U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5068

National Water Availability and Use Pilot Program

Estimation of Groundwater Use for a Groundwater-Flow 

Model of the Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas,

1864–2005
Cover image: Three-dimensional rendering of significant groundwater-withdrawal points within and near

Lake Michigan Basin and aquifer systems beneath the basin. (Image by David Lampe, U.S. Geological 

Survey.)
Estimation of Groundwater Use for a 

Groundwater-Flow Model of the Lake 

Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 

1864–2005

By Cheryl A. Buchwald, Carol L. Luukkonen, and Cynthia M. Rachol

National Water Availability and Use Pilot Program

Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5068

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. Government.

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

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Buchwald, C.A., Luukkonen, C.L., and Rachol, C.M., 2010, Estimation of groundwater use for a groundwater-flow 

model of the Lake Michigan Basin and adjacent areas, 1864–2005: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2010–5068, 120 p.
iii

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the many water facility operators who 

supplied data for this report. Ralph Spaeth, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Andrew 

LeBaron, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, and Ron Van Til (formerly with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources) also furnished much water-use data. The authors also 

wish to thank Madeline Gotkowitz, Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, for her 

thorough technical review of appendix 6 and Steve Miller, Michigan State University Department of Agricultural Engineering, for his assistance with the irrigation scheduling program. 

Also thanked are Robert Biebel and Katherine Madison of Southeastern Wisconsin Regional 

Planning Commission for responding to inquiries and exchanging data for water-supply forecasts, and Audra Hubbell for generously arranging access to census archives for Wisconsin 

irrigation data. Timothy Anderson, Region 2 Planning Commission; David Bee, West Michigan 

Shoreline Regional Development Commission; Jon Coleman, Tri-County Regional Planning 

Commission; Richard Deuell, Northeast Michigan Council of Governments; Jeff Hagan, Eastern 

Upper Peninsula Regional Planning and Development Commission; and Kathy TenWolde, East 

Central Michigan Planning and Development Regional Commission also supplied information for 

regional water-supply forecasts.

The authors acknowledge Kimberly Shaffer, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Ohio Water Science Center, and Donald Arvin, USGS Indiana Water Science Center, for their thorough technical reviews of the draft report. Daniel Feinstein, USGS Wisconsin Water Science Center, and 

Howard Reeves, USGS Michigan Water Science Center, assisted with data interpretation and 

clarified modeling details. Lori Fuller, USGS Michigan Water Science Center, analyzed aerial 

photos and delineated agricultural areas. T. Adam Gallagher and Austin Baldwin, USGS Wisconsin Water Science Center, provided valued assistance in compiling records for the Wisconsin 

historical water-use dataset. Additional thanks are extended to Michael Eberle and Bonnie S. 

Fink for their thorough editorial reviews of the text, tables, and figures.
iv
v

Contents

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

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

Part 1: General Introduction and Basinwide Data ...................................................................................2

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

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

Data-Comparability Issues.........................................................................................................4

Data Descriptions ........................................................................................................................4

Model Time Intervals..........................................................................................................5

Aquifer Units........................................................................................................................5

Water-Use Categories........................................................................................................6

Basinwide Groundwater Use..............................................................................................................8

Part 2: State-by-State Descriptions of Water-Use Estimates...............................................................20

Wisconsin.............................................................................................................................................20

History of Groundwater Management and Water-Use Data Collection in 

Wisconsin......................................................................................................................20

Overview of Wisconsin Data From the Lake Michigan Basin Study.................................21

Principal Wisconsin Data Sources.........................................................................................23

Public-Supply Water Use in Wisconsin.................................................................................24

Additional Wisconsin Public-Supply Data Sources....................................................26

Estimation Methods for Wisconsin Public-Supply Withdrawals..............................26

Assumptions and Limitations of Wisconsin Public-Supply Data..............................28

Industrial Water Use in Wisconsin .........................................................................................28

Additional Wisconsin Industrial Data Sources............................................................29

Estimation Methods for Wisconsin Industrial and Commercial Withdrawals .......31

Assumptions and Limitations of Wisconsin Industrial and Commercial Data........35

Irrigation Water Use in Wisconsin..........................................................................................35

Additional Wisconsin Irrigation Data Sources ............................................................36

Estimation Methods for Wisconsin Irrigation Withdrawals ......................................36

Assumptions and Limitations of Wisconsin Irrigation Data ......................................39

Miscellaneous Water Use in Wisconsin................................................................................40

Additional Wisconsin Miscellaneous Data Sources ..................................................40

Estimation Methods for Wisconsin Aquaculture Withdrawals ................................40

Estimation Methods for Wisconsin Thermoelectric Power Withdrawals ..............40

Assumptions and Limitations for Wisconsin Miscellaneous Data...........................42

Michigan...............................................................................................................................................42

History of Groundwater Management and Water-Use Data Collection in Michigan ....42

Overview of Michigan Data From the Lake Michigan Basin Study...................................42

Principal Michigan Data Sources...........................................................................................45

Public-Supply Water Use in Michigan...................................................................................46

Additional Michigan Public-Supply Data Sources......................................................49

Estimation Methods for Michigan Public-Supply Withdrawals................................49

Assumptions and Limitations of Michigan Public-Supply Data................................50
vi

Part 2: State-by-State Descriptions of Water-Use Estimates, Michigan—Continued

Industrial Water Use in Michigan ...........................................................................................51

Additional Michigan Industrial Data Sources..............................................................53

Estimation Methods for Michigan Industrial Withdrawals........................................53

Assumptions and Limitations of Michigan Industrial Data........................................53

Irrigation Water Use in Michigan............................................................................................54

Additional Michigan Irrigation Data Sources ..............................................................54

Estimation Methods for Michigan Agricultural Irrigation Withdrawals..................57

Estimation Methods for Michigan Golf Course Irrigation Withdrawals ..................59

Assumptions and Limitations of Michigan Irrigation Data ........................................60

Indiana..................................................................................................................................................60

History of Groundwater Management and Water-Use Data Collection in Indiana........60

Overview of Indiana Data From the Lake Michigan Basin Study ......................................61

Principal Indiana Data Sources ..............................................................................................61

Public-Supply Water Use in Indiana.......................................................................................63

Industrial Water Use in Indiana...............................................................................................65

Irrigation Water Use in Indiana ...............................................................................................66

Assumptions and Limitations of Indiana Public-Supply, Industrial, and Irrigation 

Data.................................................................................................................................69

Illinois ..................................................................................................................................................69

History of Groundwater Management and Water-Use Data Collection in Illinois..........69

Overview of Illinois Data From the Lake Michigan Basin Study........................................70

Public-Supply Water Use in Illinois ........................................................................................70

Industrial Water Use in Illinois ................................................................................................71

Irrigation Water Use in Illinois.................................................................................................71

Assumptions and Limitations of Illinois Public-Supply, Industrial, and Irrigation 

Data ................................................................................................................................75

Summary........................................................................................................................................................75

References....................................................................................................................................................78

General References............................................................................................................................78

Wisconsin References.......................................................................................................................78

Michigan References.........................................................................................................................82

Indiana References ............................................................................................................................84

Illinois References..............................................................................................................................84

Glossary.........................................................................................................................................................87

Appendixes ...................................................................................................................................................91

1. Stratigraphic columns for Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan and 

assigned hydrogeologic-unit model layers and aquifer systems.......................................92

2–5. State water-use category estimates for the Lake Michigan Basin model by 

time interval and A, model subregion; B, aquifer system; and C, aquifer type:

2. Wisconsin ...........................................................................................................................93

3. Michigan .............................................................................................................................96

4. Indiana.................................................................................................................................99

5. Illinois.................................................................................................................................102
vii

Appendixes—Continued

6. Water-use estimates for 2040:

A. Estimation methods for 2040 water use .......................................................................105

B. Lake Michigan Basin model time interval 12 (2001–5) and 2040 groundwateruse estimates by category, model subregion, and aquifer system.........................111

C. Methods for estimating 2040 water use by category and state ..............................113

D. References used in the estimation of 2040 water use, by state ..............................115

E. Adjusted model rates and estimated percent change in employment for 

Wisconsin industrial water-use projections for the year 2040 ................................120

Figures

1. Map showing Lake Michigan Basin model boundaries and subregions............................3

2. Graphs showing groundwater-use estimates by state and by water-use category 

for the Lake Michigan Basin model area, 1864–2005 .............................................................9

3. Map showing Wisconsin and Illinois model areas of the Lake Michigan Basin 

model ............................................................................................................................................22

4–6. Graphs showing—

4. Public-supply groundwater-use estimates in Wisconsin for the Lake 

Michigan Basin model by time interval and model subregion, aquifer 

system, and aquifer type ..................................................................................................25

5. Public-supply per capita water use in the nearfield model area of 

Wisconsin, 1971–2005 .......................................................................................................27

6. Industrial groundwater-use estimates in Wisconsin for the Lake Michigan 

Basin model by time interval and model subregion, aquifer system, and 

aquifer type.........................................................................................................................30

7. Flow chart showing the approach and methods applied for estimating industrial 

and commercial groundwater withdrawals in Wisconsin...................................................32

8. Graphs showing irrigation groundwater-use estimates in Wisconsin for the Lake 

Michigan Basin model by time interval and model subregion, aquifer system, and 

aquifer type..................................................................................................................................37

9. Graphs showing miscellaneous groundwater-use estimates in Wisconsin for the 

Lake Michigan Basin model by time interval and model subregion, aquifer system, 

and aquifer type ..........................................................................................................................41

10. Map showing Michigan and Indiana model areas of the Lake Michigan Basin 

model ............................................................................................................................................43

11. Maps showing Michigan counties for which groundwater-use estimates were 

made for the Lake Michigan Basin model, by category.......................................................44

12–26. Graphs showing—

12. Population and number of communities in Michigan counties in the Lake 

Michigan Basin area.........................................................................................................47

13. Michigan groundwater-use estimates for the Lake Michigan Basin model 

by time interval and category ..........................................................................................47

14. Public-supply groundwater-use estimates in Michigan for the Lake 

Michigan Basin model by time interval and model subregion, aquifer 

system, and aquifer type ..................................................................................................48

15. Public-supply per capita water use in the nearfield model area of 

Michigan, 1869–2004 .........................................................................................................50
viii

16. Industrial groundwater-use estimates in Michigan for the Lake Michigan 

Basin model by time interval and model subregion, aquifer system, and 

aquifer type.........................................................................................................................52

17. Irrigation groundwater-use estimates in Michigan for the Lake Michigan 

Basin model by time interval and model subregion, aquifer system, and 

aquifer type.........................................................................................................................55

18. Population and number of communities in Northern Indiana counties in the 

Lake Michigan Basin area ...............................................................................................62

19. Indiana groundwater-use estimates for the Lake Michigan Basin model by 

time interval and category................................................................................................62

20. Public-supply groundwater-use estimates in Indiana for the Lake Michigan 

Basin model by time interval and model subregion, aquifer system, and 

aquifer type.........................................................................................................................64

21. Public-supply per capita water use in the nearfield model area of Indiana, 

1980–2000 ............................................................................................................................65

22. Industrial groundwater-use estimates in Indiana for the Lake Michigan 

Basin model by time interval and model subregion, aquifer system, and 

aquifer type.........................................................................................................................67

23. Irrigation groundwater-use estimates in Indiana for the Lake Michigan 

Basin model by time interval and model subregion, aquifer system, and 

aquifer type.........................................................................................................................68

24. Public-supply groundwater-use estimates in Illinois for the Lake Michigan 

Basin model by time interval and model subregion, aquifer system, and 

aquifer type.........................................................................................................................72

25. Industrial groundwater-use estimates in Illinois for the Lake Michigan 

Basin model by time interval and model subregion, aquifer system, and 

aquifer type.........................................................................................................................73

26. Irrigation groundwater-use estimates in Illinois for the Lake Michigan 

Basin model by time interval and model subregion, aquifer system, and 

aquifer type.........................................................................................................................74

Tables

1. Description and comparison of U.S. Geological Survey or State-specific and 

report-specific water-use categories, by state.......................................................................6

2. Lake Michigan Basin model estimated groundwater withdrawals by state and 

model area, 1864–2005...............................................................................................................10

3. Lake Michigan Basin model estimated groundwater withdrawals by model 

subregion, 1864–2005 .................................................................................................................11

 4. Lake Michigan Basin model estimated groundwater withdrawals by state and 

water-use category, 1864–2005........................................................................................................... 12

5. Lake Michigan Basin model estimated groundwater withdrawals by state and 

aquifer system, 1864–2005.........................................................................................................14

6. Lake Michigan Basin model estimated groundwater withdrawals by state and 

model layer, 1864–2005 ..............................................................................................................15

7. Lake Michigan Basin model estimated groundwater withdrawals by state and 

aquifer type, 1864–2005..............................................................................................................19

8. Groundwater-withdrawal estimation methods for industrial water use in 

Wisconsin, by water-use purpose...........................................................................................33
ix

9. Irrigation default groundwater-use values used in Wisconsin, by purpose ....................38

10. Estimated amount of groundwater withdrawn for industrial use in part of Michigan 

that is released to recharge the groundwater system.........................................................................51

11. Emergence dates and length of growing season used in the irrigation 

scheduling program ...................................................................................................................56

12. Effective rooting depth, by crop, provided as defaults used in the irrigationscheduling program ...................................................................................................................56

13. Maximum allowable depletion, by crop type.........................................................................56

14. Default values for the available soil moisture for various soils used in the 

irrigation-scheduling program..................................................................................................57

15. County and climate-observation station name and time period of temperature 

and precipitation data used in the irrigation-scheduling program ....................................58

16. Irrigation-estimate and aerial-photograph years matched to each model time 

 interval..........................................................................................................................................59

Conversion Factors and Abbreviations

Multiply By To Obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

acre 0.004047 square kilometer (km2)

acre 0.001562 square mile (mi2)

acre 43,560 square foot (ft2)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2)

Volume

gallon (gal) 3.785 liter (L)

gallon (gal) 0.003785 cubic meter (m3)

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

acre-foot (acre-ft) 3,258 gallon (gal)

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

Flow rate

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

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

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

gallon per day per acre [(gal/d)/

acre] 1.069 cubic meter per day per square kilometer [(m3/d)/km2]

inch per year (in/yr) 25.4 millimeter per year (mm/yr)

acre-foot per day (acre-ft/d) 3,258 gallon per day (gal/d)

million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 1,337 cubic foot per day (ft3/d)

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

million gallons per year (Mgal/yr) 0.002738 million gallons per day (Mgal/d)
x

Acronyms

EWG Environmental Working Group

GIS Geographic Information System

GRN Groundwater Retrieval Network

GWIM Groundwater Inventory and Mapping

GWSI Groundwater Site Inventory

IDNR Indiana Department of Natural Resources

ISWS Illinois State Water Survey

IWIP Illinois Water Inventory Program

LMB Lake Michigan Basin

MDA Michigan Department of Agriculture

MDEQ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

MNDNR Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

MNDNR WAPP Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Water Appropriations 

 Permit Program

MSU Michigan State University

NAIP National Agriculture Imagery Program

NASS National Agricultural and Statistics Service

PICS Public Industrial-Commercial Survey

PSC Public Service Commission

RASA Regional Aquifer Systems Analysis

SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System

SEWRPC Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission

SIC Standard Industrial Classification

STATSGO State Soil Geographic Database

SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District

SWUDS Site-Specific Water-Use Database System

SWWF Significant Water Withdrawal Facility

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USGS United States Geological Survey

USGS WI WSC United States Geological Survey Wisconsin Water Science Center

WDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

WGNHS Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey

WI DOA Wisconsin Department of Administration

WUA Water Use Act
Abstract

The U.S. Geological Survey, at the request of Congress, 

is assessing the availability and use of the Nation’s water 

resources to help characterize how much water is available 

now, how water availability is changing, and how much water 

can be expected to be available in the future. The Great Lakes 

Basin Pilot project of the U.S. Geological Survey national 

assessment of water availability and use focused on the Great 

Lakes Basin and included detailed studies of the processes 

governing water availability in the Great Lakes Basin. One of 

these studies included the development of a groundwater-flow 

model of the Lake Michigan Basin. This report describes the 

compilation and estimation of the groundwater withdrawals in 

those areas in Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois that 

were needed for the Lake Michigan Basin study groundwaterflow model. These data were aggregated for 12 model time 

intervals spanning 1864 to 2005 and were summarized by 

model area, model subregion, category of water use, aquifer 

system, aquifer type, and hydrogeologic unit model layer. 

