Estimates of Ground-Water Pumpage from the 

Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington, 

1960-2000

Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5205

Version 1.2, April 2009

Prepared in cooperation with the 

Bureau of Reclamation, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, and the 

Yakama Nation

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Cover: Photograph of Clark Well No. 1, located on the north side of the Moxee Valley in North Yakima, 

Washington. The well is located in township 12 north, range 20 east, section 6. The well was drilled 

to a depth of 940 feet into an artesian zone of the Ellensburg Formation, and completed in 1897 at a 

cost of $2,000. The original flow from the well was estimated at about 600 gallons per minute, and 

was used to irrigate 250 acres in 1900 and supplied water to 8 small ranches with an additional 47 

acres of irrigation. (Photograph was taken by E.E. James in 1897, and was printed in 1901 in the U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper 55.)
Estimates of Ground-Water Pumpage from the 

Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington, 

1960-2000

By J.J. Vaccaro and S.S. Sumioka

Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, and Yakama Nation

Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5205

Version 1.2, April 2009

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

DIRK A. KEMPTHORNE, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2006

For product and ordering information:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

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

natural hazards, and the environment:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

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

U.S. Government.

Suggested citation:

Vaccaro, J.J., and Sumioka, S.S., 2006, Estimates of ground-water pumpage from the Yakima River Basin aquifer 

system, Washington, 1960-2000: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5205, 56 p.
iii

Contents

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

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

Purpose and Scope .......................................................................................................................................3

Previous Studies ............................................................................................................................................3

Description of Study Area ............................................................................................................................4

Location and Setting ............................................................................................................................4

Development of Water Resources.....................................................................................................6

Overview of the Geology......................................................................................................................8

Well-Numbering System.............................................................................................................................10

Water Wells In Yakima River Basin...........................................................................................................11

Ground-Water Uses.....................................................................................................................................16

Ground-Water Rights ..................................................................................................................................18

Background..........................................................................................................................................18

Relation between a Water Well and a Water Right......................................................................18

Primary and Standby/Reserve Water Rights..................................................................................20

Methods Used to Estimate Ground-Water Pumpage ............................................................................22

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

Domestic...............................................................................................................................................23

Ground-Water Right Wells .......................................................................................................24

Exempt Wells ..............................................................................................................................24

Irrigation...............................................................................................................................................26

Frost Protection...................................................................................................................................28

Livestock...............................................................................................................................................28

Commercial and Industrial ................................................................................................................29

Fish and Wildlife Propagation...........................................................................................................30

Ground-Water Claims.........................................................................................................................30

Ground-Water Pumpage.............................................................................................................................32

Public Water Supply...........................................................................................................................32

Domestic...............................................................................................................................................33

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

Standby/Reserve Irrigation Pumpage ....................................................................................39

Livestock...............................................................................................................................................40

Commercial and Industrial ................................................................................................................42

Fish and Wildlife Propagation...........................................................................................................43

Ground-Water Claims.........................................................................................................................44

Summary of Pumpage Estimates for all Categories......................................................................44
iv

Contents—Continued

Reliability of Pumpage Estimates..............................................................................................................47

Public Water Supply and Domestic .................................................................................................47

Irrigation...............................................................................................................................................48

Livestock...............................................................................................................................................49

Commercial and Industrial ................................................................................................................50

Fish and Wildlife Propagation...........................................................................................................50

Ground-Water Claims.........................................................................................................................50

Comparison of Appropriated Ground-Water Rights and Estimated Pumpage..................................51

Summary and Conclusions.........................................................................................................................52

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................................53

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................53

Appendix 1. List of Acronyms Used In Report.........................................................................................55

Figures

Figure 1. Map showing the Yakima River Basin, Washington .................................... 2

Figure 2. Map showing land use and land cover, Yakima River Basin, 

Washington, 1999 ........................................................................... 5

Figure 3. Schematic diagram showing selected tributaries, diversion canals, return 

flows, and stream-gaging stations, Yakima River Basin, Washington ............... 7

Figure 4. Map showing simplified surficial geology, Yakima River Basin, Washington ...... 9

Figure 5. Diagram showing well-numbering systems used in the State of Washington ...... 10

Figure 6. Photograph of front of original drillers’ log for a 940-foot well drilled in 1897, 

Yakima River Basin, Washington ......................................................... 12

Figure 7. Photograph of original drillers’ log for a 702-foot well drilled in 1896, 

Yakima River Basin, Washington ......................................................... 13

Figure 8. Graph showing number of wells completed each year 1890–2004, Yakima River 

Basin, Washington ........................................................................ 14

Figure 9. Map showing distribution of depths of water wells, Yakima River Basin, 

Washington ................................................................................. 15

Figure 10. Map showing location of surface-water irrigation districts, Yakima River 

Basin, Washington ........................................................................ 21

Figure 11. Map showing distribution of census blocks and population, Yakima River 

Basin, Washington, 2000 .................................................................. 25

Figure 12. Graph showing estimated annual pumpage for public water supply, Yakima 

River Basin, Washington, 1960–2000 ...................................................... 32

Figure 13. Graph showing estimated monthly distribution of annual pumpage for public water 

supply, Yakima River Basin, Washington, 2000 .......................................... 33

Figure 14. Graph showing estimated annual pumpage for domestic use, Yakima River 

Basin, Washington, 1960-2000 ............................................................ 33

Figure 15. Map showing distribution of estimated annual pumpage for domestic use, 

Yakima River Basin, Washington, 2000 ................................................... 35

Figure 16. Map showing distribution of estimated annual pumpage for irrigation, 

Yakima River Basin, Washington, 2000 ................................................... 36
v

Tables

Table 1. Relation between ground-water pumpage categories and water-right

purpose of use codes in Washington State Department of Ecology’s Water

Rights Tracking System ..................................................................... 17

Table 2. Estimated annual pumpage for public water supply, Yakima River Basin,

Washington, 1960–2000 ..................................................................... 32

Table 3. Estimated annual pumpage for domestic use, Yakima River Basin,

Washington, 1960–2000 ..................................................................... 33

Table 4. Estimated annual pumpage for irrigation water rights, Yakima River Basin,

Washington, 2000 ........................................................................... 34

Table 5. Estimated irrigation pumpage, by primary and standby/reserve water rights,

in 5-year increments, Yakima River Basin, Washington, 1960–2000 .................. 38

Table 6. Estimated annual pumpage for livestock use in 5-year increments, Yakima

River Basin, Washington, 1960–2000 ...................................................... 40

Table 7. Estimated annual pumpage for commercial and industrial uses in 5-year

increments, Yakima River Basin, Washington, 1960–2000 .............................. 42

Table 8. Estimated annual pumpage for fish and wildlife propagation in 5-year

increments, Yakima River Basin, Washington, 1960–2000 .............................. 43

Table 9. Summary of estimated annual pumpage, by pumpage category in 5-year

increments, Yakima River Basin, Washington, 1960–2000 .............................. 46

Table 10. Reliability of annual pumpage estimates, Yakima River Basin, Washington, 2000. 47

Table 11. Appropriated ground-water quantity and estimated pumpage for six

categories of pumpage, Yakima River Basin, Washington, 2000 ..................... 51

Figures—Continued

Figure 17. Graph showing estimated annual irrigation pumpage, Yakima River Basin, 

Washington, 1960-2000...................................................................... 38

Figure 18. Graph showing generalized monthly distribution of irrigation pumpage 

during the irrigation season, Yakima River Basin, Washington, 2000 ............... 39

Figure 19. Graph showing estimated annual pumpage for livestock use, Yakima River 

Basin, Washington, 1960-2000 ............................................................ 40

Figure 20. Map showing distribution of estimated annual pumpage for livestock and 

commercial and industrial uses, Yakima River Basin, Washington, 2000 ............ 41

Figure 21. Graph showing estimated annual pumpage for commercial and industrial 

uses, Yakima River Basin, Washington, 1960-2000 .................................... 42

Figure 22. Graph showing estimated monthly distribution of annual pumpage for 

commercial and industrial uses, Yakima River Basin, Washington, 2000 ............ 43

Figure 23. Graph showing estimated monthly distribution of annual pumpage for 

fish and wildlife propagation, Yakima River Basin, Washington, 2000 ............... 43

Figure 24. Map showing distribution of estimated annual pumpage for ground-water 

claims, Yakima River Basin, Washington, 2000 .......................................... 45

Figure 25. Graph showing estimated annual pumpage, by pumpage category, 

Yakima River Basin, Washington, 1960-2000 ............................................. 46
vi

Conversion Factors and Datums

Conversion Factors

Multiply By To obtain

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

acre 4,047 square meter (m2

)

square foot (ft2

) 0.09290 square meter (m2)

square inch (in2

) 6.452 square centimeter (cm2)

section (640 acres or 1 square 

mile)

259.0 square hectometer (hm2

) 

square mile (mi2

) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

gallon (gal) 3.785 liter (L) 

gallon (gal) 0.003785 cubic meter (m3

) 

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

)

billion gallons (Bgal) 3,785,000 cubic meter (m3

)

cubic foot (ft3

) 0.02832 cubic meter (m3) 

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

)

acre-foot/acre (acre-ft/acre) 0.3048 cubic meter per square meter (m3

/

m2

)

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

/yr)

cubic foot per second (ft3

/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

gallon per minute (gal/min) 0.06309 liter per second (L/s)

gallon per day (gal/d) 0.003785 cubic meter per day (m3

/d)

million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 0.04381 cubic meter per second (m3

/s)

Datums

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 

(NAVD 88).

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.
Abstract

Ground-water pumpage in the Yakima River Basin, 

Washington, was estimated for eight categories of use for 

1960-2000 as part of an investigation to assess groundwater availability in the basin. Methods used, pumpage 

estimates, reliability of the estimates, and a comparison with 

appropriated quantities are described.

The eight categories of pumpage were public water 

supply, self-supplied domestic (exempt wells), irrigation, 

frost protection, livestock and dairy operations, industrial and 

commercial, fish and wildlife propagation, and ground-water 

claims. Pumpage estimates were based on methods that varied 

by the category and primarily represent pumpage for groundwater rights.

Washington State Department of Ecology’s digital 

database has 2,874 active ground-water rights in the basin that 

can withdraw an annual quantity of about 529,231 acre-feet 

during dry years. Irrigation rights are for irrigation of about 

129,570 acres. All but 220 of the rights were associated with 

well drillers’ logs, allowing for a spatial representation of 

the pumpage. Five-hundred and sixty of the irrigation rights 

were estimated to be standby/reserve rights. During this study, 

another 30 rights were identified that were not in the digital 

database. These rights can withdraw an annual quantity of 

about 20,969 acre-feet; about 6,700 acre-feet of these rights 

are near but outside the basin.

In 1960, total annual pumpage in the basin, excluding 

standby/reserve pumpage, was about 115,776 acre-feet. By 

2000, total annual pumpage was estimated to be 395,096 

acre-feet, and excluding the standby/reserve rights, the total 

was 312,284 acre-feet. Irrigation accounts for about 60 percent 

of the pumpage, followed by public water supply at about 12 

percent. The smallest category of pumpage was for livestock 

use with pumpage estimated to be 6,726 acre-feet. Total 

annual pumpage in 2000 was about 430 cubic feet per second, 

which is about 11 percent of the surface-water demand. 

Maximum pumpage is in July and August and during 2000, 

was about 100 cubic feet per second each month averaged over 

the Yakima River Basin aquifer system.

During 2000, non-standby/reserve pumpage associated 

with ground-water rights was estimated to total 253,454 acrefeet, or about 198,290 acre-feet less than the appropriated 

quantity. The unused part of the appropriated value is about 

equivalent to the irrigation pumpage for primary rights.

Introduction

Surface water in the Yakima River Basin, in south-central 

Washington (fig. 1), is under adjudication and the amount 

of surface water available for appropriation is unknown, 

but there are increasing demands for water for municipal, 

fisheries, agricultural, industrial, and recreational uses. These 

demands must be met by ground-water withdrawals and (or) 

by changes in the way water resources are allocated and used. 

On-going activities in the basin for enhancement of fisheries 

and obtaining additional water for agriculture may be affected 

by ground-water withdrawals and by rules implemented under 

the Endangered Species Act for salmonids that have been 

either listed or were proposed for listing in the late 1990s. An 

integrated understanding of the ground-water flow system 

and its relation to the surface-water resources is needed to 

implement most water-resources management strategies in 

the basin. To obtain this understanding, a study of the Yakima 

River Basin aquifer system began in June 2000. The study is 

a cooperative effort of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the Yakama Nation 

(YN), and the Washington State Department of Ecology 

(WaDOE).

The objectives of the study as a whole are to fully 

describe the ground-water flow system and its interaction with 

and relation to surface water, and provide baseline information 

for a management tool—a numerical model. The conceptual 

model of the flow system and the results of the study will 

be used to guide and support actions taken by management 

agencies with respect to ground-water availability and to 

provide information to other stakeholders and interested 

parties. The numerical model will be developed as an 

integrated tool to assess short-term to long-term management 

activities, including the testing of potential management 

strategies.

Estimates of Ground-Water Pumpage from the 

Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington, 

1960-2000

By J.J. Vaccaro and S.S. Sumioka
Figure 1. The Yakima River Basin, Washington.

82 

22

22

97 

97

97

12

12

82

82

240

24

410

240

90 

90 

90 

24

410

12

97

12 

241

82 

82 12 

KITTITAS COUNTY 

YAKIMA COUNTY 

COUNTY 

BENTON COUNTY

KLICKITAT

COUNTY

YAKIMA

EXPLANATION

BOUNDARY OF YAKIMA

 RIVER BASIN

Canal

Roza

Sunnyside Canal

Main Canal

Extension

Kennewick

Main Canal

Marion Drain

North 

Branch 

Canal 

Kittitas Main Canal

Bumping 

Lake N Fk 

S Fk

S Fk 

N Fk 

S Fk 

N Fk 

N Fk 

Cle Elum River

Swauk Creek

Caribou Cr

Coleman Cr

Naneum Cr

Cooke Cr

Crow Creek

Bumping River

American River

Rattlesnake Cr

Little Rattlesnake Cr

Nile Creek

Manastash

Badger Creek

Lmuma Cr

Ahtanum Creek 

Oak Creek

Tieton River

Wide Hollow Cr

Wenas Creek

Selah Creek

North Fork

Dry Creek

Simcoe Creek

Agency Creek

Creek

Toppenish

Corral Cr

RIVER

Spring Cr

Logy

Creek

Satus

Creek

Mule Dry

Creek

Cle 

Elum 

Lake 

Rimrock 

Lake 

Kachess Lake 

Keechelus Lake 

Lake 

Wallula 

Priest 

Rapids 

Lake 

Teanaway River Reecer Cr

Wilson Creek

Park Cr

Taneum Creek

Umtanum Creek

Little Naches River

Cr

Cowiche Creek

Cowiche Creek

River

Naches

Snipes Cr

Sulphur Cr Wasteway

Cherry 

Cr 

S Fk

N Fk

YAKIMA

YAKIMA

RIVER

Cle Elum 

Parker 

Wapato 

Ellensburg

Umtanum 

Kittitas

Thrall 

Toppenish 

Moxee City Union Gap 

Yakima 

Selah 

Naches 

Sunnyside Richland 

Kiona 

Kennewick Prosser 

Grandview 

Mabton 

Satus 

Zillah 

Granger 

Roza 

Easton 

Teanaway 

Tieton Rimrock 

Snoqualmie

Pass

Van Epps 

Pass 

Esmeralda

Peaks

K I T T I T A S

V A L L E Y

M A N A S T A S H

KACHESS RIDGE

R I D G E

UNION GAP

CLEMAN 

MOUNTAIN 

TEANAWAY

NORTH RIDGE

U M T A N U M

R I D G E

Deception

Pass

Y A K I M A 

 V A L L E Y 

AHTANUM RIDGE

COWICHE MTN

AMERICAN RIDGE

CLE ELUM

RIDGE

RIDGE

TOPPENISH RIDGE

R A T T L E S N A K E H I L L S

Y A K I M A R I D G E

H O R S E

H E A V E N

H I L L S

C

A

S C A

D E R

A

N

G

E

W E N AT C H E E

M O U N TA I N S

Gilbert

Peak

121°

47°

47°

30'

46° 

121°30' 120°30' 120° 119°30'

46°

30'

0 5 10 20 30 40 MILES 

0 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 KILOMETERS 

Yakima

River

Basin

WASHINGTON

waA4WT1_fig01

2 Estimates of Ground-Water Pumpage from the Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington, 1960-2000
The study includes three phases. The first phase includes 

(1) project planning and coordination, (2) compiling, 

documenting, and assessing available data, and (3) initial data 

collection. The second phase consists of data collection to 

support the following Phase 2 work elements: (1) mapping of 

hydrogeologic units, (2) estimating ground-water pumpage, 

(3) developing estimates of ground-water recharge, (4) 

assessing ground water-surface water interchanges, and (5) 

constructing maps of ground-water levels. Together, these 

five elements provide the information needed to describe the 

ground-water flow system, the conceptual model, and provide 

the building blocks for the hydrogeologic framework. In the 

third phase, six structural basin models and one regional 

model of the ground-water flow system will be constructed 

in order to integrate the available information. The numerical 

models will be used to gain a further understanding of the 

flow system and its relation to surface water, and to test 

management strategies. The models will be developed and 

maintained in such a fashion that they will be available and 

open to others.

The results from selected work elements will be 

described in a series of reports. This report describes the 

estimates of ground-water pumpage from the Yakima 

River Basin aquifer system, a Phase 2 work element. The 

Introduction and Description of Study Area sections of this 

report are common to most reports for the other elements of 

the larger study.

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to provide estimates of 

annual ground-water pumpage for the Yakima River Basin 

for selected years from 1960 to 2000, and to compare 

the pumpage to appropriated ground-water rights. In this 

report, the term “pumpage” is synonymous with the term 

“withdrawal” and similar to the term “water use” used in other 

reports.

Pumpage is estimated and compared for eight categories 

of ground-water use: public water supply, self-supplied 

domestic, irrigation, frost protection, livestock and related 

operations, industrial and commercial, fish and wildlife 

propagation, and ground-water claims. A claim is a water-right 

document in which a claimant declares a claim for groundwater use and may be valid if it describes continual use 

starting prior to July 1945. Although most estimated pumpage 

for claims is for irrigation, claims are considered separate 

from the irrigation category. Pumpage estimates are based 

on information from public water systems, farms, various 

agencies of the State of Washington (Department of Health, 

Department of Ecology, and Department of Agriculture), 

census data, crop-type information, and measurements. 

Pumpage estimates are described or reported in units of 

acre-ft, Bgal, and Mgal/d, and unless otherwise stated, acre-ft 

and Bgal represent the volume pumped per year.

Previous Studies

Previous pumpage estimates were for the study area, part 

of the study area, and the entire three-county (Benton, Kittitas, 

and Yakima Counties) area that is larger than the study area. 

The estimates are not directly comparable but do provide 

information about the growth in pumpage and the range of 

estimates.

Kinnison and Sceva (1963) first estimated pumpage for 

the Yakima River Basin for 1953 and stated that the pumpage 

probably experienced “little change” by about 1961, although 

population in the three-county area increased from about 

210,000 to about 228,000 during that time and ground-water 

rights increased from about 66,000 acre-ft to about 116,000 

acre-ft (67 percent of which was for public water supply). 

Total pumpage was estimated at 51,665 acre-ft (16.8 Bgal) 

with irrigation accounting for 23,900 acre-ft (7.8 Bgal) or 

46 percent of the total. Industrial pumpage was estimated at 

14,600 acre-ft (4.8 Bgal), municipal supply at 7,800 acre-ft 

(2.5 Bgal), and domestic pumpage at 5,365 acre-ft (1.7 Bgal).

Laird and Walters (1967) estimated that total pumpage 

in 1965 was about 138,800 acre-ft (45.2 Bgal) for the threecounty area with irrigation accounting for 57 percent (79,200 

acre-ft or 25.8 Bgal) of the total. Municipal pumpage was 

about 46,000 acre-ft (15 Bgal) and industrial was 13,470 

acre-ft (4.4 Bgal). For 1970, Parker (1971) estimated the total 

pumpage, excluding self-supplied domestic pumpage, for 

the three counties as 132,233 acre-ft (43.1 Bgal). Irrigation 

accounted for 81,300 acre-ft (26.5 Bgal) or about 61 percent 

of the total. In 1970, the self-supplied industrial pumpage was 

estimated to be 10,440 acre-ft (3.4 Bgal) and the municipal 

pumpage was estimated to be 40,553 acre-ft (13.2 Bgal). 

Dion and Lum (1977) estimated municipal, industrial, and 

agricultural pumpage for 1975 by Washington State Water 

Resource Inventory Areas that compose the study area. 

Municipal, industrial, and agricultural use estimates for 1975 

were 24,600 acre-ft (8.01 Bgal), 13,100 acre-ft (4.26 Bgal,) 

and 5,250 acre-ft (1.71 Bgal), respectively, and totaled 42,950 

acre-ft (13.99 Bgal). Municipal estimates for 1965, 1970, and 

1975 were for systems serving more than 100 people and the 

industrial estimates included only self-supplied ground water.

Ground-water pumpage was next estimated for most of 

the study area as part of the USGS’s Regional Aquifer-System 

Analysis Program (Cline and Knadle, 1990; Cline and Collins, 

1992, 1993). Estimates were for the part of the basin underlain 

by the Columbia River Basalt Group. Cline and Collins 

(1993) summarized estimates for the three counties and these 

estimates included some areas outside of the basin boundaries. 

Estimates were for selected years from 1945 through 1984. 

For 1984, pumpage (principally agricultural) was estimated 

to be about 83,280 acre-ft (27.1 Bgal); separate estimates for 

different uses were not made.

Previous Studies 3
In 2003, the Tri-County Watershed Resource Agency 

(TCWRA), representing the initiating governments involved 

in developing a watershed plan for the Yakima River Basin, 

published estimates of ground-water pumpage for 2000 (TriCounty Water Resource Agency, 2003). Methods used were 

based on water-rights documents, demographic data from the 

U.S. Census Bureau (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004), public water 

system data compiled by the Washington State Department 

of Health, and data collected for the largest municipal water 

suppliers in the basin. The TCWRA estimated total groundwater pumpage as 660,630 acre-ft (215 Bgal), which included 

standby/reserve rights (described in a later section). Most of 

this pumpage, about 529,567 acre-ft (172 Bgal), was irrigation 

pumpage. However, the irrigation pumpage estimate reported 

by TCWRA is the same as the reported total appropriated 

water for all permits and certificates. This total value is 

slightly greater than the value presented in this report due to 

apparent differences in the water-right database obtained from 

WaDOE. Excluding the large municipalities and self-supplied 

domestic pumpage, estimates were based on the maximum 

amount of water that can be used for each right. The amount 

actually used is typically less than the allowable amount. The 

TCWRA estimate for public water systems was about 74,700 

acre-ft (24.3 Bgal).

Lane (2004) estimated withdrawals for 2000 for the 

entire three-county area. The estimated total withdrawal was 

166,143 acre-ft (54 Bgal) of which 54 percent (about 90,000 

acre-ft) was for irrigation. Total pumpage for domestic use 

was estimated to be 56,308 acre-ft (18.3 Bgal) and industrial 

withdrawals accounted for about 19,819 acre-ft (6.5 Bgal). 

Lane’s total was only 25 percent of the total estimated by 

TCWRA for the study area in 2000.

Description of Study Area

The general location and setting of the study area, the 

development of water resources in the basin, and an overview 

of the geology are presented to provide a general background 

for understanding the study area.

Location and Setting

The Yakima River Basin aquifer system underlies about 

6,200 mi2 in south-central Washington (fig. 1). The Yakima 

River Basin produces a mean annual unregulated streamflow 

(adjusted for regulation and without diversions or returns) of 

about 5,600 ft3/s (about 4.1 million acre-ft) and a regulated 

streamflow of about 3,600 ft3/s (about 2.6 million acre-ft). 

The basin includes three Washington State Water Resource 

Inventory Areas (WRIA—numbers 37, 38, and 39), part of the 

Yakama Nation lands, and three ecoregions (Cascades, Eastern 

Cascades, and Columbia Basin [Omernik, 1987; Cuffney 

and others, 1997]). The basin includes parts of four counties 

(Klickitat, Kittitas, Yakima, and Benton). Almost all of 

Yakima County and more than 80 percent of Kittitas County 

lie within the basin, and about 50 percent of the Benton 

County is in the basin. Less than 1 percent of the basin lies in 

Klickitat County, principally in an unpopulated upland area.

