 

Nevada: Nevada State Engineer, Water Resources Bulletin 

12, p. 95–125.

Eakin, T.E., Maxey, G.B., Robinson, T.W., Fredericks, J.C., 

and Loeltz, O.J., 1951, Contributions to the hydrology of 

eastern Nevada: Nevada State Engineer, Water Resources 

Bulletin 12, 171 p.

Eakin, T.E., Moore, D.O., and Everett, D.E., 1965, Water 

resources appraisal of the upper Reese River Valley, Lander 

and Nye Counties, Nevada: Nevada Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources, Water Resources – 

Reconnaissance Report 31, 47 p.

Everett, D.E., 1964, Ground-water appraisal of Edwards Creek 

Valley, Churchill County, Nevada: Nevada Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources, Ground-Water 

Resources – Reconnaissance Report 26, 18 p.

Everett, D.E., and Rush, F.E., 1964, Ground-water appraisal of 

Smith Creek and Ione Valleys, Lander and Nye Counties, 

Nevada: Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources, Ground-Water Resources – Reconnaissance 

Report 28, 21 p.

Everett, D.E., and Rush, F.E., 1965, Water-resources appraisal 

of Lovelock Valley, Pershing County, Nevada: Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Water 

Resources – Reconnaissance Report 32, 40 p.

Everett, D.E., and Rush, F.E., 1966, A brief appraisal of the 

water resources of Grass and Carico Lake Valleys, Lander 

and Eureka Counties, Nevada: Nevada Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources, Water Resources – 

Reconnaissance Report 37, 28 p.

Everett, D.E., and Rush, F.E., 1967, A brief appraisal of the 

water resources of the Walker Lake area, Mineral, Lyon, and 

Churchill Counties, Nevada: Nevada Department of 

Conversation and Natural Resources, Water Resources – 

Reconnaissance Report 40, 44 p.

Glancy, P.A., 1968a, Water-resources appraisal of MesquiteIvanpah Valley area, Nevada and California: Nevada 

Division of Water Resources – Reconnaissance Report 46, 

57 p.

Glancy, P.A., 1968b, Water-resources appraisal of Butte 

Valley, Elko and White Pine Counties, Nevada: Nevada 

Division of Water Resources – Reconnaissance Report 49, 

50 p.

Glancy, P.A., 1971, Water-resources appraisal of Antelope 

Valley and East Walker Area, Nevada and California: 

Nevada Division of Water Resources – Reconnaissance 

Report 53, 69 p.

Glancy, P.A., and Katzer, T.L., 1976, Water-resources 

appraisal of the Carson River Basin, western Nevada: 

Nevada Division of Water Resources – Reconnaissance 

Report 59, 126 p.

Glancy, P.A., and Rush, F.E., 1968, Water-resources appraisal 

of Smoke Creek-San Emidio Desert area, Nevada and 

California: Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources, Water Resources – Reconnaissance Report 44, 

57 p.

Glancy, P.A., and Van Denburgh, A.S., 1969, Water-resources 

appraisal of the lower Virgin River Valley area, Nevada, 

Arizona, and Utah: Nevada Division of Water Resources – 

Reconnaissance Report 51, 87 p.

Handman, E.H., and Kilroy, K.C., 1997, Ground-water 

resources of northern Big Smoky Valley, Lander and Nye 

Counties, central Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 96-4311, 97 p.

Handman, E.H., Londquist, C.J., and Maurer, D.K., 1990, 

Ground-water resources of Honey Lake Valley, Lassen 

County, California, and Washoe County, Nevada: U.S.

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

90-4050, 112 p.

Hardiaris, A.K., 1988, Quantitative analysis of ground water 

flow in Spanish Springs Valley, Washoe County, Nevada: 

University of Nevada, Reno, unpublished M.S. thesis, 202 p.

Hardman, George, 1936, Nevada precipitation and acreages of 

land by rainfall zones: University of Nevada, Reno, 

Agricultural Experiment Station report and map, 10 p.

Hardman, George, and Mason, H.G., 1949, Irrigated lands in 

Nevada: University of Nevada, Reno, Agricultural 

Experiment Station Bulletin 183, 57 p.

Harrill, J.R., 1968, Hydrologic response to irrigation pumping 

in Diamond Valley, Eureka and Elko Counties, Nevada, 

1950–65, with a section on Surface water by R.D. Lamke: 

Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

Water Resources Bulletin 35, 85 p.