The types and availability of information on groundwater 

withdrawals vary considerably among states because wateruse programs often differ in the types of data collected and 

in the methods and frequency of data collection. As a consequence, the methods used to estimate and verify the data also 

vary. Additionally, because of the different sources of data and 

different terminologies applied for the purposes of this report, 

the water-use data published in this report may differ from 

water-use data presented in other reports. These data represent only a partial estimate of groundwater use in each state 

because estimates were compiled only for areas in Wisconsin, 

Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois within the Lake Michigan 

Basin model area. Groundwater-withdrawal data were compiled for both nearfield and farfield model areas in Wisconsin 

and Illinois, whereas these data were compiled primarily for 

the nearfield model area in Michigan and Indiana. 

Overall water use for the selected areas in Wisconsin, 

Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois was less during early time 

intervals than during more recent intervals, with large increases 

beginning around the 1960s. Total estimated groundwater 

withdrawals for model input range from 18.01 million gallons 

per day (Mgal/d) for interval 1 (1864–1900) to 1,280.25 Mgal/d 

for interval 12 (2001–5). Withdrawals for the public-supply 

category make up the majority of the withdrawals in each of the 

four states. In Wisconsin and Michigan, the second largest withdrawals are for the irrigation category; in Indiana and Illinois, 

industrial withdrawals account for the second largest withdrawal 

amounts. The smallest withdrawals are for miscellaneous uses 

in Wisconsin and irrigation uses in Indiana and Illinois. 

Estimated groundwater withdrawals in the Southern 

Lower Peninsula of Michigan, Northeastern Illinois, and 

the farfield model area are generally larger than in the other 

model subregions. Withdrawals in Michigan and Indiana are 

predominantly from the Quaternary aquifer system, whereas 

withdrawals in Illinois are predominantly from the CambrianOrdovician aquifer systems. Withdrawals in Wisconsin are 

about equal from the Quaternary and Cambrian-Ordovician 

aquifer systems. Estimated groundwater withdrawals in 

Michigan and Indiana are predominantly from the unconfined unconsolidated aquifer type. Withdrawals in Illinois are 

largely from the deep confined bedrock aquifer type, although 

they decreased considerably in more recent time intervals. 

Wisconsin withdrawals are about equal from unconfined 

unconsolidated and deep confined bedrock aquifer types. 

Groundwater-withdrawal estimates in Wisconsin were 

compiled for the 47 easternmost counties within the boundary of the Lake Michigan Basin model, of which 32 counties, 

though not entirely contained, are at least partly within the Lake 

Michigan Basin. Overall, 6,457 withdrawal locations were estimated in the Wisconsin part of the Lake Michigan Basin model 

area, and 5,151 locations were active in the last time interval 

(2001–5) for a total groundwater withdrawal of 476.51 Mgal/d. 

Total withdrawals for the nearfield model area increased 

consistently from 1.84 Mgal/d in time interval 1 (1864–1900) 

to 192.88 Mgal/d in interval 12 (2001–5); farfield model area 

withdrawals increased from 1.35 Mgal/d in interval 1 to 283.63 

Mgal/d in interval 12. Withdrawals by nearfield model subregions for interval 1 to interval 12 increased from 0.82 Mgal/d to 

118.59 Mgal/d in Northeastern Wisconsin and from 1.02 Mgal/d 

to 76.57 Mgal/d in Southeastern Wisconsin, with the exception 

of interval 10 (1986–1990). 

Estimation of Groundwater Use for a Groundwater-Flow 

Model of the Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 

1864–2005

By Cheryl A. Buchwald, Carol L. Luukkonen, and Cynthia M. Rachol
2 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

Groundwater-withdrawal estimates in Michigan were 

determined for those counties in Michigan with at least some 

part within the boundaries of the basin, plus Monroe County. 

Overall, there were 2,046 withdrawal locations estimated for 

counties within the Lake Michigan Basin model area, and 

1,860 locations were active in the last time interval (2001–5) 

for a total withdrawal of 397.72 Mgal/d. Estimated withdrawals for the nearfield model area range from 7.43 Mgal/d in 

time interval 1 (1864–1900) to 359.91 Mgal/d in interval 12 

(2001–5); farfield model area withdrawals range from 0.63 

Mgal/d in interval 1 to 37.81 Mgal/d in interval 12. Estimated 

withdrawals by nearfield model subregions for interval 1 to 

interval 12 range from 7.21 Mgal/d to 306.15 Mgal/d in the 

Southern Lower Peninsula, 0.22 Mgal/d to 44.83 Mgal/d in the 

Northern Lower Peninsula, and 0 to 8.94 Mgal/d in the Upper 

Peninsula.

Groundwater-withdrawal estimates in Indiana were determined for 11 counties in the Northern Indiana subregion, all of 

which have at least some part within the Lake Michigan Basin 

boundary. Overall, a total of 2,002 withdrawal locations were 

estimated for these counties, and 1,104 locations were active 

in the last model time interval (2001–5) for a total withdrawal 

of 128.3 Mgal/d. Total withdrawals in Indiana for the nearfield 

model area range from 0.21 Mgal/d in interval 3 (1921–40) to 

117.42 Mgal/d in interval 12 (2001–5), and withdrawals from 

the farfield model area range from 0 Mgal/d in interval 3 to 

10.88 Mgal/d for interval 12. 

Groundwater-withdrawal estimates in Illinois were 

determined for three distinct blocks of time (1864–1964, 

1964–1979, and 1979–2004) based on how the data were 

inventoried. The groundwater-withdrawal data from before 

1964, corresponding to model time intervals 1 through 5 

(1864–1960) and part of interval 6 (1961–1970), were summarized for seven major pumping centers in the nearfield model 

area (which is also the Northeastern Illinois subregion). Wateruse estimates from 1964 to 2004 were assigned to intervals 

6 through 12 (1961–2005) for the 40 counties in the Illinois 

Lake Michigan Basin model area. In the nearfield model 

area, withdrawals range from 6.76 Mgal/d in time interval 1 

(1864–1900) to 301.71 Mgal/d in interval 8 (1976–80), then 

decrease to 166.93 Mgal/d in interval 12 (2001–5). 

Part 1: General Introduction and 

Basinwide Data

Introduction

The Great Lakes Basin, which encompasses Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario, contains 95 percent 

of the fresh surface water in North America and 18 percent of 

the fresh surface water in the world. Groundwater1 within the 

Great Lakes Basin constitutes another large volume of freshwater. Yet, even in this water-abundant area, water withdrawals, diversions, and use sometimes conflict with the needs of 

other users and ecosystems in the basin. Thus, at the request 

of Congress, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is assessing the availability and use of the Nation’s water resources to 

gain a clearer understanding of the status of the resources and 

the land-use, water-use, and climatic trends that affect them. 

This national assessment of water availability and use will 

help characterize how much water is available now, how water 

availability is changing, and how much water can be expected 

to be available in the future (Grannemann and Reeves, 2005). 

The Great Lakes Basin Pilot project of the USGS national 

assessment of water availability and use focused on the Great 

Lakes Basin. 

The Great Lakes Basin Pilot project included studies to 

determine the best methods to evaluate water resources and 

to develop strategies for delivering information about water 

availability and use. Evaluation of the effects of groundwater withdrawals also was needed because of lowered 

water levels. In some areas along Lake Michigan within the 

Great Lakes Basin, the water table or artesian water level has 

declined in excess of 40 ft since predevelopment, and freshwater head has declined more than 700 ft in at least one aquifer

(Mandle and Kontis, 1992; Reilly and others, 2008). An aquifer is a geologic formation that is sufficiently saturated and 

permeable to yield considerable quantities of water to wells or 

springs (Solley and others, 1998). As part of this pilot project, 

a groundwater-flow model of the Lake Michigan Basin was 

developed to assess the effect of water withdrawals on groundwater levels, on base flow to streams and lakes, and on the 

capacity to meet future demand for water. The Lake Michigan 

Basin includes parts of Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, 

and Ohio (fig. 1). The compilation and estimation of water 

withdrawals needed for input to the Lake Michigan Basin 

study groundwater-flow model are described in the following 

sections in this report.

1

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

end of this report.
Part 1: General Introduction and Basinwide Data 3

Figure 1. Lake Michigan Basin model boundaries and subregions.

90°W 88°W 86°W 84°W

44°N

42°N

46°N

0 25 50 75 Miles

0 75 Kilometers

EXPLANATION

Model subregions

Northeastern Wisconsin

Southeastern Wisconsin

Great Lakes Basin

Lake Michigan Basin

Nearfield extent

Upper Peninsula of Michigan

Northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan

Southern Lower Peninsula of Michigan

Northern Indiana

Northeastern Illinois

Farfield extent

L

a

k

e

M i c

h i g

a

n

Lak e Supe rior

L a k e

Hu

ro

n

I L L I N O I S

I N D I A N A

W I S C O N S I N

O H I O

M

I

C

H

I

G

A

N

L a k e Erie

Lake

Winnebago

Study extent

C A N A D A
4 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

Purpose and Scope

This report describes construction of the water-use 

datasets and summarizes the groundwater-withdrawal data for 

Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois that were used in 

the Lake Michigan Basin groundwater-flow model (hereafter 

referred to as “LMB model”) (Feinstein and others, in press). 

The developed water-use datasets served as input needed 

for the model simulation to assess the effects of hydrologic 

stress (for example, development) on water resources. Data 

compiled for these datasets came from interpretive maps, 

previously published reports, previous USGS model water-use 

datasets, other agencies, and information from inquiries. 

The water-use data represent pumping of mostly highcapacity wells from unconfined unconsolidated and bedrock 

aquifers or from deep confined bedrock aquifers. Presented in 

this report are withdrawals estimated for four major wateruse categories: public supply, industrial, irrigation, and 

miscellaneous. 

The availability of information on groundwater withdrawals varies considerably among states because water-use 

programs often differ in the types of data collected and in the 

methods and frequency of data collection. As a consequence, 

the methods described in this report to estimate and verify the 

data for each state also vary. Detailed descriptions of these 

issues are given in separate sections for each of the four states.

After completion of the water-use datasets describing 

water use from 1864–2005, projections of future water use 

for 2040 were requested by the authors of the modeling report 

(Feinstein and others, in press) for model water-availability 

scenarios. An overview of the estimation methods, sources, and 

data for these projections is included as supplementary information in the appendixes at the end of this report because the focus 

of this report is the development of the initial water-use datasets. 

Data-Comparability Issues

Much of the data included in these datasets can be 

described more as an assemblage of estimates rather than 

an assemblage of measured groundwater withdrawals. The 

water-use data published in this report may differ from the 

water-use data presented in other reports because of different 

data sources and differences in how terminologies are applied 

for the purposes of this study. Also, historical data were sparse 

in some states, thus preventing the determination of reliable 

estimates of water use. Therefore, trends shown in water data 

likely are not representative of actual historical withdrawals.

Water-use data estimated for the groundwater-flow model 

were assigned to the appropriate model cells. These model 

cells, however, did not directly coincide with state, subregion, 

or aquifer boundaries; that is, some model cells spanned multiple states or subregions. Therefore, some state totals among 

the tables do not match because the assignment of cells to each 

subregion or aquifer differed among the data in the tables for 

each state. However, the magnitude of these differences is 

small and is within the error of the water-use estimate. 

Data Descriptions

Water-use data were compiled for Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois and were limited to areas within the 

boundaries of the LMB model. The groundwater-flow model 

is divided into (1) a nearfield model area with smaller grid 

spacing that corresponds to the center of the model and (2) a 

farfield model area with larger, variable-grid spacing that corresponds to the edges of the model. The nearfield model area is 

the primary area of interest and roughly covers the Lake Michigan Basin area, whereas the farfield model area is included 

to help support analyses that may be near the Lake Michigan 

Basin boundaries. The Lake Michigan Basin follows hydrologic boundaries and does not exactly coincide with the rectangular nearfield model boundary. Therefore, one area in Wisconsin and four areas in Michigan extend outside the rectangular 

nearfield model boundary into the farfield model area (fig. 1). 

Water-use estimates from these areas have been compiled with 

the nearfield model area and subregions because these areas are 

within the Lake Michigan drainage. Groundwater-withdrawal 

data were compiled for counties in both the nearfield and 

farfield model areas in Wisconsin and Illinois, whereas data 

were compiled primarily for counties in the nearfield model 

area in Michigan and Indiana. For both Michigan and Indiana, 

groundwater withdrawals for the water-use categories in this 

report were compiled primarily for the counties with some 

portion within the Lake Michigan Basin boundary. Therefore, 

farfield estimates for Michigan and Indiana consist primarily 

of withdrawals from counties that also have withdrawals in the 

LMB nearfield model area. For both Michigan and Indiana, 

a review of withdrawals from counties in the farfield model 

areas indicated that withdrawals would have very little impact 

on model results within the nearfield model area. No water-use 

data were compiled for Ohio because the State is outside of the 

Lake Michigan Basin boundary, and almost all withdrawals are 

in the farfield model area (Kimberly Shaffer, U.S. Geological 

Survey Ohio Water Science Center, written commun., 2009). 