The headwaters of the basin are on the upper, humid 

east slope of the Cascade Range, where the mean annual 

precipitation is more than 100 in. The basin terminates at the 

confluence of the Yakima and Columbia Rivers in the lowlying, arid part of the basin, which receives about 6 in. of 

precipitation per year. Altitudes in the basin range from 400 

to nearly 8,000 ft. There are eight major rivers and numerous 

smaller streams tributary to the Yakima River (fig. 1); the 

largest tributary is the Naches River. Most of the precipitation 

in the basin falls during the winter months as snow in the 

mountains. The mean annual precipitation over the entire 

basin is about 27 in. (about 12,000 ft3

/s or 8.7 million acre-ft). 

The spatial pattern of mean annual precipitation resembles 

the pattern of the basin’s highly variable topography. The 

difference between the mean annual precipitation and mean 

annual unregulated streamflow is 6,400 ft3/s (about 4.6 million 

acre-ft) or about 53 percent of the precipitation is lost to 

evapotranspiration under natural conditions.

The basin is separated into several broad valleys by large 

east-west trending anticlinal ridges. The valley floors are flat 

and slope gently towards the Yakima River. Few perennial 

tributary streams traverse these valleys. Most of the population 

and economic activity occurs in these valleys.

Agriculture is the principal economic activity in the 

basin. The average annual surface-water demand met by 

the Reclamation project is about 2.5 million acre-ft; there 

is about 336,000 acre-ft of additional demand in the lower 

river basin that is separate from the demand met by the 

project. Additional surface-water demand that is not met by 

Reclamation occurs in smaller tributaries and on the large 

rivers; this demand is based on State appropriated water. 

More than 95 percent of the demand is for irrigation of about 

500,000 acres in the low-lying semiarid to arid parts of the 

basin (fig. 2). The demand is partially met by storage of nearly 

4 Estimates of Ground-Water Pumpage from the Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington, 1960-2000
wa19-0021_fig02

Richland

Yakima

EXPLANATION

SIMPLIFIED LAND COVER

BOUNDARY OF

 AGRICULTURAL AREA

FOREST (33%)

RANGE (36%)

CITIES AND TOWNS (2%)

AGRICULTURE (28%)

Hops

Irrigated hay

Mixed row crops

Orchards

Orchards and grapes

Undifferentated agriculture

LAKES AND RESERVOIRS (1%)

121°

47°

47°

30'

46°

121°30' 120°30' 120° 119°30'

46°

30'

KITTITAS COUNTY

YAKIMA COUNTY

COUNTY

BENTON COUNTY

KLICKITAT

COUNTY

YAKIMA

0 5 10 20 30 40 MILES

0 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 KILOMETERS

YAKIMA RIVER

 YAKIMA

RIVER

Figure 2. Land use and land cover, Yakima River Basin, Washington, 1999.

Description of Study Area 5
1.1 million acre-ft of water in five Reclamation reservoirs. The 

major management point for Reclamation is at the Yakima 

River near Parker streamflow gaging station. Just upstream of 

this site, at Union Gap, is the location that is considered the 

dividing line between the upper (mean annual precipitation of 

7 to 125 in.) and lower (mean annual precipitation of 6 to 45 

in.) parts of the Yakima River Basin. About 45 percent of the 

water diverted for irrigation is eventually returned to the river 

system as surface-water inflows and ground-water discharge, 

but at varying time-lags (Bureau of Reclamation, 1999). 

During the low-flow period, these return flows, on average, 

account for about 75 percent of the streamflow below the 

Yakima River near Parker streamflow gaging station. Much 

of the surface-water demand in the basin below Parker is met 

by these return flows and not by the release of water from the 

reservoirs. As a result of water use in the basin, the difference 

between mean annual unregulated and regulated streamflow in 

the basin is about 2,000 ft3

/s, suggesting that some 1.4 million 

acre-ft of water, or about 17 percent of the precipitation in the 

basin, is consumptively used principally by irrigated crops via 

evapotranspiration.

Development of Water Resources

Missionaries arrived in the basin in 1848 and established 

a mission in 1852 on Atanum (now Ahtanum) Creek. They 

were some of the first non-Indian settlers to use irrigation on 

a small scale. Miners and cattlemen immigrated to the basin 

in the 1850s and 1860s, which resulted in a new demand for 

water. With increased settlement in the mid-1860s, irrigation 

of the fertile valley bottoms began and the outlying areas were 

extensively used for stock raising. One of the first known 

non-Indian irrigation ditches was constructed in 1867 and 

diverted water from the Naches River (Parker and Storey, 

1913; Flaherty, 1975). Private companies later delivered 

water through canal systems built between 1880 and 1904 

for the irrigation of large areas. The development of irrigated 

agriculture was made more attractive by the construction of the 

Northern Pacific Railway that reached Yakima in December 

1884, which provided a means to transport agricultural goods 

to markets; two years later, the completion of the railway 

to the coast provided new and easily accessible markets for 

agricultural products. The State of Washington was created in 

1889, spurring further growth in the basin, especially because 

the cities of Ellensburg and Yakima were in contention for 

being the state capital. By 1902 there were about 120,000 

acres under mostly surface-water irrigation in the basin (Parker 

and Storey, 1913; Bureau of Reclamation, 1999).

The Federal Reclamation Act was enacted in 1902 

to enable the construction of Federal water projects in the 

western United States in order to expand the development 

of the West. In 1905, the Washington State Legislature 

passed the Reclamation Enabling Act and the Yakima 

Federal Reclamation Project was authorized to construct 

facilities to irrigate about 500,000 acres. As part of the 1905 

authorization and extensions, all forms of further appropriation 

of unappropriated water in the basin were withdrawn (Parker 

and Storey, 1913). Six dams were constructed as part of the 

Yakima Project: Bumping Dam in 1910, Kachess Dam in 

1912, Clear Creek Dam in 1914, Keechelus Dam in 1917, 

Tieton Dam (Rimrock Lake) in 1925, and Cle Elum Dam 

in 1933. The construction of the dams and other irrigation 

facilities resulted in an extremely complicated surface-water 

system (fig. 3). These Federal reservoirs provide water 

storage to meet irrigation requirements of the major irrigation 

districts at the time of year when the natural streamflow from 

unregulated streams can no longer meet demands; this time 

is referred to as the ‘storage control’ date. Several of the 

reservoirs also provide instream flows during the winter for 

the incubation of salmon eggs in the salmon redds (gravel 

spawning nests).

Legal challenges to water rights resulted in the 1945 

Consent Decree (U.S. District Court, 1945) that established 

the framework of how the Reclamation operates the Yakima 

Project to meet the water demands. The Decree determined 

two classes of rights—nonproratable and proratable. When 

the total water supply available (TWSA-defined as current 

available storage in the reservoirs, estimates of unregulated 

flow, and other sources that are principally return flows) is 

not sufficient to meet both classes of rights, the proratable 

(junior) rights are decreased according to the quantity of water 

available defined by the TWSA. This legally mandated method 

generally performs well in most years, but is dependent on the 

accuracy of the TWSA estimate. In some years, for example 

1977, problems have arisen because of errors in the TWSA 

estimate (Kratz, 1978; Glantz, 1982). System management 

also accounts for defined instream flows at selected target 

points on the river, and for suggested changes in storage 

releases recommended by the Systems Operations Advisory 

Committee (SOAC)—the advisory board of fishery biologists 

representing the different stakeholders (Systems Operations 

Advisory Committee, 1999).

The drilling of numerous wells for irrigation was spurred 

by new (post 1945) well-drilling technologies, legal rulings, 

and the onset of a multi-year dry period in 1977 (Vaccaro, 

1995). Population growth in the basin was, and still is, the 

6 Estimates of Ground-Water Pumpage from the Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington, 1960-2000
Figure 3. Selected tributaries, diversion canals, return flows, and stream-gaging stations, Yakima River Basin, Washington.

CITY OF YAKIMA 

RM 115.9 

RM 113.3 

RM 111.0 

RM 107.4 

RM 106.9 

RM 106.7 

RM 103.8 

RM 89.2 

RM 86.0 

RM 83.2 

RM 82.8 

RM 82.8 

RM 82.6 

RM 80.4 

RM 77.0 

RM 69.6 

RM 69.3 

RM 65.1 

RM 35.5 

RM 47.1 

RM 46.5 

RM 41.8 

RM 41.8 

RM 35.8 

RM 35.8 

RM 34.9 

RM 28.6 

RM 18.0 

Mouth of 

Yakima River 

RM 0.0 

RM 18.0 

RM 107.3 

12500450

RM 116.3 

RM 29.9 

12510500

RM 55.0 

12509050

RM 103.7 

12505000

RM 61.0 

COLUMBIA RIVER 

Kiona Canal

Benton City STP

Columbia Canal

Richland Canal

Corral Canyon Creek

Chandler Canal

Prosser STP

Spring Creek

Snipes Creek

Chandler Canal

Kennewick Canal

Satus Drain 303

Mabton STP

Continued at top of next column 

RM 203.5 

RM 202.5 

RM 183.1 

RM 179.6 

RM 176.1 

RM 173.9 

RM 169.9 

RM 166.1 

RM 166.1 

RM 161.3 

RM 160.3 

RM 156.3 

RM 154.5 

RM 151.5 

RM 147.0 

RM 139.8 

RM 127.9 

RM 123.7 

RM 123.6 

RM 122.4 

RM 117.0 

RM 185.6 

RM 202.0 

12477000

RM 214.4 

12474500

RM 182.9 

12479500

RM 140.4 

12484500

RM 16.8 

12494000

RM 12.6 

RM 9.7 

RM 9.7 

RM 8.5 

RM 3.6 

RM 17.5 

RM 17.1 

YAKIMA RIVER

Moxee Canal

Roza Power Plant Return Flow 

Yakima STP 

Wide Hollow Creek 

Moxee Drain 

Moxee City STP 

North Fork 

Ahtanum Creek Ahtanum Creek 

South Fork 

Ahtanum Creek Wapato Canal

Sunnyside Canal

Zillah STP 

Toppenish STP 

East Toppenish Drain 

Sub-Drain No. 35 

Granger STP 

Toppenish Creek Coulee Drain

Satus Creek 

South Drain

DID No. 7

RM 60.2 

RM 59.5 

12506000

RM 

23.1 

RM 5.3 

12500500

Sunnyside STP

Sulphur Creek

RM 0.8 

12508850

YAKIMA 

RIVER 

Kachess Kachess River 

Lake 

Kittitas Main Canal

Cle Elum WTP

Cle Elum STP

Teanaway River 

Kittitas Main Canal Return Flow 

Swauk Creek 

Taneum Creek 

West Side Ditch

Town Canal

Cascade Canal

Ellensburg Power Canal Outfall 

Manastash Creek 

Ellensburg STP 

Wilson Creek 

Naneum Creek 

Cherry 

Creek 

RM 

1.1 

RM 

20.0 

RM 0.6 

12476000 

RM 

0.9 

(Dam) 

RM 

8.2 

(Dam) 

RM 214.5 

(Dam) 

Cle Elum 

Lake 

RM 7.9 Cle Elum River 12479000

RM 3.7 

12480500

RM 5.5 

12483800

Keechelus 

Lake 

Union and Fruitvale Canals

NACHES RIVER Cowiche Creek 

Granger Drain 

Wapato STP Harrah STP 

Marion Drain

Simcoe Creek 

Umtanum Creek 

Roza Canal

Selah Creek 

Selah-Moxee Canal

Wenas Creek 

Selah STP 

Little Naches River 

American River 

Bumping River 

Rattlesnake Creek 

Naches-Selah Canal

Tieton Canal

Tieton River 

Wapatox Canal

Naches STP 

Wapatox Power Plant Return Flow 

Yakima WTP

Congdon Ditch

Naches-Cowiche Canal

Continued from bottom of previous column 

Rimrock 

Reservoir 

RM 21.3 

(Dam) 

RM 0.6 

12499000

RM 0.5 12488500

RM 16.6 

12488000

RM 19.4 

12489500

RM 20.9 

12491500

RM 14.2 

12492500

RM 44.6 

RM 27.8 

RM 18.4 

RM 13.9 

12506500

RM 4.0 

12501000

RM 2.7 

RM 2.7 

RM 

3.5 

DID No. 3

NACHES RIVER 

RM 44.2 

YAKIMA RIVER 

EXPLANATION

OUTFLOW FROM MAIN STEM

INFLOW TO MAIN STEM

GAGING STATION AND NO.

RIVER MILE

SEWAGE-TREATMENT PLANT

WATER-TREATMENT PLANT

DRAINAGE IRRIGATION DISTRICT

WTP

DID

STP

RM 140.4

12484500

wa19-0052_fig03

Description of Study Area 7
driving force behind the increased drilling of shallow domestic 

wells and deeper public water supply wells. Currently, 

there are more than 20,000 wells in the basin. More than 70 

percent of these wells are shallow, 10–250-ft deep, domestic 

wells. Based on the digital water-rights database provided 

by WaDOE (R. Dixon, written commun., 2001) and other 

information there are at least 2,874 active ground-water rights 

associated with the wells in the basin that can withdraw an 

annual quantity of about 529,231 acre-ft during dry years. The 

irrigation rights are for the irrigation of about 129,570 acres. 

There are about 16,600 ground-water claims in the basin; these 

claims are for some 270,000 acre-ft of ground water (J. Kirk, 

written commun., Washington State Department of Ecology, 

1998). ‘A water right claim is a statement of claim to water 

use that began before the state Water Codes were adopted, 

and is not covered by a water right permit or certificate. A 

water right claim does not establish a water right, but only 

provides documentation of one if it legally exists. Ultimately, 

the validity of claimed water rights would be determined 

through general water right adjudications’ (Washington State 

Department of Ecology, 1998). A ground-water claim means 

a user claims that they were using ground water continuously, 

prior to 1945 when the State legislature enacted the Ground 

Water Code, for a particular use.

Overview of the Geology

The Columbia Plateau has been informally divided 

into three physiographic subprovinces (Meyers and Price, 

1979). The western margin of the Columbia Plateau contains 

the Yakima Fold Belt subprovince and includes the Yakima 

River Basin. The Yakima Fold Belt is a highly folded and 

faulted region and within the study area part, it is underlain by 

various consolidated rocks, ranging in age from Precambrian 

to Tertiary, and unconsolidated materials and volcanic rocks 

of Quaternary age (fig. 4). In the Yakima River Basin, the 

headwater areas in the Cascade Range include metamorphic, 

sedimentary, and intrusive and extrusive igneous rocks. 

The central, eastern, and southwestern parts of the basin 

are composed of basalt lava flows of the Columbia River 

Basalt Group (CRBG) with some intercalated sediments that 

are discontinuous and weakly consolidated. The lowlands 

are underlain by unconsolidated and weakly consolidated 

valley-fill composed of glacial, glacio-fluvial, lacustrine, and 

alluvium deposits that in places exceed a 1,000 ft in thickness 

(Drost and others, 1990). Wind-blown deposits, called loess, 

occur locally along the lower valley.

Valley-fill deposits and basalt lava flows are important for 

ground-water occurrence in the study area. The basalt consists 

of a series of flows erupted during various stages of the 

Miocene Age, ranging from 17 to 6 million years ago. Basalt 

erupted from fissures from the eastern part of the Columbia 

Plateau and individual flows range in thickness from a few feet 

to more than 100 ft. The total thickness in the central part of 

the plateau is estimated to be greater than 10,000 ft (Drost and 

others, 1990) with a maximum thickness of more than 8,000 ft 

in the study area. Unlike most of the Columbia Plateau, the 

CRBG in the Yakima Fold Belt is underlain by sedimentary 

rocks. The valley-fill deposits were eroded from the Cascade 

Range and from the east-west-trending anticlinal ridges 

that were formed from the buckling of the basalt sequence 

during mid- to late-Miocene time. Much of these deposits are 

part of the Ellensburg Formation. This formation underlies, 

intercalates, and overlies the basalts along the western edge, 

and composes most of the thickness of the unconsolidated 

deposits (informally called the overburden; Drost and others, 

1990) in the basinal areas. The basins are narrow to large open 

synclinal valleys intervening between the numerous anticlinal 

ridges.

The deposition of a thick, upper sequence of sand, gravel, 

and some fine-grained material is the result of erosion by 

glacial ice and transport by meltwater streams. Damming of 

large lakes by glacial ice during the Pleistocene epoch resulted 

in the deposition of silt and clay beds in parts of the uplands. 

When the lakes drained, the fine sediments were exposed and 

subsequently eroded by wind and deposited over the lower, 

eastern parts of the study area. Thus, the unconsolidated 

materials in the basinal areas that are abutting and interbedded 

with the basalts range from Miocene to Holocene in age.

8 Estimates of Ground-Water Pumpage from the Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington, 1960-2000
wa19-0021_fig04

Kiona

Naches

Yakima

Wapato

Prosser

Cle Elum

Sunnyside Richland

Union Gap

Ellensburg

Toppenish

121°

47°

47°

30'

46°

121°30' 120°30' 120° 119°30'

46°

30'

0 5 10 20 30 40 MILES

0 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

SIMPLIFIED SURFICIAL GEOLOGY

Quaternary flood deposits

Quaternary deposits, loess

Quaternary and Pliocene volcanic rock

Columbia River Basalt Group rock

Miocene and older volcanic rock

Tertiary granitic and intermediate intrusive rock

Non-marine sedimentary rock

Marine sedimentary rock

Pre-Tertiary metamorphic and intrusive rock

Figure 4. Simplified surficial geology, Yakima River Basin, Washington.

Description of Study Area 9
Well-Numbering System

The USGS assigns numbers to wells and springs 

in Washington that identify their location in a township, 

range, and section. Well number 20N/15E-26N01 indicates, 

successively, the township (T.20 N.) and the range (R.15 E.) 

north and east of the Willamette baseline and meridian (fig. 5). 

The first number following the hyphen indicates the section 

(26) within the township and the letter following the section 

number (N) gives the 40-acre subdivision on the section, as 

shown above. The number (01) following the letter is the 

sequence number of the well within the 40-acre subdivision. 

An ‘S’ following the sequence number indicates that the site 

is a spring, a ‘D1’ after the sequence number indicates that 

the original reported depth of the well has been changed once 

and successive numbers indicate the number of changes in the 

well depth. An ‘R’ following the sequence number indicates 

the well has been reconditioned. A ‘P1’ or an ‘A’ after the 

sequence number indicates a group of nested piezometers, 

with successive numbers or letters assigned to each piezometer 

in the group.

Willamette

Meridian

Willamette Base Line

SECTION 26 

20N/15E-26N01 

ABCD

E F G H

JKLM

N P Q R

R. 15 E. 

T. 

20 

 N. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

7 12 

18 13 

19 24 

30 25 26 

31 32 33 34 35 36 

W A S H I N G T O N 

Yakima River Basin

Figure 5. Well-numbering systems used in the State of Washington.

10 Estimates of Ground-Water Pumpage from the Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington, 1960-2000
Water Wells In Yakima River Basin

There is a long history of constructing water wells in the 

basin concurrent with the development of the surface-water 

systems. Continual growth in the basin in the late 1880s 

resulted in more households in the river valleys without 

access to surface-water supply from streams. This growth led 

to digging shallow, 10–40-ft deep, wells that were generally 

completed in the alluvial deposits. Continued development 

of new drilling methods for water wells (Carlston, 1943), 

especially deep wells, resulted in the search for artesian water 

throughout many parts of the United States (Darton, 1902). 

This search began in earnest in the basin in the 1890s. A 700-ft 

deep well was drilled to basalt in the Kittitas basin in the early 

1890s, but the water level was 48 ft below land surface and 

the well was abandoned (Russell, 1897). In 1890, a well was 

drilled to 400-ft depth in the Wenas basin with water at 152 ft 

and another well was drilled in the same year to 270-ft depth 

in the Selah basin at Rye Grass Flat (Smith, 1901).

During 1891–1901, 24 wells were drilled in the Moxee 

area and ranged in depth from 225 to 1,000 ft; all these wells 

were artesian wells and were capable of irrigating about 1,000 

acres (Smith, 1901). Several of these wells are still in use as 

of 2005. The front cover of this report shows a picture of the 

‘Clark Well No. 1’ from Smith’s early report (Smith, 1901) 

and the front of the original drillers’ log from USGS files is 

shown in figure 6. This well irrigated 250 acres in 1900 and 

supplied water to an additional 47 acres for 8 small ranches 

(Smith, 1901). Another drillers’ log for the 702-ft deep Haines 

well (the driller of many of these wells) is shown in figure 7; 

this well was used for irrigating 85 acres (Smith, 1901).

Population growth after 1900 and lack of unappropriated 

irrigation water from smaller streams during the low-flow 

season resulted in a need for additional water supply; 

therefore, the number of dug or drilled wells continued to 

increase. Based on information from the USGS National Water 

Information System (NWIS) and information compiled as 

part of this investigation, at least 200 wells were constructed 

by 1910. The increase in the number of wells generally 

follows population growth in the basin. The number of wells 

constructed each year records were available, starting in 1890, 

is shown in figure 8. The compilation of well information 

for this investigation was mostly completed by 2002, so the 

number of wells for 2002-04 is not fully represented. By 2004, 

digital files compiled as part of this study indicated that at 

least 22,000 water wells were in the basin and more than 60 

percent were in Yakima County. This estimate undoubtedly is 

low because, except for water-right wells, drillers’ logs were 

not generally available for the first half of the 20th century 

and were not commonly recorded with the State until after 

1970. Digital files and information compiled for this study to 

estimate ground-water pumpage indicate that on the order of 

45,000 water wells currently are in the basin.

As the number of wells increased, depths also increased 

because households and croplands irrigated with ground 

water were established farther from streams and river valleys. 

Compiled information for the three county area indicates that 

90 percent of the wells are less than 456-ft deep, 70 percent 

are less than 240-ft deep, and 50 percent are less than 151-ft 

deep. Well-depth percentiles are similar for each of the three 

counties. The spatial distribution of about 21,000 wells, shown 

by well depth, indicates most are in or near the low-lying 

basins (fig. 9); well locations and depths are from digital files 

developed as part of this study. The distribution and depths of 

wells on figure 9 is not for detailed analysis because locations 

of many wells were determined from information on drillers’ 

logs that could be incorrect. About 55 percent of the wells are 

finished in the basin-fill deposits and the remaining wells are 

finished in bedrock materials, primarily basalt, based on well 

depth and the altitude of the top of bedrock maps constructed 

as part of this investigation (Jones and others, 2006).

Water Wells In Yakima River Basin 11
Figure 6. Front of original drillers’ log for a 940-foot well drilled in 

1897, Yakima River Basin, Washington.

12 Estimates of Ground-Water Pumpage from the Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington, 1960-2000
Figure 7. Original drillers’ log for a 702-foot well drilled in 1896, Yakima River Basin, Washington.

Water Wells In Yakima River Basin 13
wa19-0021_fig08

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1,100

1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

YEAR

NUMBER OF COMPLETED WELLS

Figure 8. Number of wells completed each year 1890–2004, Yakima River Basin, Washington.

14 Estimates of Ground-Water Pumpage from the Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington, 1960-2000
wa19-0021_fig09

KITTITAS COUNTY

YAKIMA COUNTY

BENTON COUNTY

KLICKITAT COUNTY

YAKIMA COUNTY

Bumping

Lake

S Fk

N Fk

Cle Elum River

Bumping River

Ahtanum Creek

Tieton River Wenas Creek

North Fork

Dry Creek

Creek

Toppenish

RIVER

YAKIMA

Satus

Creek

Cle

Elum

Lake

Rimrock

Lake

Kachess Lake

Keechelus Lake

Lake

Wallula

Teanaway River

Umtanum Creek

Little Naches River

Cowiche Creek

Cowiche Creek

River

Naches

RIVER

YAKIMA

RIVER

YAKIMA

C

A

S C A

D E R

A

N

G

E

121°

47°

47°

30'

46°

121°30' 120°30' 120° 119°30'

46°

30'

0 5 10 20 MILES

0 5 10 20 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

0 to 50

51 to 100

101 to 250

251 to 500

501 to 1,000

1,001 to 3,500

Depth, in feet

Ellensburg

Toppenish

YAKIMA

Sunnyside

Richland

Kennewick

Figure 9. Distribution of depths of water wells, Yakima River Basin, Washington.

Water Wells In Yakima River Basin 15
Ground-Water Uses

Principal water uses in the Yakima River Basin include 

agriculture, public water supply, domestic, dairy and livestock 

operations, fish propagation, and commercial and industrial 

operations.

Most water used for agriculture is for irrigation, although 

some water is used for other activities, such as pre-irrigation, 

frost/heat protection, and fertilizer and pesticide application. 

