Past and Future Water Use in 

Pacific Coast States

Laurie L. Houston, Michio Watanabe, Jeffrey D. Kline, 

and Ralph J. Alig

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

General Technical 

Report

PNW-GTR-588

July 2003
Authors Laurie L. Houston is a former program associate and Michio Watanabe is a 

graduate research assistant, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 

Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331; Jeffrey D. Kline and Ralph J. Alig

are research foresters, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3200 SW Jefferson 

Way, Corvallis, OR 97331.
Abstract Houston, Laurie L.; Watanabe, Michio; Kline, Jeffrey D.; Alig, Ralph J. 2003. 

Past and future water use in Pacific Coast States. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-588. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 37 p. 

We examine socioeconomic factors affecting water demand and expected trends in 

these factors. Based on these trends, we identify past, current, and projected withdrawal of surface water for various uses in Pacific Coast States (California, Idaho, 

Oregon, and Washington), including public, domestic, commercial, industrial, thermoelectric, livestock, and irrigation. Additionally, we identify projected demands for 

nonconsumptive instream recreational uses of water, such as boating, swimming, and 

fishing, which can compete with consumptive uses. Allocating limited water resources 

across multiple users will present water resource managers and policymakers with 

distinct challenges as water demands increase. To illustrate these challenges, we 

present a case study of issues in the Klamath Basin of northern California and southern Oregon. The case study provides an example of the issues involved in allocating 

scarce water among diverse users and uses, and the difficulties policymakers face 

when attempting to design water allocation policies that require tradeoffs among economic, ecological, and societal values. 

Keywords: Water quality, water quantity, demand, recreation, Klamath Basin.

1

Introduction Scarcity of water in terms of quality, quantity, or timing, raises issues about how to 

deliver water, when, to whom, and for what purposes. Resolving such questions can 

be accomplished through appropriate institutional mechanisms (see, for example, 

Houston and others 2002). Their resolution, however, depends on understanding 

future demands for water in all potential uses, the priorities society places on those 

uses, and how various groups value different uses of water. Such information provides 

the basis for anticipating how trends in particular water uses over time might affect 

other water users, and evaluating who might gain and who might lose as a result of 

particular policy decisions and management actions. 

Growth in demands for water will depend on a variety of changing socioeconomic 

factors, including population, income, and technological innovation, to name a few. 

Because water is essential for human life, increases in population will necessarily 

increase the demand for water. Increases in income also may increase the demand 

for water, because higher incomes generally lead to greater demands for goods and 

services produced by industrial, commercial, and agricultural sectors that use water as 

a production input. Some of these increases in water demand can be offset by technological innovations that increase the efficiency with which water is used in industrial, 

commercial, or agricultural production. Technological innovations, however, also can 

increase total demand for water if new technologies bring about new uses.

Nationally, the efficiency with which water is used has increased over the past few decades. If this trend continues, aggregate withdrawals of fresh water nationally will stay 

below the 1995 level through at least 2050, despite an expected 41-percent increase 

in the U.S. population (Brown 1999). This projection, however, relies on an assumption that irrigated acreage in the Western United States will decline. In Pacific Coast 

States, irrigation accounts for the largest proportion of all freshwater withdrawals and 

is projected to decrease in the future owing, in part, to increased technological efficiencies (Brown 1999). Expected reductions in irrigation water use will be offset by 

increasing demands for water in nonagricultural uses. If irrigation acreage does not 

decline as anticipated, future water withdrawals could be substantially greater (Brown 

1999). Competing demands for water in all uses will shape the context in which water 

management and policymaking will take place.

The overall demand for water in Pacific Coast States is projected to increase in the 

foreseeable future, largely because of anticipated increases in the region’s population. 

For the purposes of this report, we include as Pacific Coast States the coastal states 

of California, Oregon, and Washington, as well as Idaho, because of the relatively substantial impact Idaho has on the Columbia River system. Water uses in these Pacific 

Coast States include navigation, power generation, industrial uses, irrigation, boating, 

fishing, swimming, drinking, lawn and landscape maintenance, and habitat for salmon 

and other fish and wildlife species. Although some of these uses are compatible with 

one another, others can be in direct competition, especially during low rainfall years.

Increased competition for water among different users and uses was most recently exemplified during summer 2001 by conflicts between irrigators and the U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, regarding the allocation of water in Oregon’s 

Klamath River Basin. Lower than average snow and rainfall led to insufficient water for 

both irrigation and riparian or instream habitat for fish species listed as endangered 

under the Endangered Species Act, resulting in significant conflict. Allocating water 

among multiple competing uses will increasingly necessitate difficult tradeoffs among 
2 

socioeconomic and ecological values as competition for limited water resources increases. Information about potential demands for water for various uses can be useful 

for anticipating the need to make such tradeoffs in the future.

In this report, we examine socioeconomic factors affecting water demand and how 

those factors are likely to change. Based on these trends, we identify past, current, 

and projected demands for the withdrawal of surface water for various water uses in 

Pacific Coast States, including public, domestic, commercial, industrial, thermoelectric, 

livestock, and irrigation. Additionally, we summarize projected demands for nonconsumptive instream recreational water uses that will compete with diverted consumptive 

uses. We then summarize water use issues in the Klamath Basin region of northern 

California and southern Oregon. This case study provides an example of the difficulties managers and policymakers can face when attempting to allocate limited water 

resources among diverse users and uses.

Future demand for both freshwater withdrawals and water recreation will depend on 

trends in socioeconomic factors, such as changes in population, income, and irrigated 

acreages, and changes in technology that improve water use efficiencies. Expected 

trends in these factors can be used to describe future demands for water in all of its 

uses. Examining past trends in water use by state and use category can help formulate expected trends in water demand determinants and water use. 

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with individual states, collects 

and reports uniform information on the sources and uses of water in the United States. 

Reports are published every 5 years. This effort provides long-term data on national 

water use that can be used to assess the effectiveness of alternative water management policies, regulations, and conservation activities and to project water demands 

(Solley and others 1998). Total withdrawn freshwater use, as reported by USGS, consists of eight water use categories: public, domestic, commercial, irrigation, livestock, 

industrial, mining, and thermoelectric power. In Pacific Coast States, very little water is 

used for livestock, mining, and thermoelectric power, and for this reason we have aggregated these categories along with traditional industrial and commercial uses into a 

single industrial and commercial category. With the exception of thermoelectric power, 

these water uses are primarily consumptive. Consumptive uses generally reduce the 

quantity of water available for instream uses, because typically only a small proportion 

of withdrawals is returned to water systems. Water that is returned to water systems 

can be of lower quality because of changes in its temperature or the introduction of 

chemical compounds.

Historical trends in each water use category for Pacific Coast States can be established by using data provided in USGS water use reports (Murray 1968; Murray and 

Reeves 1972, 1977; Solley and others 1983, 1988, 1993, 1998). Although the data are 

a useful resource for describing historical water use, minor variations over time in data 

collection methods and personnel have resulted in frequent fluctuations in reported 

use that likely are unrelated to changes in actual use. These fluctuations are magnified 

as the data are reported for smaller scales (state versus regional, for example) and for 

more specific uses. For this reason, we think it best to focus on long-term trends present in the data rather than relatively short-term fluctuations from one reporting year to 

the next.

Historical Freshwater 

Withdrawals
3

Aggregate historical freshwater withdrawals in California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington are presented at 5-year intervals (table 1). Historically, water use has increased 

from 45,080 million gallons per day (mgd) in 1960 to 68,132 mgd in 1995, with a high 

of 77,000 mgd in 1980. Over the entire period, aggregate freshwater withdrawals increased by 51 percent. This increase is largely due to the nearly doubling of the population in Pacific Coast States during this time (table 1).

Although freshwater withdrawals have increased by 51 percent since 1960, per capita 

withdrawals have been declining since about 1975, and this has led to declining aggregate withdrawals since about 1985 (table 1). Solley and others (1998), however, suggest that the initial dip in aggregate freshwater withdrawals in 1985 was partially due 

to improved data collection by the USGS and changes in their withdrawal estimation 

procedures. For reasons such as these, Brown (1999) emphasizes the importance of 

looking at long-term trends in each water use category rather than short-term changes 

when using USGS data to characterize historical water use. 

More recent reductions in freshwater withdrawals can be attributed to decreases 

in withdrawals for irrigation, which is the category that historically has made up the 

largest proportion of aggregate withdrawals. From 1960 to 1995, irrigation withdrawals averaged 84 percent of total freshwater withdrawals, ranging from a minimum of 

80 percent in 1995 to a maximum of 87 percent in 1970. Freshwater withdrawals for 

public and domestic uses generally have made up the smallest proportion of freshwater withdrawals, ranging between 6 and 9 percent of total freshwater withdrawals in 

the region, and averaging 7 percent. Industrial and commercial uses (1960 to 1995) 

have ranged from 7 to 11 percent, and averaged 9 percent. Historical freshwater withdrawals for individual water use categories and individual states can present a more 

complete picture of changes in water demands, and can provide clues about future 

demands.

Table 1—Historical freshwater withdrawals, population, and withdrawals per 

capita in Pacific Coast States, 1960 to 1995

Withdrawals 

Year Withdrawals Change Population per capita

Million gallons per day Percent Thousands Gallons per day

1960 45,080 — 21,168 2,130 

1965 59,862 33 24,175 2,476 

1970 67,237 12 26,258 2,561

1975 72,140 7 28,312 2,548 

1980 77,000 7 31,545 2,441 

1985 73,218 -5 34,508 2,122 

1990 71,312 -3 38,721 1,842 

1995 68,132 -4 41,231 1,652 

Change, 1960 to 1995 23,052 51 20,063 -478 

Note: Pacific Coast States include California, Washington, Idaho, and Oregon. Total freshwater withdrawals include withdrawals for public and domestic uses, industrial and commercial use (including 

livestock and thermoelectric), and irrigation uses.

Sources: Freshwater withdrawals are from USGS national water use reports (Murray 1968; Murray and 

Reeves 1972, 1977; Solley and others 1983, 1988, 1993, 1998). Population data are from USDC Bureau 

of Economic Analysis (2001) and USDC Bureau of the Census (2000a).
4 

For many people, the first use of water that comes to mind is public and domestic use. 

Public and domestic uses include household uses, such as drinking, food preparation, 

bathing, washing, flushing toilets, and watering lawns and gardens, as well as water 

for firefighting, street washing, municipal office buildings, parks, and public swimming 

pools. Public and domestic uses in Pacific Coast States have increased by 76 percent since 1960 (table 2), owing in large part to the roughly 95-percent increase in the 

region’s population over the same period. Water use data for 1995 indicate a recent 

and more moderate rate of increase; however, with only one data point indicating this 

decline, it is impossible to determine if this is the start of an actual trend.

On a per capita basis, withdrawals for public and domestic water uses have been fairly 

steady. Per capita withdrawals for public and domestic water uses generally have followed a declining trend since 1960 (table 2, fig. 1). Per capita public and domestic water withdrawals in the region averaged 144 gallons per day (gpd) in 1995, with Oregon 

having the lowest per capita withdrawals (134 gpd), and Idaho having the highest (197 

gpd). 

The populations of Pacific Coast States are projected to continue to grow rather significantly over the next few decades relative to a fairly constant, or at best only moderately declining per capita water consumption. For this reason, we can expect that 

public and domestic demands for freshwater withdrawals will increase with increasing 

populations in future years. The magnitude of this increase will rely greatly on the rate 

of population growth and on water use efficiency gains resulting from technological 

improvements that could contribute to lower per capita consumption. 

Withdrawals for industrial and commercial uses include water for motels, hotels, restaurants, office buildings, commercial facilities, civilian and military institutions, and 

industrial uses such as processing, washing, and cooling facilities. For the purposes 

of this report, we also include water for livestock and thermoelectric uses. In many 

cases, freshwater withdrawal estimates for commercial uses are based on the populations of commercial facilities—for example, the number of workers in an office building, the number of inmates at a penal facility, or average occupancy rate of a hotel—

rather than actual water use. In contrast, most estimates of industrial water use are 

based on actual reported freshwater withdrawals (Solley and others 1998). Livestock 

water is used primarily for raising cattle, hogs, sheep, and poultry; in 1985, water used 

for aquaculture was removed from the industrial category and added to the livestock 

category (Brown 1999). Thermoelectric uses include water used in fossil fuel, nuclear, 

and geothermal electric power generation (Solley and others 1998). The water use 

estimates for the thermoelectric category are fairly reliable because they are based on 

actual withdrawal data maintained by federal and state agencies.