Harrill, J.R., 1969, Hydrologic response to irrigation pumping 

in Hualapai Flat, Washoe, Pershing, and Humboldt Counties, 

Nevada, 1960–67: Nevada Division of Water Resources, 

Bulletin 37, 75 p.

Harrill, J.R., 1970, Water-resources appraisal of the Granite 

Springs Valley area, Pershing, Churchill, and Lyon Counties, 

Nevada: Nevada Division of Water Resources – Reconnaissance Report 55, 36 p.

Harrill, J.R., 1971, Water-resources appraisal of the Pilot Creek 

Valley area, Elko and White Pine Counties, Nevada: Nevada 

Division of Water Resources – Reconnaissance Report 56, 

46 p.

78 Ground-Water Pumpage and Artificial Recharge Estimates for 2000 and Annual Natural Recharge and Interbasin Flow in NV
Harrill, J.R., 1973, Evaluation of the water resources of 

Lemmon Valley, Washoe County, Nevada, with emphasis on 

Effects of ground-water development to 1971: Nevada 

Division of Water Resources, Bulletin 42, 130 p.

Harrill, J.R., 1976, Pumping and ground-water storage 

depletion in Las Vegas Valley, Nevada, 1955–74: Nevada 

Division of Water Resources, Bulletin 44, 70 p.

Harrill, J.R., and Hines, L.B., 1995, Estimated natural groundwater recharge, discharge, and budget for the Dixie Valley 

area, west-central Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 95-4052, 12 p.

Harrill, J.R., and Moore, D.O., 1970, Effects of ground-water 

development on the water regimen of Paradise Valley, 

Humboldt County, Nevada, 1948–68, and hydrologic 

reconnaissance of the tributary areas: Nevada Division of 

Water Resources, Bulletin 39, 123 p.

Harrill, J.R., and Preissler, A.M., 1994, Ground-water flow and 

simulated effects of development in Stagecoach Valley, a 

small, partly drained basin in Lyon and Storey Counties, 

western Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

1409-H, 74 p.

Hood, J.W., and Rush, F.E., 1965, Water-resources appraisal of 

the Snake Valley area, Utah and Nevada: Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Water 

Resources – Reconnaissance Report 34, 43 p.

Huxel, C.J., Jr., and Harris, E.E., 1969, Water resources and 

development in Mason Valley, Lyon and Mineral Counties, 

Nevada, 1948–65: Nevada Division of Water Resources, 

Bulletin 38, 77 p.

Huxel, C.J., Jr., Parkes, J.E., and Everett, D.E., 1966, Effects of 

irrigation development on the water supply of Quinn River 

Valley area, Nevada and Oregon, 1950–64: Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Water 

Resources Bulletin 34, 80 p.

Loeltz, O.J., and Phoenix, D.A., 1955, Geology and groundwater resources of Buena Vista Valley, Pershing County, 

Nevada: Nevada State Engineer, Water Resources Bulletin 

13, 61 p.

Malmberg, G.T., 1965, Available water supply of the Las Vegas 

ground-water basin, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey WaterSupply Paper 1780, 116 p.

Malmberg, G.T., and Eakin, T.E., 1962, Ground-water 

appraisal of Sarcobatus Flat and Oasis Valley, Nye and 

Esmeralda Counties, Nevada: Nevada Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources, Ground-Water 

Resources – Reconnaissance Report 10, 39 p.

Malmberg, G.T., and Worts, G.F., Jr., 1966, The effects of 

pumping on the hydrology of Kings River Valley, Humboldt 

County, Nevada, 1957–64: Nevada Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources, Water Resources 

Bulletin 31, 57 p.

Maurer, D.K., 1986, Geohydrology and simulated response to 

ground-water pumpage in Carson Valley, a river-dominated 

basin in Douglas County, Nevada, and Alpine County, 

California: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 86-4328, 109 p.

Maurer, D.K., 1997, Hydrology and ground-water budgets of 

the Dayton Valley Hydrographic Area, west-central Nevada: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 97-4123, 89 p.

Maurer, D.K., and Berger, D.L., 1997, Subsurface flow and 

water yield from watersheds tributary to Eagle Valley 

hydrographic area, west-central Nevada: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4191, 

56 p.

Maurer, D.K., Plume, R.W., Thomas, J.M., and Johnson, A.K., 

1996, Water resources and effects of changes in groundwater use along the Carlin Trend, north-central Nevada: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

96-4134, 146 p.

Maurer, D.K., and Thodal, C.E., 2000, Quantity and chemical 

quality of recharge, and updated water budgets, for the basinfill aquifer in Eagle Valley, Western Nevada: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

99-4289, 46 p.