Public water supply is for pumpage by municipalities and 

other Washington State Department of Health public water 

supply systems. Domestic use represents the self-supplied 

ground water used for drinking, preparing food, bathing, 

flushing toilets, cleaning and washing, and watering lawns and 

gardens. For this study, water for domestic use was assumed to 

be supplied principally by on-site, “exempt”, wells for single 

family households. Generally, exempt wells pump less than 

5,000 gal/d (about 5.6 acre-ft), irrigate one-half acre or less, 

and do not need a water-right permit or certificate. In addition, 

for this study domestic use includes some wells that have a 

water right to withdraw water for a single household. Dairy 

and livestock operations include livestock watering, equipment 

cleaning, and irrigating of grazing lands. Fish propagation 

primarily accounts for hatchery operations. Commercial and 

industrial use includes heat exchange, fruit and vegetable 

processing and storage, and manufacturing.

Eighteen Purpose of Use (PRU) codes are identified 

with the water rights in WaDOE’s digital water-rights 

database (Water Rights Tracking System [WRTS]) (R. Dixon, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, written commun, 

2001). These codes (10/31/2000 version) and their uses as 

defined in WRTS are:

•	 CI—Commercial and Industrial Manufacturing 

(includes food processing and packaging, sand and 

gravel processing, asphalt plant, metal processing and 

manufacturing, pulp and paper manufacturing, aquatic 

plant culture, petroleum refining, car washes, and 

laundries)

•	 DG—Domestic General (use of water for all domestic 

uses not specifically defined in the water right record 

or not defined by the other specific domestic use 

categories. Includes sewage treatment, farm supply, 

and laboratory use)

•	 DM—Domestic Multiple (more than one dwelling, i.e. 

motels, trailer courts, campgrounds, parks, schools, 

port districts, public utility districts, diking and 

drainage districts, water districts, reclamation districts, 

and counties, none of which are under municipal 

control)

•	 DS—Domestic Single (one dwelling with lawn and 

garden, up to one-half acre)

•	 EN—Environmental Quality (includes pollution 

control, dust control, flood control, or any water 

use which improves or maintains the quality of the 

environment)

•	 FP—Frost Protection (frost protection other than 

cranberries)

•	 FR—Fire Protection (includes sprinkling log storage 

facilities)

•	 FS—Fish Propagation (includes water service to 

ponds, reservoirs, hatcheries, and all other facilities 

involved in the overall purpose of fish propagation)

•	 HE—Heat Exchange (use of such equipment as heat 

pumps, refrigeration equipment, and other cooling 

devices)

•	 HW—Highway (maintenance and construction)

•	 IR—Irrigation (includes cranberry farming, lawn/

garden watering with definite acreage, golf courses, 

greenhouses, etc.)

•	 MI—Mining (includes washing coal, dredge mining, 

and hydraulic mining)

•	 MU—Domestic Municipal (serves general domestic, 

commercial, and industrial needs of an incorporated 

municipality, i.e. cities, towns, and outlying areas)

•	 PO—Power (includes hydro-electric, hydraulic ram, 

and thermo-electric)

•	 RE—Recreation and Beautification (includes 

beautifying private and public grounds and supplying 

water to swimming pools, boating ponds, etc.)

•	 RW—Railway (use of water to serve railway 

equipment and facilities)

•	 ST—Stock Watering (includes domestic uses of water 

for dairy/cattle farms, game bird farming, poultry 

farming, and fur-bearing animal farming)

•	 WL—Wildlife Propagation (includes water to service 

non-domesticated animals such as birds, game and 

non-game species)

These PRUs define the legal allowable use of appropriated 

water for a water right, which may have 1 to 4 PRUs. Note 

that the PRUs of DY (dairy operations), HP (heat protection 

for crops), and CO (cooling for industrial processes) were 

not included in the version of the above codes obtained from 

WaDOE but currently (2006) are included in WRTS.

16 Estimates of Ground-Water Pumpage from the Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington, 1960-2000
Considering water uses in the basin and the distribution 

and types of water-right uses, eight categories were defined 

for estimating, presenting, and comparing pumpage (table 1): 

(1) public water supply (includes a principal PRU of MU, 

DM, or, in some cases, DG and secondary PRUs of CI, HE, 

ST, FP, FR, and IR for wells with rights, and several wells 

without rights); (2) domestic (includes a single PRU of DS for 

wells with rights and exempt wells); (3) irrigation (includes all 

but public water supply systems rights with a PRU of IR and 

secondary PRUs of FP, ST, DS, DG, DM, EN, RE, HE, CI, 

and FS); (4) frost protection (includes all rights with a single 

PRU of FP); (5) livestock (includes PRUs of ST and DY and 

secondary PRUs of DS, DG, DM, EN, and CI for wells with 

rights and small dairies with exempt wells); (6) commercial 

and industrial (includes PRUs of CI, CO, HE, and RW and 

secondary PRUs of FR, DS, DG, DM, and EN, for the rights 

representative of commercial and industrial operations); 

(7) fish and wildlife propagation (includes all rights with a 

single PRU of FS or WL and two additional fish propagation 

[hatchery] wells); and (8) ground-water claims estimated to 

have existing pumpage not accounted for in categories 1–7 

above. Note that categories 2 and 4–7 do not include a PRU 

of IR. Category 8 for ground-water claims primarily include 

PRUs of IR and secondary PRUs of DG and ST. Pumpage 

estimates for these claims are representative of the irrigation 

pumpage category, but are considered separate for analysis in 

this report.

Water-right 

purpose of 

use codes

Ground-water pumpage categories

Public 

Water 

Supply

Domestic Irrigation Frost

protection Livestock

Commercial 

and Industrial

Fish and 

wildlife Claims

CI o – o – o x – o

CO – – – – – x – –

DG o – o – o o – o

DM x – o – o o – –

DS – x o – o o – –

DY – – – – x – – –

EN – – o – o o – –

FP o – o x – – – –

FR o – – – – o – –

FS – – o – – – x –

HE o o o – – x – –

IR o – x – – – – x

MU x – – – – – – –

RE – – o – – x – –

RW – – – – – – – –

ST o – o – x – – o

WL – – – – – – x –

Table 1. Relation between ground-water pumpage categories and water-right purpose of use codes in Washington 

State Department of Ecology’s Water Rights Tracking System.

[x, denotes principal use; o, denotes secondary use; –, none. Ground-water pumpage categories: Public Water Supply includes some 

wells without rights that are public water supply. Domestic primarily includes domestic pumpage from exempt wells. Irrigation does 

not include irrigation pumpage for rights associated with public water supply and pumpage for claims. Livestock includes pumpage 

estimates for 19 small dairies that withdraw water under an exempt status. Fish and wildlife includes two wells used for fish propagation 

(hatchery). Water-right purpose of use codes: CI, Commercial and Industrial Manufacturing; CO, industrial cooling; DG, Domestic 

General; DM, Domestic Multiple; DS, Domestic Single; DY, Dairy; EN, Environmental Quality; FP, Frost Protection; FR, Fire Protection; 

FS, Fish Propagation; HE, Heat Exchange; IR, Irrigation; MU, Domestic Municipal; RE, Recreation and Beautification; RW, Railway; ST, 

Stock Watering; WL, Wildlife Propagation (see Appendix for further definitions of codes)]

Ground-Water Uses 17
Ground-Water Rights

Ground-water rights consist of three categories, (1) 

certificates, (2) permits, and (3) valid claims. In addition, 

there are outstanding applications for new rights and for 

changes and transfers of existing rights. Based on information 

in WRTS and some additional information provided by 

WaDOE, there are about 2,575 certificates, 299 permits, 859 

outstanding applications, and more than 16,600 claims in the 

basin. WRTS contains only selected information from the 

actual water right document. A permit or certificate represents 

a right (appropriated water) to withdraw and use ground water, 

whereas a claim may or may not be valid. For a claimant to 

have a permit or certificate, the claim would have to be upheld 

in an adjudication process.

Most pumpage categories are based on ground-water 

rights. Therefore, the accuracy of the estimates to some 

extent are dependent on the accuracy of information in 

WRTS. Rights with values deemed questionable were sent 

to WaDOE for verification and any errors were fixed in the 

databases developed during this study. Some valid rights in 

the basin are not in WRTS, but determination of these rights 

was beyond the scope of this study. For example, a list was 

compiled of 381 wells with some type of water-right identifier 

on the well log that could not be found in WRTS. An analysis 

of this information by WaDOE (J. Kirk, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, written commun., 2005) indicated that 

either the well did not have a right, the right was relinquished, 

the right was valid but the well was outside of the basin, or it 

was a valid right that was not in WRTS. About 30 of the 381 

wells had valid rights or about 1 percent of the total rights. 

However, total pumpage from other rights not in WRTS should 

be minor compared to cumulative estimates presented in this 

report because the rights for all major public water supply 

providers and irrigators are accounted for.

Background

A water right has a priority date, purpose of use (the 

PRU), point(s) of withdrawal (POW–identified by township, 

range, and section (TRS) in WRTS), place of use (POU), and 

an allowable quantity to be pumped. The POU is not included 

in WRTS. Allowable quantity is the appropriated quantity, 

sometimes called the entitlement or authorized amount. These 

terms are used interchangeably in this report. Quantity is 

expressed as both a maximum instantaneous rate in gallon 

per minute (gal/min) and as an annual value in acre-ft. For 21 

rights, either the instantaneous rate or the annual value was not 

listed in WRTS; therefore, the sum of the allowable quantity 

for either quantity category is not a complete total. For rights 

with a PRU of IR, FP, and (or) ST, the maximum acreage to 

which the water can be applied also is in WRTS, and is related 

to the POU. Not included in the number of and quantities for 

the rights listed below, is information from the additional 30 

rights that were not in WRTS; these rights total about 21,000 

acre-ft of appropriated water, of which about 6,700 acre-ft is 

outside the basin.

The total quantities for the certificates and permits are:

 

No. of 

certificates 

and permits

Instantaneous 

(gal/min)

Annual

(acre-ft)

Irrigated 

area (acres)

Certificates 2,575 720,683 422,040 101,371

Permits 299 230,623 107,191 28,199

These values include primary and standby/reserve 

water rights. A primary water right can be used at all times 

for the PRU during the allowable time period defined in the 

water-right document for the right. Standby/reserve rights 

are associated with and supplemental to a primary irrigation 

right, almost always a surface-water right. The standby/

reserve rights allow the use of ground water only during 

years when the TWSA cannot meet all demands; these years 

include emergencies and (or) droughts. The methods used to 

distinguish between primary and standby/reserve rights are 

described in a following section.

Outstanding applications were not analyzed during 

this study. As of 2001, 859 applications represented a total 

potential instantaneous rate of 616,306 gal/min and a total 

irrigated acreage of 64,308 acres, about 50 percent of the 

allowable irrigated acreage in 2000. Claims are not addressed 

in this part of the report; they are discussed in a later section as 

a category of ground-water pumpage.

Relation between a Water Well 

and a Water Right

A well or wells associated with a right were identified, 

including when possible, the drillers’ log or logs. This 

association was needed to (1) help estimate ground-water 

pumpage (withdrawals of appropriated water account for most 

pumpage); (2) compare estimated pumpage from individual 

wells to the appropriated right; (3) identify hydrogeologic 

unit or units that a right/pumpage is associated with; and (4) 

provide data to simulate effects of pumpage in ground-water 

flow models. To make these associations, various databases 

were examined.

18 Estimates of Ground-Water Pumpage from the Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington, 1960-2000
The Central Regional Office, Water Resource Program, of 

WaDOE developed a digital database for ground-water rights 

for the lower part of the Yakima River Basin (WRIA 37). For 

a right, the database generally lists the TRS (and sometimes 

the quarter-quarter section), a water-right number (Control 

ID, also listed in WRTS), well information such as depth, 

diameter, and name on the well log, and in some cases, a well 

number for a well based on the well numbering system for the 

State; the well number either was assigned by WaDOE or was 

a USGS well number. Personnel from the USGS examined 

in-house paper copies of drillers’ (well) logs to associate a 

log with a listing in the database. Paper copies are organized 

by county and within a county by the well number. This step 

was completed to (1) verify that information in WaDOE’s 

database matched information on a well log (well depth, 

owner, construction date, etc.), (2) add the Control ID to the 

well log, if necessary, and (3) determine if a well log with a 

Control ID matched a listing in WaDOE’s database. For many 

older rights, the Control ID was not listed on the log, but the 

original application, document, and (or) certificate number 

was listed. For these cases, WRTS, which contains the original 

certificate number for some rights, was searched to determine 

if a matching certificate number was available to determine 

the Control ID. In addition, the original application number 

generally is similar to part of the Control ID, so the database 

was searched for the application number. Otherwise, WRTS 

was searched for the owner’s name, right, and (or) TRS.

If a paper well-log could not be found for a right listed 

in the digital database, NWIS was checked to determine if a 

well matched a database listing. In some cases no in-house 

well-log was available, but an original field-visit sheet was 

found with the Control ID or other pertinent information, such 

as a measured water-level. When no matching log could be 

found, WaDOE’s on-line well-log database (Washington State 

Well Log Viewer: http://apps.ecy.wa.gov/welllog, accessed 

August 16, 2006) was searched to determine if the well log 

was available. If the well log was available, it was printed and 

filed with the NWIS well paper copies for NWIS wells or it 

was filed separately for later input of pertinent information 

into NWIS for non-NWIS wells.

For the rights with a POW outside the area included in 

the lower-basin digital database, the same techniques were 

used, starting first with the in-house paper copies. These rights 

were more difficult to associate with a log because WRTS 

does not contain well information. Checking was based on the 

POW, ownership name for the right, date of priority, and the 

PRU. Searches of paper copies, digital information (organized 

by well number) compiled as part of this study, and the on-line 

database started with all wells in the TRS listed as the POW 

for the right.

To associate water rights and well logs, as many as 

possible of the public water supply wells were associated 

with a right. This task was difficult because of numerous 

public water supply systems in the basin (not all of which 

have rights) and many of the systems have names with no 

relation to the name on the right or the well log. Also, many 

systems use wells that were initially drilled for single or 

multi-household use and were later converted to a public 

water supply system. In addition, most smaller systems do not 

have a right because they pump water under an exempt status. 

However, it was the goal to associate as many of the systems 

to a right, when applicable, and (or) a log. In some cases, 

public water supply rights were associated with a log, but not 

with a Washington State public water supply system.

Of the 2,874 active rights, all but 220 were associated 

with a well log or logs. In addition, the total number of wells 

associated with rights was greater than the number of rights 

because: (1) a right might be associated with more than one 

well due to a well deepening or reconditioning; (2) a right may 

have more than one POW; and (or) (3) a well may have been 

replaced by another well. Forty-eight of the 220 rights without 

associated logs were assigned some well information based on 

information from WaDOE’s lower-basin database.

A digital file was developed that contained information 

from WRTS, a USGS well number, and well information 

such as depth, location, and openings. Location is based on 

reasonable estimates of latitude and longitude of wells field 

visited by either USGS or WaDOE or by the center of the 

POW section. In some cases, a quarter or quarter-quarter 

section for a right was identified by WaDOE or by the USGS 

based on information from a drillers’ log; for these cases, the 

latitude and longitude of the center was used as the location. 

This file contains some errors in associations between rights 

and well logs because: (1) actual water-right documents were 

not examined; (2) incorrect water-right identifiers may be on 

a well-log or logs; (3) well owner may have multiple wells 

and only one or some of these wells may be associated with a 

right (the Control ID may be on all logs); and (4) there was a 

replacement well but the replacement well log was not found 

or examined because the original log for the right was found 

and it was assumed this was the correct (existing) well for the 

right.

For all rights, the latitude and longitude of a well also 

was checked to ensure that the well was in the correct TRS, 

and for most wells, in the correct quarter-quarter section. A 

unique sequence number, based on the well-numbering system 

was assigned to wells not in NWIS and input to the digital file 

containing the well and water-right information.

Ground-Water Rights 19
Primary and Standby/Reserve Water Rights

Standby/reserve rights have a principal PRU of IR 

and (or) FP, and generally, but not always, are associated 

with use of a well in a year when the TWSA cannot meet the 

appropriated surface-water rights and the junior surface-water 

users would have their appropriated water prorated. After 

1945, prorating occurred in 1973, 1977, 1979, 1987, 1988, 

1992, 1993, 1994, 2001, and 2005. In these years, junior 

surface-water rights (typically post-1905) in the basin were 

prorated and the full appropriated quantity was not available. 

Prior to 1977, prorating of junior rights occurred only in 

1973, when junior users received about 80 percent of their 

appropriated quantity. It was not until 1977, when the initial 

forecast of the prorating was about 40 percent for the junior 

entitlements, that there was need to drill a well for standby/

reserve use. This is especially true because of the cost of 

developing a ground-water supply. Starting in 1977, numerous 

wells were drilled by junior users for supplemental irrigation, 

which generally, but not always, occurred in September and 

October. Most standby/reserve rights are in the lower part of 

the basin.

Standby/reserve rights consist of two categories. The 

first category allows the water-right holder to use the right 

when the total amount of the prorated allotment is used. 

Many early standby/reserve rights are in this category. 

However, the allowable quantity listed in WRTS may not 

be the actual quantity allowed. A water-duty was assigned 

to earlier rights, generally based on the surface-water duty, 

about 3-5 acre-ft/acre, (quantity divided by acreage—yielding 

a water duty of acre-ft per acre as the allowable application 

rate), but in the water right document (not in WRTS) this 

quantity generally was limited to a lesser value. Not until 

about 1980 were more standby/reserve rights assigned 

base-level water duties of about 0.5–2 acre-ft/acre.

For the first category, a few rights are standby/reserve 

to a primary ground-water right. In addition, a few but 

unknown number of rights issued as standby/reserve rights 

under the first category actually are primary rights because 

the water-right document did not explicitly state that the right 

was standby/reserve for use in years in which a junior surfacewater user has the appropriated water prorated (J. Kirk, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, oral commun., 

2005). The actual number of such standby/reserve rights was 

not determined, but the number is very small.

Standby/reserve rights for the second category were 

approved for one-time use starting with the 2001 drought 

and again during the 2005 drought. These “emergency 

permits” were issued when a drought was declared. Wells 

with emergency permits cannot be used in another year unless 

authorization for withdrawal is approved (essentially issuing a 

new emergency permit).

In lieu of reviewing all the paper and microfiche waterright documents in WaDOE’s office, a method was developed 

to estimate which rights are standby/reserve. First, standby/

reserve rights were assumed to be in surface-water irrigation 

districts with proratable rights. Therefore for each well with a 

right (particularly for the 2,226 rights that have both a PRU of 

IR and allowable acreage for irrigation), it was first estimated 

if the well was located within an irrigation district. The 

irrigation district boundaries were obtained from Reclamation 

(E. Young, Bureau of Reclamation, written commun., 2002). 

These boundaries (fig. 10) are primarily based on 1974 

maps that show irrigation districts in Washington State. The 

maps originally were developed at a smaller scale and are 

approximate in some areas. Wells near a boundary may be 

inside or outside of an irrigation district. Locations of selected 

wells (based on the PRU, allowable quantity, and priority date 

of a right) near an irrigation district boundaries were examined 

in more detail to determine whether they were in the district 

boundaries.

Several assumptions were made to estimate the type of 

right (primary or standby/reserve) for wells in an irrigation 

district. The first assumption was that all rights with a 

priority date before 1977 were primary rights. About 21 wells 

associated with rights in irrigation districts were constructed 

prior to 1977, but their water rights have a priority date after 

1976; for this study, these rights were assumed to be standby/

reserve, but some of these may hold primary rights. The 

next assumption was that all right holders with fewer than 5 

allowable acres for irrigation had primary rights, regardless of 

the priority date.

For irrigation rights with a POU of 5–10 allowable 

acres, an estimate of whether a right was primary or standby/

reserve was made based on the water-duty, PRU, location, 

priority date, and information from the well log. Of the 2,226 

rights with allowable irrigable lands (excluding rights with 

a single PRU of FP), 925 rights have IR as the only PRU. 

The remaining rights have multiple purposes, including DS, 

DM, DG, CI, FP, FR, HE, DY, ST, and EN. If a right was not 

obviously primary, it was assumed to be standby/reserve. This 

same methodology was used for rights with larger allowable 

irrigated acreage and, in addition, field notes (such as “well is 

used continuously during irrigation season”), information on 

well logs, and the well locations were examined in detail.

Using these methods, about 560 rights were designated as 

standby/reserve; 2 rights are supplemental to a ground-water 

right. For the 25 rights with a PRU of FP and no PRU of IR, 

21 were estimated to be standby/reserve. Based on knowledge 

of water rights in the basin, WaDOE concurred with this 

approach and indicated that it should provide a reasonable 

estimate of standby/reserve rights (J. Kirk, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, written commun., 2005).

20 Estimates of Ground-Water Pumpage from the Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington, 1960-2000
wa19-0021_fig10-IrrigationDistricts

Kennewick Irrigation District

Irrigation districts in the Yakima River Basin

Kittitas Reclamation District

Roza Irrigation District

Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District

Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District

Wapato Irrigation Project

All other irrigation districts

KITTITAS COUNTY

YAKIMA COUNTY

COUNTY

BENTON COUNTY

KLICKITAT

COUNTY

YAKIMA

Bumping

Lake

Cle Elum River

Bumping River

Ahtanum Creek

Tieton River

Wenas Creek

North Fork

Dry Creek

RIVER

YAKIMA

Satus

Creek

Cle

Elum

Lake

Rimrock

Lake

Kachess Lake

Keechelus Lake

Lake

Wallula

Teanaway River

Umtanum Creek

Little Naches River

Cowiche Creek

North Fork

River

Naches

RIVER

YAKIMA

RIVER

YAKIMA

Cle Elum

Parker

Wapato

Ellensburg

Umtanum

Kittitas

Thrall

Toppenish

Moxee City Union Gap

Yakima

Selah

Naches

Sunnyside Richland

Kiona

Kennewick

Prosser

Grandview

Mabton

Satus

Zillah

Granger

Roza

Easton

Teanaway

Tieton Rimrock

Snoqualmie

Pass

Van Epps

Pass

Esmeralda

Peaks

K I T T I T A S

V A L L E Y

M A N A S T A S H

KACHESS RIDGE

R I D G E

UNION GAP

CLEMAN

MOUNTAIN

TEANAWAY

NORTH RIDGE

U M T A N U M

R I D G E

Deception

Pass

Y A K I M A

 V A L L E Y

AHTANUM RIDGE

COWICHE MTN

AMERICAN RIDGE

CLE ELUM RIDGE

RIDGE

TOPPENISH RIDGE

R A T T L E S N A K E H I L L S

Y A K I M A R I D G E

H O R S E

H E A V E N H I L L S

C

A

S C A D E R

A

N

G

E

W E N AT C H E E M O U N TA I N S

Gilbert

Peak

121°

47°

47°

30'

46°

121°30' 120°30' 120° 119°30'

46°

30'

0 5 10 20 30 40 MILES

0 5 10 20 30 40 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

T.

24

N.

T.

22

N.

T.

20

N.

T.

18

N.

T.

16

N.

T.

14

N.

T.

12

N.

T.

10

N.

T.

8

N.

T.

6

N.

R.10E. R.12E. R.14E. R.16E. R.18E. R.20E. R.22E. R.24E. R.26E. R.28E.

Figure 10. Location of surface-water irrigation districts, Yakima River Basin, Washington.

Ground-Water Rights 21
Methods Used to Estimate 

Ground-Water Pumpage

The methods used to estimate pumpage were predicated 

on the difficulty in gathering data or measuring pumpage; 

pumpage is the least known part of the basin’s water budget 

because of the lack of existing data. Few measured values 

are available from several pumpage categories because 

the wells either are not metered (owners do not know how 

much they use), a well system set-up does not allow direct 

measurement, information is considered proprietary, or in a 

few cases, the wells are no longer used. Therefore, various 

methods were used to estimate pumpage, including using 

hydrologic judgment based on existing information and 

previous work. Methods used vary based on the principal 

PRU of each category. Methods range from compiling and 

extrapolating compiled (provided) information to estimating 

that the full appropriated quantity is the best pumpage estimate 

for a category. For rights in a category that include certain 

additional PRUs, such as DM for workers, the Washington 

State Department of Health’s (DOH) Water System Design 

Manual (Washington State Department of Health, 2001a) was 

used as a guide for estimating additional pumpage for those 

PRUs.

The start date associated with pumpage is assumed to 

be the well completion date and that the well is then used 

for its designated PRU. When the well-completion date was 

unknown and the well had a water right, the start date was 

assumed to be the priority date of the water right. For example, 

if an irrigation well was drilled in 1920 and its associated right 

had a priority date of 1950, the 1920 date would be used as the 

start of irrigation pumpage. Examination of numerous drillers’ 

logs indicates that this is a reasonable assumption, especially 

for wells drilled prior to about 1970. Exceptions for defining 

the start date of public water supply pumpage and domestic 

pumpage are described below.