Additionally, the type and amounts of water use occurring in 

northwestern Ohio likely result in small drawdowns that have 

little influence on the exchange of water between the farfield 

and nearfield model areas. This area relies considerably on 

surface-water sources, and the minor groundwater withdrawals 

are primarily from shallow public-supply and industrial wells 

(Kimberly Shaffer, U.S. Geological Survey Ohio Water Science 

Center, and Daniel Feinstein, U.S. Geological Survey Wisconsin Water Science Center, oral commun., 2006). 

Data in this report have been segregated for each model 

time interval by model area, model subregion, category of 

use, aquifer system, aquifer type, and hydrogeologic unit 

model layer (model layer) as described below. 

1. Model area: Nearfield and farfield.

2. Model subregion: Northeastern Wisconsin, Southeastern 

Wisconsin, Northeastern Illinois, Upper Peninsula of 

Michigan, Northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan, Southern Lower Peninsula of Michigan, and Northern Indiana.
Part 1: General Introduction and Basinwide Data 5

3. Water-use category: Public supply, industrial, irrigation, 

and miscellaneous.

4. Aquifer system (group of two or more aquifers that 

are separated by rock units of lower permeability (for 

example, semiconfining and confining units)): Quaternary, 

Jurassic-Mississippian, Silurian-Devonian, CambrianOrdovician, and mixed (Quaternary and another bedrock 

aquifer system or two bedrock aquifer systems).

5. Aquifer type (the type of water-bearing formation, as 

described below): Shallow unconsolidated material, 

shallow bedrock, and deep bedrock.

6. Hydrogeologic unit model layer: Twenty model layers, 

listed in the stratigraphic column in appendix 1. The 

hydrogeologic unit was specified to be the screened 

interval for unconsolidated-material wells and the interval 

between the bottom of the casing and the bottom of the 

well for bedrock wells.

Most state-level water-use data are included in this report 

(appendixes 2 through 5), with the exception of state water use 

by hydrogeologic unit model layer for each water-use category. Although details are provided in this report about how 

water-use data were estimated at the county level,2 no countylevel data are presented herein because of varying degrees of 

completeness from county to county and from state to state. 

Detailed descriptions of data sources and water-use-estimation 

methods with respect to each water-use category are described 

throughout the remainder of the report. Terms used in this 

report are defined throughout the report but are also summarized in the glossary (at the end of the report). This report converts annual volumes of water into average daily quantities in 

million gallons per day (Mgal/d), because annual values often 

involve large numbers (hundreds of thousands of gallons). 

Model Time Intervals

Withdrawals for public supply, industrial, irrigation, and 

miscellaneous water uses were compiled and estimated for 

each state when appropriate for the period from 1864 to 2005. 

Within this period, time was broken down into 12 intervals as follows: (1) 1864–1900, (2) 1901–20, (3) 1921–40, 

(4) 1941–50, (5) 1951–60, (6) 1961–70, (7) 1971–75, (8) 

1976–80, (9) 1981–85, (10) 1986–90, (11) 1991–2000, and 

(12) 2001–5. These time intervals (termed “stress periods” in 

the model documentation; Feinstein and others, in press) were 

chosen because of data availability and expected changes in 

water levels due to trends of large withdrawals. Thus, longer 

timespans generally correspond to early intervals with little 

available data, and shorter timespans generally correspond to 

intervals with large changes in withdrawal amounts and locations, and usually more available data. Because site-specific 

groundwater withdrawal data were not available for every year 

2

County-level data compiled for this report, in particular for Wisconsin and 

Illinois, may be obtained by readers by sending an inquiry to the authors of 

this report.

for 1864–2005, water-use estimates for some time intervals are 

based on only a few years of data or are based on data from 

adjacent intervals, as described in subsequent sections. Wateruse estimates for this study were determined for each interval 

and were assigned to the midpoint of each respective interval. 

Aquifer Units

In addition to total withdrawals for each location, the 

depth—and therefore, the aquifer from which water was 

being withdrawn—was determined. This information also was 

needed as input to the groundwater-flow model, in which 20 

layers were used to represent the hydrogeologic units in the 

LMB model area (appendix 1). Maps and descriptions of principal aquifers, hydrogeologic-unit distributions, and bedrock 

geology in Lake Michigan model area are available in other 

project-related reports (Sheets and Simonson, 2006; Lampe, 

2009). For the purposes of this report, water-use information is 

divided into groups corresponding to the following hydrogeologic aquifer systems: (1) Quaternary unconsolidated deposits 

(model layers 1–3); (2) Jurassic to Mississippian (Marshall 

Sandstone) bedrock units (model layers 4–8); (3) SilurianDevonian bedrock units (model layers 9–12); and (4) Cambrian-Ordovician (Sinnipee to Mount Simon) bedrock units 

(model layers 13–20). The Quaternary unconsolidated deposits 

throughout the model area are typically glacial in origin but 

can include alluvial deposits. The bottom hydrogeologic unit 

of the Jurassic-Mississippian aquifer system is the Marshall 

Sandstone; the shale confining units of the Mississippian 

System were assigned in the model to the top of the SilurianDevonian aquifer system. In Wisconsin and Michigan, a few 

groundwater withdrawals were from or included a contributing 

portion of Precambrian crystalline bedrock. However, because 

yields were limited and this bedrock unit is not considered to 

be a principal aquifer, withdrawals were assigned to model 

layer 20 to describe contributing pumpage from the base of 

the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system. Water-use estimates 

also were subdivided into aquifer type on the basis of whether 

withdrawals were from (1) shallow unconsolidated material, 

(2) shallow bedrock,3 and (3) deep bedrock.4 Division of withdrawals into these groups helps to explain the varied response 

to pumping in different areas of the Lake Michigan Basin.

3

Shallow bedrock wells in the groundwater-flow model penetrate no bedrock aquifer layer that is beneath a bedrock confining unit. For this purpose, 

a confining unit is defined as a bedrock unit at least 5 ft thick and assigned a 

vertical conductivity less than or equal to 0.001 ft/d. Shallow pumping at a 

given well is from unconfined or semiconfined aquifers (the latter is the case 

when a shallow bedrock aquifer is overlain by fine-grained glacial material).

4

Deep bedrock wells penetrate at least one bedrock aquifer layer that is 

beneath a bedrock confining unit. Deep pumping at a given well is, at least 

partly, from confined aquifers.
6 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

Water-Use Categories 

Water use, as defined for this report, is the amount of 

water withdrawn from groundwater sources (water-bearing 

formations below land surface, also known as aquifers). A 

water withdrawal is the amount of water a pump actually 

withdrew. Water withdrawal for a site or well has been represented by one of four report-specific water-use categories: 

public supply, industrial, irrigation, and miscellaneous. These 

water-use categories were not necessary for the model input 

datasets but were helpful when estimating water use for each 

state because of the differing methods used for each category. 

For most states, additional data represented by other water-use 

categories also were estimated. For the purpose of simplifying 

the types of withdrawals for the model datasets, data in these 

other categories, such as thermoelectric and aquaculture, are 

included in one of the four above report-specific water-use categories. These report-specific categories, and the types of data 

they include, may differ from other USGS or state-specific categories because of differences in how the data were collected, 

classified, and estimated for each state (table 1). For example, 

some facilities classified as commercial water-use sites in 

one state may have been classified as public supply in another 

state, depending on the terminology applied by the respective 

state environmental regulatory agency or the definition in the 

source database. Similarly, water withdrawn for the thermal 

process of generating electricity is included in the reportspecific miscellaneous category for Wisconsin and is included 

in the report-specific industrial category for Illinois. Indiana 

does not have a thermoelectric power category; rather, water 

withdrawn for the primary purpose of power generation is 

classified in the energy production category and for the purposes of this report is included in the report-specific industrial 

category. All industrial and irrigation withdrawals estimated in 

this report are from self-supplied water sources. No estimates 

of self-supplied water uses for domestic, livestock, mining, 

remediation, or wastewater treatment and processing were 

compiled for this study.

For this report, per capita use is defined as the amount 

of water withdrawn by the public water-supply system (and 

delivered for a variety of uses, such as domestic, commercial, industrial, and public) divided by the number of persons 

served by the system during a standard time period, generally 

per day. Therefore, the public-supply per capita use values 

created in this study do not necessarily describe domestic use 

solely but include each resident’s indirect participation of 

water used in the community for the broader public-supply 

uses, such as for industry.

Table 1. Description and comparison of U.S. Geological Survey or state-specific and report-specific water-use categories, by state.

[PS, public supply; IN, industrial; IR, irrigation; MISC, miscellaneous; ND, not determined; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; shaded cells indicate category is 

not relevant to that state]

USGS or state-specific 

water-use category and 

definition

Assignment to report-specific water-use category

Wisconsin Michigan Indiana Illinois

Public supply (USGS)a—

Water withdrawn by public 

and private water suppliers 

that furnish water to at least 

25 people or have a minimum 

of 15 connections.

PS—In Wisconsin, publicsupply water use also must 

be for a community system, 

which is either owned and 

operated by an incorporated 

city or village, town, sanitary 

district, housing subdivision, 

or mobile-home park. 

Otherwise, the water use is 

considered a noncommunity 

systemb and assigned to 

the commercial water-use 

category.

PS PS PS

Industrial (USGS)a—Water 

used for industrial purposes, 

such as manufacturing, 

fabrication, processing, 

washing, and cooling.

IN IN IN IN—Prior to 1964, industrial 

water use was combined 

with the public-supply 

category.

Irrigation (USGS)a—Water 

applied to lands to assist 

in the growing of crops 

and pastures or to maintain 

vegetative growth on 

recreational lands such as 

parks and golf courses.

IR IR—Irrigation in Michigan 

was determined for agricultural and golf course 

uses. Agricultural water 

use was determined for 11 

counties after 1920; golf 

course water use was not 

determined prior to 1990.

IR IR—Irrigation water use was 

not determined prior to 

1964.
Part 1: General Introduction and Basinwide Data 7

USGS or state-specific 

water-use category and 

definition

Assignment to report-specific water-use category

Wisconsin Michigan Indiana Illinois

Commercial (USGS) a

—Water used at facilities 

involved in the sale of goods 

or services, such as hotels, 

restaurants, recreation 

destinations, office buildings, 

and institutions.

IN—In Wisconsin, 

noncommunity systemsb, 

including nursing homes, 

prisons, asylums, religious 

and academic institutions, 

airports, and campgrounds 

were assigned to the 

commercial water-use 

category and not to the 

public-supply water-use 

category.

ND—Not directly estimated; 

however, based on State’s 

classification system, some 

commercial water use may be 

included in the public-supply 

category.

ND—Not directly estimated; 

however, based on State’s 

classification system, some 

commercial water use may be 

included in the public-supply 

category.

PS, IR—Prior to 1964, 

all commercial water-use 

facilities were assigned to the 

public-supply category. After 

1964, certain facility types 

(country clubs and municipal 

parks) were assigned to the 

irrigation water-use category 

based on the assumed 

predominant purpose of the 

water use.

Thermoelectric power

(USGS)a —Water used in 

the process of generating 

electricity with steam-driven 

turbine generators.

MISC ND ND IN— In Illinois, 

thermoelectric power water 

use is categorized as an 

industrial use.

Aquaculture (USGS)a—

Water used in the production 

of organisms that live in 

water within a confined 

space and under controlled 

feeding, sanitation, and 

harvesting procedures, and 

establishments primarily 

engaged in hatching fish and 

in operating fishing preserves.

MISC ND IN—In Indiana, aquaculture 

is categorized as an other 

(miscellaneous) use, and, for 

the purposes of this report, is 

included with industrial uses.

IR—In Illinois, aquaculture 

is categorized as an irrigation 

use.

Rural use (Indiana specific) c

—Water withdrawn for the 

primary purpose of watering 

livestock and operating fish 

hatcheries.

IR—Indiana rural uses are 

included with irrigation uses.

Energy production (Indiana 

specific)c—Water withdrawn 

for the primary purpose of 

power generation including 

coal mining operations or for 

the cooling of condensers at 

fossil-fuel plants.

IN—Indiana thermoelectric 

power water use is included 

with industrial use.

Other use (Indiana specific) c

—Water withdrawn for a 

variety of uses, including 

snow-making, aquaculture, 

operating fish and wildlife 

areas, lake-level maintenance, 

and construction dewatering. 

Landfills were included in 

this category until 1996.

IN—Indiana other water uses 

are included with industrial 

uses.

a

Water-use categories generally described by Solley and others (1998).

b

A noncommunity system is defined as a public or private water system that furnishes water year-round to less than 25 people or 15 connections, and is not 

owned and operated by an incorporated city or village, town, sanitary district, subdivision, or mobile-home park.

c

Arvin and Spaeth (1998).

Table 1. Description and comparison of U.S. Geological Survey or State-specific and report-specific water-use categories, by state.—

Continued

[PS, public supply; IN, industrial; IR, irrigation; MISC, miscellaneous; ND, not determined; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; shaded cells indicate category is 

not relevant to that State]
8 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

Basinwide Groundwater Use 

Overall water use for Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, and 

Illinois was relatively small during the early model time intervals but was followed by large increases that began around 

the 1960s (fig. 2). These increases in the 1960s are partially 

explained by the availability of well-log data used to determine when pumping began for facilities in the LMB model 

area. For the most part, early water-use estimates for Michigan 

and Indiana were based on either minimal reported data or no 

reported data at all, so the apparent trends for these two states 

likely are not indicative of actual water use. 

Characterization of withdrawals by geographical model 

area and subregion was important during the development of 

the LMB model. In Wisconsin, withdrawals in the nearfield 

model area were generally larger than farfield withdrawals 

during early time intervals and smaller than farfield withdrawals during the later intervals (table 2). In Michigan and 

Indiana, water use was estimated primarily for the nearfield 

model area because withdrawals in the farfield model area 

were determined to have little impact on the nearfield results. 

Therefore, the farfield model areas of both Michigan and 

Indiana had the least amount of total water used in the LMB 

model. In Illinois, withdrawals before 1964 were estimated 

for seven major pumping centers in the nearfield model area; 

withdrawals after 1964 were estimated by county for the entire 

Illinois model area. From intervals 6 (1961–70) through 9 

(1981–85), withdrawals in Illinois in the nearfield model area 

grew to about 3 times as much as those in the farfield model 

area. After interval 9, withdrawals in the nearfield model 

area began to decline. The majority of groundwater used in 

the nearfield model area during the first three time intervals 

(1864–1940) was in Illinois; but by the 1940s, all states except 

Indiana were similar in the amount of withdrawal. Since then, 

total water use for Michigan’s nearfield model area largely has 

outpaced growth in water use for all other states. Water use 

in the Illinois nearfield model area peaked during interval 8 

(1976–80) and has since declined. Withdrawals were generally 

smaller for the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, the Northern 

Lower Peninsula of Michigan, Northern Indiana, Southeastern 

Wisconsin, and Northeastern Wisconsin subregions compared 

to the withdrawal amounts for the Southern Lower Peninsula 

of Michigan and Northeastern Illinois subregions and the 

farfield model area (table 3). 