Freshwater withdrawals for industrial and commercial uses in Pacific Coast States 

increased steadily between 1960 and 1980, declined somewhat between 1980 and 

1990, but increased again by 1995 (table 3). The decline between 1980 and 1990 

can be attributed to new technologies in the industrial sector that required less water, 

improved plant efficiencies, and increased water recycling in addition to higher energy 

prices and increased regulation of pollutant discharges (Solley and others 1993). The 

overall trend, however, has mirrored the increasing trend in the region’s population. 

Between 1960 and 1995, the average annual percentage of increase for both population and freshwater withdrawals for industrial and commercial uses has been close to 

Public and Domestic 

Uses

Industrial and 

Commercial Uses
5

Table 2—Historical freshwater withdrawals and per capita withdrawals for public 

and domestic uses in Pacific Coast States, 1960 to 1995

State 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

Withdrawals

Million gallons per day

California 2,520 3,388 2,920 3,120 3,440 3,705 4,850 4,459

Idaho 82 79 134 151 196 289 241 229

Oregon 277 189 310 310 290 398 386 422

Washington 490 440 495 480 492 614 767 812

 Total 3,369 4,096 3,859 4,061 4,418 5,006 6,244 5,922

Per capita withdrawals

Gallons per day

California 159 182 146 145 145 140 162 142

Idaho 122 115 187 181 207 291 238 197

Oregon 156 98 148 133 110 149 135 134

Washington 172 148 145 133 118 140 157 150

 Average 159 169 147 143 140 145 161 144

Note: Per capita withdrawals are based on aggregate withdrawals combined with population data reported 

in USDC Bureau of Economic Analysis (2001) and USDC Bureau of the Census (2000a). 

Source: USGS national water use reports (Murray 1968; Murray and Reeves 1972, 1977; Solley and others 

1983, 1988, 1993, 1998).

Figure 1—Historical freshwater withdrawals and withdrawals per capita for public and domestic uses 

in Pacific Coast States, 1960 to 1995 (based on table 2).
6 

3 percent. If we assume that this correlation will continue in future years, then population growth can be a useful indicator of future demand for industrial and commercial 

freshwater withdrawals.

A second factor often used as an indicator of industrial and commercial water uses 

is withdrawals per personal income. Aggregate income levels—the sum of personal 

incomes of all people—influence demands for goods and services produced by industrial and commercial sectors. Average withdrawals for industrial and commercial water 

uses per $1,000 aggregate personal income (average per capita income times population) in Pacific Coast States increased between 1960 and 1970 but have been declining since then (table 3, fig. 2). Relatively large differences among states in withdrawals per $1,000 aggregate personal income are due to dissimilarities in the types of 

water-using industries existing in each state, as well as differences in populations and 

incomes.

Historically, irrigation has represented the largest proportion of all freshwater withdrawals in Pacific Coast States, ranging from 80 to 87 percent of aggregate withdrawals. The irrigation category includes water used to irrigate crops and public golf 

courses. Methods used to estimate irrigation withdrawals differ. In some cases irrigation withdrawals are based on estimates of the water needs of specific agricultural 

crops. In other cases, irrigation withdrawals are estimated based on typical water application rates for crops, irrigated acreages, and estimated conveyance losses (Solley 

and others 1998). Historical data presented are derived from a combination of these 

methods, because each region tends to collect data by using the best methods available to them.

Freshwater withdrawals for irrigation use peaked in Pacific Coast States in 1980, at 

65,300 mgd (table 4). California historically has had the most irrigated acreage of 

Pacific Coast States. California irrigation withdrawals increased through the 1960s and 

early 1970s, but have declined somewhat since 1980. Idaho irrigation withdrawals represent the second largest share of irrigation withdrawals among the four states. Idaho 

irrigation withdrawals peaked in 1985 at 20,600 mgd, declining substantially since then 

to 13,000 mgd by 1995. Oregon and Washington irrigation withdrawals have remained 

fairly constant over the past several years, averaging about 6,200 mgd in each state 

(table 4). Historical trends in freshwater withdrawals for irrigation closely follow trends 

in irrigation withdrawals per irrigated acre (fig. 3). If downward trends in withdrawals 

per irrigated acre continue as they have in past years, we likely can expect that freshwater withdrawals for irrigation will continue to decline in the future. 

Information about future water demands across all use categories in Pacific Coast 

States can aid in anticipating and addressing water management and policy issues. 

Such information provides the basis for anticipating how trends in particular water 

uses might affect other water users over time, and evaluating who might gain and who 

might lose as a result of particular policy decisions and management actions.

There have been several attempts to project water use in the United States (Brown 

1999; Guldin 1989; National Water Commission 1973; Water Resources Council 1968, 

1978; Wollman and Bonem 1971). The projections reported by many of these studies 

differ significantly, and there are frequently relatively large discrepancies between projections and actual water use observed (Brown 1999, Guldin 1989, Osborn and others 

1986). The accuracy of water use (or demand) forecasts depends on correctly identifying the determinants of water use as well as carefully constructing a reasonable set 

Irrigation

Projections 

of Freshwater 

Withdrawals
7

Table 3—Historical freshwater withdrawals and withdrawals per $1,000 of 

aggregate personal income for industrial and commercial uses (including 

thermoelectric and livestock) in Pacific Coast States, 1960 to 1995

State 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

Withdrawals

Million gallons per day

California 1,246 2,252 2,651 2,750 3,357 3,073 2,336 2,946

Idaho 257 249 478 2,029 2,242 1,410 957 1,873

Oregon 1,359 1,235 834 630 638 437 1,181 1,317

Washington 1,017 907 1,040 1,183 1,367 1,438 1,107 1,540

 Total 3,879 4,643 5,003 6,592 7,605 6,358 5,580 7,676

Withdrawals per $1,000 aggregate personal income

Gallons per day

California 8.5 13.8 12.6 9.4 7.4 5.0 3.1 3.7

Idaho 61.4 55.1 85.8 228.8 169.9 89.1 51.2 79.1

Oregon 102.2 86.7 156.8 22.9 14.9 8.8 19.4 17.9

Washington 44.5 38.5 33.2 26.2 18.9 16.2 9.7 11.5

 Averagea 20.7 22.5 26.4 17.6 13.0 8.3 5.8 7.5

Note: Withdrawals per aggregate income based on historical withdrawals (table 6), historical population 

levels (USDC Bureau of Economic Analysis 2001, USDC Bureau of the Census 2000a), and personal 

income figures (USDC Bureau of Economic Analysis 2001).

a Weighted by population.

Source: USGS national water use reports (Murray 1968; Murray and Reeves 1972, 1977; Solley and 

others 1983, 1988, 1993, 1998).

Figure 2—Historical freshwater withdrawals and withdrawals per $1,000 aggregate personal income for 

industrial and commercial uses in Pacific Coast States, 1960 to 1995 (based on table 3).
8 

Table 4—Historical freshwater withdrawals for irrigation uses, irrigated acres, and 

withdrawals per irrigated acre in Pacific Coast States, 1960 to 1995

State 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

Withdrawals 

Million gallons per day

California 18,000 25,000 33,000 35,000 37,000 30,600 27,900 28,900

Idaho 11,000 16,000 15,000 15,000 16,000 20,600 18,700 13,000

Oregon 4,800 5,200 4,800 6,000 5,900 5,710 6,860 6,170

Washington 3,700 4,900 5,600 5,500 6,400 4,940 6,030 6,470

 Total 37,500 51,100 58,400 61,500 65,300 61,850 59,490 54,540

Irrigated acres 

Thousands of acres

California 7,436 7,527 7,342 7,938 8,483 7,942 7,581 8,256

Idaho 2,622 2,793 2,780 3,013 3,463 3,312 3,244 3,400

Oregon 1,429 1,590 1,528 1,641 1,844 1,712 1,633 1,818

Washington 1,036 1,165 1,241 1,392 1,639 1,567 1,592 1,680

 Total 12,522 13,075 12,891 13,984 15,429 14,532 14,050 15,154

Withdrawals per irrigated acre a

1,000 gallons/day/irrigated acre

California 2.42 3.32 4.49 4.41 4.36 3.85 3.68 3.50 

Idaho 4.20 5.73 5.39 4.98 4.62 6.22 5.77 3.82 

Oregon 3.36 3.27 3.14 3.66 3.20 3.34 4.20 3.39 

Washington 3.57 4.21 4.51 3.95 3.91 3.15 3.79 3.85 

a Computed by dividing withdrawals by irrigated acres. 

Source: Irrigation uses from USGS national water use reports (Murray 1968; Murray and Reeves 1972, 1977; Solley 

and others 1983, 1988, 1993, 1998); irrigated acres from USDC Bureau of the Census (1995) and USDA National 

Agricultural Statistics Service (1999).

of assumptions regarding future levels of those determinants. Even with such care, the 

accuracy of water use projections can be greatly affected by unexpected changes in 

technology and economic conditions. 

Our projections of demands for freshwater withdrawals for public and domestic, industrial and commercial, and irrigation uses are based on methods used by Brown 

(1999) to estimate freshwater withdrawals for the United States as part of the 2000 

Resources Planning Act assessment (USDA Forest Service 2001). However, whereas 

Brown estimated freshwater withdrawals by watershed, we have estimated withdrawals by state, to facilitate state-level planning and policy development. Disaggregating 

freshwater withdrawals by state also enabled us to customize the assumptions used 

to make our projections from state-level trends in key socioeconomic determinants of 

water demand. 

Demand projections for each of the public and domestic, industrial and commercial, 

and irrigation use categories are based on assumptions regarding the primary determinants of water demand for each category. For public and domestic uses, projections 
9

are based on expected increases in population and expected per capita freshwater 

withdrawals. For industrial and commercial uses, projections are based on expected 

increases in population and per capita income, and expected withdrawals per dollar 

of income. For irrigation uses, projections are based on expected changes in irrigated 

acres and expected freshwater withdrawals per irrigated acre. The assumptions used 

in this analysis generally follow those made by Brown (1999) to project freshwater 

withdrawals nationwide. In some instances, however, we have made adjustments to 

Brown’s assumptions to more closely represent likely future trends in Pacific Coast 

States. 

Assumptions about changes in the determinants of freshwater withdrawals will have 

a significant impact on water use projections for each use category. Projections for 

Pacific Coast States indicate that the region’s population will increase 44 to 153 percent by 2050, depending on which projection series is chosen (table 5). The actual 

impacts of population growth on freshwater withdrawals will be partially offset by anticipated reductions of irrigated acreages as agricultural lands are converted to urban 

uses to accommodate increasing populations. Increasing technological efficiencies, as 

well as water conservation measures, also will play a role. The specific assumptions 

regarding these additional determinants are described in the particular subsections 

describing each of the use categories. The influence of each determinant is evaluated 

in a sensitivity analysis.