It is also assumed that the methods are applicable for any 

particular year. This implies that the same amount of water 

would be used by a particular user or users in any year. For 

example, the assumption is that a household uses the same 

amount of water each year. However, pumpage varies year-toyear for various reasons. It was beyond the scope of this study 

to attempt to estimate interannual variations that may occur for 

any particular category of pumpage due to changing water-use 

practices.

Public Water Supply

For this study, public water supply (PWS) withdrawals 

primarily included water systems that are part of the DOH’s 

Group A and Group B systems. Group A systems generally 

have 15 or more service connections and Group B systems 

generally have 2 to 14 service connections. For this study, 

Group A water systems serving incorporated areas, referred to 

as municipal systems, were considered separately from other 

Group A systems. The DOH database for the three-county 

area has 325 Group A systems that serve about 302,000 people 

and 1,285 Group B systems serving about 10,600 people. 

Group A systems principally serve both municipalities and 

residential developments. Not all these systems are in the 

basin boundaries. Water-right wells with a single PRU of DM 

(some also may have a second PRU of IR, but the IR part of 

the right is minimal compared to the DM part) that provide 

drinking water to households, but are not part of a Group A or 

B system also are included as part of the PWS category.

Twenty-four water purveyors in incorporated areas, 

generally representing the largest Group A systems 

(municipalities), were asked to provide existing records for 

pumpage from 1960 through 2000 and the corresponding 

populations served. All purveyors provided at least monthly 

records for some years for that period and population-served 

data for 2000. Several purveyors provided weekly or daily 

values, which were compiled into monthly values. Provided 

pumpage values represent PWS and include all water pumped 

by a municipality for distribution.

Population-served data were analyzed in conjunction 

with the State of Washington, Office of Financial Management 

census (from the U.S. Census Bureau [U.S. Census Bureau, 

2004]) and intercensus (estimated annual population 

between 10-year U.S. Census Bureau surveys, by county, for 

incorporated and unincorporated areas) data (Washington 

State Office of Financial Management, 2002) to calculate a 

ratio of population served to census population for each year 

of available data for the municipalities. Calculated ratios 

were then multiplied by census or intercensus data from 1960 

through 2000 to estimate an annual population served; the 

final population served estimates were for each system for 

years with no available population-served data.

Available pumpage and population-served data then were 

used to calculate an average annual per capita pumpage rate 

for each municipality for the period of available data. Average 

per capita rates varied from 38 to 554 gal/d with 75 percent 

22 Estimates of Ground-Water Pumpage from the Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington, 1960-2000
less than 180 gal/d and 50 percent less than 129 gal/d. The per 

capita rate was then multiplied by estimated population served 

to obtain annual totals of pumpage for years without available 

data. Calculations resulted in a complete record of observed 

or estimated pumpage for the 24 systems for 1960 through 

2000. Implicit in these calculations is that the non-drinking 

water part (commercial, industrial, and irrigation) of the total 

pumpage remained constant over time. This part is known 

to change with time because total industrial and commercial 

use of water is slowly declining (Dion and Lum, 1977). Data 

provided by larger systems indicated that the commercial and 

industrial part of total pumpage ranged from about 4 percent 

to as much as 60 percent; the larger values are for small 

municipalities that seasonally provide a large quantity of water 

to fruit and vegetable processing plants. Except for some older 

unused municipal wells, most wells have an identified latitude 

and longitude based on either site visits or global positioning 

coordinates provided by the municipality or DOH.

All other Group A and B water suppliers were asked if 

pumpage data were available. These non-municipal systems 

typically provide water to households and do not generally 

provide water for industrial and commercial purposes. 

Twenty-three Group A systems and 40 Group B systems 

provided pumpage information. Population-served data for 

these systems were obtained from the DOH’s, Office of 

Drinking Water, web site (Washington State Department 

of Health, 2001b). Based on pumpage data and population 

served, a per capita rate was calculated for each system for 

each year that withdrawal data were available. If a per capita 

rate appeared too low or too high (a potential outlier), the 

system operator was contacted to obtain additional information 

or to verify the provided information. Rates for the systems 

ranged from 10 to 1,800 gal/d and 90 percent of the values 

were less than 600 gal/d. The resulting per capita values were 

then used to calculate a basin-wide average per capita rate of 

251 gal/d, weighted by population served. However, the three 

highest rates (1,800, 1,040, and 935 gal/d) were not used in the 

calculations because the highest value appeared to be in error 

and the next two highest values, although not unreasonable 

based on reported values for eastern Washington (Washington 

State Department of Health, 2001a), appeared to be outliers 

for actual pumpage in the basin. A basin-wide average was 

calculated because data from individual systems displayed 

no spatial trends. Data for municipalities were not used in 

the calculations because their usage is not representative 

of smaller systems, which do not supply commercial and 

industrial water and generally do not supply high density, 

multi-residential properties such as apartment buildings. For 

systems in the surface-water irrigation districts (fig. 10), a 

reduced average rate of 109 gal/d was calculated based on 

the average of several larger systems in irrigation districts. 

The reduced rate was used because many households in these 

districts use surface water for lawn and garden watering.

The appropriate average rate then was multiplied 

by population served for all years for all systems with no 

available pumpage data. Although an average rate should 

capture the overall pumpage, estimates for some systems 

will be too small or too large. Locations for many of the 

Group A systems were identified using a Global Positioning 

System (Washington State Department of Health, written. 

commun., 2003); whereas, most of the Group B systems 

have locations at the center of a section, quarter section, or 

quarter-quarter section. Estimated start year for a system is 

“effective source date” from DOH’s database; some systems 

probably were operating prior to the effective source date. 

About 150 systems did not have population served data and 

no estimates were made for these systems, which principally 

include campgrounds, small stores, churches, taverns, and a 

few commercial operations.

Pumpage for PWS varies greatly on a seasonal basis. To 

estimate month-to-month variation in pumpage, a percentage 

of annual pumpage for each month was calculated. This 

percentage was based on total pumpage for all systems that 

provided information for the most current year, usually 2000. 

In turn, pumpage for each month was totaled for all systems 

and then divided by the annual total. These calculations 

yielded an effective monthly percentage of annual pumpage 

for the basin. These values will be used for other components 

of this study to estimate monthly pumpage for the systems 

with no available data.

Domestic

Domestic pumpage is composed of two parts: pumpage 

for ground-water rights and pumpage from exempt wells. 

Domestic pumpage is negligible for ground-water rights 

compared to exempt-well pumpage, but it is important to 

obtain an accurate estimate as possible for total water-right 

pumpage in the basin. Excluding some dairies, other allowable 

potential pumpage from exempt wells was not estimated as 

part of this study because of lack of information.

Methods Used to Estimate Ground-Water Pumpage 23
Ground-Water Right Wells

Ground-water right pumpage estimates were made for 

all wells with a PRU of DS as its principal use. Fifty-nine 

associations were for wells with rights with a single PRU 

of DS and 4 rights had a second PRU of either HE or FP. 

For wells outside of irrigation district boundaries, 251 gal/d 

per capita was used to estimate a value for 2.3 persons per 

household, yielding a pumpage rate of 0.65 acre-ft per 

household. For wells in irrigation districts, 109 gal/d per 

capita, described previously, was used to estimate a value 

for 2.3 persons per household, yielding a pumpage rate of 

0.28 acre-ft. One right had a small associated acreage for 

application of water; IR was not a PRU and this right was not 

included as part of the irrigation estimates (except for two 

rights, all pumpage associated with the irrigation estimates 

include a defined PRU of IR). Based on water requirements 

for a well-watered lawn, estimates are that 2.5 acre-ft/acre was 

pumped for lawn watering.

Two DS rights were for businesses. For a smaller 

business 250 gal/d (0.28 acre-ft) was assumed to be pumped 

and for a larger business 500 gal/d (0.56 acre-ft) was used as 

the pumpage estimate. Another right was for a nursing home, 

but notes from a field visit of the property’s well indicated that 

the well was used only for irrigating about 1 acre in summer, 

and 2.5 acre-ft was assigned to this right. One right was for 

a small Forest Service campground. Assuming 20 people per 

day used 20 gal/d during May through October resulted in a 

pumpage estimate of 0.22 acre-ft. One right had an additional 

PRU of HE for a domestic ground-water heat pump for which 

a value of 0.01 acre-ft was used; this quantity is returned 

through another well. Two rights in an irrigation district had 

an additional PRU of FP with 4–8 allowable acres. Frost 

protection pumpage for these two rights was assumed to be 

negligible.

Similar methods were used to estimate the domestic part 

of pumpage for other pumpage categories with principal PRUs 

of IR, FP, HE, CI, and (or) ST and a secondary PRU of DS. 

These latter pumpage estimates are not included as part of this 

category because pumpage for these other principal PRUs is 

much larger than for a single household; that is, the estimated 

pumpage is generally much larger for the above PRUs than 

for the DS part. In addition, to retain total pumpage associated 

with a right and a well, the estimates for the DS part are 

included in the total for the right under the other categories.

Exempt Wells

Average per capita pumpage rates (109 and 251 gal/d) 

calculated from data provided by water purveyors were used 

to estimate the pumpage by exempt wells (wells not requiring 

a water right, primarily used for self-supplied domestic use, 

and use less than 5,000 gal/d). To use the per capita rates, an 

estimate of population served by exempt wells was first made. 

The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau data for population in census 

blocks (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004) for the unincorporated 

part of the study area (fig. 11) were used in conjunction with 

population served information for all Group A and B systems 

to estimate the population using exempt wells.

The PWS population served was subtracted from the 

census block population to obtain a population estimate for 

exempt wells. The average per capita rate (251 gal/d) was then 

multiplied by the exempt population in each block to estimate 

exempt pumpage by block. For blocks in irrigation districts, 

the reduced per capita rate (109 gal/d) was used to estimate 

exempt pumpage. Using exempt population and households 

per block, an estimate also was made of the number of exempt 

wells in a block.

Based on estimated population using the 2000 census 

and the State of Washington Office of Financial Management 

intercensus data (Washington State Office of Financial 

Management, 2002), an estimate also was made for 1995. A 

ratio was calculated for intercensus 1995 population to 2000 

population for unincorporated areas, by county. This ratio then 

was assumed to apply to all unincorporated blocks, and the 

2000 population estimate in each block was multiplied by the 

ratio. Population served in 1995 for the PWS systems was then 

subtracted as above. The exempt pumpage calculations were 

then made using the same methods used to estimate pumpage 

for 2000. This process was used to estimate pumpage for 

5-year increments to 1960. However, DOH’s information on 

PWS systems did not start until 1970. For this study, Group 

A and B systems operating in 1970 were assumed to be also 

operating in 1960 and 1965. Therefore, exempt pumpage 

was estimated for each unincorporated census block for 

1960-2000, but the actual location of pumpage in a census 

block is not known.

24 Estimates of Ground-Water Pumpage from the Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington, 1960-2000
KITTITAS COUNTY

YAKIMA COUNTY

BENTON COUNTY

KLICKITAT COUNTY

YAKIMA COUNTY

Bumping

Lake

S Fk

N Fk

Cle Elum River

Bumping River

Ahtanum Creek

Tieton River Wenas Creek

North Fork

Dry Creek

Creek

Toppenish

RIVER

YAKIMA

Satus

Creek

Cle

Elum

Lake

Rimrock

Lake

Kachess Lake

Keechelus Lake

Lake

Wallula

Teanaway River

Umtanum Creek

Little Naches River

Cowiche Creek

Cowiche Creek

River

Naches

RIVER

YAKIMA

RIVER

YAKIMA

Ellensburg

Toppenish

YAKIMA

Sunnyside

Richland

Kennewick

C

A

S C A

D E R

A

N

G

E

121°

47°

47°

30'

46°

121°30' 120°30' 120° 119°30'

46°

30'

0 5 10 20 MILES

0 5 10 20 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Population, in number of persons 

 per census block (census block 

 outlines not shown)

0 to 25

26 to 50

51 to 100

101 to 300

301 to 1,419

Figure 11. Distribution of census blocks and population, Yakima River Basin, Washington, 2000.

Methods Used to Estimate Ground-Water Pumpage 25
Irrigation

Irrigation pumpage estimates were made for most 

wells with irrigation rights and allowable acres in the WRTS 

database. A total of 2,226 rights had allowable acres for 

irrigation, and all but 2 rights had IR as a use. These latter two 

rights had a PRU of DM with large allowable acreage known 

to be associated with either pastures or orchards. Much of the 

pumpage for these two rights is associated with irrigation, 

and estimates are that the DM part of the appropriated right 

was for workers’ use. Seventeen rights with a single PRU of 

IR with a total annual quantity of about 4,220 acre-ft were 

for municipalities, and withdrawals for these 17 rights are 

included as part of the PWS estimates. Fifty-eight rights were 

associated with non-municipal PWS with a total allowable 

acreage of about 1,010 acres. Pumpage for these rights is 

included as part of the PWS pumpage because the irrigation 

part is assumed to be accounted for in the PWS estimate. One 

right with allowable acreage was for a PRU of DS and no PRU 

of IR; the estimate for this right is included in the domestic 

right estimates. As a result, 2,150 rights were analyzed for 

pumpage and these rights include about 123,400 acres of 

allowable irrigated lands.

Pumpage estimates were derived using allowable 

irrigated acres, annual acre-feet application rate (the water 

duty—appropriated annual rate divided by acres), crop type, 

and estimates of average crop-water use. For the lower part 

of the river basin that included parts of Yakima and Benton 

Counties, Pacific Power provided power consumption data 

for their irrigation pricing-schedule users aggregated by zip 

code due to the proprietary nature of the information (Pacific 

Power, written commun., 2001). The power information was 

used to obtain a coarse estimate of pumpage for this part of 

the basin based on generalized power consumption-pumpage 

equations. This estimate was used to help assess the reliability 

of the irrigation pumpage.

This study originally was designed to use a detailed 

power-consumption method to estimate pumpage for many 

larger users. This method relies on accurate readings of well 

discharge using an acoustic velocity flowmeter, accurate 

pipe thickness measurements, power records, transformer 

information, and well information. Visits to more than 300 

wells resulted in only 18 reliable measurements because few 

well systems met the criteria for flowmeter use. For wellpumping systems where this method was used, calculated 

pumpage was used as the estimate and also to estimate the 

reliability of the crop-water use method.

To apply the crop-water use method, a crop-type 

GIS database was generated using several data sources. 

Reclamation provided (1) a GIS database for the basin that 

identified irrigated lands, but no crop type, and (2) GIS 

databases for crop types for several smaller areas (E. Young, 

Bureau of Reclamation, written commun., 2003). Kittitas 

Conservation District provided a crop-type distribution for 

most of Kittitas County (Kittitas Conservation District, 

written commun., 2003), and South Yakima Conservation 

District provided information for Roza and Sunnyside Valley 

Irrigation Districts (fig. 10) (South Yakima Conservation 

District, written commun., 2004). Land use/cover for the basin 

was obtained from the USGS’s national database (Homer and 

others, 2004), and a detailed crop-type coverage for a small 

subbasin near Granger was developed by the USGS as part 

of the National Water Quality Assessment Program. A field 

survey was conducted as part of this study for the Wapato 

Irrigation Project (fig. 10) to identify fields with orchards, 

vineyards, and hops. Additional field surveys were completed 

in selected areas identified as irrigated lands from either 

the Reclamation or the USGS data sets, but the crop types 

were not known. A 2004 geodatabase of fields with irrigated 

crops was obtained from Washington State Department 

of Agriculture (DOA), Pesticide Management Division 

(T. Maxwell, Washington State Department of Agriculture, 

written commun., 2005). This database contained information 

on field size, crop types, and irrigation methods, aggregated to 

the section level. However, determination could not be made 

where a field was in the section because information was at 

the section level, and the geodatabase was not used to develop 

the crop-type database. However, the geodatabase was used 

for other checks on crop type. Land-use/cover information 

for the basin was combined into a single spatial database, 

starting with the least detailed data and substituting in the 

more detailed data sets. The resulting database was assumed 

to represent all years for which irrigation pumpage was 

estimated.

Each water-right well then was assigned to the crop type 

at the well. The resulting crop types at wells were compared 

with DOA data, allowable acres, and PRU to: (1) determine 

their reasonableness and (2) estimate a crop type for wells 

associated with irrigated lands having unknown crop types. 

For each right, the allowable annual application rate (the water 

duty) was compared to a crop water-use rate, and the smaller 

value was multiplied by the allowable acreage to estimate 

annual pumpage. The crop water-use rate was an average for 

each crop based on 50 years of daily calculations of potential 

crop evapotranspiration, which does not account for off-season 

precipitation or soil moisture. An irrigation-efficiency factor 

was not applied to the rate because the crop rate could be high, 

the rates varied by as much as 3–4 in. over the 50-year period, 

and precipitation was not accounted for. Overall, using such 

an average rate without an efficiency factor should capture the 

average pumpage. This method of applying crop water-use 

26 Estimates of Ground-Water Pumpage from the Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington, 1960-2000
rates was used by Cline and Collins (1992) and Van Metre and 

Seevers (1991) to estimate pumpage in the central Columbia 

Plateau and proved to be reliable.

Power consumption methods for estimating pumpage 

are well documented and were previously used to estimate 

pumpage in the central Columbia Plateau (Collins, 1987; Cline 

and Knadle, 1990; Van Metre and Seevers, 1991; Cline and 

Collins, 1992). In one method, an effective total operating 

head value would be needed for each zip code area with the 

aggregated power data. Obtaining such a value would be 

difficult if not impractical because of large variations in well 

construction and depth in a zip code area.

Another power consumption method relates a 

known pumping rate to power consumption to derive a 

power-consumption coefficient (PCC), which is energy 

consumed per acre-ft of water pumped in units of kilowatt 

hours per acre-ft (kWh/acre-ft). The 18 PCC values calculated 

in this study ranged from 418 to 3,563 kWh/acre-ft, with a 

median of 970 kWh/acre-ft. Based on numerous measurements 

from previous studies, the PCC generally ranges from about 

400-500 kWh/acre-ft for pressure systems (Hurr and Litke, 

1989).

Collins (1987) used flowmeter and power consumption 

data for the Columbia Plateau, Oregon, to develop two 

equations relating annual power consumption to annual 

pumpage:

Q = 0.000865 * K + 39.09 (1)

Q = 0.00193 * K + 66.88 (2)

where

Q is annual pumpage, and

K is annual power consumption.

Equation 1 was for basalt wells and equation 2 for the 

sedimentary material overlying the basalts.

For each zip code area in the lower basin with power 

consumption data, pumpage was estimated based on the 400 

and 970 kWh/acre-ft PCC values and equations 1 and 2. 

Together, the four calculated values of pumpage provided a 

range in potential pumpage. To differentiate between surfaceand ground-water power consumption for irrigation in a zip 

code area, total irrigated area in a zip code area was estimated 

from the land-use/cover data. The percentage of irrigated 

lands in a surface-water irrigation district was then calculated. 

The remaining percentage was multiplied by the power 

consumption to estimate ground-water power consumption in 

an area, which was used with the PCC values and equations 

1 and 2 to estimate a potential range in pumpage. This 

method assumes that power consumption for surface- and 

ground-water systems is the same.

Eight hundred eighty-one rights had an additional PRU 

of DS. For these rights, 0.40 acre-ft (about 154 gal/d per 

capita) was added to estimated irrigation pumpage, under 

the assumption that a well served a household, but lawn 

and garden watering and other uses are accounted for with 

the irrigation pumpage. Average per capita pumpage for 

November–February is 154 gal/d for the non-municipal PWS 

systems that provided data. If the right also had FP or FR 

listed as a PRU, the 0.4 acre-ft also was assumed to account 

for these uses.

For rights with an additional PRU of ST (232 rights), 

the irrigation part of pumpage was previously estimated. A 

few of these rights appear to be only for stock-water use, but 

the majority has a reasonable amount of allowable irrigated 

acres, suggesting that most of the pumpage is for irrigation. 

Therefore, the irrigation pumpage estimate was assumed to be 

a base-level estimate for all rights with an associated ST use. 

Excluding rights with a PRU of ST, the irrigation pumpage 

estimate averaged about 69 percent of the appropriated right 

and had a standard deviation of 21 percent, whereas the rights 

with ST averaged 61 percent. Under the assumption that all 

ST rights use water for livestock, the base-level estimate was 

increased to 69 percent of the appropriated water.

One-hundred and forty-four rights had an additional 

PRU of DM, DG or MU. Pumpage for these rights greater 

than the base-level irrigation pumpage was estimated in two 

ways because these rights generally are in two categories. The 

first category is for water supplied to workers and the second 

category is water supply for households. The second category 

also included some rights that appear to supply public 

water, but they are not part of the Group A or B systems. 

The category for a right was estimated based on ownership, 

information from the drillers’ log, and information on the 

appropriated values associated with the right.

For rights categorized as supplying drinking water for 

workers, 300 gal/d or 0.34 acre-ft was estimated as additional 

pumpage. The 300 gal/d is assumed to account for farm uses 

such as equipment cleaning. For the rights estimated to supply 

drinking water to multiple households, the average water 

duty was calculated for rights with a single PRU of IR. The 

amount of appropriated water greater than this average water 

duty (3.7 acre-ft/acre) was calculated. Based on a typical 

value of 1 acre-ft of appropriated water for a household, it was 

assumed that the remaining appropriated water greater than 

the average water duty represented the number of households. 

For example, 10 acre-ft remaining after applying the average 

Methods Used to Estimate Ground-Water Pumpage 27
water duty would represent 10 households. The estimated part 

of pumpage for drinking water supply for the right was then 

estimated as acre-ft available multiplied by the 0.4 acre-ft used 

for the DS estimates.

For rights with an additional PRU of HE and (or) CI, 

50 percent of the appropriated quantity remaining after the 

irrigation, livestock, and domestic pumpage were subtracted 

was added as additional pumpage. For a single right with a 

PRU of DY, 80 percent of the remaining appropriated quantity 

was added. This right was associated with both irrigated crops 

and dairy operations. For the five rights with a PRU of EN and 

the two rights with a secondary PRU of RE, pumpage for these 

uses was assumed to be accounted for in the IR part.

A few but unknown number of standby/reserve rights 

may be supplemental for use in any year when the allowable 

withdrawal is met for the surface-water right. In addition, 

the lack of information about the allowable duty, on which 

rights are usable in any proratable year in contrast to drought/

emergency rights, on the different levels of prorating, and on 

the actual use of standby/reserve water makes it difficult to 

estimate the actual pumpage for the standby/reserve irrigation 

rights. Thus, standby/reserve pumpage was estimated using 

the same methods used for estimating primary pumpage. 

However, the estimated pumpage would be valid only during 

extreme prorating years (all rights are available and needed), 

and the estimated value would change by some factor 

depending on the prorating level. How the estimated standby/

reserve pumpage may change in prorating years is described in 

a following section that presents the estimates for the irrigation 

category.

Distribution of pumpage from any well over the irrigation 

season primarily depends on the particular crop or crops 

grown. In addition, soil moisture, pumping lift, and irrigation 

method also affect the temporal distribution of pumpage. To 

obtain a general understanding of the temporal distribution of 

irrigation pumpage, a simplified method was developed. Using 

this method, potential water needs of a crop type for each day 

in April through October, regardless of soil moisture content, 

were calculated for a 50-year period for 13 most commonly 

irrigated crops in the basin. For each crop type, the average 

percentage of total seasonal potential use for each month was 

then calculated. The 13 values were averaged for each month 

to derive an average percentage of total curve. The resulting 

average monthly percentages were then multiplied by total 

annual pumpage for 2000; pumpage was also separated by 

primary and standby/reserve rights. No weighting was done 

based on prevalence of a particular crop type in the basin. This 

distribution would be different for each crop type because of 

different plant water needs at different growth stages and the 

total amount of water pumped varies for a particular crop in 

the basin. For example, more apples are irrigated with ground 

water than beans, and the water needs and growing season 

differences between these two crop types are more than 1 

acre-ft/acre. In addition, the curve does not represent pumpage 

in November for selected wine grapes. The distribution would 

also vary spatially for each year due to climatic factors, soil 

properties, and changing crop patterns. Thus, these curves 

represent a generalized or an effective distribution.

Frost Protection

Frost protection is instituted to protect fruit trees from 

frost damage during early emergence through budding. Frost 

protection was listed as a use for 209 water rights. Of these, 

184 also had a PRU of IR. Of the remaining 25 water rights, 

21 had FP as the only PRU and 4 had an additional PRU of 

either DS or DM. Frost protection accounts for only a small 

part of annual pumpage compared to irrigation pumpage for 

the rights with these PRUs; most of these rights have allowable 

irrigated acres typical of farms in the basin. Therefore, 

pumpage estimates for frost protection for the 184 rights were 

assumed to be accounted for in the irrigation estimates.