Maxey, G.B., and Eakin, T.E., 1949, Ground water in White 

River Valley, White Pine, Nye, and Lincoln Counties, 

Nevada: Nevada State Engineer, Water Resources Bulletin 8, 

59 p.

Maxey, G.B., and Jameson, C.H., 1948, Geology and water 

resources of Las Vegas, Pahrump, and Indian Springs 

Valleys, Clark and Nye Counties, Nevada: Nevada State 

Engineer, Water Resources Bulletin 5, 292 p.

Moore, D.O., and Eakin, T.E., 1968, Water-resources appraisal 

of the Snake River Basin in Nevada: Nevada Division of 

Water Resources – Reconnaissance Report 48, 103 p.

Morgan, D.S., and Dettinger, M.D., 1996, Ground-water 

conditions in Las Vegas Valley, Clark County, Nevada, Part 

II, Hydrogeology and simulation of ground-water flow: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2320-B, 124 p.

Nichols, W.D., 2000, Regional ground-water evapotranspiration and ground-water budgets, Great Basin, Nevada: 

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1628, 82 p.

Olmsted, F.H., and Rush, F.E., 1987, Hydrogeologic 

reconnaissance of the Beowawe Geysers geothermal area, 

Nevada: Geothermics, v. 16, no. 1, p. 27–46.

Plume, R.W., and Ponce, D.A., 1999, Hydrogeologic 

framework and ground-water levels, 1982 and 1996, Middle 

Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

98-4029, 2 sheets.

Rush, F.E., 1964, Ground-water appraisal of the Meadow 

Valley area, Lincoln and Clark Counties, Nevada: Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, GroundWater Resources – Reconnaissance Report 27, 43 p.

Rush, F.E., 1967, Water-resources appraisal of Washoe Valley, 

Nevada: Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources, Water Resources – Reconnaissance Report 41, 

39 p.

Appendixes 1–3 79
Rush, F.E., 1968a, Water-resources appraisal of Clayton 

Valley-Stonewall Flat area, Nevada and California: Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Water 

Resources – Reconnaissance Report 45, 54 p.

Rush, F.E., 1968b, Water-resources appraisal of Thousand 

Springs Valley, Elko County, Nevada: Nevada Division of 

Water Resources – Reconnaissance Report 47, 61 p.

Rush, F.E., 1968c, Water-resources appraisal of the Lower 

Moapa-Lake Mead area, Clark County, Nevada: Nevada 

Division of Water Resources – Reconnaissance Report 50, 

66 p.

Rush, F.E., 1971, Regional ground-water systems in the Nevada 

Test Site area, Nye, Lincoln, and Clark Counties, Nevada: 

Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

Water Resources – Reconnaissance Report 54, 25 p.

Rush, F.E., and Eakin, T.E., 1963, Ground-water appraisal of 

Lake Valley in Lincoln and White Pine Counties, Nevada: 

Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

Ground-Water Resources – Reconnaissance Report 24, 29 p.

Rush, F.E., and Everett, D.E., 1964, Ground-water appraisal of 

Monitor, Antelope, and Kobeh Valleys, Nevada: Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, GroundWater Resources – Reconnaissance Report 30, 42 p.

Rush, F.E., and Everett, D.E., 1966a, Water-resources appraisal 

of the Huntington Valley area, Elko and White Pine 

Counties, Nevada: Nevada Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources, Water Resources – Reconnaissance 

Report 35, 37 p.

Rush, F.E., and Everett, D.E., 1966b, Water-resources appraisal 

of Little Fish Lake, Hot Creek, and Little Smoky Valleys, 

Nevada: Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources, Water Resources – Reconnaissance Report 

38, 39 p.

Rush, F.E., and Glancy, P.A., 1967, Water-resources appraisal 

of the Warm Springs-Lemmon Valley area, Washoe County, 

Nevada: Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources, Water Resources – Reconnaissance Series Report 

43, 70 p.

Rush, F.E., and Huxel, C.J., Jr., 1966, Ground-water appraisal 

of the Eldorado-Piute Valley area, Nevada and California: 

Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

Water Resources – Reconnaissance Series Report 36, 30 p.

Rush, F.E., and Katzer, T.L., 1973, Water-resources appraisal 

of Fish Lake Valley, Nevada and California: Nevada 

Division of Water Resources – Reconnaissance Series Report 

58, 70 p.