Figure 3—Historical freshwater withdrawals and average withdrawals per irrigated acre for irrigation uses 

in Pacific Coast States, 1960 to 1995 (based on table 4).
10 

Table 5—Low-, medium-, and high-series projections of population for Pacific Coast 

States, 2000 to 2050

 Change

State 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2000–2050

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thousands - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent

Low series

 California 33,816 38,832 42,475 46,045 48,976 49,897 48

 Idaho 1,292 1,465 1,579 1,662 1,714 1,729 34

 Oregon 3,416 3,748 4,043 4,240 4,330 4,397 29

 Washington 5,884 6,507 7,103 7,492 7,753 7,894 34

 Total 44,408 50,552 55,200 59,440 62,773 63,917 44

Medium series

 California 33,872 39,958 45,449 51,869 58,731 64,242 90

 Idaho 1,294 1,507 1,690 1,872 2,055 2,226 72

 Oregon 3,421 3,857 4,326 4,776 5,193 5,662 66

 Washington 5,894 6,696 7,601 8,440 9,298 10,163 72

 Total 44,481 52,018 59,065 66,957 75,276 82,293 85

High series

 California 33,934 41,430 49,605 60,517 74,077 87,965 159

 Idaho 1,296 1,563 1,844 2,185 2,592 3,047 135

 Oregon 3,428 3,999 4,722 5,572 6,550 7,752 126

 Washington 5,905 6,943 8,296 9,847 11,727 13,916 136

 Total 44,564 53,935 64,467 78,120 94,946 112,680 153

Note: Projections for California and Oregon to the year 2040 and Washington to the year 2030 were obtained from 

the California Department of Finance (1998), Oregon Office of Economic Analysis (1997), and Washington Office of 

Financial Management (2001). Projections for Idaho to 2025 were obtained from the USDC Bureau of the Census 

(2000a). Projections beyond those were computed by linear extrapolation. Low and high projections were computed 

by applying the ratios of low and high population series to the middle population series (USDC Bureau of the Census 

2000b) for the Nation, and applying these ratios to the projections for each state. Data were obtained from the following 

web sites: 

http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/data.htm. (6 March 2002) 

http://www.oea.das.state.or.us/demographic/longterm/or_sumry.htm. (6 March 2002) 

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/popagesex19702020/4CAST00_rev2.xls. (6 March 2002) 

http://www.census.gov/population/projections/state/stpjpop.txt. (6 March 2002) 

http://www.census.gov/population/projections/nation/summary/np-t1.txt. (6 March 2002) 

Projections of freshwater withdrawals for public and domestic uses depend largely on 

expected population growth in Pacific Coast States and assumptions about how per 

capita water withdrawals might change in the future. Projected freshwater withdrawals 

for public and domestic uses were estimated by using the following equation:

Freshwater withdrawals for = Population × Average per capita 

public and domestic use freshwater withdrawals.

Population projections for California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington (table 5) were 

obtained from a combination of state projections and data reported by the Bureau 

of the Census (California Department of Finance 1998, Oregon Office of Economic 

Projected Withdrawals 

for Public and 

Domestic Uses
11

Projected Withdrawals 

for Industrial and 

Commercial Uses

Analysis 1997, USDC Bureau of the Census 2000a, Washington Office of Financial 

Management 2001). Baseline projections were computed by using the medium-series 

population projections, whereas low and high population projections were reserved 

for later sensitivity analysis. For all states, the medium-series population projections 

indicate increasing populations in future years, with California experiencing the largest 

increase in population and Oregon the smallest. 

Historically, per capita freshwater withdrawals for public and domestic uses have 

experienced relatively moderate fluctuations over time in California, Oregon, and 

Washington, and relatively significant fluctuations over time in Idaho. In estimating 

national freshwater withdrawal projections, Brown (1999) assumed that per capita 

withdrawals would equal the average of their 1990 and 1995 levels. Given the moderate to significant fluctuations in per capita withdrawals across Pacific Coast States, 

however, we used the historical averages (1960 to 1995) of freshwater withdrawals per 

capita to estimate future withdrawal projections, rather than relying on the most recent 

two data points. These averages are 152 gpd in California, 192 gpd in Idaho, 133 gpd 

in Oregon, and 145 gpd in Washington. 

Given medium-series population projections and historical averages of per capita 

freshwater withdrawals, projections for public and domestic water uses indicate relatively significant increases in freshwater withdrawals for public and domestic uses 

regionwide by 2050 (table 6). Much of this projected increase is due to a near doubling 

of withdrawals in California, owing largely to expectations of significant population 

growth in that state. By 2050, withdrawals for public and domestic uses are projected 

to increase by 90 percent in California, 72 percent in Idaho, 65 percent in Oregon, and 

72 percent in Washington, for a regionwide average increase of 85 percent.

Projected increases in freshwater withdrawals for public and domestic uses closely 

mirror projected rates of population growth in Pacific Coast States because we have 

assumed constant per capita withdrawals for 2000 to 2050. Historical fluctuations in 

per capita withdrawals, however, do create some uncertainty regarding future trends. It 

is conceivable that new or increasing conservation efforts or technological efficiencies 

could reduce per capita consumption. In fact, such changes likely will be necessary in 

order to supply fresh water to the growing population expected. 

Conceptually, the amount of water used by industrial and commercial users is dependent on demands for industrial and commercial outputs, which in turn are dependent 

on population levels and personal income levels, among other factors. For this reason, population and per capita income are commonly used to estimate projections 

of freshwater withdrawals for industrial and commercial uses. Projections of real per 

capita income were estimated by applying projected annual percentage changes in 

real per capita income reported by the USDC Bureau of Economic Analysis (1992) 

through 2040, by using actual per capita income for 1995 as the base year (table 7). 

Projected per capita incomes for 2040 through 2050 were estimated by extrapolation. 

Idaho is expected to have the largest increase in real per capita personal income, with 

a projected increase of 69 percent by 2050. Real per capita incomes are projected to 

increase by 59 percent in Oregon and Washington, and 54 percent in California. 

In addition to population and per capita income, a third determinant of freshwater 

withdrawals for industrial and commercial uses is withdrawals per aggregate personal 

income. We assume that, despite the slight increase in 1995, withdrawals per $1,000 

of aggregate personal income will continue to decline by 1 percent per year, and we 

have projected future withdrawal rates per income accordingly (table 7). This rate is 
12 

Table 6—Projected freshwater withdrawals for public and domestic uses in Pacific Coast 

States, 2000 to 2050

 Change

State 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2000–2050

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million gallons per day - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent

California 5,165 6,093 6,931 7,910 8,956 9,797 90

Idaho 249 290 325 360 395 428 72

Oregon 455 512 575 635 690 752 65

Washington 856 972 1,103 1,225 1,350 1,475 72

 Total 6,724 7,868 8,934 10,129 11,391 12,452 85

Note: Projected from 1995 base year. Projections based on medium-series population projections (table 5) and 

historical average per capita freshwater withdrawals (table 3).

Table 7—Projected per capita personal income and freshwater withdrawals per $1,000 of 

aggregate personal income for industrial and commercial uses (including livestock and 

thermoelectric uses) in Pacific Coast States, 2000 to 2050

 Change

State 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2000–2050

Per capita personal income a

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1996 dollars - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent

California 26,522 28,929 31,555 34,419 37,543 40,950 54

Idaho 21,455 23,826 26,460 29,384 32,632 36,239 69

Oregon 24,613 26,992 29,602 32,463 35,602 39,044 59

Washington 25,935 28,461 31,234 34,276 37,614 41,278 59

 Average c 26,150 28,577 31,225 34,121 37,284 40,732 56

Withdrawals per $1,000 aggregate personal income b

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Gallons per day - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

California 3.51 3.17 2.87 2.59 2.35 2.12 —

Idaho 75.22 68.02 61.52 55.64 50.32 45.51 —

Oregon 16.98 15.36 13.89 12.56 11.36 10.27 —

Washington 10.90 9.86 8.92 8.07 7.29 6.60 —

 Average c 7.17 6.45 5.83 5.24 4.70 4.26 —

aBased on the projected average annual percentage of change (USDC Bureau of Economic Analysis 1992) applied to 

1995 values. 

bBased on population (table 5) and assumed 1 percent decrease in withdrawals per $1,000 aggregate income, by state.

cWeighted by population.
13

slightly less than the historical rate but is similar to Brown’s (1999) assumption that reflects a continuation of past trends based on expectations of more efficient production 

processes and greater levels of water recycling in the future. 

Given projections of population, per capita income, and withdrawals per aggregate 

personal income, projections of freshwater withdrawals for industrial and commercial 

water uses were estimated by using the following equation:

Freshwater withdrawal Per capita Withdrawals per

for industrial and = Population × income × $1,000 aggregate 

commercial uses income.

The projections indicate that all four states in the region will experience increases in 

freshwater withdrawals for industrial and commercial uses (table 8). The increases 

largely are due to projected increases in population and per capita incomes, which 

more than offset projected declines in withdrawals per aggregate income. Freshwater 

withdrawals for industrial and commercial uses are projected to increase most in 

California (77 percent by 2050), followed by Idaho (76 percent), Washington (66 

percent), and Oregon (59 percent), making a 71-percent increase for the region as a 

whole. This is equivalent to an increase of 5,955 mgd over industrial and commercial 

freshwater withdrawal estimates for 2000. In percentage terms, however, this increase 

is less than the projected increase in the region’s population of 85 percent from 2000 

to 2050 (table 5, medium series). Additional efficiency gains likely could be expected if 

some water use shifts from water-intensive manufacturing and other heavy industry to 

more service-oriented businesses, leading to lower rates of increase.

Irrigation water use is a complicated function of several factors. Population growth 

simultaneously increases demands for agricultural crops while decreasing the availability of irrigable agricultural land because of the conversion of agricultural land to 

urban uses (Brown 1999). Other factors that affect irrigation water use include energy 

prices, irrigation technology, international markets, federal agricultural policies, and the 

increasing need to maintain instream flow for nonconsumptive uses such as recreation 

and wildlife habitat. Our irrigation withdrawal projections are based on a simplified set 

of two factors—the area of land under irrigation and freshwater withdrawals per irrigated acre. These two determinants capture the effects of many of the factors mentioned.

Our expectations for trends in irrigated acreages are based on historical trends reported in the U.S. census of agriculture (USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service 

1999, USDC Bureau of the Census 1995). Historical data show that irrigated acreages 

peaked in 1980 in all four states, and then declined until 1990 when they began to 

increase again. The relatively strong increase in 1995 suggests that recent declining 

trends may be slowing or reversing altogether.

We assume that irrigated acreage will continue a slow decline, largely because of expectations of increasing conflicts between agriculture and urban land uses, increasing 

demands regarding maintenance of instream flow for endangered species, and declining availability of water for irrigation. We assume that the rate of decline in irrigated 

acreage will be equivalent to the average annual percentage of change observed 

since 1980. Because in California both irrigated acres and percentage of change in irrigated acres have been so much larger than in other Pacific Coast States, we computed one average annual percentage of change for California and another for the 

Projected Withdrawals 

for Irrigation 
14 

other three states combined, weighted by the irrigated acreage in each state. Under 

these assumptions, irrigated acreage in the region is projected to decline by almost 6 

percent between 2000 and 2050 (table 9). 

Historically, water withdrawals per irrigated acre have varied owing to climatic variations and other factors, especially in Idaho, and an obvious time trend is difficult to 

define. To avoid localized phenomena, such as weather, Brown (1999) projected 

withdrawals per irrigated acre based on data aggregated for the Western and Eastern 

United States. Withdrawals per irrigated acre were found to have declined in Western 

States at an annual rate of 1 percent from 1980 to 1985, and 0.1 percent from 1985 to 

1995. Moore and others (1990) attribute the decrease in withdrawals per irrigated acre 

in recent years to a variety of factors, such as the waning of publicly funded dam and 

canal construction, higher prices for water from publicly funded projects, increasing 

groundwater pumping lifts, and improved irrigation technology. Brown (1999) assumed 

that withdrawals per irrigated acre in Western States would continue to decline in future years, but at a decreasing rate—from 0.08 percent per year to 0.04 percent per 

year by the end of their 40-year projection period.Following Brown (1999), we assume 

that withdrawals per irrigated acre in Pacific Coast States would continue to decrease 

by 0.08 percent per year in 2000, gradually declining to a 0.04-percent-per-year decrease by 2050 (table 9).

Given the projected irrigated acreage and withdrawals per irrigated acre, projected 

freshwater withdrawals for irrigation were estimated by using the following equation: 

Freshwater withdrawals = Irrigated acres × Freshwater withdrawals

for irrigation use per irrigated acre.