The 21 water rights with FP as the only PRU were 

associated with wells in an irrigation district, have a post-1976 

priority date, or have a small annual appropriated value. 

Many of these wells also have a second right with a PRU 

of IR. The actual pumpage associated with FP from these 

wells that are either used only for frost protection or have a 

second right would be small compared to the other categories 

of uses, especially due to the fact that frost protection is not 

instituted very often; the average number of frost free days 

in the lower part of the basin, where most of the orchards 

are, is on the order of 180–200 days. Therefore, pumpage for 

these 21 rights, which total 356 acre-ft, was not estimated and 

is assumed to be either negligible or included in irrigation 

estimates for wells with a second right with a PRU of IR. 

These 21 rights account for less than one-tenth of 1 percent of 

the total appropriated annual quantity in the basin.

For the four rights with an additional PRU of either DS 

or DM, one was associated with a right for the same well 

with PRUs of IR and DS; therefore, the DS part was included 

as part of the right associated with irrigation use. Pumpage 

for the two rights with a PRU of DM, are included under the 

PWS estimates. The remaining right had a PRU of DS and 

the associated DS pumpage is included in the domestic right 

pumpage.

Livestock

There are 273 rights with a PRU of ST associated with 

them, which account for about 305 POWs. There were three 

classes, accounting for 68 POWs, of livestock rights for which 

ST was a principal PRU. The first is for the rights with a single 

PRU of ST, typically associated with dairy, ranching, and 

packing operations. Two other classes have an additional PRU 

of DM, DS, or CI/EN. The above three classes were assumed 

to have primary rights, even if the right is in an irrigation 

district because they do not have a PRU of IR. For these rights, 

28 Estimates of Ground-Water Pumpage from the Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington, 1960-2000
the appropriated acre-ft right, typically 20–40 percent of the 

maximum instantaneous rate (in gal/min), was estimated as 

the pumpage. No additional pumpage was added for the other 

purposes because the full right was assumed to be used.

All remaining ST rights also have a PRU of IR with 

previously estimated irrigation pumpage. A few of these 

rights appear to be only for stock-water use, but most have a 

reasonable amount of allowable irrigated acres, suggesting 

that most of the pumpage is for irrigation. Pumpage estimates 

for these rights are not included as part of this category in 

order to retain the total estimated pumpage associated with a 

well and right. Additional pumpage for livestock use greater 

than the base-level irrigation estimate is included with a right 

associated with irrigation use. One ST right had an associated 

PRU of IR, but no allowable acreage; the pumpage estimate 

for this right was set to the appropriated value.

Also included under livestock pumpage is pumpage for 

rights associated with dairy operations. Fifteen rights had 

a PRU of DY, 10 of which also have a PRU of DS or DM. 

Dairies typically use their entire appropriated quantity (J. Kirk, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, written commun., 

2005). Estimated pumpage for these rights also was set to 

the appropriated value. In addition, at least 19 smaller dairies 

currently operate using an exempt well. For these dairies, 

pumpage was estimated as the maximum allowed, 5,000 gal/d 

or 5.6 acre-ft. An approximate location for wells associated 

with these 19 dairies was estimated based on a dairy’s address. 

Operations for most smaller dairies started in the late 1980s, 

which is consistent with the water-right priority dates for most 

dairies.

Commercial and Industrial

Pumpage estimates for this category principally are 

for 151 rights with a PRU of CI and (or) HE. Ten rights are 

without these PRUs, 6 have a principal PRU of RW, 2 have a 

PRU of FR (fire protection for 2 food processing plants), and 2 

have a PRU of EN associated with industrial operations.

Pumpage was estimated for two subcategories using 

similar methods. The main subcategory includes all rights 

containing a PRU of CI, 3 rights with PRUs of HE and DM or 

DS, and the 10 rights described above. This subcategory has 

118 rights with 143 POWs. Total maximum instantaneous rate 

for these rights is 29,429 gal/min and the annual quantity is 

24,604 acre-ft. Six rights did not have an appropriated annual 

quantity in WRTS, which is needed to estimate pumpage. 

Based on the average ratio of instantaneous values to annual 

values for rights with similar instantaneous values, these 6 

rights were estimated to account for an additional 784 acre-ft. 

The instantaneous rates for this subcategory ranged from 5 

to 2,250 gal/min and averaged 251 gal/min, and the annual 

quantity ranged from 2 to 2,024 acre-ft and averaged about 

217 acre-ft.

Rights with a single PRU of CI account for 64 of the 118 

rights in the first subcategory. In addition, 15 rights have an 

additional PRU of HE and 17 rights have an additional PRU of 

DG, DM, or DS. The remaining rights have various mixtures 

of PRUs. Two rights with smaller appropriated quantities also 

had a PRU of IR, but no allowable listed acreage; therefore, 

they are included as part of commercial and industrial 

pumpage.

The second subcategory contains rights with a single 

PRU of HE. Thirty-three rights had a single PRU of HE 

represented by 40 POWs. Rights with a PRU of HE are 

generally associated with heat pump use and (or) refrigeration 

and are considered commercial and industrial pumpage. The 

total maximum instantaneous rate for these rights is 6,682 

gal/min and the annual quantity is 6,219 acre-ft. Similar to the 

other subcategory, 7 rights had no listed annual quantity; to 

estimate an annual quantity an average ratio was calculated for 

the other 26 rights. Based on this ratio (0.94), these rights have 

an estimated annual quantity of about 720 acre-ft, and account 

for about 12 percent of the above total; note that one of the 7 

rights had the same instantaneous value and use (heating and 

cooling of about the same size building) as another right and 

thus the ratio was not used to estimate the annual quantity 

but the annual value for the other right was assumed to be 

the best estimate for its right. The instantaneous rates for this 

subcategory ranged from 7 to 700 gal/min and averaged 202 

gal/min; the annual quantity ranged from 1 to 960 acre-ft and 

averaged about 189 acre-ft.

Withdrawal information for this pumpage category was 

limited, with information available for only 13 rights. This 

lack of information was due to several factors, including 

one or some combination of: (1) owner did not know how 

much was withdrawn and no metering; (2) wells were no 

longer used for a component of the operations, such as heat 

exchange, resulting in unavailability of historical withdrawal 

information; (3) building was under new ownership or 

demolished and the right is no longer used; (4) owners were 

unaware of a well on the property and if there was a well, did 

not know when it was last used; and (5) owner-property-well 

could not be found (the well may no longer be in existence, 

but the end of use date is unknown).

Values provided ranged from about 0.2 to 137 percent 

of the right. Excluding the high value, the other values can 

be grouped into two categories: (1) a lower percentage 

category averaging about 4 percent and (2) an upper category 

averaging about 25 percent. The smallest ratio (0.2) is 

anomalous because its withdrawal is primarily representative 

of the second PRU of DG. This well serves a complex of 

non-industrial buildings and the PRU of CI could be related 

to older uses. In addition, a deep well on the property has 

a right to irrigate 500 acres and may provide water to any 

CI operations. The largest value (137) is for heat exchange 

Methods Used to Estimate Ground-Water Pumpage 29
of a large multi-story building and is atypical because the 

requirements of the building were not accounted for when 

obtaining the right; the withdrawals for this right are returned 

back to the ground-water system through an injection well. 

Values averaging 4 percent are related to either smaller 

operations or the right is primarily used for heating and 

cooling buildings. The lower values primarily are related to 

HE uses and the 25 percent value applies to rights that include 

large-scale operations, including manufacturing and fruit and 

vegetable storage and processing. In addition, a value of 14 

percent was obtained for an HE use that includes refrigeration 

for cold storage, and would be appropriately applied to such 

HE rights.

To estimate pumpage for the rights with no available 

information, a ratio (percentage of appropriated quantity) 

was assigned to each right and was then multiplied by the 

appropriated annual quantity. It was assumed that no water 

was withdrawn for fire protection for the 2 rights with a 

single PRU of FR. The types of operations and use of water 

for the 13 values described above, allowed for a reasonable 

assessment of which ratio to apply to which right.

For rights with a second PRU of DS, 0.40 acre-ft 

additional pumpage was added; the same value used for 

the irrigation category. For rights categorized as supplying 

drinking water for workers (PRU of DM or DG), 300 gal/d or 

0.34 acre-ft was estimated as additional pumpage for the right.

Pumpage estimates for this category are for all 151 rights. 

A few of these rights are no longer used and withdrawals 

for additional rights may have also stopped. For these cases, 

the end date of use is not known. The authors chose to 

conservatively estimate that all wells were withdrawing water 

as of 2000 because during the entire estimated pumpage 

period (1960-2000) it was only towards the end that a few 

wells were no longer used.

Fish and Wildlife Propagation

Pumpage associated with fish and wildlife propagation 

principally is related to fish propagation, and in particular, for 

hatchery operations that account for most of the appropriated 

quantity and pumpage. Ten rights had PRUs of WL and FS, 

and data were available for 7 of the rights. Appropriated 

quantities for two remaining rights were smaller compared 

to the other rights; the larger rights have annual appropriated 

quantities on the order of 600 to 8,000 acre-ft. Based on the 

provided information, 90 percent of the appropriated quantity 

was used as the estimate for one of the rights without data 

that had a reasonable quantity associated with it. The other 

right is associated with a PRU of WL and serves a household, 

barn, and some fields that were obtained for wildlife. For this 

right, 3 acre-ft was presumed to be used based on property 

usage described by Washington State Fish and Wildlife (oral 

commun., 2005). One hatchery right was for supplemental use 

to surface-water sources, and according to Washington State 

Fish and Wildlife personnel, the well is no longer being used. 

No estimate was made for this right because it was unknown 

when it was used for supplemental supply and it has not been 

used for a reasonable period of time.

Pumpage values provided ranged from detailed values, 

from the start of use, to a daily and (or) annual value. For 

cases where only a daily value or annual value was provided, 

the value was assumed to be used for every year from the start 

of use.

In addition, information was available about the quantity 

pumped from two wells also used for hatchery operations. 

Although these wells do not have a right, they are accounted 

for under these categories because the wells are used for fish 

propagation and account for a reasonable amount of total 

pumpage for this category.

Ground-Water Claims

A water-right claim is a document declaring a claim for 

water use and may be valid if it describes a ground-water 

use before July 1945. Most claims were filed during an open 

filing period authorized by the 1967 Water Right Claims 

Registration Act or the 1998 reopening of the Act. Currently, 

a claim can be validated only through judicial processes 

involving filing applications, obtaining permits, and field 

inspections of the well in question. A favorable ruling results 

in the granting of a water right.

In 2005, about 16,605 ground-water claims were in 

effect in the Yakima River Basin (R. Dixon, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, written commun., 2004). Some of 

these claims were filed by well-owners who already have a 

right to use ground water. Other claims are for wells that do 

not require them. These wells may be covered under exempt 

status because they use 5,000 gal/d or less for stock watering, 

single or group domestic use, industrial use, or for lawns and 

commercial gardens of less than one-half acre. The basis of 

the analysis of claims was to estimate pumpage for claims that 

may not have been estimated in another pumpage category, 

and not to determine the validity of a claim.

WaDOE reduced the number of claims for which 

pumpage was estimated for this study through an office review 

of claims on file (J. Kirk, Washington State Department of 

Ecology, written commun., 2005). WaDOE first eliminated 

“short forms,” using the reasonable assumption that the short 

form was most likely filed for wells that qualified as exempt 

wells and would be accounted for in the other pumpage 

estimates. This step reduced the number of claims to about 

7,800.

Next, claims with a PRU of DG were eliminated. The 

same assumption was made for this step as used in the first. 

About 4,100 claims had a PRU of DG, yielding about 3,700 

remaining claims.

30 Estimates of Ground-Water Pumpage from the Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington, 1960-2000
WaDOE then eliminated claims with two PRUs of DG 

and ST and (or) a single PRU of ST. The same assumption 

was used, as well as assuming that larger claims are accounted 

for in other pumpage (principally water-right) categories. 

Following this step, about 2,800 claims remained.

Last, WaDOE used the listed water source on the claim 

as a criterion for elimination. Some claims list tile drains, 

springs, creeks, sumps, lakes, and other surface-waters as 

sources. These were mistakenly filed as ground-water claims 

or were not considered surface-water sources during the ongoing adjudication process. Eliminating these claims reduced 

the number to 2,540 for analysis by USGS.

Project staff then analyzed each remaining claim based on 

location (TRS), PRU, annual claimed quantity, and the name 

associated with the claim. For each claim, the WRTS database 

was searched to determine if there was a matching right (PRU, 

quantity, and name) for the claim. If a matching right was 

found, the claim was eliminated under the assumption that the 

owner made an unnecessary claim for a valid right. If a match 

could not be found in WRTS, the digital well information files 

developed during this study and WaDOE’s on-line database 

were searched by name and TRS for a well that could be 

associated with the claim. When a match was found and the 

well was relatively new or in some cases only post-1945, the 

claim was eliminated under the assumption that the claim 

was made on a ground-water use that was post-1945. These 

processes reduced the number of claims to 2,018.

Next, 532 claims were eliminated because although 

they may have a listed PRU, there was no listing for the 

claimed quantity or acres irrigated. Without examining each 

original claim form, estimating pumpage for such a claim 

was impossible. Next, there were 451 claims that included 

a PRU of IR with listed allowable acres of 1 acre or less. 

Three-hundred and fifty of these claims had 2 PRUs of DG 

and IR or 3 PRUs of DG, IR, and ST. The remaining 101 had 

a single PRU of IR. Based on the assumption that these claims 

may meet exempt status and would be accounted for in other 

pumpage categories, they also were eliminated. If these 451 

claims did not meet exempt status, there might be on the order 

of 900 to 1,200 acre-ft of additional pumpage not accounted 

for by treating these claims as covered under the domestic 

exempt well category. Last, 2 claims were for a municipality 

whose pumpage is already accounted for under the PWS 

estimates, and these claims were eliminated. These processes 

reduced the number of claims to 1,033.

The next step was to plot the well locations, which was 

supplied by WaDOE (J. Kirk, Washington State Department 

of Ecology, written commun., 2005), for the remaining 

claims because prior to 1945, construction of water wells was 

primarily concentrated in certain areas. Plotting the location 

of the claims based on their PRU and acres irrigated thus 

allowed the project staff to estimate if additional claims could 

be eliminated. The resulting plot showed that the distribution 

of the remaining 1,033 claims was throughout the basin, 

indicating that it would be problematic to eliminate claims 

solely based on where they were located. A decision was made 

to examine claims with larger claimed irrigated acreage and a 

PRU of IR. For this final step, irrigated acres from the DOA’s 

geodatabase in the TRS of the claim were compared to the 

claimed irrigated acreage to determine if the number of acres 

in the same section could account for the claimed acreage. If 

the claimed acreage was greater than the geodatabase acreage 

by some reasonable amount, then the claim was eliminated. 

For example, if the claimed acreage in a TRS was 160 acres 

and the geodatabase had identified only 1 field of 10 acres 

in the TRS, then the claim was eliminated. In contrast, if the 

geodatabase identified 2 fields, 1 of 70 acres and 1 of 60 acres, 

project staff assumed that together the acres approximated 

the claim and the claim was not eliminated. This last step 

assumes that the TRS for the claim is correct and that the 

geodatabase of irrigated fields is accurate. Based on this final 

step, the number of claims analyzed for pumpage was reduced 

to 924. Nine-hundred and sixteen of the remaining claims 

are principally for irrigation and stock use and the remaining 

8 claims are principally for commercial and industrial uses. 

About 200 claims account for 75 percent of the total claimed 

irrigated acreage and only 80 claims account for about 50 

percent of the total claimed acreage. No information exists 

on which well is associated with a particular claim because 

many wells usually are in the TRS of a claim. Therefore, 

the pumpage location is based on the center of the section 

identified in WRTS.

Pumpage was estimated for claims with irrigated acreage 

using the same methods used for estimating pumpage for the 

irrigation category. However, only 12 claims with irrigated 

acres listed the annual quantity. Water duty assigned to each 

claim was based on a crop type; therefore, unlike the irrigation 

category, the crop-water duty could be compared only to 

the claimed water-duty for the 12 claims to determine the 

smaller of the 2 water-duty values. Pumpage for 8 claims for 

commercial and industrial uses was estimated using the same 

method as used for the commercial and industrial category. 

Pumpage for the commercial and industrial part of these 8 

claims was estimated as 25 percent of the annual quantity. For 

the 543 claims that also had a PRU of DG, it was assumed that 

this PRU was for supplying drinking water to workers, and 

about 300 gal/d or 0.34 acre-ft was estimated as additional 

pumpage. Not enough information was available to estimate 

the livestock use part of pumpage for the 249 irrigation claims 

that also had a PRU of ST because there was no claimed 

annual quantity.

Methods Used to Estimate Ground-Water Pumpage 31
Ground-Water Pumpage

Ground-water pumpage was estimated for all water use 

categories. Depending on the pumpage category, the estimates 

are presented in either figures and (or) tables. PWS pumpage 

is not presented as a spatial distribution due to source-water 

security concerns. Unless stated otherwise, reported values 

are annual quantities. Pumpage estimates are presented as 

total annual quantities, such as irrigation pumpage in 2000, 

and the quantity of new pumpage in 1- or 5-year increments 

from 1960 to 2000. Annual pumpage also is presented as 

time series, at either 1- or 5-year time scales. Some category 

information is presented for earlier dates to more clearly 

highlight the growth in pumpage. When possible, pumpage 

estimates for the latest date, for example, 2004, are presented 

to provide a more current understanding of the total pumpage 

for selected categories. The presented estimates are those 

directly calculated using the methods described above, and 

thus, the estimates show significant figures to the ‘1’ place. It 

should be understood that this does not imply the accuracy of 

the estimates but only the result of the calculations. Rounding 

of values to higher places makes it more difficult to reproduce 

both the estimates and values derived from using the described 

methods. Summation of values in some tables will not 

always equal the total values due to rounding to the ‘1’ place. 

Pumpage for the frost protection category was assumed to be 

zero and is not described.

Public Water Supply

Pumpage from municipal (Group A) systems steadily 

increased from 1960 to 2000 (fig. 12; table 2), ranging from 

about 19,127 acre-ft (17.1 Mgal/d or 6.22 Bgal) in 1960 to 

about 37,273 acre-ft (33.3 Mgal/d or 12.2 Bgal) in 2000. 

Other Group A and B water systems also exhibited steadily 

increasing pumpage at proportionately similar rates. Estimated 

pumpage from Group A and Group B systems ranged from 

about 3,888 acre-ft (3.47 Mgal/d or 1.27 Bgal) and 858 acre-ft 

(0.77 Mgal/d or 0.28 Bgal), respectively, in 1960 to about 

7,465 acre-ft (6.67 Mgal/d or 2.43 Bgal) and 1,650 acre-ft 

(1.47 Mgal/d or 0.54 Bgal), respectively, in 2000. Groundwater pumpage increases for the PWS systems mirrored 

population increases and the rates of increases are similar 

to the rates of increases for municipal systems that provided 

several years of data.

Figure 12. Estimated annual pumpage for public water 

supply, Yakima River Basin, Washington, 1960–2000.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

YEAR

 ESTIMATED ANNUAL PUMPAGE, IN ACRE-FEET

Municipal

Group A

Group B

Table 2. Estimated annual pumpage for public water supply, Yakima River Basin, Washington, 1960–2000.

[All values are in acre-feet]

Public water supply

Pumpage

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Municipal systems

Group A water systems 19,127 19,755 22,457 23,836 28,072 29,047 31,661 33,454 37,273

Other systems

Group A water systems 3,888 4,219 4,577 4,966 5,388 5,846 6,432 6,881 7,465

Group B water systems 858 931 1,010 1,095 1,188 1,289 1,399 1,518 1,647

Total 23,873 24,905 28,044 29,897 34,648 36,182 39,492 41,853 46,385

32 Estimates of Ground-Water Pumpage from the Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington, 1960-2000
Figure 13. Estimated monthly distribution of annual 

pumpage for public water supply, Yakima River Basin, 

Washington, 2000.

wa19-0021_fig13

JAN FEB MAR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC APR

 ESTIMATED PUMPAGE, IN ACRE-FEET

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

 Public Water Supply

PWS pumpage distribution closely follows the population 

distribution shown in figure 11. In Kittitas County, most 

PWS systems are near Interstate 90 and in resort areas in the 

Cascade Range foothills. In Yakima and Benton Counties, 

most Group A and B wells are near Interstate 82 and to a 

lesser extent, along the Naches, Tieton, and Bumping Rivers.

The monthly distribution of total annual pumpage in 2000 

(fig. 13) shows that the maximum pumpage was in July (about 

6,430 acre-ft), closely followed by August at about 6,350 

acre-ft. Together, these months account for nearly 30 percent 

of the annual pumpage. Minimum pumpage for PWS was in 

February (about 2,200 acre-ft) and the pumpage in December 

was about the same. Pumpage in July was nearly 3 times more 

than in February, primarily due to lawn and garden watering 

during the summer growing season. The shape of the curve is 

similar, including the slight upturn in January, to previously 

reported values for the study area (Kinnison and Sceva, 1963; 

Parker, 1971).

Domestic

The self-supplied pumpage in Benton, Kittitas, and 

Yakima Counties, for domestic use increased by about 8,000 

acre-ft from 1960 to 2000 (fig. 14, table 3). In 1960, pumpage 

totaled about 12,400 acre-ft (11.2 Mgal/d or 4.03 Bgal) and 

by 2000, had nearly doubled to about 20,000 acre-ft (17.9 

Mgal/d or 6.52 Bgal), equivalent to a basin-wide average per 

capita rate of about 180 gal/d. However, pumpage decreased in 

Benton and Kittitas Counties during several 5-year intervals. 

The decreases for Kittitas and Benton Counties were due to 

decreases in population and the establishment of numerous 

PWS systems. Although some PWS systems may have been 

operating prior to a decreasing interval, the start year estimate 

is based on the “effective source date” obtained from the 

database provided by DOH.

Table 3. Estimated annual pumpage for domestic use, Yakima River Basin, Washington, 1960–2000.

[All values are in acre-feet]

County Pumpage

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Benton 1,392 1,367 1,769 1,818 2,920 2,374 2,313 2,619 2,751

Kittitas 1,248 1,375 1,249 1,066 1,494 1,518 1,706 2,085 2,328

Yakima 9,739 10,824 11,264 12,385 13,770 14,185 14,362 14,853 14,957

Totals 12,379 13,566 14,282 15,270 18,184 18,077 18,382 19,557 20,036

Figure 14. Estimated annual pumpage for domestic use, 

Yakima River Basin, Washington, 1960-2000.

0

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

YEAR

 ESTIMATED ANNUAL PUMPAGE, IN ACRE-FEET 5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Domestic

Ground-Water Pumpage 33
Yakima County, the most populous county, had the most 

domestic pumpage in the study area, ranging from about 

9,739 acre-ft (8.7 Mgal/d or 3.17 Bgal) in 1960 to about 

14,957 acre-ft (13.4 Mgal/d or 4.89 Bgal) in 2000 (table 3). 

In 2000, pumpage in Yakima County accounted for some 

75 percent of the total domestic pumpage. Pumpage in the 

least populated county, Kittitas County, ranged from about 

1,250 acre-ft (1.12 Mgal/d or 0.41 Bgal) in 1960 to about 

2,330 acre-ft (2.08 Mgal/d or 0.76 Bgal) in 2000 (table 2). 

Pumpage in Benton County ranged from about 1,390 acre-ft 

(1.24 Mgal/d or 0.45 Bgal) in 1960 to about 2,750 acre-ft 

(2.46 Mgal/d or 0.9 Bgal) in 2000. Nearly all of the domestic 

pumpage is accounted for by the exempt wells. It is estimated 

that, of the total estimated pumpage in 2000 of 20,036 acre-ft, 

only about 31 acre-ft was for the 63 rights with a single 

PRU of DS. Self-supplied domestic pumpage for rights with 

additional PRUs was about 322 acre-ft, and this pumpage is 

included in either the irrigation, commercial and industrial, or 

livestock categories.

The spatial distribution of domestic pumpage for 2000 

(fig. 15) is based on census block population and calculations 

described in Methods. Areas with the most pumpage are 

areas with the greatest number of people. There were 3,719 

census blocks with 99,078 people who obtained water from 

exempt wells and from the 63 domestic wells with water 

rights. The census block population ranged from 1 to 540 per 

block. Based on the self-supplied population per block and the 

average number of people per household for each block, an 

estimate was derived of the number of houses per block served 

by exempt wells. The total number of houses indicates that 

about 43,100 wells supply water for domestic pumpage.