Withdrawals for the public-supply category make up the 

majority of the withdrawals in Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, 

and Illinois (table 4). In Wisconsin and Michigan, the second 

largest withdrawals are for the irrigation category; in Indiana 

and Illinois, industrial withdrawals account for the second 

largest withdrawal amounts.

Associating withdrawals with specific aquifer units 

(which could then be related to a specific model layer) was 

important for model simulations (table 5). Withdrawals in 

Michigan and Indiana are predominantly from the Quaternary aquifer system. Withdrawals in Wisconsin are about 

equally from the Quaternary and Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer 

systems. Withdrawals in Illinois are predominantly from the 

Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system. The Jurassic-Mississippian aquifer system also is an important source of water 

in Michigan but not in the other states. Both Wisconsin and 

Michigan have some wells that are completed in the unconsolidated material and underlying bedrock units (classified as 

a mixed aquifer system), but data from Indiana and Illinois do 

not specify withdrawals from any wells that are open to both 

of these different aquifer systems. 

In Wisconsin, withdrawals from the Quaternary aquifer 

system are largest from the upper 100 ft of unconsolidated 

deposits and from the last two model layers, which represent the 

Mount Simon Formation of the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer 

system (table 6). In Michigan, withdrawals from the Quaternary 

aquifer system are largest from the upper 300 ft of the unconsolidated deposits and from the model layers representing 

the Pennsylvanian Saginaw Formation and the Mississippian 

Marshall Sandstone Formation of the Jurassic-Mississippian 

aquifer system. In Indiana, withdrawals from the Quaternary 

aquifer system are largest from the upper 300 ft of the unconsolidated deposits. In Illinois, withdrawals from the Quaternary aquifer system are largest from the upper 300 ft of the 

unconsolidated deposits and from the model layers representing the Ironton-Galesville part of the Cambrian-Ordovician 

aquifer system. These aquifer systems can be further categorized by aquifer type, which is whether the aquifer unit 

is unconfined unconsolidated materials, shallow unconfined 

bedrock, or deep confined bedrock (table 7). Withdrawals in 

Michigan and Indiana are predominantly from the unconfined 

unconsolidated materials. Withdrawals in Wisconsin were 

predominantly from deep confined bedrock for earlier time 

intervals but have shifted to be about equally from unconfined 

unconsolidated materials and deep confined bedrock units. 

Withdrawals in Illinois are predominantly from deep confined 

bedrock.
 Part 1: General Introduction and Basinwide Data 9

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1864 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

Public Supply

100

0

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1864 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

Industrial

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1864 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

YEAR

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

Irrigation

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1864 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

YEAR

Miscellaneous

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

0

100

200

300

400

500

1864 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

Wisconsin

Michigan

Indiana

Illinois

YEAR AND TIME INTERVAL

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Figure 2. Groundwater-use estimates by state and by water-use category for the Lake Michigan Basin model area, 1864–2005.
10 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005 Table 2. Lake Michigan Basin model estimated groundwater withdrawals by state and model area, 1864–2005. [Withdrawals are in million gallons per day; subtotals and overall model totals may not match totals reported in other tables because of rounding and because the assignment of model cells to each subre- gion or aquifer differed among the data in the tables for each state; --, estimate not determined; %, percent] Model area Time interval

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1864–

1900 1901–20 1921–40 1941–50 1951–60 1961–70 1971–75 1976–80 1981–85 1986–90 1991– 2000 2001–5

Wisconsin

Nearfield 1.84 7.87 23.61 53.59 77.24 97.34 124.71 148.29 163.89 168.75 186.74 192.88Farfield 1.35 6.89 14.59 35.90 56.92 115.44 156.78 199.79 227.61 247.61 275.95 283.63

SUBTOTAL 3.19 14.76 38.20 89.50 134.16 212.78 281.48 348.09 391.50 416.36 462.68 476.51

Percent in nearfield 57.6% 53.3% 61.8% 59.9% 57.6% 45.7% 44.3% 42.6% 41.9% 40.5% 40.4% 40.5%

Michigana

Nearfield 7.43 15.84 39.11 73.99 117.28 173.36 200.53 234.66 244.94 242.38 366.67 359.91Farfield 0.63 1.45 2.51 10.31 19.14 23.31 28.40 28.40 28.63 31.23 38.41 37.81

SUBTOTAL 8.06 17.29 41.62 84.30 136.41 196.67 228.93 263.06 273.57 273.61 405.08 397.72

Percent in nearfield 92.2% 91.6% 94.0% 87.8% 86.0% 88.1% 87.6% 89.2% 89.5% 88.6% 90.5% 90.5%

Indianaa

Nearfield -- -- 0.21 9.20 18.90 49.53 52.79 55.92 101.95 107.87 117.68 117.42Farfield -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.42 0.42 8.37 8.69 8.71 10.88

SUBTOTAL -- -- 0.21 9.20 18.90 49.91 53.21 56.34 110.32 116.56 126.40 128.30

Percent in nearfield -- -- 100% 100% 100% 99.2% 99.2% 99.3% 92.4% 92.5% 93.1% 91.5%

Illiniosb

Nearfield 6.76 32.36 51.11 57.29 66.38 165.23 266.24 301.71 291.10 243.02 175.65 166.93Farfield 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.74 80.87 84.79 105.20 108.92 114.85 110.78

SUBTOTAL 6.76 32.36 51.11 57.29 66.38 215.97 347.11 386.49 396.29 351.94 290.50 277.71

Percent in nearfield 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 76.5% 76.7% 78.1% 73.5% 69.1% 60.5% 60.1%

OVERALL TOTAL

Nearfield 16.03 56.07 114.03 194.07 279.79 485.46 644.27 740.58 801.88 762.03 846.74 837.15Farfield 1.98 8.34 17.10 46.21 76.06 189.87 266.47 313.40 369.81 396.44 437.92 443.10

MODEL TOTAL 18.01 64.41 131.13 240.28 355.84 675.32 910.74 1,053.99 1,171.69 1,158.46 1,284.66 1,280.25

Percent in nearfield 89.0% 87.1% 87.0% 80.8% 78.6% 71.9% 70.7% 70.3% 68.4% 65.8% 65.9% 65.4%

a Values reflect only a partial estimate of water use.b Public-supply water use was compiled for only seven major pumping centers in Illinois until 1964. Values reflect only a partial estimate of water use in Illinois from time interval 1 to time interval 8.
Part 1: General Introduction and Basinwide Data 11

Table 3. Lake Michigan Basin model estimated groundwater withdrawals by model subregion, 1864–2005.[Withdrawals are in million gallons per day; model total may not match totals reported in other tables because of rounding and because the assignment of model cells to each subregion or aquifer differed among the data in the tables for each state; --, estimate not determined]

Model subregion

Time interval

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1864–1900 1901–20 1921–40 1941–50 1951–60 1961–70 1971–75 1976–80 1981–85 1986–90 1991–2000 2001–5

Northeastern Wisconsin 0.82 3.72 13.09 30.55 47.57 55.36 69.64 82.57 91.30 101.25 113.09 118.59Southeastern Wisconsin 1.02 4.33 11.38 24.44 31.24 43.70 56.71 67.53 74.77 69.85 76.17 76.57Southern Lower Peninsula of Michigana 7.21 15.34 38.06 65.67 102.38 153.51 174.54 208.12 215.08 211.38 315.61 306.15Northern Lower Peninsula of Michigana 0.22 0.50 0.81 5.14 9.84 13.37 17.97 17.97 20.03 21.17 41.12 44.83Upper Peninsula of Michigana 0.00 0.00 0.24 3.18 5.06 6.48 8.01 8.57 9.83 9.83 9.94 8.94Northern Indianaa -- -- 0.21 9.20 18.90 49.53 52.79 55.92 101.95 107.87 117.68 117.42Northeastern Illinoisa 6.76 32.36 51.11 57.29 66.38 165.23 266.24 301.71 291.10 243.02 175.65 166.93Farfield model areaa,b 1.97 8.16 16.23 44.82 74.49 188.15 264.82 311.59 367.63 394.09 435.39 440.81MODEL TOTAL 18.01 64.41 131.13 240.28 355.84 675.32 910.74 1,053.99 1,171.69 1,158.46 1,284.66 1,280.24

a Values reflect only a partial estimate of water use.b The majority of water use estimated in the farfield model area belongs to Wisconsin.
12 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005 Table 4. Lake Michigan Basin model estimated groundwater withdrawals by state and water-use category, 1864–2005.—Continued [Withdrawals are in million gallons per day; subtotals and overall model total may not match totals reported in other tables because of rounding and because the assignment of model cells to each subregion or aquifer differed among the data in the tables for each state; ISWS, Illinois State Water Survey; --, estimate not determined] Water-use category Time interval

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1864–

1900 1901–20 1921–40 1941–50 1951–60 1961–70 1971–75 1976–80 1981–85 1986–90 1991– 2000 2001–5

Wisconsin

Public supply 2.78 12.11 29.20 65.21 90.75 132.16 170.68 200.54 214.49 218.53 236.91 236.24Industrial 0.41 2.62 8.92 22.69 34.66 40.00 42.73 44.98 49.21 55.41 59.44 61.47Irrigation 0.00 0.04 0.08 1.47 6.20 36.70 61.21 93.75 116.64 128.54 149.07 159.70Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 2.55 3.92 6.87 8.82 11.16 13.88 17.26 19.09

SUBTOTAL 3.19 14.76 38.20 89.50 134.16 212.78 281.48 348.09 391.50 416.36 462.68 476.51

Michigana

Public supply 8.06 17.29 41.54 83.53 133.21 171.34 189.16 189.16 193.05 193.05 198.28 196.98Industrialb -- -- -- -- -- 21.47 31.53 35.40 29.64 37.64 93.25 89.36Irrigationc -- -- 0.08 0.77 3.20 3.85 8.24 38.50 50.88 42.92 113.54 111.38Miscellaneousd -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

SUBTOTAL 8.06 17.29 41.62 84.30 136.41 196.67 228.93 263.06 273.57 273.61 405.08 397.72

Indianaa

Public supply -- -- 0.21 8.82 17.22 46.15 48.42 48.42 72.79 72.79 74.65 76.62Industriale -- -- -- 0.13 1.37 2.62 2.85 3.04 22.89 29.70 31.95 29.59Irrigationf -- -- -- 0.26 0.31 1.14 1.94 4.89 14.64 14.07 19.79 22.10Miscellaneousg -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

SUBTOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.21 9.20 18.90 49.91 53.21 56.34 110.32 116.56 126.40 128.30

Illinoisa

Public supply h, i 6.76 32.36 51.11 57.29 66.38 162.63 269.40 311.34 326.12 287.29 221.79 221.91Industrial -- -- -- -- -- 49.83 71.58 68.80 67.37 60.50 59.26 47.36Irrigationj -- -- -- -- -- 3.51 6.13 6.36 2.80 4.15 9.44 8.44Miscellaneousk -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

SUBTOTAL 6.76 32.36 51.11 57.29 66.38 215.97 347.11 386.50 396.30 351.94 290.50 277.71
Part 1: General Introduction and Basinwide Data 13

Table 4. Lake Michigan Basin model estimated groundwater withdrawals by state and water-use category, 1864–2005.—Continued[Withdrawals are in million gallons per day; subtotals and overall model total may not match totals reported in other tables because of rounding and because the assignment of model cells to each subregion or aquifer differed among the data in the tables for each state; ISWS, Illinois State Water Survey; --, estimate not determined]

Water-use category

Time interval

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1864–

1900 1901–20 1921–40 1941–50 1951–60 1961–70 1971–75 1976–80 1981–85 1986–90 1991– 2000 2001–5

TOTAL BY WATER-USE CATEGORY

Public supply 17.60 61.76 122.05 214.85 307.55 512.29 677.65 749.45 806.45 771.66 731.64 731.76Industrial 0.41 2.62 8.92 22.82 36.03 113.92 148.69 152.22 169.12 183.25 243.91 227.78Irrigation 0.00 0.04 0.16 2.50 9.71 45.20 77.52 143.50 184.96 189.67 291.84 301.62Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 2.55 3.92 6.87 8.82 11.16 13.88 17.26 19.09

OVERALL TOTAL

MODEL TOTAL 18.01 64.41 131.14 240.28 355.85 675.32 910.74 1,053.99 1,171.69 1,158.47 1,284.66 1,280.24

a Values reflect only a partial estimate of water use.b Does not include estimates of water withdrawals for commercial use.c Estimates for agricultural use are for 11 Michigan counties; estimates prior to 1990 do not include estimates for golf course use.d No estimates were compiled for miscellaneous use in Michigan.e Includes estimates for industrial water use combined with other and energy production uses; does not include any estimates for commercial use.f Includes estimates for irrigation water use combined with rural uses.g Miscellaneous use estimates in Indiana were combined with water withdrawals for industrial and irrigation uses.h Public-supply estimates were compiled only for seven major pumping centers in Illinois until 1964.i Commercial water use in Illinois was compiled by the ISWS as public-supply water use; these estimates were not compiled until 1964.j No estimates were compiled for irrigation water use until 1964 in Illinois; the ISWS had included aquacultural water use in this category.k No estimates were compiled for miscellaneous use in Illinois; these estimates were primarily for the nearfield model area; the ISWS had included the few thermoelectric groundwater withdrawals in the 

industrial category.
14 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005 Table 5. Lake Michigan Basin model estimated groundwater withdrawals by state and aquifer system, 1864–2005. [Withdrawals are in million gallons per day; “mixed” represents withdrawal from mixed aquifer systems of Quaternary and a bedrock aquifer system, or two bedrock aquifer systems; subtotals and overall model totals may not match totals reported in other tables because of rounding and because the assignment of model cells to each subregion or aquifer differed among the data in the tables for each state; --, estimate not determined] Aquifer system Time interval

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1864–1900 1901–20 1921–40 1941–50 1951–60 1961–70 1971–75 1976–80 1981–85 1986–90 1991–2000 2001–5

Wisconsin

Quaternary 0.17 0.64 4.00 12.54 28.38 78.61 115.11 158.14 177.79 192.11 208.46 214.30Jurassic-Mississippian 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Silurian-Devonian 0.00 0.34 1.54 6.10 10.45 15.52 20.02 23.29 23.53 26.86 32.25 34.13Cambrian-Ordovician 3.02 13.60 31.70 69.37 93.66 116.83 144.61 164.75 187.91 194.96 219.36 225.68Mixed 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.12 0.63 0.77 1.47 2.53 3.67 5.80 6.30