Estimated projections suggest that irrigation withdrawals will decrease in Pacific 

Coast States through 2050 (table 10). Projected declines are greatest in California 

(12 percent), with Idaho, Oregon, and Washington all projected to experience declines 

of 6 percent, for a regionwide average of 9 percent. In absolute volume, the projected decline again is largest in California at 3,380 mgd, followed by Idaho (754 mgd), 

Washington (375 mgd), and Oregon (358 mgd). It is conceivable that increased technological efficiencies in the future could lead to even greater reductions in freshwater 

withdrawals for irrigation, although this remains somewhat uncertain and will depend 

greatly on the crops grown in each state and the profitability of developing and adopting new technologies. 

Table 8—Projected freshwater withdrawals for industrial and commercial uses in Pacific 

Coast States, 2000 to 2050

 Change

State 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 1995–2050

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million gallons per day - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent

California 3,150 3,665 4,113 4,630 5,172 5,580 77

Idaho 2,088 2,443 2,751 3,061 3,374 3,671 76

Oregon 1,430 1,599 1,779 1,948 2,100 2,271 59

Washington 1,667 1,879 2,117 2,333 2,551 2,767 66

 Total 8,335 9,587 10,759 11,972 13,197 14,290 71

Note: Projected from 1995 base year. Based on medium-series projected population (table 5), combined with projected 

per capita personal income and withdrawals per $1,000 income (table 7).
15

Table 9—Projected irrigated acreage and freshwater withdrawals per 

irrigated acre in Pacific Coast States, 2000 to 2050

State 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Irrigated acreage a

Thousand acres

California 8,183 8,037 7,893 7,753 7,614 7,479

Idaho 3,392 3,376 3,360 3,344 3,327 3,312

Oregon 1,814 1,805 1,796 1,788 1,779 1,771

Washington 1,676 1,668 1,660 1,652 1,644 1,636

 Total 15,064 14,885 14,709 14,536 14,365 14,197

Withdrawals per irrigated acre b

Thousand gallons per day

California 3.50 3.49 3.46 3.44 3.41 3.39

Idaho 3.82 3.81 3.78 3.75 3.73 3.70

Oregon 3.39 3.38 3.36 3.33 3.31 3.28

Washington 3.85 3.84 3.81 3.78 3.75 3.73

aBased on average annual percentage of change (1980 to 1995) for California, and the acresweighted average annual percentage of change (1980 to 1995) for Idaho, Oregon, and Washington 

applied to 1995 irrigated acres (table 4).

bBased on assumed annual decline in withdrawals per irrigated acre of 0.08 to 0.04 percent, 2000 

and 2050.

Table 10—Projected freshwater withdrawals for irrigation uses in Pacific Coast States, 

2000 to 2050

 Change

State 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2000–2050

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million gallons per day - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent

California 28,528 27,817 27,125 26,449 25,790 25,148 -12

Idaho 12,917 12,763 12,610 12,459 12,310 12,163 -6

Oregon 6,131 6,057 5,985 5,913 5,843 5,773 -6

Washington 6,429 6,352 6,276 6,201 6,127 6,054 -6

 Total 54,004 52,989 51,996 51,023 50,070 49,138 -9

Note: Projected from 1995 base year. Based on projected irrigated acreage and withdrawals per irrigated acre (table 9).

Aggregate projections of freshwater withdrawals in Pacific Coast States suggest that 

withdrawals will increase between 7 and 15 percent, with a regional increase of 10 

percent above 2000 levels (table 11, fig. 4). In absolute terms, increased withdrawals 

are projected to be greatest in California (3,682 mgd), followed by Washington (1,345 

mgd), Idaho (1,008 mgd), and Oregon (781 mgd), for a regionwide increase of 6,816 

mgd. This is a relatively substantial projected increase in freshwater withdrawals—

equivalent to 85 percent of current (2000) withdrawals for Oregon alone. Depending 

on where these new withdrawals come from, such an increase could have relatively 

significant implications for the availability of water for instream uses such as water 

recreation and maintenance of riparian and instream habitat for endangered species.

Projected Aggregate 

Withdrawals for All 

Uses
16 

All Pacific Coast States are projected to experience declining freshwater withdrawals 

for irrigation by 2050, ranging from 6 to 12 percent below 2000 levels, for a projected 

regionwide decrease of 9 percent by 2050 (table 11, fig. 4). This is equivalent to a 

reduction of 4,866 mgd between 2000 and 2050. However, owing mostly to expected 

increase in population, reductions in irrigation withdrawals are projected to be more 

than offset by relatively substantial increases in withdrawals for public and domestic, 

and industrial and commercial uses. In spite of these relative changes in projected 

water usage, irrigation is expected to continue to be the primary user of freshwater 

withdrawals in 2050. Our projections suggest that irrigation will represent an estimated 

65 percent of total withdrawals in 2050, equivalent to 49,138 mgd, or about 597 gpd 

per person. Given that irrigation will continue to account for the greatest share of all 

freshwater withdrawals, greater reductions in irrigation water use in the future could 

free up water to meet expected withdrawal increases demanded by other user categories. Smaller, but still significant savings, also could potentially come from greater efficiencies in water use by public and domestic and industrial and commercial users.

Total 11—Projected freshwater withdrawals, by use sector, for Pacific Coast States, 2000 to 2050

State and Change

use sector 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2000–2050

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million gallons per day - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent

California:

 Public and domestic 5,165 6,093 6,931 7,910 8,956 9,797 90

 Industrial and commercial 3,150 3,665 4,113 4,630 5,172 5,580 77

 Irrigation 28,528 27,817 27,125 26,449 25,790 25,148 -12

 Total 36,843 37,576 38,168 38,989 39,918 40,525 10

Idaho:

 Public and domestic 249 290 325 360 395 428 72

 Industrial and commercial 2,088 2,443 2,751 3,061 3,374 3,671 76

 Irrigation 12,917 12,763 12,610 12,459 12,310 12,163 -6

 Total 15,254 15,496 15,686 15,880 16,079 16,262 7

Oregon:

 Public and domestic 455 512 575 635 690 752 65

 Industrial and commercial 1,430 1,599 1,779 1,948 2,100 2,271 59

 Irrigation 6,131 6,057 5,985 5,913 5,843 5,773 -6

 Total 8,015 8,169 8,338 8,496 8,633 8,796 10

Washington:

 Public and domestic 856 972 1,103 1,225 1,350 1,475 72

 Industrial and commercial 1,667 1,879 2,117 2,333 2,551 2,767 66

 Irrigation 6,429 6,352 6,276 6,201 6,127 6,054 -6

 Total 8,951 9,203 9,497 9,759 10,028 10,296 15

Total:

 Public and domestic 6,724 7,868 8,934 10,129 11,391 12,452 85

 Industrial and commercial 8,335 9,587 10,759 11,972 13,197 14,290 71

 Irrigation 54,004 52,989 51,996 51,023 50,070 49,138 -9

 Total 69,063 70,444 72,755 73,124 74,658 75,879 10

Note: Projected from 1995 base year. Projected freshwater withdrawals for individual use sectors from tables 6, 8, and 10.
17

We evaluated the sensitivity of our freshwater withdrawal projections to various assumptions made regarding population, irrigated acreage, and irrigation technological efficiencies. In the first two scenarios, we evaluate the effects of assuming lower 

and higher rates of population growth. In the third scenario, we evaluate the effect of 

assuming that irrigated acreage remains constant, rather than declining. In the fourth 

scenario, we evaluate the effect of increasing irrigation technological efficiencies over 

time. The projections resulting from each of these scenarios is compared to the base 

case projections previously discussed. 

Projections of freshwater withdrawals for public and domestic and industrial and 

commercial uses are highly dependent on expectations about population growth. To 

examine this influence, we compared our aggregate freshwater withdrawal projections, 

estimated by using the USDC Bureau of the Census’ medium-series population growth 

projections, to withdrawal projections estimated by using the low- and high-series projections presented in table 5.

Aggregate freshwater withdrawals based on the low-series population growth estimates are projected to be 8 percent less by 2050 regionwide than withdrawals based 

on the medium-series population growth estimates (table 12, fig. 5). In absolute terms, 

this represents a projected water savings of 5,972 mgd by 2050. The projected reduction in freshwater withdrawals is largest in percentage terms for Washington, where 

withdrawals by 2050 would be 9 percent lower. In terms of absolute quantity, the largest reduction is projected in California where withdrawals would be 3,434 mgd less. 

Aggregate freshwater withdrawals based on the high-series population growth estimates are projected to be 13 percent greater by 2050 regionwide than withdrawals 

based on the medium-series population growth estimates (table 12, fig. 5). In absolute 

Sensitivity Analysis 

of Freshwater 

Withdrawal 

Projections

Effect of Lower and 

Higher Population 

Growth Rates

Figure 4—Projected freshwater withdrawals by use sector in Pacific Coast States, 2000 to 2050 

(based on table 11).
18 

Table 12—Projected aggregate freshwater withdrawals from low- and high-series population projectionsa

compared to projected base case withdrawalsb that used medium-series projections in Pacific Coast 

States, 2000 to 2050

 Absolute Change 

change from from base

State 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 base by 2050 by 2050

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million gallons per day - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent

Based on low-series population projections

California 36,829 37,301 37,445 37,581 37,572 37,092 -3,434 -8.5

Idaho 15,250 15,419 15,484 15,496 15,453 15,346 -916 -5.6

Oregon 8,012 8,109 8,184 8,206 8,169 8,121 -675 -7.7

Washington 8,947 9,123 9,286 9,360 9,380 9,349 -947 -9.2

 Total 69,038 69,952 70,400 70,643 70,574 69,908 -5,972 -7.9

Based on high-series population projections

California 36,858 37,936 39,178 41,080 43,610 46,203 5,678 14.0

Idaho 15,258 15,596 15,967 16,451 17,064 17,775 1,512 9.3

Oregon 8,019 8,246 8,554 8,926 9,362 9,913 1,116 12.7

Washington 8,956 9,308 9,791 10,353 11,047 11,863 1,567 15.2

 Total 69,091 71,087 73,490 76,809 81,083 85,754 9,874 13.0

a Table 5.

b Table 11.

Note: Projected from 1995 base year.

Figure 5—Projected freshwater withdrawals based on low, medium, and high population projections in 

Pacific Coast States, 2000 to 2050 (based on tables 11 and 12).
19

terms, this represents a projected increase of 9,874 mgd by 2050. The projected increase in freshwater withdrawals again is largest in percentage terms for Washington, 

where withdrawals by 2050 would be 15 percent higher. In terms of absolute quantity, 

the largest increase is projected in California where withdrawals would be 5,678 mgd 

greater. 

Our base case projections of freshwater withdrawals for irrigation assume that irrigated acreage will decline in Pacific Coast States at a rate equal to the average annual 

decline observed between 1980 and 1995. However, 1995 data show that irrigated 

acreages actually have increased since 1990, indicating that irrigated acreages either 

could be increasing or at least may have stopped declining. We examined the influence of irrigated acreage assumptions on our projected aggregate freshwater withdrawals by comparing our base case withdrawal projections, which assume annual 

declines in irrigated acres, to projections estimated by assuming irrigation acreage 

remains constant at the 1980 to 1995 average.

By 2050, aggregate freshwater withdrawals based on constant irrigation acreage are 

projected to be 2.6 percent greater than aggregate withdrawals based on declining irrigated acreage (table 13, fig. 6). In absolute terms, this represents a projected increase 

of 2,009 mgd by 2050. The projected increase occurs predominantly in California, 

reflecting that state’s large proportion of irrigated area in the region. The slight decrease in projected water withdrawals relative to the base case scenario for Oregon 

and Washington is due to the relatively large jump in irrigated acres for 1990 to 1995; 

holding irrigated acreage constant at rates equivalent to averages for 1980 to 1995 as in 

this alternative projection, results in irrigated acreages in Oregon and Washington being 

slightly smaller than acreages projected in the base case, resulting in less water used. 