Rush, F.E., and Kazmi, S.A.T., 1965, Water resources appraisal 

of Spring Valley, White Pine and Lincoln Counties, Nevada: 

Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

Water Resources – Reconnaissance Series Report 33, 39 p.

Rush, F.E., and Schroer, C.V., 1970, Water resources of Big 

Smoky Valley, Lander, Nye, and Esmeralda Counties, 

Nevada: Nevada Division of Water Resources, Bulletin 41, 

84 p.

Rush, F.E., and Schroer, C.V., 1976, Geohydrology of Smith 

Valley, Nevada, with special reference to the water-use 

period 1953–72: Nevada Division of Water Resources, 

Bulletin 43, 95 p.

Rush, F.E., Scott, B.R., Van Denburgh, A.S., and Vasey, B.J., 

comps., 1971, State of Nevada water resources and interbasin 

flows: Nevada Division of Water Resources map, scale 

1:750,000.

Sinclair, W.C., 1962a, Ground-water resources of Hualapai 

Flat, Washoe, Pershing, and Humboldt Counties, Nevada: 

Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

Ground-Water Resources – Reconnaissance Series Report 

11, 16 p.

Sinclair, W.C., 1962b, Ground-water resources of Pine Forest 

Valley, Humboldt County, Nevada: Nevada Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources, Ground-Water 

Resources – Reconnaissance Series Report 4, 22 p.

Sinclair, W.C., 1962c, Ground-water resources of Desert 

Valley, Humboldt and Pershing Counties, Nevada: Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, GroundWater Resources – Reconnaissance Series Report 7, 23 p.

Sinclair, W.C., 1963a, Ground-water appraisal of Pueblo 

Valley-Continental Lake region, Humboldt County, Nevada: 

Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

Ground-Water Resources – Reconnaissance Series Report 

22, 25 p.

Sinclair, W.C., 1963b, Ground-water appraisal of the Long 

Valley-Massacre Lake region, Washoe County, Nevada: 

Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

Ground-Water Resources – Reconnaissance Series Report 

15, 19 p.

Sinclair, W.C., 1963c, Ground-water appraisal of Duck Lake 

Valley, Washoe County, Nevada: Nevada Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources, Ground-Water 

Resources – Reconnaissance Series Report 17, 19 p.

Sinclair, W.C., 1963d, Ground-water appraisal of the Black 

Rock Desert area, northwestern Nevada: Nevada Department 

of Conservation and Natural Resources, Ground-Water 

Resources – Reconnaissance Series Report 20, 33 p.

Spane, F.A., 1977, Evaluation of factors influencing the 

inorganic water-quality regimen of Carson River, Carson 

Valley, Nevada–California: University of Nevada, Reno, 

unpublished Ph.D. thesis, 205 p.

Thomas, J.M., Carlton, S.M., and Hines, L.B., 1989, Groundwater hydrology and simulated effects of development in 

Smith Creek Valley, a hydrologically closed basin in Lander 

County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

1409-E, 57 p.

Van Denburgh, A.S., and Glancy, P.A., 1970, Water-resources 

appraisal of the Columbus Salt Marsh – Soda Spring Valley 

area, Mineral and Esmeralda Counties, Nevada: Nevada 

Division of Water Resources – Reconnaissance Series Report 

52, 66 p.

Van Denburgh, A.S., Lamke, R.D., and Hughes, J.L., 1973, A 

brief water-resources appraisal of the Truckee River Basin, 

80 Ground-Water Pumpage and Artificial Recharge Estimates for 2000 and Annual Natural Recharge and Interbasin Flow in NV
western Nevada: Nevada Division of Water Resources – 

Reconnaissance Series Report 57, 122 p.

Van Denburgh, A.S., and Rush, F.E., 1974, Water-resources 

appraisal of Railroad and Penoyer Valleys, east-central 

Nevada: Nevada Division of Water Resources – 

Reconnaissance Series Report 60, 61 p.

Walker, G.E., and Eakin, T.E., 1963, Geology and ground water 

of Amargosa Desert, Nevada–California: Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, GroundWater Resources – Reconnaissance Series Report 14, 45 p.

Worts, G.F., Jr., and Malmberg, G.T., 1966, Hydrologic 

appraisal of Eagle Valley, Ormsby County, Nevada: Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Water 

Resources – Reconnaissance Series Report 39, 55 p.

Zones, C.P., 1961, Ground-water potentialities in the Crescent 

Valley, Eureka and Lander Counties, Nevada: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1581, 50 p.

Appendixes 1–3 81