SUBTOTAL 3.19 14.59 37.28 88.06 132.61 211.59 280.50 347.65 391.77 417.60 465.87 480.41

Michigana

Quaternary 5.38 10.26 19.65 47.23 75.36 118.21 143.06 174.67 184.68 183.06 287.13 285.36Jurassic-Mississippian 2.67 7.04 21.97 34.00 51.46 68.02 72.81 74.13 73.44 73.27 85.24 83.62Silurian-Devonian 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.16 1.54 1.86 8.80 9.52 9.63 11.73 26.88 25.90Cambrian-Ordovician 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.91 2.31 2.51 0.43 0.61 1.56 1.56 1.67 1.82Mixed 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.75 6.07 3.83 4.13 4.26 3.99 4.05 0.91

SUBTOTAL 8.06 17.29 41.62 84.30 136.41 196.67 228.93 263.06 273.57 273.61 404.97 397.61

Indianaa

Quaternary -- -- 0.21 9.20 18.90 49.91 53.21 56.34 105.81 111.39 122.82 124.78Jurassic-Mississippian -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Silurian-Devonian -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.51 5.17 3.57 3.52Cambrian-Ordovician -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Mixed -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

SUBTOTAL -- -- 0.21 9.20 18.90 49.91 53.21 56.34 110.32 116.56 126.39 128.30

Illinoisa

Quaternaryb -- -- -- -- -- 16.37 31.34 41.76 60.43 61.71 69.43 73.69Jurassic-Mississippianb -- -- -- -- -- 0.12 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.07Silurian-Devonianb -- -- -- -- -- 31.08 50.71 54.77 51.73 45.49 39.00 33.13Cambrian-Ordovician 6.76 32.36 51.11 57.29 66.38 167.22 261.83 286.61 280.63 240.45 180.90 170.25Mixed -- -- -- -- -- 1.19 3.15 3.27 3.43 4.22 1.09 0.57

SUBTOTAL 6.76 32.36 51.11 57.29 66.38 215.97 347.11 386.49 396.29 351.94 290.50 277.71

OVERALL TOTAL

Quaternary 5.56 10.90 23.85 68.97 122.63 263.09 342.73 430.91 528.71 548.26 687.85 698.13Jurassic-Mississippian 2.67 7.04 21.97 34.00 51.46 68.14 72.88 74.22 73.52 73.35 85.32 83.69Silurian-Devonian 0.00 0.34 1.55 7.26 11.99 48.46 79.54 87.58 89.41 89.24 101.70 96.67Cambrian-Ordovician 9.78 45.96 82.81 128.57 162.35 286.56 406.87 451.97 470.09 436.96 401.92 397.76Mixed 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.06 5.87 7.89 7.75 8.87 10.23 11.89 10.93 7.78

MODEL TOTAL 18.01 64.24 130.22 238.85 354.30 674.13 909.76 1,053.55 1,171.95 1,159.70 1,287.73 1,284.03 a Values reflect only a partial estimate of water use.

b Public-supply water use was compiled for only seven major pumping centers in Illinois until 1964. These withdrawals were assigned entirely to the predominant aquifer system, that is the CambrianOrdovician; however, some withdrawals did occur from the Quaternary and Silurian-Devonian aquifer systems (Suter and others, 1959). 
Part 1: General Introduction and Basinwide Data 15

Table 6. Lake Michigan Basin model estimated groundwater withdrawals by state and model layer, 1864–2005.[Withdrawals are in million gallons per day; state totals may not match totals reported in other tables because of rounding and because the assignment of model cells to each subregion or aquifer differed among the data in the tables for each state; --, estimate not determined; %, percent]

Layer 

number Layer name

Time interval

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1864–

1900 1901–20 1921–40 1941–50 1951–60 1961–70 1971–75 1976–80 1981–85 1986–90 1991– 2000 2001–5

Wisconsin

1 Quaternary <100 feet in depth 0.17 0.60 3.18 8.92 20.11 48.05 65.50 89.43 100.36 111.12 121.01 124.222 Quaternary 100<x<300 feet in depth 0.00 0.04 0.83 3.62 8.27 30.50 49.51 68.61 77.35 80.89 87.32 89.933 Quaternary >300 feet in depth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.14 0.15

Quaternary subtotal 0.17 0.64 4.00 12.54 28.38 78.61 115.11 158.14 177.79 192.11 208.46 214.30Percent of Wisconsin total 5.4% 4.4% 10.7% 14.2% 21.4% 37.3% 41.1% 45.7% 45.7% 46.4% 45.3% 45.2%

4 Jurassic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.005 Upper Pennsylvanian 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.006 Lower Pennsylvanian 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.007 Michigan 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008 Marshall 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.009 Mississippian-Devonian 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Jurassic–Mississippian-Devonian subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Percent of Wisconsin total 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

10 Devonian-Silurian <50 feet in depth 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.67 1.21 1.58 1.99 2.08 1.65 2.59 3.40 3.58

11 Devonian-Silurian 50<x<300 feet in depth 0.00 0.26 1.22 3.74 6.18 9.04 11.18 12.71 12.40 14.15 16.51 17.77

12 Devonian-Silurian >300 feet in depth 0.00 0.07 0.24 1.69 3.06 4.90 6.86 8.50 9.49 10.12 12.34 12.78

Devonian-Silurian subtotal 0.00 0.34 1.54 6.10 10.45 15.52 20.02 23.29 23.53 26.86 32.25 34.13Percent of Wisconsin total 0.0% 2.3% 4.1% 6.9% 7.9% 7.4% 7.2% 6.7% 6.0% 6.5% 7.0% 7.2%

13 Maquoketa 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.08 0.4 0.5514 Sinnipee 0.02 0.26 0.51 0.70 1.29 1.15 1.05 1.58 1.50 1.64 2.08 1.8515 St. Peter 0.34 0.86 1.25 2.32 3.75 4.67 5.31 5.69 5.92 5.16 6.15 6.1816 Prairie du Chien-Franconia 0.01 0.29 1.10 3.61 4.20 4.78 5.02 5.42 6.06 6.26 6.76 7.6617 Ironton-Galesville 0.12 0.83 3.72 8.01 11.51 15.44 18.36 19.74 20.41 23.49 24.47 24.5918 Eau Claire 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.14 0.67 0.66 0.46 0.51 0.15 0.27 0.24 0.2319 Mount Simon <300 feet in depth 1.78 8.66 16.45 29.53 42.82 47.04 58.60 67.11 72.46 83.84 97.18 103.8520 Mount Simon >300 feet in depth 0.75 2.69 8.63 25.06 29.43 43.09 55.81 64.70 81.37 74.21 82.09 80.77

Maquoketa–Mount Simon subtotal 3.02 13.60 31.70 69.37 93.66 116.83 144.61 164.75 187.91 194.96 219.36 225.68Percent of Wisconsin total 94.6% 93.3% 85.1% 78.8% 70.7% 55.4% 51.7% 47.6% 48.3% 47.1% 47.7% 47.6%WISCONSIN TOTAL 3.19 14.58 37.24 88.00 132.49 210.96 279.74 346.18 389.23 413.93 460.08 474.12
16 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005 Table 6. Lake Michigan Basin model estimated groundwater withdrawals by state and model layer, 1864–2005.—Continued [Withdrawals are in million gallons per day; state totals may not match totals reported in other tables because of rounding and because the assignment of model cells to each subregion or aquifer differed among the data in the tables for each state; --, estimate not determined; %, percent] Layer number Layer name Time interval

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1864–

1900 1901–20 1921–40 1941–50 1951–60 1961–70 1971–75 1976–80 1981–85 1986–90 1991– 2000 2001–5

Michigana

1 Quaternary <100 feet in depth 2.38 4.45 8.22 15.53 28.09 45.04 52.41 71.36 70.47 65.22 123.12 127.092 Quaternary 100<x<300 feet in depth 2.91 5.65 11.25 31.35 49.98 75.88 89.77 101.74 107.68 111.07 151.52 143.943 Quaternary >300 feet in depth 0.09 0.16 0.17 0.28 2.89 3.04 3.71 4.33 8.43 8.63 13.65 12.44

Quaternary subtotal 5.38 10.26 19.65 47.16 80.95 123.97 145.88 177.43 186.58 184.93 288.29 283.47Percent of Michigan total 66.8% 59.3% 47.2% 56.0% 59.4% 63.1% 64.0% 67.7% 68.6% 68.0% 71.6% 71.7%

4 Jurassic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.005 Upper Pennsylvanian 0.97 4.21 9.62 16.72 23.21 31.22 41.10 41.10 40.01 40.09 38.18 40.676 Lower Pennsylvanian 0.00 0.03 0.60 0.78 0.58 1.94 1.38 1.38 0.85 0.85 0.95 0.887 Michigan 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.28 0.188 Marshall 1.70 2.79 11.76 16.53 27.74 35.04 30.61 32.29 33.52 33.04 47.35 42.869 Mississippian-Devonian 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.46 0.41 0.44 1.12 0.88

Jurassic–Mississippian-Devonian subtotal 2.67 7.04 21.98 34.06 51.58 68.22 73.14 75.22 74.79 74.49 87.88 85.47Percent of Michigan total 33.2% 40.7% 52.8% 40.4% 37.9% 34.7% 32.1% 28.7% 27.5% 27.4% 21.8% 21.6%

10 Devonian-Silurian <50 feet in depth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

11 Devonian-Silurian 50<x<300 feet in depth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.07 6.33 6.44 8.40 21.72 21.45

12 Devonian-Silurian >300 feet in depth 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.10 1.42 1.70 2.54 2.54 2.56 2.56 3.30 3.35

Devonian-Silurian subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.10 1.42 1.70 8.61 8.87 9.00 10.96 25.01 24.80Percent of Michigan total 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 1.0% 0.9% 3.8% 3.4% 3.3% 4.0% 6.2% 6.3%

13 Maquoketa 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0014 Sinnipee 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.49 2.17 2.18 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.21 0.2815 St. Peter 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0016 Prairie du Chien-Franconia 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.13 0.31 0.60 0.60 0.51 0.6317 Ironton-Galesville 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0018 Eau Claire 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0019 Mount Simon <300 feet in depth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.0120 Mount Simon >300 feet in depth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.06 0.24 0.30 0.30 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.88

Maquoketa-Mount Simon subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.91 2.31 2.51 0.43 0.61 1.54 1.54 1.64 1.80Percent of Michigan total 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 1.7% 1.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.6% 0.6% 0.4% 0.5%MICHIGAN TOTAL 8.06 17.29 41.62 84.22 136.26 196.39 228.06 262.13 271.91 271.93 402.82 395.54

a Values reflect only a partial estimate of water use.
Part 1: General Introduction and Basinwide Data 17

Table 6. Lake Michigan Basin model estimated groundwater withdrawals by state and model layer, 1864–2005.—Continued[Withdrawals are in million gallons per day; state totals may not match totals reported in other tables because of rounding and because the assignment of model cells to each subregion or aquifer differed among the data in the tables for each state; --, estimate not determined; %, percent]

Layer 

number Layer name

Time interval

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1864–

1900 1901–20 1921–40 1941–50 1951–60 1961–70 1971–75 1976–80 1981–85 1986–90 1991– 2000 2001–5

Indianab

1 Quaternary <100 feet in depth -- -- 0.00 6.84 14.51 20.94 24.21 25.48 47.46 48.87 52.48 47.382 Quaternary 100<x<300 feet in depth -- -- 0.21 2.36 4.38 28.97 29.01 30.87 57.51 61.68 69.63 76.383 Quaternary >300 feet in depth -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.85 0.67 0.97

Quaternary subtotal -- -- 0.21 9.20 18.90 49.91 53.21 56.34 105.81 111.39 122.78 124.74Percent of Indiana total -- -- 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 95.9% 95.6% 97.2% 97.3%

4 Jurassic -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.005 Upper Pennsylvanian -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.006 Lower Pennsylvanian -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.007 Michigan -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008 Marshall -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.009 Mississippian-Devonian -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04

Jurassic–Mississippian-Devonian subtotal -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04Percent of Indiana total -- -- 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

10 Devonian-Silurian <50 feet in depth -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

11 Devonian-Silurian 50<x<300 feet in depth -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.51 5.17 3.54 3.48

12 Devonian-Silurian >300 feet in depth -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Devonian-Silurian subtotal -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.51 5.17 3.54 3.48Percent of Indiana total -- -- 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.1% 4.4% 2.8% 2.7%

13 Maquoketa -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0014 Sinnipee -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0015 St. Peter -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0016 Prairie du Chien-Franconia -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0017 Ironton-Galesville -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0018 Eau Claire -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0019 Mount Simon <300 feet in depth -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0020 Mount Simon >300 feet in depth -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Maquoketa–Mount Simon subtotal -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Percent of Indiana total -- -- 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%INDIANA TOTAL -- -- 0.21 9.20 18.90 49.91 53.21 56.34 110.32 116.56 126.35 128.26

b Values reflect only a partial estimate of water use.
18 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005 Table 6. Lake Michigan Basin model estimated groundwater withdrawals by state and model layer, 1864-2005.—Continued [Withdrawals are in million gallons per day; state totals may not match totals reported in other tables because of rounding and because the assignment of model cells to each subregion or aquifer differed among the data in the tables for each state; --, estimate not determined; %, percent] Layer number Layer name Time interval

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1864–

1900 1901–20 1921–40 1941–50 1951–60 1961–70 1971–75 1976–80 1981–85 1986–90 1991– 2000 2001–5

Illinoisc

1 Quaternary <100 feet in depth -- -- -- -- -- 6.24 10.99 15.10 27.59 26.37 25.10 23.272 Quaternary 100<x<300 feet in depth -- -- -- -- -- 10.08 20.27 26.30 31.26 33.51 42.28 48.093 Quaternary >300 feet in depth -- -- -- -- -- 0.05 0.08 0.35 1.46 1.73 1.99 2.33

Quaternary subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.37 31.34 41.75 60.31 61.61 69.36 73.68Percent of Illinois total 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.6% 9.1% 10.8% 10.3% 17.5% 23.9% 26.5%

4 Jurassic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.005 Upper Pennsylvanian 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.006 Lower Pennsylvanian -- -- -- -- -- 0.12 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.077 Michigan 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008 Marshall 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.009 Mississippian-Devonian 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Jurassic–Mississippian-Devonian subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.07Percent of Illinois total 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

10 Devonian-Silurian <50 feet in depth -- -- -- -- -- 3.96 8.57 9.25 10.39 9.88 5.84 4.57

11 Devonian-Silurian 50<x<300 feet in depth -- -- -- -- -- 24.84 50.84 56.86 56.52 62.56 37.85 25.17

12 Devonian-Silurian >300 feet in depth -- -- -- -- -- 16.05 25.13 27.56 25.46 18.48 17.35 19.44

Devonian-Silurian subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.85 84.54 93.67 92.37 90.92 61.04 49.18Percent of Illinois total 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.9% 24.4% 24.3% 15.7% 25.9% 21.0% 17.7%

13 Maquoketa -- -- -- -- -- 0.31 0.89 0.91 0.95 0.76 0.68 0.5914 Sinnipee -- -- -- -- -- 1.58 2.08 1.36 1.01 1.44 1.73 1.9215 St. Peter -- -- -- -- -- 10.67 14.26 15.24 14.12 13.76 15.68 18.6716 Prairie du Chien-Franconia -- -- -- -- -- 4.45 5.09 5.48 4.80 4.37 4.62 3.3717 Ironton-Galesville -- -- -- -- -- 78.39 151.59 173.27 170.49 134.28 101.64 95.8518 Eau Claire 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0019 Mount Simon <300 feet in depth 6.76 32.36 51.11 57.29 66.38 58.26 56.04 54.01 51.42 44.23 35.46 34.3220 Mount Simon >300 feet in depth -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Maquoketa–Mount Simon subtotal 6.76 32.36 51.11 57.29 66.38 153.65 229.95 250.27 242.79 198.85 159.82 154.73Percent of Illinois total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 71.5% 66.5% 64.9% 74.0% 56.6% 55.1% 55.7%ILLINOIS TOTAL 6.76 32.36 51.11 57.29 66.38 214.98 345.91 385.78 395.54 351.46 290.30 277.66

c Values reflect only a partial estimate of water use in Illinois from time interval 1 to time interval 8. Public-supply water use was compiled for only seven major pumping centers in Illinois until 1964. 