Our base case projections of freshwater withdrawals for irrigation also assume that 

withdrawals per irrigated acre will gradually decrease each year from a 0.08-percent 

reduction in 2000 down to a 0.04-percent annual reduction by 2050. We examined the 

influence of potential water savings owing to even greater technological efficiencies 

by assuming that irrigation efficiency improves at a faster rate, with withdrawals per 

irrigated acre declining 1 percent per year. This is the highest annual rate of decline 

observed from historical data. Aggregate freshwater withdrawals based on a 1-percent 

annual decline in withdrawals per irrigated acreage are projected to be only 1 percent 

less regionwide by 2050 than projected aggregate withdrawals at 2050 in the base 

case (table 13, fig. 6). In absolute terms, projections of freshwater withdrawals would 

decline by only 726 mgd below base case projections by 2050.

Projected increases in freshwater withdrawals resulting by 2050 under each sensitivity analysis scenario range between 1 and 24 percent, with a base case increase of 10 

percent (table 14). Adopting the high-population-series projections results in the greatest increase in withdrawals—9,874 mgd (13 percent) by 2050—when compared to the 

base case scenario. This is larger than the base case scenario projected aggregate 

withdrawals in 2050 for Oregon (8,796 mgd) and only slightly less than projected aggregate withdrawals in 2050 in Washington (10,296 mgd). On the other hand, adopting 

the low-population-series projections would result in a 6,000-mgd decrease in projected aggregate freshwater withdrawals by 2050, compared to the base case scenario 

(table 14). This potential savings is nearly equivalent to current freshwater withdrawals 

for public and domestic uses in California or current freshwater withdrawals for irrigation in either Oregon or Washington.

Effect of Constant 

Irrigated Acreage

Effect of Increased 

Irrigation Efficiency

Sensitivity Analysis 

Implications
20 

Table 13—Projected aggregate freshwater withdrawals based on constant irrigated acreage and increased 

irrigation efficiency compared to projected base case withdrawalsa in Pacific Coast States, 2000 to 2050

 Absolute Change 

change from from base

State 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 base by 2050 by 2050

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million gallons per day - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent

Constant irrigated acreage b

 California 36,435 37,676 38,760 40,057 41,446 42,499 1,974 4.9

 Idaho 15,111 15,416 15,667 15,922 16,180 16,420 158 1.0

 Oregon 7,806 7,990 8,190 8,376 8,543 8,734 -62 -0.7

 Washington 8,735 9,020 9,344 9,638 9,937 10,235 -61 -0.6

 Total 68,087 70,101 71,961 73,993 76,105 77,889 2,009 2.6

Increased irrigation efficiency c

 California 36,814 37,471 37,991 38,743 39,608 40,153 -372 -0.9

 Idaho 15,241 15,448 15,603 15,765 15,931 16,082 -180 -1.1

 Oregon 8,009 8,146 8,299 8,441 8,563 8,711 -85 -1.0

 Washington 8,945 9,179 9,456 9,702 9,954 10,207 -89 -0.9

 Total 69,009 70,244 71,349 72,650 74,055 75,154 -726 -1.0

a Reported in table 11.

b Irrigated acreage held constant at average of 1980 to 1995 level rather than declining as projected in table 9.

c Irrigation withdrawals per irrigated acre decline by 1 percent per year rather than from 0.08 to 0.04 percent per year as projected in table 9.

Figure 6—Projected freshwater withdrawals with constant irrigated acres and increased irrigation 

efficiency in Pacific Coast States, 2000 to 2050 (based on tables 11 and 13).
21

Neither irrigation scenario—constant irrigation acreage or increased irrigation efficiency—matches the effect that population growth rate assumptions have on projected 

freshwater withdrawals. Assuming constant irrigation acreages results in a projected 

increase in freshwater withdrawals of about 2,000 mgd (2.6 percent) by 2050 over 

the base case projection. Assuming increased irrigation efficiency leading to a 1-percent annual decline in irrigation withdrawals per irrigated acre results in a projected 

decrease in fresh water withdrawals of about 700 mgd (1 percent) by 2050 below the 

base case projection. However, because irrigation likely will continue to be the largest 

user of fresh water in the West and because to some degree population growth in the 

region is inevitable, it could make sense to target water-saving policies at the irrigation sector. If high-series population projections come to pass, some of the projected 

increase in freshwater withdrawals in future years could be offset by irrigation reduction efforts. 

The water uses discussed so far have been primarily consumptive uses that either 

reduce the quantity of water available for instream uses or result in returned water 

being of lower quality owing to changes in water temperature or the introduction of 

certain chemical compounds. One nonconsumptive instream water use of increasing 

importance in Pacific Coast States is water recreation. Nationally, participation in most 

water recreation activities is increasing with growing populations and income levels. 

For example, Cordell and others (1999) report that participation of persons 16 years 

and older in motorboating and swimming has increased by 40 and 38 percent from 

1982–83 to 1994–95, based on national recreation surveys. To provide a more complete picture of potential freshwater demands, we briefly summarize reported projected 

changes in recreational demand for water.

Water recreation demands can vary by several socioeconomic factors, including income, age, gender, and ethnicity, as well as by regional population density. Increasing 

personal income generally has a positive influence on demand for water recreation, 

whereas increasing age and population density generally have a negative effect 

(Cordell and others 1999). For example, income has a positive effect on motorboating because of the costs of purchasing and storing boating equipment. Motorboating 

also has been more popular among white males than females or individuals of other 

ethnic groups. Swimming and nonmotorized boating, such as kayaking and whitewater 

Table 14—Projected aggregate freshwater withdrawals for base case compared to four alternative 

scenarios in Pacific Coast States, 2000 to 2050

 Change

Scenario 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2000–2050

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million gallons per day - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent

Base case 69,063 70,444 62,755 73,124 74,658 75,880 10

Lower population growth rate 69,038 69,952 70,400 70,643 70,574 69,908 1

Higher population growth rate 69,091 71,087 73,490 76,809 81,083 85,754 24

Constant irrigated acreage 68,087 70,101 71,961 73,993 76,105 77,889 14

Increased irrigation efficiency 69,009 70,244 71,349 72,650 74,055 75,154 9

Note: Projected from 1995 base year. Projections from tables 11, 12, and 13.

Recreational 

Demands for Water 
22 

rafting, generally are negatively affected by a region’s population density, which tends 

to be correlated with reduced access to suitable swimming and nonmotorized boating 

sites. 

Periodic national and regional projections of participation in outdoor recreation are 

produced as part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service’s periodic 

assessments of the Nation’s forest resources, as mandated by the 1974 Resources 

Planning Act (USDA Forest Service 2001). To our knowledge, these are the only comprehensive nationwide projections that characterize the potential demands for outdoor 

recreation activities of different types. The projections are based on assumptions 

regarding anticipated trends in key socioeconomic factors likely to affect recreation demands, including population, income, age, ethnicity, and gender. The projections also 

account for potential increases in the scarcity of recreation opportunities associated 

with increased congestion, reduction in site quality, loss of access, and loss of recreation sites because of their conversion to more developed uses as population densities increase (Bowker and others 1999).

Regional projections of participation rates for several outdoor recreation categories 

prepared for the USDA Forest Service’s 2000 Resources Planning Act assessment 

are described in Bowker and others (1999). The regions include the North, South, 

Rocky Mountain, and Pacific. The Pacific region is the region most closely applicable 

to the Pacific Coast States discussed in this report, and includes California, Oregon, 

and Washington, as well as Alaska and Hawaii. Although the projected water recreation participation figures reported by Bowker and others (1999) for Pacific States are 

not directly comparable to the freshwater withdrawal figures we have projected for 

Pacific Coast States, they do provide a reasonable qualitative comparison of potential 

trends for the Pacific Coast States.

Bowker and others (1999) suggest that increases in population and real income over 

the next half century are expected to be the most important factors influencing recreation demands. Other factors, such as age, ethnicity, gender, education, and previous recreation experience also can influence recreation behavior and likely also will 

play a role (Cordell and others 1990, Hof and Kaiser 1983, Walsh and others 1992). 

Increasing populations imply more recreationists, and rising personal incomes imply that people will have more disposable income to spend on recreation of all types. 

These increases in water recreation demand will place added pressure on water suppliers to maintain greater quantities of high-quality water instream for nonconsumptive recreational uses, potentially benefiting other instream uses such as riparian and 

instream habitat for certain species.

Projections of outdoor recreation participation reported by Bowker and others (1999) 

for Pacific States (Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington) are presented 

for motorboating, canoeing, rafting and floating, nonpool swimming, fishing, and visiting a beach or waterside (table 15). Participation in all water recreation activities in the 

Pacific region is projected to increase by 2050 both in terms of number of participants 

and in number of participant days. The numbers of participant days spent motorboating are projected to increase the most (178 percent), followed by rafting and floating 

(104 percent), canoeing (67 percent), nonpool swimming (47 percent), and fishing 

(37 percent). The order is slightly different when one considers projected numbers of 

participants, with rafting and floating projected to increase by 88 percent, followed by 

canoeing (78 percent), motorboating (76 percent), nonpool swimming (62 percent), 

and fishing (31 percent). 
23

The numbers of participants (and participant days) for all recreation categories, 

excluding fishing, are projected to increase faster than growth in the populations of 

Pacific States. Population growth indices used by Bowker and others (1999) to project 

recreation participation imply a 45-percent increase in the western population between 

2000 and 2050. Although having more people implies more recreationists, projected 

increases in recreation participation rates also result from expectations about rising 

per capita personal income. Income indices used by Bowker and others (1999) imply 

a 77-percent increase in real per capita personal income from 2000 to 2050. Rising 

incomes likely will make recreation activities more affordable to more people, resulting 

in increases in participation rates greater than increases from population growth alone. 

The relatively small increase in fishing demand is due partly to anticipated decline in 

the number of sites available for fishing as a result of urban expansion and increasing 

population densities, as well as increases in real per capita personal income (Bowker 

and others 1999). Although some types of fishing participation, such as fly-fishing, can 

have a positive relation with income, aggregate participation in fishing of all types has 

tended to have a negative relation. 

As with the demand for consumptive uses of water, there are many factors not 

necessarily accounted for in these projections that may influence the accuracy of the 

demand projections. For example, a larger rise in personal incomes could result in 

Table 15—Projected demand for water-based recreation, 2000–2050, for the Pacific region

 Absolute 

 change Change 

Activity 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2000–2050 2000–2050

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Millions - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent

Motorboating:

 Participant days 91 113 139 169 207 254 163 178

 Participants 7 8 8 10 11 12 5 76

Canoeing:

 Participant days 10 11 13 14 15 17 7 67

 Participants 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 78

Rafting/floating:

 Participant days 12 14 17 20 22 25 13 104

 Participants 2 3 3 3 4 4 2 88

Nonpool swimming:

 Participant days 208 226 242 258 281 307 98 47

 Participants 12 14 15 17 18 20 8 62

Fishing:

 Participant days 125 138 149 158 167 172 46 37

 Participants 8 8 9 9 10 10 2 31

Visiting a beach or waterside:

 Participant days 763 876 982 1,095 1,222 1,356 593 78

 Participants 22 25 28 30 33 36 13 59

Note: The Pacific region, as defined by Bowker and others (1999), included Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington.

Source: Bowker and others (1999). 
24 

more disposable income, resulting in greater willingness to pay for water recreation 

activities in the future. Changes in the ethnic composition of the population could lead 

to demands for certain types of recreation over others. Changes in technologies could 

reduce the costs of recreation equipment and make certain activities more affordable 

to more individuals, or introduce entirely new recreation activities not yet foreseen. All 

of these factors contribute to uncertainty in anticipating what water recreation values 

and demand will be in the future. 

At the same time, it is possible that the number of sites suitable for some water recreation activities could decline over time. Greater congestion at some water recreation 

sites, declines in site quality, and loss of some sites owing to their conversion to more 

intensive residential, commercial, or industrial uses, or changes in landowner objectives, could make other remaining sites more desirable. Although many water recreation sites receive some protection under Federal Wild and Scenic River, Wilderness 

Area, and National Recreation Area designations, whether these protections will be 

sufficient to meet all future demands is uncertain. Increased demands coupled with 

possible reductions in the supply of suitable or desirable water recreation sites imply a 

shortage of sites or reduction in the quality of water recreation experiences.