Irrigation

Irrigation rights typically are for withdrawals from 

April 1 to October 30. Pumpage for other PRUs associated 

with an irrigation right are assumed to be constant throughout 

the year. Excluding PWS rights for irrigation and irrigation 

pumpage for ground-water claims, the total estimated 

pumpage in 2000 for primary and standby/reserve rights 

was about 271,042 acre-ft (242 Mgal/d or 88.3 Bgal), of 

Table 4. Estimated annual pumpage for irrigation water rights, 

Yakima River Basin, Washington, 2000.

[Values in parentheses include 1,567 acre-feet of pumpage added from 2001 

through 2003. Standby/reserve: Estimates based on pumpage occurred in all 

years and is not the actual pumpage; pumpage occurred only in 1977, 1979, 

1987, 1988, 1992, 1993, and 1994. All values are in acre-feet]

Water rights 

category

Total estimated pumpageIrrigation pumpage

Other uses

All rights 271,042 263,204 7,838

(272,608) (264,770) (7,838)

Primary 188,320 181,336 6,894

(189,602) (182,708) (6,894)

Standby/reserve 82,812 81,868 944

(83,006) (82,062) (944)

which about 188,230 acre-ft (168 Mgal/d or 61 Bgal) was 

estimated to be associated with primary rights (table 4). Other 

uses associated with irrigation rights account for only about 

3 percent of the total or about 7,838 acre-ft (7.5 Mgal/d or 

2.7 Bgal). However, as will be shown later, the total pumpage 

for these other uses is larger than both the self-supplied 

commercial and industrial uses and livestock uses.

The spatial distribution of irrigation pumpage (fig. 16) 

shows that pumpage tends to be concentrated in the mid-tolower parts of the basin, especially in the Wenas Creek Valley, 

lower Naches River area, Moxee City area, and Ahtanum 

Creek Valley (fig. 1). Other pumpage was concentrated along 

the south slope of Rattlesnake Hills, the lower part of Benton 

County, and in valleys extending eastward from Moxee City.

About 75 percent (204,500 acre-ft) of the total estimated 

annual pumpage was in Yakima County and about 70 percent 

of the total was for primary rights. Pumpage in Benton County 

was about 60,200 acre-ft (about 23 percent of the total) and 

about 67 percent was for primary rights. In comparison, 

Kittitas County had the smallest allowable acreage (2,806 

acres) and the smallest amount of estimated pumpage, about 

6,310 acre-ft, 94 percent of which was for primary rights.

34 Estimates of Ground-Water Pumpage from the Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington, 1960-2000
wa19-0021_fig15

KITTITAS COUNTY

YAKIMA COUNTY

BENTON COUNTY

KLICKITAT COUNTY

YAKIMA COUNTY

Bumping

Lake

S Fk

N Fk

Cle Elum River

Bumping River

Ahtanum Creek

Tieton River Wenas Creek

North Fork

Dry Creek

Creek

Toppenish

RIVER

YAKIMA

Satus

Creek

Cle

Elum

Lake

Rimrock

Lake

Kachess Lake

Keechelus Lake

Lake

Wallula

Teanaway River

Umtanum Creek

Little Naches River

Cowiche Creek

Cowiche Creek

River

Naches

RIVER

YAKIMA

RIVER

YAKIMA

Ellensburg

Toppenish

YAKIMA

Sunnyside

Richland

Kennewick

C

A

S C A

D E R

A

N

G

E

121°

47°

47°

30'

46°

121°30' 120°30' 120° 119°30'

46°

30'

0 5 10 20 MILES

0 5 10 20 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Pumpage, in acre-feet per census

 block (census block outlines 

 not shown)

0 to 1.000

1.001 to 5.000

5.001 to 10.000

10.001 to 20.000

20.001 to 50.000

50.001 to 100.000

Figure 15. Distribution of estimated annual pumpage for domestic use, Yakima River Basin, Washington, 2000.

Ground-Water Pumpage 35
wa19-0021_fig16A

KITTITAS COUNTY

YAKIMA COUNTY

BENTON COUNTY

KLICKITAT COUNTY

YAKIMA COUNTY

Bumping

Lake

S Fk

N Fk

Cle Elum River

Bumping River

Ahtanum Creek

Tieton River Wenas Creek

North Fork

Dry Creek

Creek

Toppenish

RIVER

YAKIMA

Satus

Creek

Cle

Elum

Lake

Rimrock

Lake

Kachess Lake

Keechelus Lake

Lake

Wallula

Teanaway River

Umtanum Creek

Little Naches River

Cowiche Creek

Cowiche Creek

River

Naches

RIVER

YAKIMA

RIVER

YAKIMA

C

A

S C A

D E R

A

N

G

E

EXPLANATION

Estimated annual pumpage, in acre-feet

Primary water rights

0.25 - 50.00

50.01 - 100.00

100.01 - 500.00

500.01 - 3,000.00

3,000.01 - 5,689.12

121°

47°

47°

30'

46°

121°30' 120°30' 120° 119°30'

46°

30'

0 5 10 20 MILES

0 5 10 20 KILOMETERS

Ellensburg

Toppenish

YAKIMA

Sunnyside

Richland

Kennewick

A

Figure 16. Distribution of estimated annual pumpage for irrigation, Yakima River Basin, Washington, 2000.

36 Estimates of Ground-Water Pumpage from the Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington, 1960-2000
wa19-0021_fig16B

KITTITAS COUNTY

YAKIMA COUNTY

BENTON COUNTY

KLICKITAT COUNTY

YAKIMA COUNTY

Bumping

Lake

S Fk

N Fk

Cle Elum River

Bumping River

Ahtanum Creek

Tieton River Wenas Creek

North Fork

Dry Creek

Creek

Toppenish

RIVER

YAKIMA

Satus

Creek

Cle

Elum

Lake

Rimrock

Lake

Kachess Lake

Keechelus Lake

Lake

Wallula

Teanaway River

Umtanum Creek

Little Naches River

Cowiche Creek

Cowiche Creek

River

Naches

RIVER

YAKIMA

RIVER

YAKIMA

C

A

S C A

D E R

A

N

G

E

EXPLANATION

Estimated annual pumpage, in acre-feet

Standby/reserve water rights

0.25 - 50.00

50.01 - 100.00

100.01 - 500.00

500.01 - 3,000.00

121°

47°

47°

30'

46°

121°30' 120°30' 120° 119°30'

46°

30'

0 5 10 20 MILES

0 5 10 20 KILOMETERS

Ellensburg

Toppenish

YAKIMA

Sunnyside

Richland

Kennewick

B

Figure 16.—Continued.

Ground-Water Pumpage 37
Annual pumpage increased inconsistently over time (fig. 

17; table 5). Annual pumpage was about 42,000 acre-ft in 

1959 and increased to about 271,042 acre-ft by 2000 (tables 

4, 5). New pumpage added from 2000 to 2003 was estimated 

to be only 1,567 acre-ft. Since 2003 (excluding new pumpage 

during the 2005 drought), an additional small amount of 

pumpage was also added because ground water has been 

exchanged for surface water (a change in source for a water 

right) as part of projects for increasing instream flows in small 

streams. Except for 1975-79, total new pumpage (primary 

and standby/reserve) generally increased by about 10,000 

to 29,000 acre-ft per 5 year increment from 1960 through 

1994 (table 5). Between 1975 and 1979, the total estimated 

irrigation pumpage added was nearly 100,000 acre-ft due to 

the granting of new water-rights with large allowable annual 

quantities. However, about one-half of this new pumpage was 

due to standby/reserve pumpage associated with rights that 

started during the 1977 drought. After 1979, the amount of 

new primary pumpage added continually decreased through 

2000. From 1995 through 2000, irrigation pumpage increased 

only by about 3,600 acre-ft (table 5), which is about the total 

increase from the l890s through 1919 and the increase in the 

1930s (data not shown).

Table 5. Estimated irrigation pumpage, by primary and standby/

reserve water rights, in 5-year increments, Yakima River Basin, 

Washington, 1960–2000.

[Years: 1890 is the first year for irrigation pumpage associated with water 

rights. Estimates for total pumpage added prior to 1960 and after 2000 also are 

shown. Standby/reserve: Estimates based on pumpage occurred in all years 

and is not the actual pumpage; pumpage occurred only in 1977, 1979, 1987, 

1988, 1992, 1993, and 1994. All values in acre-feet]

Years

Pumpage

Estimated pumpage added New primary New standby/

reserve

1890–1959 42,000 41,896 104

1960–64 9,299 9,299 0

1965–69 20,271 20,249 22

1970–74 25,010 23,743 1,267

1975–79 99,474 49,399 50,075

1980–84 28,845 17,507 11,338

1985–89 20,687 14,927 5,760

1990–94 21,821 10,398 11,423

1995–2000 3,635 812 2,823

2001–03 1,567 1,373 194

 ESTIMATED ANNUAL PUMPAGE, IN ACRE-FEET

Total irrigation

Primary irrigation

Standby/reserve irrigation

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004

Figure 17. Estimated annual irrigation pumpage, Yakima River Basin, Washington, 1960-2000.

38 Estimates of Ground-Water Pumpage from the Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington, 1960-2000
The generalized monthly distribution of irrigation 

pumpage for 2000 (fig. 18) shows a maximum in July and a 

minimum in October (November pumpage for a few vineyards 

is not included in the generalized distribution). More than 

70 percent of the pumpage occurs June through August. If 

all standby/reserve rights were used in a dry year, then some 

80,000 acre-ft may be withdrawn in July, and if no water was 

withdrawn for standby/reserve use, then the July total would 

be about 56,000 acre-ft.

Standby/Reserve Irrigation Pumpage

Standby/reserve pumpage estimates are based on the 

crop-water duty and the appropriated right, that is, standby/

reserve rights were treated the same as primary rights. The 

standby/reserve estimates are representative of the amount of 

water that can be withdrawn under the right with the identified 

crops, as if every year was an extreme drought year. These 

estimates are not actual withdrawal rates, but represent the 

amount of water that may be withdrawn. Total pumpage in 

any year is dependent on the prorated amount, if any, during 

an irrigation season. For years with no prorating, the total 

irrigation pumpage for standby/reserve rights would be zero 

and the irrigation pumpage estimate would be the primary 

pumpage. For years with prorating, standby/reserve pumpage 

would occur at some percentage of the estimated value; the 

percentage would depend on the prorated amount. Therefore, 

the actual pumpage for standby/reserve irrigation rights for 

prorating years is difficult to estimate. The type of standby/

reserve right for each right would need to be identified, 

as well as the actual allowable quantity, not necessarily 

the listed value in WRTS. To obtain a potential pumpage 

Figure 18. Generalized monthly distribution of irrigation 

pumpage during the irrigation season, Yakima River 

Basin, Washington, 2000.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT

PUMPAGE, IN ACRE-FEET

Total

Primary rights

Standby/reserve rights

estimate associated with standby/reserve rights in a prorating 

year, multiplication factors based on prorating levels were 

estimated. This information also is needed for other work 

elements.

For the 2001 drought, 64 emergency rights (a type of a 

standby/reserve right for emergency use) reported an actual 

use of 2,499 acre-ft with an authorized amount of 9,073 acre-ft 

(R. Dixon, Washington State Department of Ecology, written 

commun., 2003). The use was listed as zero for 32 wells 

because meters were missing or broken, wells were never 

completed or were being drilled, no data were provided, or 

no pump was installed. Using only actual usage information 

for the other 32 rights, yields an appropriated quantity of 

4,702 acre-ft; on average, about 53 percent of the appropriated 

value was used. Based on water-right files, the allowable acres 

for 9 of these rights were determined. The water duty averaged 

about 1 acre-ft/acre and ranged from 0.2 to 2.8 acre-ft/acre. 

Assuming that the 53 percent value (compared to this study’s 

estimate that 79 percent of appropriated water is withdrawn) 

is a reasonable approximation for standby/reserve pumpage 

during drier years (1994, 2001, and 2005) with the most 

prorating, the pumpage estimates for the standby/reserve rights 

may be as much as 26 percent too large in drier years.

Pumpage in prorating years is similar to multiplying 

the estimated standby/reserve pumpage by the prorating 

appropriated percentage, that is, a 37 percent proratable 

entitlement yields 63 percent (a multiplication factor) of the 

estimated pumpage as an annual value. For example, the 37 

percent prorating in 1994 suggests that the standby/reserve 

estimate of about 80,000 acre-ft would be reduced to about 

50,400 acre-ft as the estimate of the standby/reserve pumpage 

for 1994. For years with the least prorating, the prorating 

ranged from 80 to 88 percent of appropriated surface-water 

value, and there was minimal standby/reserve pumpage. 

Therefore, a reasonable assumption is that at some base 

prorating level, say, 88 percent (the prorating in 1988), some 

small level of standby/reserve pumpage would be initiated, 

probably on the order of 5 percent, and would be zero for 

prorating percentages greater than 88. Between about 70 to 

75 percent prorating (30 to 25 percent multiplication factors), 

multiplication factors would likely decrease linearly to about 

5 percent at the 88 percent prorating level and would be zero 

after 88 percent.

The standby/reserve rights with a water duty on the order 

of 0.1 to nearly 1 acre-ft/acre would likely be completely 

used in most years with prorating levels of about 80 to 88 

percent. The latter is especially true for perennial crops, 

such as orchards. For example, of the 32 rights with data, 9 

had older existing standby/reserve rights, suggesting the full 

quantity of the older right was to be used and the application 

was for additional emergency water. Most of these 9 rights 

Ground-Water Pumpage 39
were for orchards, and the irrigation of such perennial crops is 

important. This suggests that standby/reserve pumpage values 

estimated using multiplication factors as described above may 

be conservatively low.

Livestock

Pumpage for livestock uses, as defined in this report, is 

primarily for stock watering and dairy operations. Livestock 

pumpage associated with an irrigation right for irrigating 

pasture and (or) crop lands is included as part of the irrigationpumpage estimates. Estimates presented principally are for 

wells with rights for livestock use (about 63 rights) and are 

based on the full appropriated quantity. In addition, 19 small 

dairies that pump water under an exempt status are accounted 

for.

The estimated pumpage for livestock in 2003 was 7,010 

acre-ft (6.3 Mgal/d or 2.3 Bgal), table 6. About 1,840 acre-ft 

(0.6 Bgal) is for dairy operations based on the PRU of DY. 

However, several livestock rights without a PRU of DY also 

are for dairy use and total about 280 acre-ft; the PRU of DY 

was not established at the time of the right. The increasing 

pumpage is shown in figure 19. Early in 1960, about 222 

acre-ft was pumped, and by 1969 this pumpage increased 

to only about 469 acre-ft (table 6). The largest increase in 

new livestock pumpage (about 3,189 acre-ft) was during 

1970-74 (table 6) and is associated with new water-rights 

with large allowable annual quantities. By 1984, the 

pumpage had increased to 4,738 acre-ft, and there was a large 

Figure 19. Estimated annual pumpage for livestock use, Yakima River Basin, Washington, 1960-2000.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000

ESTIMATED ANNUAL PUMPAGE, IN ACRE FEET

YEAR

Livestock

Table 6. Estimated annual pumpage for livestock use in 5-year 

increments, Yakima River Basin, Washington, 1960–2000.

[Years: 1914 is the first year for livestock pumpage associated with water 

rights. Pumpage: Pumpage does not include livestock use associated with 

irrigation rights. Pumpage listed is for new quantities added in each 5-year 

increment and cumulative totals. Estimates for total pumpage added during the 

years prior to 1960 and after 2000 are also shown. All values in acre-feet]

Years

Pumpage

Estimated pumpage 

added Cumulative

1914–59 222 222

1960-64 208 430

1965–69 39 469

1970–74 3,189 3,658

1975–79 84 3,742

1980–84 996 4,738

1985–89 461 5,199

1990–94 1,527 6,726

1995–2000 0 6,726

2001–03 284 7,010

increase during 1990-94; total pumpage by 1994 was about 

6,726 acre-ft. No increase occurred through 2000, with some 

increase in 2002 for dairy operations. Thus, the estimated 

pumpage increased from 222 acre-ft at the beginning of 1960 

to 6,726 acre-ft in 2000, with an additional 284 acre-ft of 

pumpage added in 2002.

40 Estimates of Ground-Water Pumpage from the Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington, 1960-2000
Figure 20. Distribution of estimated annual pumpage for livestock and commercial and industrial uses, Yakima River Basin, 

Washington, 2000.

The spatial distribution of livestock pumpage (fig. 20) 

shows that most pumpage is concentrated on the south slope 

of the Rattlesnake Hills and along the stretch from Granger 

through Mabton and Prosser. Additional pumpage is in the 

Ahtanum Creek valley and the Moxee City area, and about 

210 acre-ft of pumpage is in the Kittitas basin. Overall, total 

KITTITAS COUNTY

YAKIMA COUNTY

BENTON COUNTY

KLICKITAT COUNTY

YAKIMA COUNTY

Bumping

Lake

S Fk

N Fk

Cle Elum River

Bumping River

Ahtanum Creek

Tieton River Wenas Creek

North Fork

Dry Creek

Creek

Toppenish

RIVER

YAKIMA

Logy

Creek

Satus

Creek

Cle

Elum

Lake

Rimrock

Lake

Kachess Lake

Keechelus Lake

Lake

Wallula

Teanaway River

Umtanum Creek

Little Naches River

Cowiche Creek

Cowiche Creek

River

Naches

RIVER

YAKIMA

RIVER

YAKIMA

C

A

S C A

D E R

A

N

G

E

EXPLANATION

Estimated annual pumpage, in acre-feet

121°

47°

47°

30'

46°

121°30' 120°30' 120° 119°30'

46°

30'

0 5 10 20 MILES

0 5 10 20 KILOMETERS

Industrial and Livestock

commercial

0.0 to 10.0

10.1 to 20.0

20.1 to 50.0

50.1 to 100.0

100.1 to 789.0

0.5 to 10.0

10.1 to 20.0

20.1 to 50.0

50.1 to 100.0

100.1 to 770.0

Ellensburg

Toppenish

YAKIMA

Sunnyside

Richland

Kennewick

pumpage for livestock (without irrigation rights) and dairy 

operations accounts for less than 3 percent of total pumpage 

in the basin. However, livestock rights with another PRU of 

IR have about 5,166 acre-ft of pumpage accounted for in the 

irrigation pumpage category.

Ground-Water Pumpage 41
Commercial and Industrial

The commercial and industrial category includes 

pumpage for heat exchange, refrigeration, food and timber 

processing, railway, manufacturing, and other industrial 

uses. Pumpage was estimated for 151 ground-water rights 

with PRUs that are primarily associated with the above uses. 

Total estimated pumpage in 2000 was about 7,230 acre-ft 

(6.5 Mgal/d or 2.3 Bgal) (table 7). However, actual pumpage 

probably decreased by some small amount. From the dates of 

rights and drilling of wells, estimated pumpage was about 14 

percent (1,042 acre-ft) of the 2000 total prior to 1930, and by 

1959, 3,093 acre-ft (about 43 percent of the 2000 total) was 

already being withdrawn for commercial and industrial uses. 

Since 1960, estimated pumpage increased by 4,137 acre-ft, 

with no new pumpage added after 1992. The largest pumpage 

increase was during 1965-69 and 1980-89, and the largest 

single year increase was in 1981 at 1,080 acre-ft (fig. 21).

The spatial distribution of commercial and industrial 

pumpage (fig. 20) shows that most pumpage is concentrated 

in the Ahtanum Creek valley and the Moxee City area (fig. 1). 

Other pumpage is concentrated near the Yakima River in the 

area between Toppenish and Prosser. Other pumping centers 

are in the lower part of the Naches River Basin and in the 

Kittitas basin near the City of Ellensburg.

A simplified method was developed to obtain a general 

understanding of the temporal distribution of pumpage. In this 

method, we assumed two basic pumpage categories: (1) food 

products and (2) all other uses. The first category represents 

about 76 percent of the total and the second category accounts 

Table 7. Estimated annual pumpage for commercial and 

industrial uses in 5-year increments, Yakima River Basin, 

Washington, 1960–2000.

[Years: 1917 is the first year for commercial and industrial pumpage 

associated with water rights. Pumpage: Pumpage listed is for new quantities 

added in 5-year increments and cumulative totals. Estimates for total pumpage 

added during the years prior to 1960 are also shown. All values in acre-feet]

Years

Pumpage

Estimated pumpage 

added Cumulative

1917–59 3,093 3,093

1960–64 438 3,531

1965–69 1,428 4,959

1970–74 612 5,571

1975–79 44 5,615

1980–84 1,442 7,057

1985–89 170 7,227

1990–94 3 7,230

1995–2000 0 7,230

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000

ESTIMATED ANNUAL PUMPAGE, IN ACRE FEET

YEAR

Commercial and industrial

for the remaining 24 percent. A monthly percentage of annual 

pumpage was calculated from information in Dion and Lum 

(1977) for the Standard Industrial Classification for Food 

and Kindred Products, which generally represent the first 

category. The monthly percentage of annual pumpage was 

assumed to be constant throughout the year for the second 

Figure 21. Estimated annual pumpage for commercial and industrial uses, Yakima River Basin, Washington, 1960-2000.

42 Estimates of Ground-Water Pumpage from the Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington, 1960-2000
JAN FEB MAR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC APR

 ESTIMATED PUMPAGE, IN ACRE-FEET

0

200

400

600

800

Commercial and industrial

Figure 22. Estimated monthly distribution of annual 

pumpage for commercial and industrial uses, Yakima 

River Basin, Washington, 2000.

Table 8. Estimated annual pumpage for fish and wildlife 

propagation in 5-year increments, Yakima River Basin, 

Washington, 1960–2000.

[Years: 1920 is the first year for fish and wildlife propagation pumpage 

associated with water rights. Pumpage: Pumpage listed is for new quantities 

added in 5-year increments and cumulative totals. Estimates for total pumpage 

added during the years prior to 1960 are also shown. All values in acre-feet]

Years

Pumpage

Estimated pumpage 

added Cumulative

1920–59 3 3

1960–64 0 3

1965–69 0 3

1970–74 2 5

1975–79 59 64

1980–84 2,661 2,275

1985–89 0 2,275

1990–94 4,194 6,919

1995–2000 2,450 9,369

category. An effective monthly percentage of annual pumpage 

was then derived by weighting each monthly percentage by 

the percentage of total. Multiplying these percentages by the 

total estimated annual pumpage for 2000 yielded an estimated 

monthly distribution of pumpage (fig. 22). This distribution 

shows that the least pumpage was in April and July and the 

largest pumpage was in September (fig. 22).

Fish and Wildlife Propagation

The pumpage estimates for fish and wildlife propagation 

are for 9 rights represented by 15 POWs and 2 POWs for 2 

other non-WRTS hatchery wells. Table 8 shows estimated 

pumpage in 2000 was about 9,369 acre-ft (8.4 Mgal/d or 3.1 

Bgal) for fish and wildlife propagation. Hatchery operations 

in 2000 accounted for all but 65.5 acre-ft of the total and 3 

hatcheries account for 71 percent (about 6,643 acre-ft) of the 

total. Pumpage estimates for single rights or wells ranged 

from 2 to 4,192 acre-ft. Total pumpage was about 64 acre-ft by 

1979 (only 5 acre-ft of pumpage prior to 1974) and increased 

by 2,661 acre-ft during 1980-84 (table 8). Substantial new 

pumpage was added during 1990-94 (4,194 acre-ft) and 

1995-2000, (2,450 acre-ft).

Figure 23 shows the estimated average monthly 

distribution of annual pumpage in 2000 ranging from 653 

acre-ft in February to 1,030 acre-ft in August. The curve was 

based on the monthly percentage of annual values calculated 

using monthly data provided by one of the hatcheries; 

JAN FEB MAR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC APR

 ESTIMATED PUMPAGE, IN ACRE-FEET

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Fish and wildlife propagation

pumpage for this hatchery accounts for about 23 percent of 

total pumpage. The shape of the monthly curve is influenced 

by hatchery needs for different life-history stages of salmonids 

in the Yakima River Basin and availability of surface-water 

supplies.

Figure 23. Estimated monthly distribution of annual 

pumpage for fish and wildlife propagation, Yakima River 

Basin, Washington, 2000.

Ground-Water Pumpage 43
Ground-Water Claims

The estimates of the pumpage for ground-water claims 

are for 924 claims. As described in the methods section, it was 

assumed that the pumpage for other claims is included in other 

categories of pumpage. Annual pumpage values apply to all 

years for 1960 through 2000 because a claim is for groundwater use prior to July 1945.