These withdrawals were assigned entirely to the predominant aquifer system, that is the Cambrian-Ordovician; however, some withdrawals did occur from the Quaternary and Silurian-Devonian aquifer systems (Suter and others, 1959).
Part 1: General Introduction and Basinwide Data 19

Table 7. Lake Michigan Basin model estimated groundwater withdrawals by state and aquifer type, 1864–2005.[Withdrawals are in million gallons per day; subtotals and overall model totals may not match totals reported in other tables because of rounding and because the assignment of model cells to each subregion or aquifer differed among the data in the tables for each state; WI, Wisconsin; MI, Michigan; IN, Indiana; IL, Illinois; --, estimate not determined; %, percent]

Aquifer type

Time interval

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1864–1900 1901–20 1921–40 1941–50 1951–60 1961–70 1971–75 1976–80 1981–85 1986–90 1991–2000 2001–5

Wisconsin

Shallow unconsolidated material

Withdrawal, in Mgal/d 0.17 0.64 4.00 12.54 28.38 78.61 115.11 158.14 177.79 192.11 208.46 214.30

Percent of WI total 5.3% 4.4% 10.7% 14.3% 21.4% 37.3% 41.1% 45.7% 45.7% 46.4% 45.3% 45.2%

Shallow bedrocka

Withdrawal, in Mgal/d 0.21 1.53 5.12 14.88 23.60 32.97 38.41 44.01 47.86 55.40 65.06 69.75

Percent of WI total 6.6% 10.5% 13.7% 16.9% 17.8% 15.6% 13.7% 12.7% 12.3% 13.4% 14.1% 14.7%

Deep bedrockb

Withdrawal, in Mgal/d 2.80 12.41 28.12 60.58 80.52 99.38 126.22 144.03 163.58 166.42 186.55 190.07

Percent of WI total 88.1% 85.1% 75.5% 68.8% 60.8% 47.1% 45.1% 41.6% 42.0% 40.2% 40.5% 40.1%

Michiganc

Shallow unconsolidated material

Withdrawal, in Mgal/d 5.38 10.25 19.65 47.16 80.95 123.97 145.88 177.43 186.58 184.93 288.30 283.47

Percent of MI total 66.8% 59.3% 47.2% 56.0% 59.4% 63.1% 64.0% 67.7% 68.6% 68.0% 71.6% 71.7%

Shallow bedrocka

Withdrawal, in Mgal/d 1.49 4.89 15.54 26.18 36.12 49.63 54.39 56.65 58.29 57.98 78.68 79.55

Percent of MI total 18.5% 28.3% 37.3% 31.1% 26.5% 25.3% 23.8% 21.6% 21.4% 21.3% 19.5% 20.1%

Deep bedrockb

Withdrawal, in Mgal/d 1.18 2.14 6.43 10.89 19.19 22.79 27.79 28.05 27.05 29.02 35.86 32.52

Percent of MI total 14.7% 12.4% 15.4% 12.9% 14.1% 11.6% 12.2% 10.7% 9.9% 10.7% 8.9% 8.2%

Indianac

Shallow unconsolidated material

Withdrawal, in Mgal/d -- -- 0.21 9.20 18.90 49.91 53.21 56.34 105.81 111.39 122.78 124.74

Percent of IN total -- -- 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 95.9% 95.6% 97.2% 97.3%

Shallow bedrocka

Withdrawal, in Mgal/d -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.57 3.47 2.08 2.26

Percent of IN total -- -- 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2% 3.0% 1.7% 1.8%

Deep bedrockb

Withdrawal, in Mgal/d -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.94 1.70 1.49 1.26

Percent of IN total -- -- 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 1.5% 1.2% 1.0%

Illinoisd

Shallow unconsolidated material

Withdrawal, in Mgal/d -- -- -- -- -- 16.36 31.34 41.75 60.31 61.61 69.36 73.68

Percent of IL total -- -- -- -- -- 7.6% 9.1% 10.8% 15.3% 17.5% 23.9% 26.5%

Shallow bedrocka

Withdrawal, in Mgal/d -- -- -- -- -- 34.48 67.40 74.39 74.00 78.81 49.90 35.56

Percent of IL total -- -- -- -- -- 16.0% 19.5% 19.3% 18.7% 22.4% 17.2% 12.8%

Deep bedrockb

Withdrawal, in Mgal/d 6.76 32.36 51.11 57.29 66.38 164.14 247.16 269.64 261.24 211.04 171.04 168.42

Percent of IL total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 76.4% 71.5% 69.9% 66.1% 60.1% 58.9% 60.7%

OVERALL TOTAL

Shallow unconsolidated material 5.55 10.89 23.86 68.90 128.23 268.85 345.54 433.66 530.49 550.04 688.90 696.19Shallow bedrocka 1.70 6.42 20.66 41.06 59.72 117.08 160.20 175.05 183.72 195.66 195.72 187.12Deep bedrockb 10.74 46.91 85.66 128.76 166.09 286.31 401.17 441.72 452.81 408.18 394.94 392.27

MODEL TOTAL 17.99 64.22 130.18 238.72 354.04 672.24 906.91 1,050.43 1,167.02 1,153.88 1,279.56 1,275.58 aShallow bedrock wells in the groundwater-flow model penetrate no bedrock aquifer layer that is beneath a bedrock confining unit. 

bDeep bedrock wells penetrate at least one bedrock aquifer layer that is beneath a bedrock confining unit. cValues reflect only a partial estimate of water use.dValues reflect only a partial estimate of water use in Illinois from time interval 1 to time interval 8. Public-supply water use was compiled for only seven major pumping centers in Illinois until 1964. 

These withdrawals were assigned entirely to the predominant aquifer type, deep bedrock; however, some withdrawals did occur from shallow aquifer types (Suter and others, 1959).
20 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

Part 2: State-by-State Descriptions of 

Water-Use Estimates

Groundwater use from 1864 to 2005 was estimated for 

Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois for most areas 

within the boundaries of the LMB model. Subsequent sections describe the compilation and estimation of these data for 

those categories appropriate for each state. Each state section 

includes information on the history of groundwater management and water-use data collection and an overview of data 

used in the study, as well as the principal sources of data, the 

development of the estimates, and the assumptions and limitations on these estimates.

Wisconsin

History of Groundwater Management and WaterUse Data Collection in Wisconsin 

In Wisconsin, only selected water-use information 

and data are collected and maintained. The earliest data are 

byproducts of State approval and permitting requirements for 

large water withdrawals. In 1935, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC) began granting surface-water 

withdrawal approvals (sometimes called permits) for irrigation, agriculture, or maintenance of normal water levels, based 

on pump capacity but not actual withdrawals. Around the same 

time, a withdrawal from a navigable lake or stream resulting 

in a loss of 2 Mgal/d (averaged over a 30-day period) would 

also require a permit (Chapter 30.18, of Wisconsin Statutes 

(Wis. Stats.) of the Wisconsin Administrative Codes (Wis. 

Adm. Code.)). Permits of that type became a requirement in 

1956 (Schmid, 1962). In June 1945, the first law regarding 

significant groundwater withdrawals went into effect and was 

administered by the Wisconsin State Board of Health, now 

known as the Wisconsin State Department of Health. The 

board developed a Section on Well Drilling and was given 

authority to grant well-construction and pump-installation 

approvals for wells considered significant (Schmid, 1961; 

Thomas Riewe, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 

written commun., 2008). A significant withdrawal for groundwater was defined in Section 281.34 (formerly 144.03), Wis. 

Stats., as being from a well—referred to as a “high-capacity 

well”—with the capability of withdrawing 100,000 gal/d or 

more (averaged over a 30-day period). The approval systems for what could be considered significant withdrawals 

became the responsibility of the Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources (WDNR) Bureau of Water Quality, Bureau 

of Water Supply (now called the Bureau of Drinking Water 

and Groundwater), and Bureau of Watershed Management 

(Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1997; Thomas 

Riewe, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, written 

commun., 2008) when the agency was formed in 1967. An 

entity wishing to make a significant withdrawal (as defined 

above) had to obtain approval from the WDNR before initiating the withdrawal. These approvals were used to track large 

withdrawals that might affect public rights (such as quantity 

of water available to navigable waters or a public-supply well) 

and health, water quality, or surface-water features, including 

those associated with wildlife, aesthetic concerns, or fishing 

and other recreational needs. 

In 1978, the USGS began a cooperative program with the 

WDNR to inventory water use in Wisconsin. The overall goal 

of this program was to establish an environmental baseline and 

a continuing assessment of major water uses, including power 

generation, industrial, irrigation, and public-supply water uses. 

In 1985, the Great Lakes Charter was signed by states and 

Canadian provinces surrounding the Great Lakes to improve 

water planning, coordination, and management within the 

Great Lakes Basin (Council of Great Lakes Governors, 1985). 

However, by 1989, the reporting requirement for high-capacity 

well withdrawals, excluding those for public supply, largely 

had ceased. Therefore, from 1978 to 1990, some withdrawal 

data were reported to or estimated by the WDNR and provided 

to the USGS. In 2007, the enactment of Wisconsin’s new 

groundwater-quantity legislation, known as 2003 Wisconsin 

Act 310 (Wisconsin State Legislature, 2004), resulted in new 

reporting requirements for high-capacity wells in the State.

In 2007, the definition of a high-capacity withdrawal 

was broadened to include any property where groundwater 

from all wells, holes, and shafts onsite is capable of being 

pumped at a combined rate totaling 70 gal/min or more (or 

100,000 gal/d or more) (Section s. 281.17, Wis. Stats.). The 

above described property is referred to as a “high-capacity 

property.” Therefore, in Wisconsin, the term “high capacity” 

is applied not only to wells with a pump (or flow) capacity of 

70 gal/min or more but also to wells with a pump (or flow) 

capacity of less than 70 gal/min solely due to their presence 

on the high-capacity property. Pump capacity is the amount 

of water a pump is capable of moving during a specified time 

period, and water withdrawal is the amount of water a pump 

actually withdraws from the groundwater source. Thus, a 

high-capacity groundwater withdrawal approval remains based 

on pump capacity and not on actual water withdrawal. Further 

explanation about the most current statutes, definitions, and 

descriptions on groundwater quantity protection can be found 

in Chapter NR 820 of the Wisconsin Administrative Codes at 

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/index.html (Wisconsin State 

Legislature, 2007).

Ongoing projects have continued to produce useful 

information for localized water-use and availability studies. 

In late 2007, the WDNR began updating its inventory of the 

State’s significant water-withdrawal facilities. The WDNR 

now requires that registered high-capacity well or property 

owners report total monthly withdrawals based on flowmeter 

readings, pump capacity and hours of operation, or some other 

alternative estimation technique (Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources, 2008a). The WGNHS continues to update 

the resolution of its countywide geological maps and to prepare investigation reports for the unconsolidated and bedrock 
Part 2: State-by-State Descriptions of Water-Use Estimates 21

aquifer units (Wisconsin Geological and Natural History 

Survey, 2008). The USGS Groundwater Systems Team began 

its update for 2010 of the 5-year “Water Use in Wisconsin” 

publication, is concluding its efforts that simulated various 

scenarios for using alternative sources of water to meet future 

demand in southeastern Wisconsin, and recently published a 

groundwater-flow model of the Rock River Basin (Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, 2010; U.S. 

Geological Survey Wisconsin Water Science Center, 2009). 

Overview of Wisconsin Data From the Lake 

Michigan Basin Study

For this report, groundwater information and data from 

the WDNR high-capacity well approval program were combined with several other key data sources, such as well-log 

databases, previous groundwater-modeling project archives, 

information searches, and correspondence, to produce the 

needed groundwater-withdrawal estimates for the Wisconsin 

part of the LMB model. Groundwater-withdrawal estimates 

were compiled for the 47 easternmost counties in Wisconsin 

within the boundary of the LMB model, of which 32 counties, 

though not entirely contained, are at least partly within the 

Lake Michigan Basin (fig 3). Water-use locations are based 

on where records and information (described in this report’s 

“Principal Data Sources” and “Additional Data Sources” sections) indicate that a substantial withdrawal had existed in earlier time intervals or that a high-capacity well permit approval 

existed in later intervals. Emphasis was placed on capturing 

high-capacity water-use locations, although additional work 

was done to also include well locations estimated to withdraw 

at least 1 Mgal/yr (or approximately 1.9 gal/min) for a more 

complete inventory. Overall, 6,457 withdrawal locations were 

estimated in the Wisconsin part of the LMB model area, and 

5,151 locations were active in the last time interval (2001–5) 

for a total groundwater withdrawal of 476.51 Mgal/d (table 2). 

The aquifer systems available throughout the Wisconsin 

LMB model area are the Quaternary, Silurian-Devonian, and 

Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer systems. The Jurassic-Mississippian aquifer system is not present in Wisconsin and therefore 

is not described in this section. Further references and aquiferdistribution maps can be found in the stratigraphy report for 

the LMB model (Lampe, 2009). In general, groundwater 

development in the Wisconsin LMB model area has occurred 

in areas of greater groundwater availability, which have been 

where Quaternary deposits of glacial material can exceed 

400 ft in thickness (though maximum depth is typically around 

250 ft) (Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, 

1983; Trotta, 1985; Soller, 1992; Soller and Packard, 1998), 

where the Silurian and Cambrian-Ordovician bedrock aquifersystem units are thick, or where the Maquoketa confining 

unit does not divide the flow systems into shallow and deep 

systems, thereby limiting vertical flow or recharge to the lower 

aquifer system (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 

1997; Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission 

and Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, 

2002). However, settlement (that is, an increase in population) and development were extensive in areas east of where 

the Maquoketa Formation5 crops out; and where groundwater 

withdrawals were greatest, pumping has altered hydrologicflow systems, lowered groundwater levels, and reduced water 

quality (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1997). 