Although the likelihood and magnitude of these potential changes in water-based recreation demand remain somewhat uncertain, they will occur in the context of changing 

demands for water in other nonrecreational uses. Whether or not increased demands 

for various types of water recreation can be met is uncertain, especially in a future 

that is characterized by projected increases in freshwater withdrawals for public and 

domestic, industrial and commercial, and irrigation uses. The degree to which conflicts 

will arise between various uses and users of water will depend greatly on changes in 

water demands as well as the regional composition of interest groups, landowners, 

policymakers, and institutional structures already in place. Water management and 

policy will need to be based on sound evaluation of the socioeconomic and ecological tradeoffs involved in allocating limited water resources among multiple users and 

uses. 

Changes in demands and supplies of water over time can lead to different management and policy needs. Because both the demand for and supply of water can depend 

on climate, relatively short-term fluctuations in weather patterns can result in relatively 

dramatic changes in the quantities of water demanded by and supplied to different users. If such changes in water demands or supplies are sufficiently dramatic, conflicts 

among users can arise in the form of more direct competition among multiple users 

over a greatly diminished supply of water. Such circumstances can present difficult 

challenges to water resource managers and policymakers called upon to resolve these 

situations. Although these situations may call for swift and decisive action, the issues 

involved can be complex, the information needed to facilitate decisions may be lacking, and the tempers of those water users who suddenly find themselves with too little 

water may be severely taxed. Although we may be unable to predict where and when 

such crises may occur, we can anticipate some of the issues that may be involved.

An example of the conflicts that can arise among water users occurred during summer 2001 in the Klamath River Basin in southern Oregon and northern California. 

Long-standing difficulties over allocating water resources in the basin reached critical 

levels when lower than average snow and rainfall during the winter and spring resulted 

in insufficient water to supply irrigators while also meeting the instream flow needs 

of endangered fish species. Water use restrictions imposed left about 1,200 farmers 

Klamath Case Study
25

in the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Klamath Project without their usual allocation of 

water for irrigation. The 2001 water crisis in the Klamath Basin illustrates the potential 

complexities water resource managers and policymakers can face as they attempt to 

allocate limited water resources among multiple users. In this section, we provide a 

brief history of water use in the Klamath Basin, summarize the 2001 water crisis, and 

examine the historical and potential water supply.

The Klamath Basin comprises 5,500 square miles in Oregon and California. We focus 

on the Upper Klamath Basin where the Klamath Project is located. The Upper Klamath 

Basin consists primarily of Oregon’s Klamath County and California’s Siskiyou and 

Modoc Counties. The population of the Upper Klamath Basin is about 120,000 people, 

of which Oregon’s Klamath County accounts for about half. The population of Klamath 

County increased rapidly during the first half of the 20th century from about 5,000 in 

1900 to more than 40,000 around 1940 (Oregon Water Resources Board 1971). Since 

then the rate of increase has slowed, and in 1997 the population was about 63,000 

(USDC Bureau of Economic Analysis 2002). The economic value of water in the Upper 

Klamath Basin was estimated at $2.3 billion in 1998, providing almost 60,000 jobs 

(Weber and Sorte 2001). Of these, agriculture, fishing, and forestry account for 10.4 

percent of employment in the region.

Timber harvests in Klamath County increased rapidly during the first half of the 20th

century from around 100 million board feet in the 1920s to more than 800 million board 

feet in the 1940s, stabilizing now near 400 million board feet (Eilers and others 2001). 

Cattle production in Klamath County also increased rapidly from about 40,000 head in 

the 1930s, peaking in 1960 with about 140,000 head, and stabilizing at about 100,000 

head (Eilers and others 2001). Land use patterns in the Upper Klamath Basin have not 

changed much since 1982, when recording of consistent land use data began. In 1997, 

federal and nonfederal land accounted for 55 and 45 percent of the land. Of nonfederal 

land, forest land accounted for 61 percent, range and pasture lands accounted for 18 

percent, and cropland accounted for 9 percent (USDA NRCS 2001).

The Klamath Project (the project) was initiated by the Bureau of Reclamation in 

1906 to provide water to farmers for irrigation, and to wildlife refuges in Oregon and 

California. Located in the Upper Klamath Basin, the project was one of the earliest federal reclamation projects. The Upper Klamath Basin includes the Williamson, Sprague, 

Upper Klamath Lake, Lost, Butte, and Upper Klamath watersheds (Oregon Water 

Resources Board 1971). In 1905, the Oregon and California State Legislatures ceded 

title of the Lower Klamath and Tule Lakes to the United States to develop the project. 

To provide and distribute this water, the project drains and reclaims lakebed lands of 

the Lower Klamath and Tule Lakes to store waters of the Klamath and Lost Rivers, and 

diverts irrigation water and controls flooding of the reclaimed lands (USDI Bureau of 

Reclamation 1998).

The draining of wetlands started around 1890, but under the project the cumulative drained acreage increased from about 40,000 acres in the 1920s, to 100,000 

acres around 1930, and then to 190,000 acres in the early 1950s (USDI Bureau of 

Reclamation 1953). Today, the project provides irrigation water to 200,000 acres of 

agricultural land (Hathaway and Welch 2001). Primary products of agricultural lands included in the project are cereal grains, alfalfa hay, irrigated pastures for beef cattle, onions, potatoes, and grass seed (USDI Bureau of Reclamation 1998). As a result of the 

Klamath Project, about 80 percent of Klamath Basin wetlands are now gone (Portland 

Oregonian 2001a).

Background
26 

The Klamath Project has three primary water sources: Upper Klamath Lake, Clear 

Lake, and Gerber Reservoir. Upper Klamath Lake is the largest lake in Oregon in 

terms of surface area and empties into Lake Ewauna and the Klamath River, reaching 

the Pacific Ocean through northern California. Upper Klamath Lake and its surrounding wetland ecosystems support a wide range of fish and wildlife species. Clear Lake 

and Gerber Reservoir feed the Lost River, which runs through the Klamath Project and 

eventually ends up in the Tule Lake sump (Hathaway and Welch 2001).

The Klamath Project includes two national wildlife refuges: Lower Klamath National 

Wildlife Refuge, comprising 46,900 acres, was established in 1908 as the first waterfowl refuge in the United States; Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, comprising 39,116 

acres of marsh sumps surrounded by cropland with some refuge land leased to private 

farmers, was established in 1928 (Hathaway and Welch 2001). Both refuges lie at the 

outflow end of the Klamath Project and rely primarily on unused water and return flows 

from irrigation canals. The refuges offer important areas for fall waterfowl migrants, 

attracting 55 to 60 percent of migrating birds in the region (Jarvis 2001). The Klamath 

Basin also supports the largest wintering population of bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in the United States outside of Alaska; the bald eagle is listed as threatened 

under the Endangered Species Act (ODFW 2002). Klamath Basin bald eagles feed 

primarily on waterfowl and fish, among other species.

Historically, Lost River sucker (Deltistes luxatus) and shortnose sucker (Chasmistes 

brevirostris) were abundant in Upper Klamath Lake and supported a subsistence 

fishery by the Klamath and Modoc Tribes (Cooperman and Markle 2001). However, 

in 1988, after a series of die-offs and reduced recruitment events, the two suckers 

were listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Their decline generally has been attributed to reduced water quality, excessive harvesting, introduction of 

exotic fishes, alteration of flows, entrapment of fish into water management structures, 

and physical degradation of spawning areas (USFWS 2001). To address the possible 

effects of water quality and habitat loss on sucker populations in the lakes, the biological opinion prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1992 suggested that 

a lake elevation of 4,139 feet was adequate to provide sufficient habitat to maintain 

sucker populations (Cooperman and Markle 2001, USFWS 1992). Sediment cores 

of the Upper Klamath Lake bottom show water quality deterioration, with sediment 

accumulation rates rising and nitrogen and phosphorus levels increasing, changes 

that are consistent with agricultural activities in the region (Eilers and others 2001). 

Disagreement exists, however, regarding sources of this nutrient inflow to the Upper 

Klamath Lake. Rykbost and Charlton (2001), for example, argue that nutrient flows 

from agricultural lands adjacent to Upper Klamath Lake have been overestimated.

The Klamath Basin also has been home to several anadromous fish including coho 

salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), steelhead trout 

(O. mykiss), coastal cutthroat trout (O. clarki), green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), 

eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus), and Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata). All anadromous fish species in the Klamath River are now in serious decline, with the greatest 

effects from irrigation and hydroelectric projects that have altered or eliminated access 

to hundreds of miles of riparian habitat (Giannico and Heider 2001). These changes 

led to the listing of southern Oregon and northern California coastal coho salmon as 

threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1997. The first biological opinion on 

the coho salmon was issued in 1999. 
27

Historically, the Upper Klamath Lake water releases for irrigation were not affected by 

the amount of inflow into Upper Klamath Lake. As a result, prior to the listing of Lost 

River and shortnose suckers, farmers in the Klamath Project did not have to compete 

for the water provided by the project, and received enough water to irrigate all their 

lands (Burke 2001). However, the listing of the two fish under the Endangered Species 

Act dramatically changed water allocations under the project. The first significant disruptions to irrigation resulting from the listings occurred when contractual obligations 

between the Klamath Project and irrigators were disrupted in 1989 and one-third of the 

farmers in the Klamath Project received only half of their normal water supply (Adams 

and Cho 1998). Water supplied to irrigators again was disrupted during the drought 

years of 1992 and 1994.

In early 2001, new biological opinions on both sucker species and the coho salmon 

were issued. In the case of suckers, the opinion raised the minimum lake elevation to 

4,140 feet, higher than that set in the 1992 biological opinion. In the case of the coho 

salmon, the 2001 opinion increased downriver waterflow releases above 1999 biological opinion levels (Giannico and Heider 2001). Because 2001 was one of the driest 

years on record, these new lake level and waterflow requirements left too little water to 

meet irrigation needs of Klamath Project farmers. As a result, water normally supplied 

to irrigators by the project from Upper Klamath Lake was shut off. By July, 70,000 

to 75,000 acre-feet of water eventually was released to farmers but was too late to 

contribute to 2001 agricultural production. The incident was the first time in the project 

history that access to agricultural water for irrigation districts in the project was completely denied. Not all farmlands in the project were cut off from the water—farmlands 

with access to water from Clear Lake were provided with irrigation water, for example. 

However, about 35 percent of all irrigated acreage in the basin was affected (Jaeger 

2001). The lack of water left more than 100,000 acres in the project without crops and 

dried up substantial acres of wetlands in the refuges.

Lack of sufficient water in the region had both socioeconomic and ecological impacts. 

Losses to gross farm revenues in the Klamath Project have been estimated at about 

$59 million (Burke 2001), which if true is significant considering that the project’s gross 

farm revenues typically are about $100 million. Social impacts included polarization 

among residents in affected communities, tension among community members, and 

highly confrontational incidents between farmers and environmentalists, state and 

federal agency employees, and Native American tribal members, among others (Lach 

and others 2001). Tension also existed among farmers themselves over who received 

water, who received drought assistance, and who was willing to sell or retire land as 

one way to reduce farm losses. From an ecological standpoint, the restriction of waterflows to the Klamath Project from Upper Klamath Lake also interrupted flow into the 

Lower Klamath and Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuges, causing detrimental effects to 

waterfowl, shore birds, and other wildlife (Portland Oregonian 2001a).

Complicating these water allocation issues in the basin are unresolved issues involving Native Americans whose water rights have not yet been adjudicated. Adjudication 

is a legal proceeding in which vested water rights are verified, quantified, and documented as property rights through appropriate court proceedings. There are a variety 

of both administrative and judicial adjudication methods, with each method presenting 

different challenges for individuals involved in such proceedings. Once adjudicated, 

the water rights holders receive decreed rights for specified amounts of water.

The 2001 Crisis
28 

Historical and Future 

Water Supply

There are three tribes in the basin—Klamath, Modoc, and the Yahooskin Band of the 

Snake Indians—to which the two sucker species and the coho salmon are of particular cultural significance. Historically, the fish were supported by water arising from or 

flowing through the tribes’ traditional hunting and fishing territories. The priority date 

of tribes’ reserved water right to support hunting and fishing lifestyles is “time immemorial,” and essentially guarantees access to these species in quantities sufficient to 

meet tribal needs. Also, water use prior to 1909 is considered a vested right subject 

to adjudication. Although adjudication is ongoing, a vast majority of water rights have 

priority dates earlier than 1909 and likely will not be subject to transfer, which could be 

a significant obstacle to long-term resolution to water allocation issues in the basin.