Total estimated annual pumpage for the 924 claims is 

about 34,310 acre-ft (30.6 Mgal/d or 11.2 Bgal). Total annual 

pumpage for individual claims ranged from 2.5 to 638 acre-ft 

and averaged 37 acre-ft. Irrigation accounts for 32,431 acre-ft 

(28.9 Mgal/d or 10.6 Bgal) or about 95 percent of the total. 

Irrigation use for the claims ranged from 2.5 to 571 acre-ft and 

averaged 35 acre-ft. Commercial and industrial uses account 

for 1,695 acre-ft (1.5 Mgal/d or 0.55 Bgal) and averaged about 

212 acre-ft. The water supply part of the claims (524 claims 

had a second PRU of DG) totaled only 185 acre-ft, or less than 

0.2 Mgal/d.

The spatial distribution of the annual pumpage for the 

claims (fig. 24) shows that most claims are located in the 

lower part of the river basin because that was where most of 

the early development of ground water occurred. For example, 

more than 80 percent of total estimated annual pumpage 

for ground-water claims was in Yakima County, with about 

10 percent estimated pumpage in each Benton and Kittitas 

Counties (about 3,300 acre-ft).

Summary of Pumpage Estimates for all 

Categories

Pumpage estimates for each category are summarized 

and compared in this section. Unless otherwise stated, values 

exclude pumpage associated with standby/reserve rights. 

Total pumpage in the Yakima River Basin was about 115,776 

acre-ft in 1960 and increased to 312,284 acre-ft by 2000 (fig. 

25; table 9). The three largest increases in new pumpage were 

during 1975-79, 1980-84, and 1970-74, respectively. These 

increases were largely due to increased irrigation pumpage, 

and similar to most pumpage categories, were directly 

proportional to the amount of appropriated water in the rights 

issued during a 5-year period.

Irrigation pumpage accounted for about 60 percent 

or 188,230 acre-ft of the pumpage in 2000 (table 9) and 

if irrigation pumpage associated with claims is included, 

irrigation use in 2000 totaled 220,662 acre-ft (about 69 percent 

of the total). Excluding claims, irrigation pumpage ranged 

from 35 to 61 percent of total pumpage during 1960-2000. 

The next largest pumpage category was municipal use, which 

in 2000 accounted for about 12 percent (37,273 acre-ft) of 

the total. The third largest category was for the ground-water 

claims, with an annual quantity of 34,310 acre-ft (32,431 acreft was for irrigation). The claims were similar to municipal 

pumpage in 2000 and account for about 11 percent of the 

total pumpage. Domestic pumpage (principally from exempt 

wells) was about 6 percent of the total in 2000 (20,036 acreft). Pumpage estimates for the Group A systems, livestock, 

commercial and industrial, and fish and wildlife propagation 

categories were all relatively similar in 2000 and ranged from 

about 6,700 to 9,400 acre-ft. Together, these four categories 

totaled about 30,800 acre-ft of pumpage in 2000 and account 

for about 10 percent of the pumpage. The least amount of 

pumpage was for the PWS Group B systems category. In 

2000, this category totaled only 1,647 acre-ft or less than 1 

percent of the total estimated pumpage.

Estimated potential pumpage for standby/reserve 

rights was about 82,812 acre-ft in 2000, and was the second 

largest quantity of estimated pumpage (table 9). However, 

withdrawals for standby/reserve pumpage were only in years 

with surface-water prorating and are not shown on figure 25. 

During extreme prorating years, standby/reserve rights could 

account for as much as 21 percent of total pumpage. For 

example, if 2000 was an extreme prorating year, total pumpage 

in the basin could have been as much as 395,096 acre-ft 

with standby/reserve pumpage accounting for 21 percent of 

the total. In years when prorating is not large, for example, 

when junior surface-water users receive 80 percent of their 

appropriated water, standby/reserve pumpage would be much 

less than the estimated value, on the order of 16,600 acre-ft.

The spatial distribution of pumpage reflects the 

distribution of irrigated crop lands (fig. 2) and population in 

the basin (fig. 11). Excluding PWS pumpage, in 2000 about 

75 percent of pumpage was in Yakima County. Benton County 

accounts for the next largest amount of pumpage (about 23 

percent). Of the three counties in the study area, Kittitas 

County has the smallest number of acres of ground-water 

irrigated crops and the smallest population and thus, accounts 

for only about 3 percent of the pumpage. However, for the 

PWS category, about 60 percent of the pumpage occurs in 

Yakima County, a reduction of 15 percent compared to the 

total for the other 7 categories of pumpage; the reduction 

is due to the fact that the largest city in the study area (the 

City of Yakima with a population of about 72,000 in 2000) 

uses surface water as their primary source of water. About 

25 percent of the PWS pumpage occurs in Benton County, 

followed by about 15 percent in Kittitas County.

The total pumpage in 2000 was about 11 percent of the 

appropriated quantity of surface water diverted for irrigation 

and PWS. Total pumpage in 2000 was about 430 ft3

/s (0.31 

million acre-ft) compared to mean annual precipitation 

of about 12,000 ft3/s (8.7 million acre-ft), mean annual 

unregulated streamflow of about 5,600 ft3/s (4.1 million acreft), mean annual regulated streamflow of about 3,600 ft3

/s (2.6 

million acre-ft), and the above diversions of about 3,900 ft3/s 

(2.8 million acre-ft). Maximum pumpage, about 100 ft3

/s, is 

during the months of July and August. Calculating an average, 

basin-wide water duty based on the estimates for irrigation 

pumpage and using the total irrigated acreage of 64,308 acres 

for the outstanding ground-water applications for irrigation, 

yields about 185 ft3/s potential pumpage for the applications if 

all were approved.

44 Estimates of Ground-Water Pumpage from the Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington, 1960-2000
wa19-0021_fig24

KITTITAS COUNTY

YAKIMA COUNTY

BENTON COUNTY

KLICKITAT COUNTY

YAKIMA COUNTY

Bumping

Lake

S Fk

N Fk

Cle Elum River

Bumping River

Ahtanum Creek

Tieton River Wenas Creek

North Fork

Dry Creek

Creek

Toppenish

RIVER

YAKIMA

Satus

Creek

Cle

Elum

Lake

Rimrock

Lake

Kachess Lake

Keechelus Lake

Lake

Wallula

Teanaway River

Umtanum Creek

Little Naches River

Cowiche Creek

Cowiche Creek

River

Naches

RIVER

YAKIMA

RIVER

YAKIMA

C

A

S C A

D E R

A

N

G

E

EXPLANATION

Estimated Annual Pumpage, 

in acre-feet

121°

47°

47°

30'

46°

121°30' 120°30' 120° 119°30'

46°

30'

0 5 10 20 MILES

0 5 10 20 KILOMETERS

2.5 - 5.0

5.1 - 50.0

50.1 - 100.0

100.1 - 200.0

200.1 - 637.8

Ellensburg

Toppenish

YAKIMA

Sunnyside

Richland

Kennewick

Figure 24. Distribution of estimated annual pumpage for ground-water claims, Yakima River Basin, Washington, 2000.

Ground-Water Pumpage 45
wa19-0021_fig25

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

PUMPAGE IN ACRE-FEET

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Municipal

Group a and b systems

Domestic

Primary irrigation

Livestock

Commercial and industrial 

Fish and wildlife

Claims

Figure 25. Estimated annual pumpage, by pumpage category, Yakima River Basin, Washington, 1960-2000.

Table 9. Summary of estimated annual pumpage, by pumpage category in 5-year increments, Yakima River Basin, Washington, 

1960–2000.

[Public Water Supply: Pre-1960 includes some pumpage for 1960 because initial estimates were calculated for 1960 for Group A and B systems, and domestic. 

Standby/reserve: Estimates based on pumpage occurred in all years and is not the actual pumpage; pumpage occurred only in 1977, 1979, 1987, 1988, 1992, 

1993, and 1994. Claims: About 95 percent of pumpage for claims is for irrigation. Cumulative: cumulative is total pumpage at end of time period and does not 

include standby/reserve estimates. Total pumpage for each category and for all categories combined is for 2000. Estimates for total annual pumpage existing 

prior to 1960 are also shown. All values in acre-feet]

Years

Public Water Supply

Domestic

Irrigation

Livestock

Commercial 

and 

industrial

Fish and 

wildlife

Groundwater

claims

Total 

for all 

categories

Cumulative 

without 

standby/

reserve

Municipal Group A 

systems

Group B 

systems

Total Primary Standby/

reserve

Pre-1960 19,127 3,888 858 12,379 42,000 41,896 104 222 3,093 3 34,310 115,880 115,776

1960–64 628 331 73 1,187 9,299 9,299 0 208 438 0 0 12,164 127,940

1965–69 2,702 358 79 716 20,271 20,249 22 39 1,428 0 0 25,593 153,510

1970–74 1,379 389 85 988 25,010 23,743 1,267 3,189 612 2 0 31,654 183,897

1975–79 4,236 422 93 2,914 99,474 49,399 50,075 84 44 58 0 107,325 241,147

1980–84 975 458 101 -107 28,845 17,507 11,338 996 1,442 2,661 0 35,371 265,180

1985–89 2,614 586 110 305 20,687 14,927 5,760 461 170 0 0 24,933 284,352

1990–94 1,793 449 119 1,175 21,821 10,398 11,423 1,527 3 4,194 0 31,081 304,010

1995–2000 3,819 584 129 479 3,635 812 2,823 0 0 2,451 0 11,097 312,284

Total in 

2000

37,273 7,465 1,647 20,036 271,042 188,230 82,812 6,724 7,230 9,369 34,310 395,096 312,284

46 Estimates of Ground-Water Pumpage from the Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington, 1960-2000
Reliability of Pumpage Estimates

Reliability of ground-water pumpage estimates 

establishes potential bounds on estimated pumpage. However, 

the most reliable estimates are those reported in the previous 

sections. Many factors affecting pumpage estimates make 

it difficult to assign a measure such as a percent error or 

a root mean square error. Therefore, a potential range in 

values is estimated for the pumpage categories. The range 

delineates an estimated minimum or maximum pumpage 

value for a category. In addition, the values probably have an 

increasing error as the estimates are extrapolated further back 

in time. Therefore, only the reliability of the 2000 estimates 

is discussed and it is assumed that estimates extrapolated 

back in time have an increasing bound, as a percent error, 

that is a function of the estimated quantity of pumpage for 

any particular category and year. Although standby/reserve 

pumpage would have been zero in 2000, the reliability of 

standby/reserve pumpage estimates is assessed in this section. 

The reliability is described for the categories in the same order 

they were presented in the previous sections. Frost protection 

category reliability is not discussed because pumpage was 

assumed to be negligible and was set equal to zero. Last, 

excluding the provided data, the methods used to estimate 

pumpage are invariant over time. For most water users, the 

amount of pumpage in any year varies, and these decreases 

or increases in pumpage are not captured in the estimates. 

Therefore, there is some, but an unknown amount, of error in 

the annual values.

Public Water Supply and Domestic

Three classes of PWS estimates were: (1) municipal and 

large Group A systems with data available, (2) 62 Group A 

and B systems that provided some data, and (3) remaining 

systems with no data. In 2000, the first class served about 

203,000 people, the second class served about 10,100 people, 

and the third class about 27,000 people. This total population 

of about 240,000 accounted for about 71 percent of the 

population in the basin in 2000. In addition, pumpage for the 

PWS category, which totals about 46,385 acre-ft, is the second 

largest pumpage category.

The pumpage estimate for the first two classes (about 

41,496 acre-ft, table 10) can be considered the most reliable 

of the estimates because it is based on provided data. Errors 

inherent in metering, compilation of data to digital form from 

paper copies, and other factors are minor compared to both 

the total pumpage for this category and to total pumpage. The 

reliability of estimates for these two classes was assumed to be 

good with a potential error of about 5 percent or about 2,075 

acre-ft, with most of that quantity (1,864 acre-ft) accounted 

for by the municipal systems. The lower and upper bounds for 

these two classes are 35,409 and 4,012 acre-ft and 39,137 and 

4,434 acre-ft, respectively (table 10).

The third class of PWS pumpage has a larger potential 

error. This class totaled 4,890 acre-ft in 2000. Based on 

available databases and contacts with water-system operators, 

the population served by this class was the best estimate 

available. Therefore, the reliability of these estimates is a 

function of the basin-wide average per capita rates (251 and 

109 gal/d) used to derive the estimates. The 251 gal/d rate was 

applied to systems outside irrigation districts that served about 

10,000 people, and the 109 gal/d rate was applied to systems 

in irrigation districts that served about 17,000 people. When 

combined, these values yield an effective population weighted 

rate of 162 gal/d.

Reliability of Pumpage Estimates 47

Table 10. Reliability of annual pumpage estimates, Yakima River 

Basin, Washington, 2000.

[All values in acre-feet]

Category Estimated 

pumpage

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

Public Water Supply

Municipal and large 

Group A systems 

with data

37,273 35,409 39,137

Group A and B systems 

with data

4,222 4,012 4,434

Systems with no data 4,890 3,562 9,056

Domestic (exempt) 20,036 13,135 33,393

Irrigation

Primary 188,230 150,230 226,230

Standby/reserve1 82,812 0 82,812

Livestock 6,726 5,881 6,726

Commercial and industrial 7,230 1,030 10,700

Fish and wildlife 9,369 8,901 9,837

Ground water claims 34,310 27,410 41,210

All categories 395,096 249,570 463,534

Without standby/reserve 312,284 249,570 380,723

1

Standby/reserve pumpage occurs only in years with prorating and for 2000, 

would be zero. Values represent the potential range of pumpage under different prorating values that have occurred in the past.
The domestic pumpage value of 251 gal/d is larger than 

the statewide average, but it is known that the per capita value 

in eastern Washington is larger than in western Washington 

due to a higher water demand resulting from less precipitation 

and warmer summers (Dion and Lum, 1977; Lane, 2004; 

Washington State Department of Health, 2001). This per 

capita rate, which was derived from provided data, also is 

larger than many municipal rates. However, Dion and Lum 

(1977) indicated that the per capita rate for the three counties 

in the study area ranged from about 227 to 344 gal/d, which 

are higher than Lane’s (2004) range of 115 to 230 gal/d. In 

addition, DOH’s average water-system design rate for the 

three-county area is on the order of 280 to 300 gal/d.

Average per capita rate for all systems that provided data 

and that do not use surface water as a drinking water source 

is 118 gal/d. The 118 gal/d value can be considered a lower 

bound on an effective basin-wide average, especially because 

this value includes municipal systems whose pumpage 

includes water for commercial and industrial uses. Using this 

rate divided by the effective population weighted rate of 162 

gal/d and multiplying it by the pumpage estimate for Group A 

and B systems without data yields 3,562 acre-ft of pumpage 

as an estimate of a lower bound (table 10) with a difference 

of 1,329 acre-ft. Assuming that DOH’s rate of 300 gal/d is the 

upper bound for a basin-wide average, yields 9,056 acre-ft 

as an upper bound (table 10), a potential increase of 4,166 

acre-ft. Note that 80 percent of per capita values calculated 

from the provided data were less than 300 gal/d.

Reliability of domestic (primarily exempt wells) 

estimates can be calculated as above using an effective rate 

of 180 gal/d based on the distribution of exempt population 

residing in and out of irrigation districts. Ratios of the low 

and high per capita values to the effective rate multiplied by 

the estimated pumpage yields a lower bound of 13,135 acre-ft 

and an upper bound of 33,393 acre-ft (table 10). In addition, 

about 322 acre-ft of pumpage was estimated for domestic use 

included in other categories, primarily the irrigation category. 

If it is assumed that the census numbers are exact and all 

domestic use was accounted for, the exempt well pumpage 

could be 322 acre-ft too large. However, this small value is 

much less than potential errors due to the estimates of the 

average daily per capita rate. For example, increasing or 

decreasing the effective basin-average daily rate by only 5 gal, 

increases or decreases the total pumpage by about 500 acre-ft.

Irrigation

Several factors help to define the reliability of irrigation 

estimates; however, reliability of irrigation pumpage estimates 

is more difficult to assess because no reliable source is 

available for comparison. The reliability discussed is for the 

estimated pumpage for primary irrigation rights, which was 

188,230 acre-ft. Reliability of pumpage estimates for standby/

reserve rights, which was 82,812 acre-ft, is addressed after the 

discussion of the primary rights.

For areas defined by zip codes in the part of the basin 

where power data was available, we estimated 79,051 acreft of pumpage outside of the irrigation districts and within 

boundaries of irrigated lands as defined by the spatial 

distribution of land use developed for the study. Based on 

power consumption data for the zip code areas, pumpage 

outside the irrigation districts was 27,788 acre-ft for the 

basalt well equation 1, 61,636 acre-ft for the overburden 

well equation 2, and 61,851 to 149,988 acre-ft for the PCC 

equation. The basalt equation produces an unreasonable value 

because the average crop-water use would need to be less than 

1 acre-ft/acre, which could not support most crop types such 

as orchards, hops, alfalfa, and row crops. The large pumpage 

value calculated from the median of the measured PCC values 

yields about 5.5 acre-ft/acre, which also is unreasonable 

because this value is 2 to 3 ft more than the needs of most 

crop types grown in the zip code areas. Therefore, a range of 

about 62,000 to 100,000 acre-ft is more reasonable, suggesting 

that the pumpage estimates may be on the order of 22 percent 

too large to 21 percent too small. This coarse comparison 

assumes that the allocation of power consumption data based 

on using irrigated lands and boundaries of irrigation districts 

is reasonable, and that power consumption for surface- and 

ground-water uses are approximately the same.

Comparison of DOA acreage of surveyed fields and 

allowable acreage for irrigation rights for selected TRSs 

outside of irrigation districts indicated that allowable acreage 

generally was greater than actual acreage, thus the acreage 

of irrigated croplands used to calculate pumpage estimates 

may be high. However, given the aggregation of the DOA 

field data to the section level, the varying number of fields in 

each section, and that the allowable acreage for a right may 

extend across several sections, it is not possible to determine 

the actual versus allowable acreage for most rights. The acres 

used for the calculations generally could be on the order of 5 

percent too large, which in turn, could result in estimates on 

the order of 10,000 acre-ft too large.

48 Estimates of Ground-Water Pumpage from the Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington, 1960-2000
For the cases where pumpage data were provided, the 

difference between estimated and provided values was only 1 

percent for a large orchard, but was 1.25 to 2.14 times larger 

for two large vineyards. The information provided indicates 

the highly efficient use of water (1.0 to 1.7 acre-ft) in the 

vineyards. The total irrigation pumpage estimate may be as 

much as about 15,000 acre-ft too high if all vineyards are as 

efficient (use of drip irrigation).

Cline and Knadle (1990) and Van Metre and Seevers 

(1991) indicate that the estimated pumpage for an individual 

well may vary from the actual value but that the total estimate 

for many wells is reasonable; Van Metre and Seevers 

(1991) identify the total error as 4 percent. However, this 

error generally is related to some particular year. Based on 

local climatic conditions, soil moisture, and soil properties, 

pumpage for any particular field with the same crop varies on 

a year to year basis. For example, one farm provided irrigation 

pumpage data for several years that averaged 860 acre-ft, but 

the annual values ranged from about 600 to 1,100 acre-ft. 

For the crop types in the basin, the long-term average cropwater use value used for estimating pumpage had interannual 

variations over the 50-year calculation period of as much as 

3-4 in. due to the combination of temporally varying climate 

conditions and soil properties. It is assumed that by using an 

effective long-term crop-water use value the pumpage estimate 

should represent a reasonable average, especially considering 

the continually changing crop patterns.

Kinnison and Sceva (1963) estimated about 24,000 

acre-ft of irrigation pumpage (about 50 percent of the annual 

appropriated quantity) for 1953 compared to this study’s 

estimate of about 36,000 acre-ft (about 77 percent of the 

annual appropriated quantity). Laird and Walters (1967) 

estimated about 79,000 acre-ft of irrigation pumpage (about 

97 percent of the annual appropriated quantity) for 1965, 

compared to this study’s estimate of about 56,000 acre-ft 

(about 73 percent of the appropriated quantity). Last, Parker 

(1971) estimated irrigation pumpage at about 81,000 acre-ft 

for 1970 compared to this study’s estimate of about 75,000 

acre-ft; both estimates have a similar percentage of the 

appropriated quantity (73 and 78 percent, respectively). Note 

that the annual appropriated quantity increased by about 

25,000 acre-ft from 1965 to 1970, and either the previous 

1965 estimate is too high or the 1970 estimate is too low. In 

addition, previous estimates for 1965 and 1970 were for the 

three-county area, which is larger than the study area and 

contains additional irrigated croplands in the part of Benton 

County outside the basin.

The TCWRA (Tri-County Water Resource Agency, 2003) 

used the appropriated right for both primary and standby/

reserve rights as the estimate of irrigation pumpage. Using 

such a value would increase the 2000 estimate of 271,042 

acre-ft by about 100,000 acre-ft. Based on values measured 

during this study, pumpage averaged 89 percent (median of 71 

percent) of the appropriated value and excluding the largest 

percent, the average percentage of appropriated water pumped 

was 73 percent (median of 67 percent). These percentages 

suggest that the 2000 pumpage estimate would not be 100,000 

acre-ft too small.

As can be seen from above, the irrigation estimate for 

primary rights can possibly be either too low or too high. 

Thus, the potential range is estimated to be on the order of 20 

percent of the annual value (about 38,000 acre-ft). The latter 

value yields 150,230 and 226,230 acre-ft as the lower and 

upper bounds (table 10).

The possible variations in standby/reserve pumpage were 

described previously in the ‘Irrigation’ section of the pumpage 

estimates; the section concluded that the pumpage would be 

zero in years without prorating. Therefore, the lower bound 

would be 0 acre-ft for standby/reserve pumpage (table 10), 

for example, in 1996 or 2000, years without prorating, there 

would have been no standby/reserve pumpage. The upper 

bound would be at most equal to the estimated value of 82,812 

acre-ft (table 10), especially considering that the 207 standby/

reserve rights with a smaller water duty of 0.1 to 2.0 acre-ft/

acre were estimated to be fully used.

Livestock

The pumpage estimate for livestock was based on the 

full appropriated right. Information was available for only one 

livestock right that also had PRUs of DM and IR, but had no 

allowable acreage for irrigation. The provided information was 

only 15 percent of the right but this appeared to be a unique 

situation. Therefore, this value was not directly used for 

estimating a potential range in estimates.

The full appropriated right is a reasonable assumption for 

dairy use, which accounts for 23 percent of the total. However, 

the remaining livestock pumpage may be less. Including 

the probable dairy use as part of the dairy use reduces the 

remaining livestock estimate to about 4,900 acre-ft. About 

88 percent of the latter is withdrawn by 4 large operations 

(more than 80 percent is accounted for by one operation). 

Interviews with personnel from a large operation indicate that 

in most years they withdraw the appropriated quantity, with 

Reliability of Pumpage Estimates 49
highest demand in summer and lowest demand in winter. 

Therefore, about 4,350 acre-ft of the remaining pumpage 

estimate appears to be reasonable, leaving about 550 acre-ft of 

pumpage. Larger appropriated rights average about 180 acre-ft 

and range from 16.5 to 770 acre-ft, whereas the rights for the 

remaining 550 acre-ft of pumpage average about 19 acre-ft 

and range from 1 to 86 acre-ft with 70 percent less than 20 

acre-ft. Most estimates associated with the 550 acre-ft are thus 

for small operations that may or may not use their full right. 

For estimating purposes, this value was assumed to be as small 

as 225 acre-ft. Given that the number of livestock fluctuates 

and their needs change due to various factors, the remaining 

6,174 acre-ft of estimated livestock pumpage was assumed 

to potentially be 10 percent smaller. Therefore, pumpage 

estimates may be as much as 845 acre-ft (225 + 620) too large, 

yielding a lower bound of 5,881 acre-ft (table 10).

Commercial and Industrial

Percentages of appropriated rights used for estimating 

the pumpage associated with the PRUs of CI and HE were 

much smaller than would be expected, but were based on 

provided data. These percentages were 4 and 14 percent for 

rights with a single PRU of HE and the remaining rights 

had a percentage of 25. Excluding the largest percentage, 

the second largest percentage for the provided data was 39 

percent. Previous industrial pumpage estimates ranged from 

slightly more than the appropriated quantity to 47 percent of 

the appropriations. The most current previous percentage for 

the study area was about 48 percent of appropriated water 

was being pumped (Dion and Lum, 1977), which is similar 

to the 47 percent estimated by Parker (1971). Assuming that 

the potential upper range in estimates is on the order of 48 

percent, the estimate may be as much as 3,470 acre-ft too 

small. The upper bound then would be about 10,700 acre-ft 

(table 10). For a lower bound, the authors determined that less 

than 4 percent of the allocated water would be too small and 

chose to use a 4 percent value as the smallest value that should 

be applied to all rights. This percentage gives a lower bound of 

about 1,030 acre-ft (table 10). In comparison, the commercial 

and industrial estimates for irrigation rights were estimated 

to average about 25 percent of the allocated water, with most 

values between 15-29 percent. Provided data for commercial 

and industrial uses also indicated values on the order of 25 

percent. The above suggests that the estimate of the lower 

bound using 4 percent of the appropriated water should be 

considered too low, but establishes the smallest possible value.