As a result, in 2004, two groundwater-management areas were 

established for northeastern and southeastern Wisconsin under 

2003 Wisconsin Act 310 (fig. 3). Settlement and development 

have been limited in central and northern regions of Wisconsin. These areas correspond to extensive areas of wetlands, 

areas where unconsolidated material is thin or absent, or areas 

where the crystalline-bedrock basement is at or near land 

surface. 

Well-log records collected for this study show that most 

early development was within the nearfield model area south 

of Green Bay and was within proximity of Lake Winnebago 

and Lake Michigan. In general, much water is still used in 

this part of the State, although water-use growth has been 

considerable in adjacent regions of the farfield model area, 

especially within and surrounding the Central Sand Plains of 

Wisconsin (which includes most central Wisconsin counties; 

fig. 3). Total withdrawals in Wisconsin (grouped by model 

area in table 2) increased consistently from 1.84 Mgal/d in 

time interval 1 (1864–1900) to 192.88 Mgal/d in interval 12 

(2001–5) for the nearfield model area and increased from 1.35 

Mgal/d in interval 1 to 283.63 Mgal/d in interval 12 for the 

farfield model area. In earlier time intervals, about 60 percent 

of the total withdrawal for both areas was within the nearfield 

model area. But by interval 6 (1961–70), around 40 percent 

of the withdrawals were within the nearfield model area, 

largely because of decreasing withdrawals in some areas of 

the nearfield model area and increasing withdrawals in certain 

counties within the farfield model area. Total withdrawals by 

model subregion are provided in table 3. The Northeastern 

Wisconsin subregion is quite extensive and covers all or parts 

of 24 counties, whereas the Southeastern Wisconsin subregion 

comprises all or parts of 9 counties (fig. 3); therefore, total 

withdrawals in the Northeastern Wisconsin subregion for 

most time intervals are greater than those in the Southeastern 

Wisconsin subregion (table 3; the exceptions are the first two 

intervals (1864–1920)). The withdrawals in Northeastern Wisconsin increased from 0.82 Mgal/d in interval 1 (1864–1900) 

to 118.59 Mgal/d in interval 12 (2001–5). The withdrawals 

in Southeastern Wisconsin increased consistently from 1.02 

Mgal/d in interval 1 (1864–1900) to 76.57 Mgal/d in interval 

12 (2001–5), with the exception of a minor downturn in interval 10 (1986–1990).

5

The extent and thickness of hydrogeologic units, including the Maquoketa 

Formation, are illustrated and discussed in the Lake Michigan Basin model 

stratigraphy report (Lampe, 2009).
22 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

M I N N E S O T A

I O W A

W I S C O N S I N

I L L I N O I S

I N D I A N A

M I

C

H

I

G

A

N

LEE

WILL

COOK

OGLE

HENRY

LA SALLE

IROQUOIS

BUREAU

FORD

KANE

LIVINGSTON

LAKE

PEORIA

DEKALB

CARROLL

KANKAKEE

WHITESIDE

MCHENRY

GRUNDY

JO DAVIESS

STARK

WOODFORD

STEPHENSON

WINNEBAGO

BOONE

MARSHALL

DUPAGE

KENDALL

PUTNAM

IRON

PRICE

DANE

VILAS

ONEIDA

SAUK

FOREST

TAYLOR

MARATHON

IOWA

ROCK

OCONTO

MARINETTE

DODGE

WOOD

LINCOLN

JUNEAU

PORTAGE

ADAMS

LANGLADE

GREEN

SHAWANO DOOR

COLUMBIA

WAUPACA

BROWN

LAFAYETTE

FOND DU LAC

WAUSHARA

JEFFERSON

OUTAGAMIE

FLORENCE

WALWORTH

WAUKESHA

MANITOWOC

RACINE

WINNEBAGO

CALUMET

SHEBOYGAN

MARQUETTE

WASHINGTON

GREEN 

LAKE

KEWAUNEE

KENOSHA

MENOMINEE

OZAUKEE

MILWAUKEE

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

Racine

Kenosha

Oshkosh

Madison

Appleton

Sheboygan

Manitowoc

Green Bay

Milwaukee

Port Washington

Menasha

Neenah 

Marinette

De Pere

Waukesha

Elgin

Joliet

Aurora

Batavia Chicago

Elmhurst

Des Plaines

92°W 90°W 88°W 86°W

46°N

44°N

42°N

0 25 50 Miles

0 50 Kilometers

EXPLANATION

Model subregions

Northeastern Wisconsin

Southeastern Wisconsin

Northeastern Illinois

Farfield area with water-use 

 data

Groundwater management area

Lake Michigan Basin

Nearfield extent

Farfield extent

L

a

k

e

M i c

h i g

a

n

L a k e S u p e r i o r

Lake 

Winnebago

Figure 3. Wisconsin and Illinois model areas of the Lake Michigan Basin model.
Part 2: State-by-State Descriptions of Water-Use Estimates 23

Principal Wisconsin Data Sources

Groundwater withdrawals and other water-use information were compiled from USGS and State agencies’ databases, 

published reports, and responses to inquiries. Much water-use 

information was available for all categories considered in this 

report. The data sources overlapped somewhat. Most wellconstruction details, including well-construction date, depth, 

and lithological descriptions, were retrieved from the WDNR 

Bureau of Drinking Water and Groundwater Water Well Data 

CD-ROMs (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 

2006, 2007) and the Groundwater Retrieval Network and 

High Capacity Well (GRN) database (Wisconsin Department 

of Natural Resources, 2005), the State wiscLITH database 

(Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, 2004), 

and two USGS National Water Information System databases: 

the Groundwater Site-Inventory (GWSI) System and the 

Site-Specific Water-Use Database System (SWUDS) (U.S. 

Geological Survey, 1998). Hydrogeologic-unit assignments 

and withdrawal data from previous groundwater-flow models 

were considered and were either compared to or integrated 

with the LMB model water-use database. Water-use databases 

were available from groundwater-flow models of the northern 

Midwest United States, northeastern and southeastern Wisconsin, Lower Fox River communities, Fond du Lac County, and 

Dane County (Mandle and Kontis, 1992; Conlon, 1998; Jansen 

and Rao, 1998; Walker and others, 1998; Krohelski and others, 2000; Cherkauer and Carlson, 2002; Feinstein and others, 

2004, 2005). By linking these databases, information about 

each well was obtained with regard to ownership, operator 

name, well name, location, identification number, well status, 

construction details, aquifer, water-use category and purpose, 

pump characteristics, and water withdrawal. 

At the time of this investigation, only water-use data 

for publicly owned public supplies are being reported to the 

WDNR and WI PSC. The WDNR collects monthly data by 

well, and the WI PSC collects monthly and annual data by 

public-supply system. The WDNR data are not readily accessible but the WI PSC data are. These data are summarized 

by the WI PSC in annual utility reports. Reports after 1996 

can be accessed at http://psc.wi.gov/apps/annlreport/default.

aspx. The USGS routinely collects these data from the above 

agencies. Some monthly water-withdrawal amounts for major 

water-use types were available between 1978 and 1990 from 

the WDNR and USGS, as described in a previous report section; these data were stored in the WDNR GRN and USGS 

SWUDS databases. However, the accuracy and completeness 

of those monthly and annual values are varied and limited 

(William Furbish and Jeffrey Helmuth, Wisconsin Department 

of Natural Resources, oral communs., 2004). Some additional 

annual water-withdrawal amounts for mostly public supply 

but also some industrial uses not in the WDNR GRN database 

were available from 1935 to 1994 from USGS databases. 

If no water-use data were available or other estimation 

method could be applied for a particular area of Wisconsin, 

then Minnesota water-use records from 1988 to 2005 were 

analyzed by the coded water-use permit type to help develop 

default groundwater-withdrawal values. The State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Water Appropriations 

Permit Program (hereafter referred to as MNDNR WAPP) 

collects and makes available water-use data from permit 

holders capable of withdrawing more than 10,000 gallons of 

water per day or 1 Mgal/yr (Minnesota Department of Natural 

Resources, 2007). More information about the program and 

data can be obtained at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/

watermgmt_section/appropriations/wateruse.html. 

The remaining water-use data were compiled from previous investigations, data-compilation efforts, and inquiries, or 

the data were estimated for this study. If there were water-use 

data representing multiple years within a model time interval, 

then the average of these data was assigned to the middle year 

of the model interval. For Wisconsin, the average pumping 

rate over a time interval might have included years of inactivity (zero pumping); therefore, the final water-use rate for that 

interval was distributed proportionally. For example, if a well 

went online in 1963 for 10 Mgal/yr, then the number of years a 

well was active during the corresponding 10-year time interval 

(1961–70) was 8. Therefore, the water-use rate for this time 

interval is reported herein to be 8 Mgal/yr in order to reflect 

the 2 years the well was not in operation. Years of inactivity 

included years prior to well construction, as in the example, 

and years when no pumping occurred.

Most well listings in the principal source databases 

include location information. The WDNR assisted in identifying public-supply wells that were active or inactive in 2004 

(Amy Ihlenfeldt, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 

unpub. data, 2007). If location was uncertain, an effort was 

made to assign a location of a well near other existing wells 

with the same ownership within the same county or by using 

an Internet search for the well owner or operator name; otherwise, the site was excluded. For a few wells, street-intersection 

information, aerial photos, or topographic maps were used to 

determine the well location. An effort also was made to identify locations that were in error.

Population data for counties in the Wisconsin model area 

were compiled by decennial census years from 1900 to 2000 

from the U.S. Bureau of the Census reports (Forstall, 1995; 

U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of the Census, 2006). 

Decennial population data for communities within these counties were compiled from Census Bureau reports starting in 

1970. Additional annual population estimates starting in 1973 

through 2005 came from the Wisconsin Department of Administration (WI DOA) (Wisconsin Department of Administration–Demographic Services Center, 2006). Additional community population data that could be readily obtained were added 

for several east-central counties in Wisconsin for 1950 and 

1960 (East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, 

2007), seven counties in southeastern Wisconsin (Southeastern 

Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, 2004), Oconto 

County for decennial years 1900 to 2000 (Oconto County, 

2007), and communities identified as being only partially 

served by a public water-supply system (Environmental 
24 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

Working Group (EWG), 2005; U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA), 2006). However, most community population data prior to 1970 were not readily available, so they were 

estimated by the authors when needed for a public watersupply-well withdrawal estimate. These pre-1970 population 

estimates were based on the 1970–2000 average percentage of 

the community population residing within the county. Since 

1900, more than 70 percent of Wisconsin’s population has 

resided within the Wisconsin model area. More than half of 

the Wisconsin population resides within the nearfield model 

area, and about half resides within the Great Lakes Basin.

Public-Supply Water Use in Wisconsin

Most public water-supply systems within the LMB model 

area rely on groundwater sources. The types of communities 

in Wisconsin that are very likely to have public water-supply 

systems are cities6 and villages,7 as well as many towns,8 sanitary districts,9 housing subdivisions, and mobile home parks. 

The oldest public water-supply systems relying on groundwater are the City of Waukesha, in Waukesha County (1886), 

and the City of De Pere, in Brown County (1886) (Knowles 

and others, 1964; Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning 

Commission, 2008). Relative to other water-use categories, 

the proportion of groundwater withdrawal for public supply 

has changed over the model time intervals. Before interval 5 

(years before 1951), public-supply withdrawals accounted for 

about 80 percent of total groundwater withdrawals within the 

LMB model area, whereas those after interval 9 (years after 

1985) accounted for about 52 percent of the total groundwater 

withdrawals (table 4). This change is mainly due to increasing groundwater withdrawals for irrigation and miscellaneous 

uses. Most of Milwaukee County and the larger cities of Port 

Washington, Sheboygan, Marinette, Appleton, Menasha, 

and Oshkosh originally relied on surface-water sources and 

therefore are not in the model water-use database (fig. 3). The 

City of Neenah and several large shoreline communities such 

as Green Bay, Manitowoc,10 Kenosha, and Racine switched 

to a surface-water source as water demand grew, especially 

between 1940 and 1970. These larger surface-water utilities may distribute water to other neighboring communities. 

Additionally, a handful of utilities supply both groundwater 

and surface water. In the last 2 time intervals (1991–2005), 

6

Defined by Subchapter I of Chapter 62 and Subchapter II of Chapter 66 of 

the Wis. Stats. (Wisconsin State Legislature, 2009).

7

 Defined by Chapter 61 and Subchapter II of Chapter 66 of the Wis. Stats. 

(Wisconsin State Legislature, 2009).

8

 Defined by Subchapter I of Chapter 60 of the Wis. Stats. (Wisconsin State 

Legislature, 2009).

9

 Defined by Chapter 200 of the Wis. Stats. (Wisconsin State Legislature, 

2009).

10 Manitowoc switched to using surface water as a primary source in 1969 

but still relies on groundwater for approximately 14 percent of the combined 

withdrawal.

10 additional communities switched to or supplemented their 

groundwater supplies with surface water from Lake Michigan. 

As of 2005, further water-supply plans have been underway in 

southeastern and northeastern Wisconsin to switch to surfacewater sources or to evaluate service-area expansion and 

additional withdrawals for public supply from Lake Michigan 

(Central Brown County Water Authority, 2007; Southeastern 

Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, 2010). 

Estimated total groundwater withdrawals for public 

water-supply systems in the Wisconsin LMB model area 

range from 2.78 Mgal/d for the first time interval (1864–1900) 

to more than 236 Mgal/d for each of the last two intervals 

(1991–2005) (table 4). Figure 4A shows that public-supply 

withdrawals rapidly increased between interval 3 (1921–40)

and interval 8 (1976–80). Then, public-supply withdrawals 

increased more slowly and tended to stabilize in last two time 

intervals, 11 and 12. This general stabilization, and even a 

decline in some localized areas, is due in part to the decline 

of certain groundwater-intensive manufacturing industries, 

increased water-efficiency standards, and implementation of 

leak-detection programs and water-conservation practices. 

Total public-supply water-use data by model area are listed in 

appendix 2. The nearfield model area typically has between 

44 to 55 percent of the total public-supply withdrawal of each 

time interval. Before interval 6 (1961–70), public-supply withdrawals in the Northeastern Wisconsin subregion tended to be 

greater than those in the Southeastern Wisconsin subregion. 

Since that time, coinciding with when the City of Green Bay 

switched supply to surface-water sources, the amounts of the 

withdrawals by the two subregions have tended to be more 

evenly balanced.