Farmland in the project that was denied water in 2001 is relatively fertile and produces 

relatively high-value crops such as potatoes and onions. It has been estimated that if 

water rights could have been transferred from low-quality farmland outside the project 

to high-quality farmlands within the project before the crisis, more than 80 percent of 

the costs incurred in 2001 could have been avoided (Jaeger 2001). However, water 

right transfers from low- to high-quality land are not expected to take place in the near 

future because water rights to most low-quality land are under the adjudication process. 

Short-term water supply in the Klamath Basin has varied greatly, but historically has 

been relatively stable. The historical annual precipitation at Klamath Falls has been 

13.73 inches per water year with a standard deviation of 3.94 inches (fig. 7). The water year 2001 was one of the driest years in recent history, with annual precipitation 

of 7.26 inches—almost two standard deviations below average (Western Regional 

Climate Center 2002). However, such low-precipitation years are not uncommon. 

Historically, average monthly maximum temperatures also have fluctuated from year to 

year but have not necessarily indicated any long-term trend (fig. 8). Monthly maximum 

temperatures in the Klamath Basin averaged 48 °F in 2001, equivalent to the historical 

average since 1930 (Western Regional Climate Center 2002). However, climate models do suggest long-term changes in precipitation and temperatures in the Klamath 

Basin in the future.

The climate may be changing in the Klamath Basin. To examine some potential 

climate scenarios, we look at the basin climate under two climate model forecasts. 

Long-term precipitation and temperature trends in the Klamath Basin were projected 

by using two global circulation models—the Canadian Climate Center model and the 

Hadley model (see, for example, National Assessment Synthesis Team 2001). The 

projections are based on emission scenario IS92a described by the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2001). Average January temperatures are projected 

to increase from their historical average of 29.5 °F (1960 to 1993) to 36.7 °F according 

to the Canadian Climate Center model and to 36.5 °F according to the Hadley model. 

Average July temperatures are projected to increase from their historical average of 

64.4°F (1960 to 1993), by 2.9 °F according to the Canadian Climate Center model, 

and by 4.7 °F according to the Hadley model. Both the Canadian Climate Center and 

Hadley models also project wetter winters. Monthly January precipitation is projected 

to increase from its historical average of 2.26 inches (1961 to 1990), to 3.4 inches 

according to the Canadian Climate Center model, and to 2.93 inches according to 

the Hadley model. Changes in summer precipitation, however, are ambiguous. The 

Canadian Climate Center model projects July precipitation of 0.6 inch by 2050—an 

increase above the 0.33 inch historical average. However, the Hadley model projects 

drier summers—only 0.30 inch precipitation by 2050.
29

Figure 7—Annual total precipitation in the Klamath Basin, 1930 to 2001 (Western Regional 

Climate Center 2002). The data reported for 1998 to 2001 were taken from Klamath Falls 2SSW. 

Data for all other years are taken from mean-adjusted data for Klamath Falls Agricultural Station.

Figure 8—Average monthly maximum temperature in the Klamath Basin, 1930 to 2001 (Western 

Regional Climate Center 2002). The data reported for 1998 to 2001 were taken from Klamath 

Falls 2SSW. Data for all other years are taken from mean-adjusted data for Klamath Falls 

Agricultural Station.
30 

Most water use in the Klamath Basin relies on summer streamflow, which is highly 

dependent on snowmelt. Precipitation projections suggest winter precipitation will increase. However, if winter temperatures rise as also projected, precipitation may come 

as rain instead of snow, resulting in greater water availability in winter, but less in summer. It is important to account for both precipitation and temperature when projecting 

changes in streamflow.

Runoff projections using the Canadian Climate Center model and the vegetation 

model MAPPS (see, for example, Bachelet and others 2001) suggest that an expected 

doubling of CO2 by the end of the 21st century could result in year-round increases in 

runoff. This could help to ease competition for water in the Klamath Basin by increasing water supply should climate change occur as expected. However, climate projections, particularly those of precipitation, differ greatly across models, and both the 

Canadian Climate Center and the Hadley models tend to project wetter climatic conditions in the future than do other models. As a result, the future remains uncertain. 

Many private and public entities in the Klamath Basin area claim water rights, including Crater Lake National Park, the USDA Forest Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, 

the Klamath Wildlife Refuge, tribes, irrigation districts, and individual farmers, among 

others. Although 2001 was one of the driest water years on record, with roughly 700 

claims to water in the Upper Klamath watershed, even the wettest year would not provide sufficient water to satisfy them all (Milstein 2001). Given the needs of irrigators 

and endangered species, it is obvious that water must be managed more effectively in 

the Klamath Basin. This includes focusing management and policy on alleviating conflicts by manipulating the timing and quantity of diversions, especially during drought 

years, and transferring water rights among users. 

Aiming to ease conflicts in the basin, a community-based approach has been pursued 

involving multiple stakeholders. One example is the Hatfield Klamath Basin Working 

Group formed in 1995 consisting of 27 public and private representatives. Their objective is to reduce drought impacts by purchasing farmlands and restoring wetlands 

(Blake and others 2000). These types of collaborative efforts, in addition to public 

management, could facilitate equitable water resource reallocations in the Klamath 

Basin in the future. 

The complex water resource issues that characterize the Klamath region are common 

to many of the water-dependent regions of the Western United States. Similar incidents can occur elsewhere, as the demands for all water uses, including those dependent on instream flows, increase. For example, as Oregon’s Governor Kitzhaber observed, “The same competing demands for water that caused the Klamath Basin crisis 

could trigger a similar, but much larger collapse in the Columbia River basin if those 

conflicts are not resolved” (Portland Oregonian 2001b). Better knowledge regarding 

current and projected demands for water in various uses is vital for anticipating and 

evaluating socioeconomic and ecological tradeoffs in the future, as well as devising 

appropriate water resource management and policies. Although this information will 

not avoid problems arising from changes in hydrological conditions, it can assist in 

designing policies to minimize costs and to ensure that costs are not disproportionately borne by specific groups. Management strategies and policies that reduce water 

demand through more efficient water use or establish water banks or markets to facilitate transferring water rights from consumptive to instream uses when maintenance of 

riparian and instream habitat is a priority may be desirable.

Klamath Basin Future 
31

Reliable natural science information also is needed. Biological opinions issued by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, which led 

to water restriction imposed on the Klamath Project, have been questioned by the 

National Academy of Science’s Committee on Endangered and Threatened Fishes 

in the Klamath River Basin (CETFKRB 2002). The committee was established by the 

Secretary of the Interior for the purpose of conducting an external review of the scientific basis for the biological opinions from a neutral point of view. It could be difficult 

to gain agreement among stakeholders on measures leading to any solution to future 

crises, without scientific information that all concerned groups agree on. Developing 

a body of accurate scientific information, with active involvement of federal and state 

agencies, academic researchers, farmers, environmentalists, and other relevant 

groups will be necessary to address the need for tradeoffs between natural resource 

management and increasing water demand in the future. 

Freshwater withdrawals for public and domestic uses and industrial and commercial 

uses in the Pacific Coast States are projected to increase by 85 and 71 percent by 

2050. This projected increase would exceed a projected 9-percent decline in withdrawals for irrigation, resulting in a 10-percent net increase in aggregate withdrawals 

by 2050. Estimated projections for freshwater withdrawals are greatly dependent on 

assumptions made regarding population change, irrigated acreage, and irrigation efficiencies. Under different assumptions, projected increases in aggregate freshwater 

withdrawals for Pacific Coast States range from 1 to 24 percent by 2050. Projected 

reductions in withdrawals for irrigation range from 4 to 10 percent. In all scenarios tested, projected reductions in irrigation withdrawals are more than offset by projected increases in withdrawals for public and domestic uses (44 to 153 percent) and industrial 

and commercial uses (33 to 134 percent). If projections were to be made even further 

into the future and populations were expected to continue to grow, we might expect 

that irrigation efficiency gains and declines in irrigated acres eventually would level off, 

resulting in net increases in freshwater withdrawals even greater than amounts currently projected. 

Meanwhile, current trends suggest that demands for water recreation activities are 

increasing. Projections of water recreation demands suggest significant increases in 

participation in water recreation activities of all types by 2050. Participation rates in all 

water recreation activities, with the exception of fishing, are expected to grow faster 

than the population, owing in part to rising incomes. Projected increased demands for 

water recreation imply greater demands for maintaining instream flows that will bring 

water recreationists in more direct competition with consumptive uses of water in the 

future. The potential for conflict among different users exists if some users view their 

use as more important than others. Allocating our limited water resources across 

many diverse uses and users in an equitable manner will continue to challenge water 

resource managers and policymakers. 

This report has considered only human uses of water, and has not considered the 

role of water as instream flow necessary in the maintenance of riparian habitat. All 

the uses of water discussed will have varying degrees of impacts on both the quantity 

and quality of instream flow in the future. Although consumptive uses of water can be 

in direct competition with instream uses, maintenance of riparian habitat for example, 

allocating water between consumptive and instream uses need not always involve 

Summary and 

Conclusions 
32 

choices of who shall win and who shall lose. Sometimes multiple uses can be accommodated by changing such factors as the timing or duration of water withdrawals in 

ways that avoid more difficult tradeoffs that exclude certain users or uses altogether. 

Finding such solutions, if they exist, requires the mutual cooperation of affected users (or those who represent particular uses, as in the case of maintenance of riparian 

habitat) and scientific information that those users both agree on and trust. 

The availability of water for both consumptive and instream uses will be determined in 

part by factors beyond the direct control of water resource managers and policymakers. Climatic conditions, drought cycles, and El Niño and La Niña ocean conditions, 

among other factors, will affect precipitation and water availability in the Western 

United States, and play a significant role in shaping necessary water resource allocation decisions in the future. Although future demands for water in various uses can be 

estimated based on historical rates of use and past trends in key factors affecting use, 

the long-term effects of weather and climatic conditions on future water supply may be 

more difficult to predict.

Long-term trends in water consumption do suggest that allocating water resources 

could be even more challenging in the future. As seen by the 2001 water crisis in the 

Klamath Basin, short-term fluctuations in water supplies can significantly tax water resource managers and policymakers in the near term as well. Such unforeseen events 

can call for relatively quick, but thoughtful allocation decisions on the part of managers and policymakers, often with imperfect information about who will gain and lose as 

a result of management and policy actions. Socioeconomic and ecological research, 

conducted in the spirit of collaboration, could aid in such instances by increasing our 

understanding about how best to evaluate the tradeoffs involved in water resource allocation decisions. The body of knowledge about how people in Pacific Coast States 

would choose to resolve water resource allocation problems, such as those that occurred in the Klamath Basin in 2001, is relatively small. Increased research regarding 

the benefits and costs associated with alternative water resource allocations across 

multiple users and uses, both consumptive and instream, seems warranted. Investing 

in such research now would help to ensure that better information is available to meet 

the unforeseen water management and policy challenges of the future. 

This study was funded by the Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Water 

Sustainability Initiative. We thank Richard Adams, Deborah Hennessy, Callie 

McConnell, and Deanna Stouder for helpful comments. We also thank Ray Drapek, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, for providing long-term trend projections of precipitation, temperature, and runoff in the Klamath Basin by using global 

circulation models. 

When you know: Multiply by: To find:

Gallons 3.785 Liters

Acres .405 Hectares

Acre-feet .123 Hectare-meters

Inches 2.540 Centimeters

Feet .305 Meters

Degrees Fahrenheit Subtract 32, multiply by 0.556 Degrees Celsius 

Acknowledgments

Metric Equivalents
33

Adams, R.M.; Cho, S.H. 1998. Agricultural and endangered species: an analysis 

of trade-offs in the Klamath Basin, Oregon. Water Resources Research. 34: 

2741–2749. 