Fish and Wildlife Propagation

The estimated pumpage for fish and wildlife propagation 

(9,369 acre-ft) was primarily based on provided data that 

account for about 99 percent of the pumpage. Similar to the 

first two classes of PWS, the reliability was assumed to be 

good with a potential error of about 5 percent. The 5 percent 

value results in lower and upper bounds of 8,901 and 9,837 

acre-ft, respectively (table 10).

Ground-Water Claims

Ground-water claims were the most problematic category 

of pumpage to derive estimates. Estimated pumpage for 

claims was 34,310 acre-ft and the claims in WRTS total 

about 270,000 acre-ft. The latter value could not be possible 

because the total ground-water rights in the basin prior to 

July 1945 totaled only about 39,000 acre-ft, and maximizing 

the estimates of drinking water supplies using a 300 gal/d 

per capita rate and the non-municipal ground-water supplied 

population from 1950 gives only 33,000 acre-ft. Together, the 

total appropriated quantity and drinking water supply would 

only account for 27 percent of the claimed annual pumpage. 

This indicates that at least an additional 49,000 acres would 

have to have been irrigated with ground water by claims or 

nearly 4 times the allowable amount of acres for the rights, 

which is unreasonable. Indeed, the claims included in the 

estimate already account for about 12,790 acres of croplands, 

which is more than the 9,682 allowed under the irrigation 

rights as of July 1945.

In addition, pumpage for claims for this report was an 

estimate of pumpage that was likely not accounted for in 

the other categories. The PWS and domestic pumpage are 

reasonably accounted for, except for potentially about 900-

1,200 acre-ft of applied water for the 451 claims for selfsupplied domestic use with 1 acre of allowable irrigation 

claimed. Commercial and industrial pumpage should 

account for most of the actual use with possibly only a few 

unaccounted for claims.

Based on the above, the pumpage estimate for groundwater claims probably accounts for most, if not more, of 

pumpage not included in the other categories. The reliability 

of the estimate is assumed to be about 20 percent (6,900 acreft) with the lower and upper bounds being 27,410 and 41,210 

acre-ft, respectively (table 10).

50 Estimates of Ground-Water Pumpage from the Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington, 1960-2000
Comparison of Appropriated 

Ground-Water Rights and Estimated 

Pumpage

Comparing the quantity of appropriated water and the 

estimated pumpage delineates existing and potential pumpage 

in the basin. Future planning for water supply is dependent 

on both quantities. The comparisons, which are for the values 

for 2000, also provide valuable and needed information for 

ground-water flow models being constructed as part of this 

study. Of the eight pumpage categories, estimates for six 

categories can be compared to the appropriated quantities. 

These categories are: PWS, irrigation, frost protection, 

livestock, commercial and industrial, and fish and wildlife 

propagation. Within the PWS category, two classes can be 

compared—the municipal pumpage and the remaining Group 

A and B systems. Part of the domestic class of pumpage 

also can be compared, but only for the 63 domestic wells 

with rights with a principal purpose of supplying drinking 

water. Pumpage for all other domestic wells with additional 

PRUs are included in other categories. Allowable quantities 

associated with these latter rights vary widely, from 1 to 2,600 

acre-ft, and the estimated domestic pumpage part of the rights 

with additional PRUs is about 322 acre-ft; this pumpage is 

primarily included in the irrigation or livestock use categories. 

Although exempt wells do not have an appropriated quantity, 

a well has a legal right to pump up to 5,000 gal/d (about 5.6 

acre-ft/y) and thus it also is important to account for this 

allowable quantity.

As of 2000, the estimated and appropriated pumpage 

for municipal uses was about 37,273 and 107,958 acre-ft, 

respectively (table 11). The non-municipal Group A and B 

systems have an estimated pumpage of 9,112 acre-ft compared 

to an appropriated value of 21,945 acre-ft. Domestic pumpage 

was estimated to be about 31 acre-ft for the 63 rights with a 

single PRU of DS and the total appropriated value was 166 

acre-ft.

Irrigation accounts for the largest part of the pumpage in 

the Yakima River Basin and the total appropriated water for 

this category is 371,189 acre-ft. Estimated pumpage (271,042 

acre-ft) is about 73 percent of the appropriated value and is 

100,147 acre-ft less than the appropriated value. In 2000, the 

amount of unused appropriated irrigation water was similar to 

the total estimated pumpage for all other categories combined.

Pumpage associated with primary irrigation rights was 

about 70 percent of the appropriated quantity (266,502 acre-ft, 

table 11). Standby/reserve rights are associated with 104,687 

acre-ft of appropriated water. Note that for any individual 

right, a change in a crop type can change the percentage of the 

appropriated value used in a year.

Table 11. Appropriated ground-water quantity and estimated 

pumpage for six categories of pumpage, Yakima River Basin, 

Washington, 2000.

[Appropriated quantity: includes about 21,000 acre-feet of appropriated 

water not listed in Water Rights Tracking System (WRTS), about 6,700 acrefeet of which is outside the basin. All values in acre-feet]

Category Estimated 

pumpage

Appropriated 

quantity Difference

Public Water Supply

Municipal systems1 37,273 107,958 70,685

Group A and B 

systems2

9,112 21,945 12,833

Domestic 31 166 135

Irrigation

Primary 188,230 266,502 78,272

Standby/reserve3 82,812 104,687 21,875

Frost protection 0 299 -299

Livestock4 6,726 6,726 0

Commercial and 

industrial

7,230 31,619 24,389

Fish and wildlife5 4,855 16,531 11,676

1

Includes all estimated pumpage, including one small municipality without 

a right.

2

Includes most systems, including those without rights and some outside the 

basin; appropriated water includes some systems not identified as a Group A 

or B system.

3

Standby/reserve pumpage occurs in years with prorating, and for 2000 

would be zero.

4

Includes estimated pumpage for small dairies under an exempt status and 

associated 5,000 gallons per day allowable quantity per dairy in the appropriated value.

5

Includes only estimated pumpage for wells with rights, about 13,000 acrefeet of appropriated water not included in WRTS.

Frost protection pumpage was estimated to be zero and 

the 21 rights with a single PRU of FP (most in irrigation 

district boundaries and estimated to be standby/reserve) have 

an appropriated value of 299 acre-ft (table 11).

The livestock category includes 6,726 acre-ft of 

appropriated water and the estimates were set to the 

appropriated quantity (table 11), so there is no difference 

between the two values. Livestock uses associated with 

irrigation-rights category average about 25 percent of the 

appropriated value and were estimated to account for about 

5,166 acre-ft of the irrigation total. Compared to the livestock 

category, there is a large difference between the estimated 

and appropriated quantities of pumpage for the commercial 

and industrial category. Estimated pumpage, 7,230 acre-ft, 

was only 23 percent of the appropriated quantity (table 11) 

resulting in a difference of 24,389 acre-ft. The difference 

between estimated and appropriated values also is large for 

the fish and wildlife propagation category, but the estimated 

pumpage in table 11 does not include about 4,500 acre-ft of 

pumpage for wells without appropriated quantities.

Comparison of Appropriated Ground-Water Rights and Estimated Pumpage 51
Estimated pumpage in 2000 from all wells with rights 

was about 60 percent of the appropriated quantity, representing 

an absolute difference of 220,164 acre-ft. This quantity is 

reduced to 198,289 acre-ft (about 275 ft3/s) when standby/

reserve pumpage is not included (about 60 percent of the 

appropriated quantity). Thus, as of 2000, the total unused part 

of the appropriated annual quantity is larger than the estimated 

pumpage for most categories and is about 56 percent of the 

total estimated pumpage in 2000. To understand potential 

effects of new pumpage on the ground-water flow systems, it 

will be important to estimate the potential effects on groundwater availability if all appropriated water were withdrawn.

Based on the estimated number of exempt wells in the 

basin as of 2000 and using the maximum allowable withdrawal 

rate of 5.6 acre-ft, an estimate was made of the allowable 

withdrawals from exempt wells. This quantity was about 

241,000 acre-ft or about 215 Mgal/d in 2000. This quantity is 

larger than the estimated primary irrigation pumpage in 2000. 

The potential effects of all exempt wells withdrawing the full 

allowable amount also need to be understood.

Summary and Conclusions

To provide a necessary framework to assess ground water 

availability in the Yakima River Basin, ground-water pumpage 

was estimated for eight categories of water use for 1960-2000. 

Information was presented and described concerning (1) water 

wells in the basin; (2) ground-water rights and water uses; 

(3) relations between rights and a drillers’ logs; (4) relation 

between primary and standby/reserve rights; (5) methods used 

to estimate ground-water pumpage for 1960-2000 (annual and 

(or) 5-year values) for eight categories pumpage; (6) estimates 

of pumpage for each category and a summary of these 

estimates; (7) delineation of the reliability of estimates for 

each category of pumpage; and (8) comparison of estimated 

and appropriated quantities for six categories of pumpage.

Ground-water is the principal source of drinking water 

in the basin and supplies about 330,000 people in the threecounty area or about 80 percent of the population. At least 

45,000 wells in the basin withdraw water for various uses. 

Drinking-water use accounts for most wells. However, 

irrigation of croplands is the largest use of ground water, 

although less than 2,300 irrigation wells are in the basin. 

Agriculture and its related industries and infrastructure is the 

dominant economic driver in the basin.

To provide a better understanding of ground-water 

availability, the ground-water rights were associated, to the 

extent possible, to drillers’ logs. This association allowed 

for an assessment of the spatial withdrawals, by depth of 

ground water. Of the 2,874 active rights identified in the 

Water Rights Tracking System, all but 220 were associated 

with a log. It is acknowledged that all associations may not be 

correct. Associations include temporal changes in the points 

of withdrawal to account for such aspects as well deepening, 

reconditioning, abandoning and replacing with a new well 

or wells, and constructing additional wells. As part of this 

analysis of rights, an estimate was made of which irrigation 

wells held primary rights and which wells held rights that 

are, in almost all cases, supplemental to junior surface-water 

rights. About 560 ground-water rights with allowable acreage 

for irrigation were estimated to be standby/reserve and 21 

rights with the sole purpose of frost protection were also 

estimated to be standby/reserve.

Pumpage estimates varied widely, both temporally and 

spatially, and within and between the pumpage categories. 

If the estimate of standby/reserve pumpage is included, 

about 395,096 acre-ft of pumpage occurred in 2000. Without 

standby/reserve pumpage, the total annual value in 2000 was 

312,284 acre-ft, which was an increase of about 200,000 

acre-ft since 1960. In 2000, the largest amount of withdrawals 

is for irrigation use at about 271,042 acre-ft. The standby/

reserve part of the total irrigation pumpage was estimated to 

potentially be 82,812 acre-ft in a year with extreme prorating; 

the standby/reserve pumpage would occur only in years 

of prorating of junior surface-water rights. Pumpage in a 

prorating year would be some percentage of the estimated 

value and the percentage is a function of the amount of 

prorating for the year. For 2000, a year without prorating, 

the total irrigation pumpage was about 188,230 acre-ft. The 

standby/reserve estimates are important for understanding the 

effects on ground-water availability from potential additional 

pumpage in prorating years.

The next largest category of pumpage was for PWS at 

46,385 acre-ft, followed by ground-water claims at 34,310 

acre-ft. Pumpage for claims (mostly for irrigation) were 

the most difficult to estimate, but the estimate is considered 

reasonable. Exempt well pumpage was 20,036 acre-ft, which, 

excluding the standby/reserve pumpage is about 5 percent 

of the total pumpage. Together, the remaining categories of 

livestock, commercial and industrial, and fish and wildlife 

propagation account for about 23,323 acre-ft or about 6 

percent of the pumpage.

The reliability of the pumpage estimates for 2000 was 

estimated for each category by estimating a lower and upper 

bound. Based on these ranges, the total 2000 pumpage 

estimate can be as small as 249,570 acre-ft or as large as 

463,534 acre-ft. Excluding the standby/reserve pumpage, this 

potential range is reduced to from 249,570 to 380,723 acre-ft. 

Estimates with the largest potential ranges were for primary 

and standby/reserve irrigation values. The PWS, and fish and 

wildlife propagation categories had the smallest percentage 

error (5 percent) because estimates were principally based on 

provided data.

Excluding standby/reserve pumpage, the total annual 

pumpage for 2000 was estimated to be about 11 percent of 

the appropriated quantity of the surface water diverted for 

irrigation and PWS and about 56 percent of appropriated 

ground water. Total pumpage in 2000 without standby/reserve 

pumpage was about 430 ft3

/s (0.31 million acre-ft) compared 

to mean annual precipitation of about 12,000 ft3/s (8.7 million 

52 Estimates of Ground-Water Pumpage from the Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington, 1960-2000
acre-ft), unregulated streamflow of about 5,600 ft3

/s (4.1 

million acre-ft), regulated streamflow of about 3,600 ft3/s 

(2.6 million acre-ft), and the above diversions of about 3,900 

ft3/s (2.8 million acre-ft). The maximum pumpage occurs 

during July and August and is on the order of 100 ft3/s. 

Potential pumpage was estimated to be about 185 ft3/s for the 

outstanding applications.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the many municipal publicwater suppliers, irrigators, and industrial well owners for 

their cooperation in providing access to their records. 

Thanks also to the many smaller public-water suppliers who 

provided pumpage and population served data. Government 

agencies and groups such as the Bureau of Reclamation, the 

Washington State Departments of Ecology and Health, and the 

Yakama Nation provided valuable support and access to their 

records during this study.

References Cited

Bureau of Reclamation, 1999, Yakima River Basin Water 

Enhancement Project, Washington, Final Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement: U.S. Department of 

Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region, 

Upper Columbia Area Office, Yakima, Wash., 197 p.

Carlston, C.W., 1943, Notes on the early history of water-well 

drilling in the United States: Economic Geology, v. 38, 

no. 2, p 119-136.

Cline, D.R., and Collins, C.A., 1992, Ground-water pumpage 

in the Columbia Plateau, Washington and Oregon, 1945-84: 

in Prince, K.R., and Johnson, A.I., eds., Aquifers of the Far 

West: American Water Resources Association, Monograph 

Series No. 16, p. 99-107.

Cline, D.R., and Collins, C.A., 1993, Ground-water pumpage 

in the Columbia Plateau, Washington and Oregon, 1945 to 

1984: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 90-4085, 31 p., 5 pls.

Cline, D.R., and Knadle, M.E., 1990, Ground-water pumpage 

from the Columbia Plateau regional aquifer system, Washington, 1984: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 87-4135, 32 p., 1 sheet.

Collins, C.A., 1987, Ground-water pumpage from the Columbia Plateau Regional Aquifer System, Oregon, 1984: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

87-4238, 21 p., 1 pl.

Cuffney, T.F., Meador, M.R., Porter, S.D., and Gurtz, M.E., 

1997, Distribution of fish, benthic invertebrate, and algal 

communities in relation to physical and chemical conditions, Yakima River Basin, Washington, 1990: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4280, 

94 p.

Darton, N.H., 1902, Preliminary list of deep borings in the 

United States, Part 1 (Alabama-Montana): U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Supply and Irrigation Papers 57, 60 p.

Dion, N.P., and Lum, W.E., 1977, Municipal, industrial, and 

irrigation water use in Washington, 1975: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 77-308, 34 p.

Drost, B.W., Whiteman, K.J., and Gonthier, J.B., 1990, The 

geologic framework of the Columbia Plateau regional aquifer system, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 87-4238, 

10 p., 10 sheets.

 Flaherty, N.M., 1975, The Yakima Basin and its water: Washington State University, Water Resources Center, Pullman, 

Wash., 29 p.

Fuhrer, G.J., McKenzie, S.W., Rinella, J.F., and Skach, K.A., 

1997, Surface-water assessment of the Yakima River Basin 

in Washington: Analysis of major and minor elements in 

fine-grained-streambed sediment, 1987, with a section on 

Geology, by Gannett, M.W.: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 93-30, 226 p.

Glantz, M.H., 1982, Consequences and responsibilities in 

drought forecasting: The case of Yakima, 1977: Water 

Resources Research, v. 18, no. 1, p. 3-13.

Homer, Collin, Huang, Chengquan, Yang, Limin, Wylie Bruce, 

and Coan, Michael, 2004, Development of a 2001 National 

Landcover Database for the United States: Photogrammetric 

Engineering and Remote Sensing, v. 70, no. 7, p. 829-840. 

On-line on the World Wide Web, accessed October, 2004, at 

URL http://www.mrlc.gov/mrlc2k_product_desc.asp

Hurr, R.T., and Litke, D.W., 1989, Estimating pumping time 

and ground-water withdrawals using energy-consumption 

data: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 89-4107, 27 p.

Jones, M.A., Vaccaro, J.J., and Watkins, A.M., 2006, 

Hydrogeologic framework of sedimentary deposits in six 

structural basins, Yakama River Basin, Washington: U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-

5116, 24 p., 7 pls. On-line on the World Wide Web, at URL 

http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/sir2006-5116

Kinnison, H.B., and Sceva, J.E., 1963, Effects of hydraulic and 

geologic factors on streamflow of the Yakima River Basin, 

Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 

1595, 134 p.

References Cited 53
Kratz, M.R., 1978, Dilemmas, disruptions, but no disaster—drought in the Yakima basin, Washington, 1977: State 

Climatologist for Arizona Climatological Publications, 

Scientific Paper no. 3, 16 p.

Laird, L.B., and Walters, K.L., 1967, Municipal, industrial, 

and irrigation water use in Washington, 1965: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report, 13 p.

Lane, R.C., 2004, Estimated domestic, irrigation, and industrial water use in Washington, 2000: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5015, 16 p.

Meyers, C.W., and Price, S.M., 1979, Geologic studies of the 

Columbia Plateau, a status report: Rockwell International, 

Rockwell Hanford Operations RHO-BWI-ST-4, 520 p.

Omernik, J.M., 1987, Ecoregions of the conterminous United 

States: Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 

v. 77, no. 1, p. 118-125.

Parker, G.G., Jr., 1971, Municipal, industrial, and irrigation 

water use in Washington, 1970: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report, 21 p.

Parker, G.L, and Storey, F.B, 1913, Water powers of the Cascade Range, Part III, Yakima River Basin: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water Supply Paper 369, 169 p., 18 pls.

Russell, I.C., 1897, A reconnaissance of southeastern Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 4, 96 p.

Smith, G.O., 1901, Geology and water resources of a portion 

of Yakima County, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Supply and Irrigation Papers 55, 68 p.

Systems Operations Advisory Committee, 1999, Report on 

biologically based flows for the Yakima River basin: Report 

to The Secretary of the Interior, May 1999, Yakima, Wash., 

Executive Summary, 6 chap., 1 appendix.

Tri-County Water Resource Agency, 2003, Watershed plan 

document, accessed September, 2005 at URL http://www.

co.yakima.wa.us/tricnty/

U.S. Census Bureau, 2004, Census 2000 TIGER/Line Data, 

accessed July 2004 at URL http://www.census.gov/

U.S. District Court, 1945, Consent decree in the District Court 

of the United States for the Eastern District of Washington, 

Southern Division: Civil action No. 21, Spokane, Wash.

Vaccaro, J.J., 1995, Changes in the hydrometeorological 

regime in the Pacific Northwest: Proceedings of the Twelfth 

Annual Pacific Climate Workshop, Asilomar, Cal., Technical Report 46 of the Interagency Ecological Program for the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, p. 143.

Van Metre, Peter, and Seevers, Paul, 1991, Use of Landsat 

imagery to estimate ground-water pumpage for irrigation 

on the Columbia Plateau in Eastern Washington, 1985: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

89-4157, 38 p.

Washington State Department of Ecology, 1998, Washington 

State water law, A Primer: WR-98-152, accessed October 

2000, at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/98152.

Washington State Department of Health, 2001a, Water system 

design manual: Division of Environmental Health, Office 

of Drinking Water, accessed October, 2001 at URL http://

www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/dw/publications/design.htm

Washington State Department of Health, 2001b, Water system 

design manual: Division of Environmental Health, Office 

of Drinking Water, accessed October, 2001-May, 2003 at 

URL http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/dw/our_main_pages/data_

download.htm

Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2002, 

Population, accessed May, 2002 at URL http://www.ofm.

wa.gov/pop

54 Estimates of Ground-Water Pumpage from the Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington, 1960-2000
Agencies:

DOH Washington State Department of Health

DOA Washington State Department of Agriculture

WaDOE Washington State Department of Ecology

Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

TCWRA Tri-County Watershed Resource Agency

Terms:

WRIA Washington State Water Resource Inventory Area

TWSA Current available storage in the reservoirs, estimates 

of unregulated flow, and other sources that are 

principally return flows

TRS Township, range, and section

PWS Public water supply

PCC Power-consumption coefficient

Water-Rights Terms:

WRTS WaDOE’s digital water-rights database (Water Rights 

Tracking System)

Control ID Water-right identification number (in WRTS)

PRU Purpose of use (in WRTS)

POW Point/s of withdrawal (in WRTS)

POU Place of use (in WRTS)

Water-Right PRUs Listed in WRTS:

CI Commercial and Industrial Manufacturing (includes 

food processing and packaging, sand and gravel 

processing, asphalt plant, metal processing and 

manufacturing, pulp and paper manufacturing, 

aquatic plant culture, petroleum refining, car washes, 

and laundries)

CO Cooling for industrial purposes

DG Domestic General (use of water for all domestic uses 

not specifically defined in the water right record 

or not defined by the other specific domestic use 

categories. Includes sewage treatment, farm supply, 

and laboratory use)

DM Domestic Multiple (more than one dwelling, i.e. 

motels, trailer courts, campgrounds, parks, schools, 

port districts, public utility districts, diking and 

drainage districts, water districts, reclamation 

districts, and counties, none of which are under 

municipal control)

Water-Right PRUs Listed in WRTS:—Continued

DS Domestic Single (one dwelling with lawn and garden, 

up to one-half acre)

DY Dairy

EN Environmental Quality (includes pollution control, 

dust control, flood control, or any water use 

which improves or maintains the quality of the 

environment)

FP Frost Protection (frost protection other than 

cranberries)

FR Fire Protection (includes sprinkling log storage 

facilities)

FS Fish Propagation (includes water service to ponds, 

reservoirs, hatcheries, and all other facilities 

involved in the overall purpose of fish propagation)

HE Heat Exchange (use of such equipment as heat pumps, 

refrigeration equipment, and other cooling devices)

HW Highway (maintenance and construction)

IR Irrigation (includes cranberry farming, lawn/garden 

watering with definite acreage, golf courses, 

greenhouses, etc.)

MI Mining (includes washing coal, dredge mining, and 

hydraulic mining)

MU Domestic Municipal (serves general domestic, 

commercial, and industrial needs of an incorporated 

municipality, i.e. cities, towns, and outlying areas)

PO Power (includes hydro-electric, hydraulic ram, and 

thermo-electric)

RE Recreation and Beautification (includes beautifying 

private and public grounds and supplying water to 

swimming pools, boating ponds, etc.)

RW Railway (use of water to serve railway equipment and 

facilities)

ST Stock Watering (includes domestic uses of water 

for dairy/cattle farms, game bird farming, poultry 

farming, and fur-bearing animal farming)

WL Wildlife Propagation (includes water to service nondomesticated animals such as birds, game and nongame species)

Appendix 1. List of Acronyms Used In Report

Appendix 1 55
56 Estimates of Ground-Water Pumpage from the Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington, 1960-2000

This page intentionally left blank
Manuscript approved for publication, August 12, 2006

Prepared by the USGS Publishing Network, 

Publishing Service Center, Tacoma, Washington

Bill Gibbs

Debra Grillo

Donita Parker

Bobbie Jo Richey

Sharon Wahlstrom

For more information concerning the research in this report, contact the 

Director, Washington Water Science Center 

U.S. Geological Survey, 934 Broadway — Suite 300

Tacoma, Washington 98402

http://wa.water.usgs.gov
April 2009

Version 1.12 SIR 2006–5205 Vaccaro and Sumioka

Printed on recycled paper

Estimates of Ground-Water Pumpage from the Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington, 1960-2000