Bachelet, D.; Neilson, R.P.; Lenihan, J.M.; Drapek, R.J. 2001. Climate change 

effects on vegetation distribution and carbon budget in the United States. 

Ecosystems. 4: 164–185.

Blake, T.A.; Blake, M.G.; Kittredge, W. 2000. Balancing water: restoring the 

Klamath Basin. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 175 p. 

Bowker, J.M.; English, D.B.K.; Cordell, H.K. 1999. Projections of outdoor 

recreation participation. In: Cordell, H.K., principal investigator. Outdoor 

recreation in American life: a national assessment of demand and supply trends. 

Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing: 323–351. Chapter 6. 

Brown, T.C. 1999. Past and future freshwater use in the United States: a technical 

document supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA assessment. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-39. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 47 p.

Burke, S. 2001. The effects of water allocation decisions on crop revenue in the 

Klamath Reclamation Project. In: Oregon State University and the University 

of California. Water allocation in the Klamath Reclamation Project, 2001: an 

assessment of natural resource, economic, social, and institutional issues with a 

focus on the Upper Klamath Basin. http://eesc.oregonstate.edu/agcomwebfile/

edmat/html/sr/sr1037/sr1037.html. (18 April 2003).

California Department of Finance. 1998. Race/ethnic population with age and sex 

detail, 1970–2040. Sacramento, CA. http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/

data.htm. (6 March 2002).

Committee on Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River Basin 

[CETFKRB]. 2002. Interim report: scientific evaluation of biological opinions on 

endangered and threatened fishes in the Klamath River Basin. Washington, DC: 

National Academy Press. 24 p.

Cooperman, M.S.; Markle, D.F. 2001. Relationship between Lost River and 

shortnose sucker biology and management of Upper Klamath Lake. In: Oregon 

State University and the University of California. Water allocation in the Klamath 

Reclamation Project, 2001: an assessment of natural resource, economic, social, 

and institutional issues. http://eesc.oregonstate.edu/agcomwebfile/edmat/html/sr/

sr1037/sr1037.html. (18 April 2003).

Cordell, H.K.; Bergstrom, J.C.; Hartmann, L.A.; English, D.B.K. 1990. An analysis 

of the outdoor recreation and wilderness situation in the United States, 1989–2040. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-189. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 112 p.

Cordell, H.K.; McDonald, B.L.; Teasley, R.J. [and others]. 1999. Outdoor 

recreation participation trends. In: Cordell, H.K., principal investigator. Outdoor 

recreation in American life: a national assessment of demand and supply trends. 

Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing: 219–321. Chapter 5.

References
34 

Eilers, J.; Kann, J.; Cornett, J. [and others]. 2001. Recent paleolimnology of Upper 

Klamath Lake, Oregon. Report to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Falls Office, 

Klamath Falls, OR. 

Giannico, G.; Heider, C. 2001. Coho salmon and water management in the 

Klamath Basin. In: Oregon State University and the University of California. Water 

allocation in the Klamath Reclamation Project, 2001: an assessment of natural 

resource, economic, social, and institutional issues. http://eesc.oregonstate.edu/

agcomwebfile/edmat/html/sr/sr1037/sr1037.html. (18 April 2003).

Guldin, R.W. 1989. An analysis of the water situation in the United States: 1989–

2040. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-177. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 178 p.

Hathaway, R.; Welch, T. 2001. Background. In: Oregon State University and the 

University of California. Water allocation in the Klamath Reclamation Project, 2001: 

an assessment of natural resource, economic, social, and institutional issues. http:

//eesc.oregonstate.edu/agcomwebfile/edmat/html/sr/sr1037/sr1037.html. (18 April 

2003).

Hof, J.G.; Kaiser, H.F. 1983. Long-term outdoor recreation participation projections 

for public land management agencies. Journal of Leisure Research. 15(1): 1–14.

Houston, L.L.; Kline, J.D.; Alig, R.J. 2002. Economics research supporting water 

resource stewardship in the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-550. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 72 p.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. 2001. Climate change 2001: 

the scientific basis. Contribution of working group 1 to the third assessment report 

of the IPCC. New York: Cambridge University Press. 881 p. 

Jaeger, W. 2001. Water allocation alternatives for the Upper Klamath Basin. In: 

Oregon State University and the University of California. Water allocation in the 

Klamath Reclamation Project, 2001: an assessment of natural resource, economic, 

social, and institutional issues. http://eesc.oregonstate.edu/agcomwebfile/edmat/

html/sr/sr1037/sr1037.html. (18 April 2003).

Jarvis, R.L. 2001. Effects on waterfowl. In: Oregon State University and the 

University of California. Water allocation in the Klamath Reclamation Project, 2001: 

an assessment of natural resource, economic, social, and institutional issues. http:

//eesc.oregonstate.edu/agcomwebfile/edmat/html/sr/sr1037/sr1037.html. (18 April 

2003).

Lach, D.; Richards, L.; Corson, C.; Case, P. 2001. Effects of the 2001 water 

allocation decisions on project-area communities. In: Oregon State University 

and the University of California. Water allocation in the Klamath Reclamation 

Project, 2001: an assessment of natural resource, economic, social, and 

institutional issues. http://eesc.oregonstate.edu/agcomwebfile/edmat/html/sr/

sr1037/sr1037.html. (18 April 2003).

Milstein, M. 2001. Tensions flare over water rights. (Portland Oregonian.) May 

6. http://www.oregonlive.com/special/klamath/index.ssf?/news/oregonian/lc_

11klama06.frame. (5 October 2001). 
35

Moore, M.R.; Crowhite, W.M.; Hosteler, J.E. 1990. Agricultural water use in the 

United States, 1950–85. In: Carr, J.E.; Chase, E.B.; Paulson, R.W.; Moody, D.W. 

National water summary 1987—hydrologic events and water supply use. Water 

Supply Paper 2350. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey: 93-108.

Murray, C.R. 1968. Estimated use of water in the United States, 1965. Circular 556. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey. 53 p.

Murray, C.R.; Reeves, E.B. 1972. Estimated use of water in the United States in 

1970. Circular 676. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey. 37 p.

Murray, C.R.; Reeves, E.B. 1977. Estimated use of water in the United States in 

1975. Circular 765. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey. 39 p.

National Assessment Synthesis Team. 2001. Climate change impacts on the 

United States: the potential consequences of climate variability and change. New 

York: Cambridge University Press. 612 p.

National Water Commission. 1973. Water policies for the future: final report to the 

Congress of the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

579 p.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2002. Oregon list of threatened and 

endangered fish and wildlife species. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/

Wildlife/t%26e.html. (22 May 2002).

Oregon Office of Economic Analysis. 1997. Long-term population and employment 

forecasts for Oregon components of population change, 1990-2040. Salem, OR. 

http://www.oea.das.state.or.us/demographic/longterm/or_sumry.htm. (6 March 

2002).

Oregon Water Resources Board. 1971. Klamath Basin. Salem, OR. 288 p.

Osborn, C.T.; Schefter, J.E.; Shabman, L. 1986. The accuracy of water use 

forecasts: evaluation and implications. Water Resources Bulletin. 22(1): 101–109. 

Portland Oregonian. 2001a. Klamath refuges go thirsty: critical wetland for 

migrating birds are drying up at alarming rates. July 13. http://www.oregonlive.com/

environment/oregonian/index.ssf?/environment/oregonian/lc_61klama13.frame. 

(19 May 2003). 

Portland Oregonian. 2001b. Kitzhaber: Columbia could mirror Klamath fight. August 

17. http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_

standard.xsl?/base/news/9980493323448133.xml. (19 May 2003).

Portland Oregonian. 2001c. The ecosystem of the Klamath Basin. August 29. http:

//www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/

base/news/99908617217192308.xml. (19 May 2003).

Rykbost, K.A.; Charlton, B.A. 2001. Nutrient loading of surface waters in the Upper 

Klamath Basin: agricultural and natural sources. Special Report 1023. Corvallis, 

OR: Oregon State University, Agricultural Experiment Station. 14 p.

Solley, W.B.; Chase, E.B.; Mann, W.B. 1983. Estimated use of water in the United 

States in 1980. Circular 1001. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey. 50 p.

Solley, W.B.; Merk, C.F.; Pierce, R.R. 1988. Estimated use of water in the United 

States in 1985. Circular 1004. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey. 82 p.
36 

Solley, W.B.; Pierce, R.R.; Pearlman, H.A. 1993. Estimated use of water in the 

United States in 1990. Circular 1081. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey. 

76 p.

Solley, W.B.; Pierce, R.R.; Pearlman, H.A. 1998. Estimated use of water in the 

United States in 1995. Circular 1200. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey. 

71 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2001. 2000 RPA assessment of 

forest and range lands. FS-687. Washington, DC. 78 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 1999. 

Census of agriculture 1997 [CD-ROM]. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service 

[NRCS]. 2001. National resources inventory [CD-ROM] Version 1. Fort Worth, TX.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1995. Census of agriculture 

1992 [CD-ROM]. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000a. Population 

projections for states by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin, 1995 to 2025. 

Washington, DC. http://www.census.gov/population/projections/state/stpjpop.txt. 

(6 March 2002).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000b. National population 

projections, annual projections of the total resident population as of July 1, 1999 

to 2100. Washington, DC. http://www.census.gov/population/projections/nation/

summary/np-t1.txt. (6 March 2002).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1992.

County projections to 2040 [CD-ROM]. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2001.

Regional accounts data: annual state personal income. Washington, DC. 

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/spi/. (19 August 2001). 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2002. 

Regional accounts data: annual state personal income. Washington, DC. 

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis/. (19 August 2002).

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Services [NMFS]. 

2001. Biological opinion: ongoing Klamath Project operations. Long Beach, CA. 

58 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 1953. Reclamation 

accomplishments 1905–1953. Klamath Project Oregon-California. Washington, 

DC. 49 p. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 1998. Klamath Project 

Oregon-California. Sacramento, CA: U.S. Government Printing Office. [Pages 

unknown].

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. 1992. 

Biological opinion on effects of long-term operation of the Klamath Project. 

Klamath Falls, OR. [Pages unknown].
37

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. 2001. 

Biological/conference opinion regarding the effects of operation of the Bureau 

of Reclamation’s Klamath Project on the endangered Lost River sucker (Deltistes 

luxatus), endangered shortnose sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris), threatened bald 

eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and proposed critical habitat for the Lost River/

shortnose suckers. Klamath Falls, OR. 295 p.

Walsh, R.G.; Jon, K.H.; McKean, J.R.; Hof, J. 1992. Effect of price on forecasts 

of participation in fish and wildlife recreation: an aggregate demand model. 

Journal of Leisure Research. 21: 140–156.

Washington Office of Financial Management. 2001. Forecast of the state 

population by age and sex, 1990–2030. Olympia, WA. http://www.ofm.wa.gov/

popagesex19702020/4CAST00_rev2.xls. (6 March 2002). 

Water Resources Council. 1968. The Nation’s water resources. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. [Pages unknown]. 

Water Resources Council. 1978. The Nation’s water resources. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. [Pages unknown].

Weber, B.; Sorte, B. 2001. The Upper Klamath Basin economy and the role of 

agriculture. In: Oregon State University and the University of California. Water 

allocation in the Klamath Reclamation Project, 2001: an assessment of natural 

resource, economic, social, and institutional issues. http://eesc.oregonstate.edu/

agcomwebfile/edmat/html/sr/sr1037/sr1037.html. (18 April 2003).

Western Regional Climate Center. 2002. Climatological data summaries, Klamath 

Falls Agricultural Station, Oregon (354511). http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/climsum.html. 

(19 May 2003).

Wollman, N.; Bonem, G.W. 1971. The outlook for water quality, quantity, and 

national growth. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. 286 p.

The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle 

of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of 

wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation 

with the States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests 

and National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly 

greater service to a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs 

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, 

political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases 

apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for 

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should 

contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 

326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 

20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider and employer.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

 Pacific Northwest Research Station

 P.O. Box 3890

 Portland, OR 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 SW First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300