Most individual communities within the Wisconsin LMB 

model area developed their public water supply over time 

within a single respective aquifer system. A few communities 

were exceptions, with wells open to mixed aquifer systems. 

A few utilities in later time intervals were identified as having 

historical public-supply water use from either the Quaternary 

aquifer system or the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system 

but began blending water withdrawn from other aquifer 

systems, typically to avoid contamination, meet water-quality 

standards, or improve well yield. Total public-supply withdrawals by aquifer system for Wisconsin are shown in figure 

4B (appendix 2). Public-supply groundwater withdrawals 

over the 12 time intervals were primarily from the CambrianOrdovician aquifer system followed by the Quaternary aquifer 

system, whereas minimal withdrawals were from the SilurianDevonian aquifer system because the aquifer is limited to an 

area in far eastern Wisconsin. The majority of public-supply 

groundwater withdrawals were from deep, confined-bedrock 

wells. But withdrawals from unconfined unconsolidated 

material and shallow unconfined bedrock aquifers also were 

considerable (fig. 4C, appendix 2).
Part 2: State-by-State Descriptions of Water-Use Estimates 25

Figure 4. Public-supply groundwater-use estimates in Wisconsin for the Lake Michigan Basin model by time interval and A, model 

subregion, B, aquifer system, and C, aquifer type. Mixed aquifer systems were removed from the graph because all data are less than 

0.25 million gallons per day and there are zero estimated withdrawals from these systems for the other water-use categories. The 

Jurassic-Mississippian aquifer system does not exist in Wisconsin.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

TIME INTERVAL AND YEARS

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

Shallow unconsolidated material

Shallow bedrock

Deep bedrock

C Aquifer type

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

 1864–

 1900

 1901–

 1920

 1921–

 1940

 1941–

 1950

 1951–

 1960

 1961–

 1970

 1971–

 1975

 1976–

 1980

 1981–

 1985

 1986–

 1990

 1991–

 2000

 2001–

 2005

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Quaternary

Silurian-Devonian

Cambrian-Ordovician

B Aquifer system

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Northeastern Wisconsin

Southeastern Wisconsin

Wisconsin farfield model area

A Model subregion

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
26 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

Additional Wisconsin Public-Supply Data Sources 

Groundwater-withdrawal data for public supply were 

extracted largely from the USGS SWUDS database, previous 

groundwater-flow models, and previously published reports 

including those by LeRoux (1957), Knowles (1964), Knowles 

and others (1964), and Hutchinson (1970). Additional withdrawal data were derived from other USGS water-use datasets, 

Web sites, written communications, and estimations based on 

population and per capita use coefficients. The first reports 

listing public-supply withdrawals by well or by utility in Wisconsin were for 1979 (Lawrence and Ellefson, 1982; Lawrence 

and others, 1984). Other reports were used solely to compare 

public-supply estimates for particular time periods, such as 

those by Foley and others (1953), Newport (1962), Green and 

Hutchinson (1965), and Olcott (1966). Additional withdrawal 

data for public supply, by well, were available for 1994 and 

1997 from archived data at the USGS Wisconsin Water Science Center. Withdrawal data by water utility, not by well, 

for 1988 through 2005 were provided by the Public Service 

Commission of Wisconsin Division of Water (Bruce Schmidt, 

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, unpub. data, 2006). 

Several inquiries to personnel at water utilities in the nearfield 

model area helped to clarify historical and present water use 

and obtain details such as the utility establishment year or the 

number of wells in operation during a particular time interval. 

Reported geologic information along with the reported 

well depth came primarily from the wiscLITH and GWSI 

databases. That information was used to determine the hydrogeologic unit(s) to which each withdrawal site was open. If no 

depths were reported, the average casing and well depths from 

all other wells by the same utility were substituted. These data 

sources also provided the majority of well-construction dates, 

which were helpful for determining when the well became 

active. Altogether, in the final model water-use dataset for 

Wisconsin, there are 373 public water-supply systems and 

1,206 public-supply wells with associated water-use estimates. 

Estimation Methods for Wisconsin Public-Supply 

Withdrawals

Wisconsin public-supply withdrawal estimates were compiled by well for counties within and along the nearfield model 

area and by water utility for most counties within the farfield 

model area. For most wells in the model area, withdrawal data 

were available for the years 1970, 1979, 1984, 1989, 1994, 

and 1997, and in southeastern Wisconsin for 2001. Additional 

withdrawal data for various years not previously listed were 

available for fewer wells. The estimation approach began by 

first determining an average withdrawal for each community 

well for the three most recent time intervals (1986–2005) by 

averaging the available reported data in each interval. These 

averages were then used to approximate each well’s percentage of the water utility’s total annual withdrawal. If reported 

amounts for 1988 to 2005 were unavailable for an active well, 

then a percentage from a nearby time interval or the average 

surrounding intervals was used. These percentages were then 

used to better approximate individual well-withdrawal rates 

and to verify that withdrawals for the water utility’s wells 

equaled the utility’s annual total withdrawal. For time intervals 

before 1988, water withdrawals were estimated by using four 

generalized methods: (1) deriving withdrawals from estimated 

public-supply per capita use values and population, (2) accessing water-use data archived at USGS Wisconsin Water Science 

Center, (3) making inquiry to the water utility, or (4) using any 

combination of methods 1, 2, or 3. 

In order to estimate public-supply withdrawals by the 

first method, per capita use was calculated from available 

withdrawal and population data. Calculations of per capita 

use largely correspond with two time groupings because 

withdrawal data were infrequently available before 1970 

and readily available after 1988. During the six most recent 

time intervals (1971 through 2005), most public-supply per 

capita use values were determined from total annual reported 

community withdrawals divided by population. Population 

estimates for communities served by public water-supply 

systems were mostly reported for the six most recent time 

intervals (1971 through 2005). Population for all community types listed earlier, except for towns, are based on the 

assumption that 100 percent of the population was served by 

public supply. Towns were handled differently because they 

are, typically, only partly served. The town population served 

was based on current estimates of population served (Robert 

Biebel, Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, written commun., 2007) or on values reported by the 

EWG or listed in the USEPA Safe Drinking Water Information 

System (SDWIS) database (Environmental Working Group, 

2005; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006). From 

these population values, the current proportion of the town 

served by the public water-supply system was applied to the 

past total populations of the town reported by the WI DOA. 

For five of the remaining six earlier time intervals (1901 

through 1970), public-supply per capita use was estimated 

for each community by starting in 1901 with a reference per 

capita use of 0.01 Mgal/yr per person (or 27 gal/d per person). 

A linear series for per capita use for each community was 

then applied until the first-year per capita use could be more 

accurately calculated, which was between 1950 and 1980 (by 

the method described in the above paragraph). During interval 

1 (1864–1900) only a handful of communities had a public 

water-supply system. For those that did, half of the 1901 per 

capita rate (or 14 gal/d per person) was used. The average 

percentage for each community’s population that was served 

by a public water-supply system was determined from the 

Census of Population data for 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000. 

This percentage was applied to the earlier county population 

data (1900–1960) for the six earlier intervals (1864 through 

1970). Once per capita use was determined, the public-supply 

estimates were developed by applying the per capita use as 

a coefficient to community population for each time interval 

without reported total withdrawals. These public-supply withdrawal estimates were then divided by the number of wells 

identified as being active in each interval. 
Part 2: State-by-State Descriptions of Water-Use Estimates 27

Per capita use for public supply varied by time interval 

and by community (fig. 5). Per capita use was more accurately 

calculated for public water-supply systems for time intervals 

after 1970 than for earlier intervals because of available data 

from the WDNR, PSC, and USGS. For intervals 7 through 12 

(1971–2005), per capita use in the Wisconsin nearfield model 

area (which included 196 public water-supply systems) ranged 

from 10 to 1,216 gal/d per person by community and year and 

averaged 134 gal/d per person; the median public-supply per 

capita use was 108 gal/d per person. This variability is mostly 

a function of the presence of large industrial water users being 

served by public supplies in older communities and a corresponding inflation of the per capita rate; most of the smaller 

per capita rates reflect water-supply systems that are in an initial development phase and service that is almost exclusively 

for residential use. Counties that included a community with 

an average per capita rate greater than 300 gal/d per person 

were within or immediately adjacent to the southeastern Wisconsin model subregion.

x

x

x

xx

x

x

xx

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

xx

x

x

xxx

x

x

xx

x

x

x

x

x

xx

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

xxx

x

x

x

x

x

x

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

7

1971–1975 1976–1980 1981–1985 1986–1990 1991–2000 2001–2005

8 9 10 11 12

105

74

169

112

82

161

107

79

164

172 179 183 182 193 192

109

85

168

109

88

155

106

81

137

TIME INTERVAL AND YEARS

PER CAPITA WATER USE, IN GALLONS PER DAY PER PERSON

192

EXPLANATION

Total number of values

75th Percentile

25th Percentile

Median

x Outside value

Largest value less (>1.5 × IQR)

than1.5 × IQR

IQR, interquartile range, is the 

distance between 75th 

and 25th percentiles

Smallest value 

{

Figure 5. Public-supply per capita water use in the nearfield model area of Wisconsin, 1971–2005.
28 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

Withdrawal rates found in datasets of previous studies 

(listed in the Wisconsin “Principal Data Sources” and “Additional Data Sources” sections) were compared and sometimes 

integrated with the withdrawal rates estimated in this study 

on the basis of per capita water-use estimates. Many withdrawal rates from previous groundwater modeling studies 

(Mandle and Kontis, 1992; Conlon, 1998; and Feinstein and 

others, 2004, 2005) were similar to the per capita use estimates developed for this study. Some data irregularities (for 

example, missing utilities, missing wells, combined rates for 

several active wells, and missing periods of pumping) were 

discovered and corrected from these previous groundwater 

models. These water-withdrawal estimates from previous studies typically were used as a guide to check the per capita use 

approach for estimating public-supply water use because, in 

some cases, more complete data were available to supplement 

the withdrawal data from those previous studies.

The date pumping was initiated for each community 

was determined by well-construction dates, by an inquiry, 

or by reference (Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning 

Commission, 2008). If a well was constructed during January 

through June, then it was assumed to be online during that 

same year. But if a well was constructed during July through 

December, then it was assumed to be online during the next 

year. The year a well went offline or inactive was determined 

from various well records, by inquiry, or by an approximation 

based on when a newer replacement well went online. 

Withdrawal data for privately owned public water-supply 

utilities (defined in table 1) were limited. For these utilities, 

withdrawal estimates were held constant from when a well 

was installed through interval 12 (2001–5), unless otherwise 

noted. The SEWRPC planning report (Southeastern Wisconsin 

Regional Planning Commission, 2008) was used to confirm 

that privately owned public-supply wells with approved 

normal pumpage greater than 1 Mgal/d were included in the 

model dataset. 

Assumptions and Limitations of Wisconsin Public-Supply 

Data 

The public-supply groundwater withdrawals compiled 

and estimated for this study are based on the assumption that 

estimates provided by each facility are reasonably accurate and 

reliable from year to year and that aquifer determination and 

locations of withdrawals also are reasonably accurate. This 

study also assumed an upward trend in per capita use. These 

estimates could be missing water that is withdrawn by one 

water-supply system and sold to another area and possibly overrepresent withdrawals if only part of the community is served 

by the water-supply system. The water-use estimates include 

the assumption that the proportion of residential versus other 

uses is the same for each time interval for each community, as 

indicated by the calculated average per capita use. Thus, these 

estimates could be missing water distributed for publicly supplied industries or other uses that may have peaked before 1970. 

Additional public supply might not be accounted for by private 

communities that withdrew water but were not identified. Therefore, public-supply water-use estimates prepared for Wisconsin 

likely underestimate some groundwater use, although the impact 

of this omission is small and will likely make little difference 

on the groundwater-flow model water levels in the primary area 

of interest (Daniel Feinstein, U.S. Geological Survey Wisconsin 

Water Science Center, oral commun., 2007). 

The first known public-supply well in any particular 

system was assumed to have gone online when the watersupply system began supplying customers. In Wisconsin, 

this excludes any individual wells that a community might 

have operated before a public water-distribution network 

was established. It is possible that some historical water use 

is unaccounted for if early wells could not be verified. If 

there was no record of the location of the first water-supply 

well for a community, then the well was assumed to be in 

the community center. It is believed by the authors that most 

public-supply utilities were identified for the model water-use 

dataset, mainly from EWG, USEPA, WDNR, PSC, USGS, and 

SEWRPC sources.

Industrial Water Use in Wisconsin

Whereas many of Wisconsin’s earliest industries required 

access to surface water for transport, energy production, or 

cooling purposes, many other key industries built upon the 

region’s high-quality and abundant groundwater resources. 

Some of the industries that initially were predominant within 

this area were paper, metals, general manufacturing, tanning, 

and food-related industries such as canning, processing, dairying, and brewing. Although the majority of the withdrawals 

in the industrial category are specifically for industrial uses 

as defined in table 1, some commercial water uses have been 

combined into the industrial category in this report to best fit 

into the four-category scheme. For example, noncommunity 

system water uses, as defined in table 1, were considered commercial water uses and assigned to the industrial water-use 

category for this report. In Wisconsin, noncommunity systems 

include nursing homes, prisons, asylums, religious and academic institutions, airports, and campgrounds. Other commercial uses identified in the Wisconsin LMB model area using 

the most water were for such purposes of snowmaking or cooling (including air conditioning and refrigeration) or for such 

places as shopping centers; larger religious and health-care 

facilities; schools; resorts; clubhouses; railroads; and lodging. 

The majority of the industrial and commercial withdrawals 

now are in an area south and east of Portage County (fig. 3). 

But before 1940, they were concentrated almost exclusively 

within the nearfield model area. The earliest well records were 

associated with health institutions and railroads. Milwaukee 

County has the earliest known well records, and of those wells 

all but one are assumed to have been abandoned by the last 

model time interval. For the remainder of the report (including graphs and tables), the category called “industrial” for 

Wisconsin refers to combined industrial and commercial water 

uses unless noted otherwise.
Part 2: State-by-State Descriptions of Water-Use Estimates 29

Overall, well and water-use information for 876 industrial 

and 526 commercial wells was compiled. Over the last halfcentury (intervals 5 through 12, or 1951–2005), industrial water 

use nearly doubled in the Wisconsin LMB model area (table 4). 

These industrial withdrawals increased from 0.41 Mgal/d during 

the first time interval (1864–1900) to 61.47 Mgal/d during the 

last interval (2001–5). The main reason for this increase was 

increasing water withdrawals in the farfield model subregion. 

Industrial water use, by itself, accounted for 86 to 95 percent 

of the combined total industrial water-use estimate in each time 

interval. Industrial water use by subregion is illustrated in figure 

6A (appendix 2). The industrial peak that occurred in interval 5 

(1951–60) was concentrated within counties surrounding Lake 

Winnebago and adjacent to Green Bay. 

Overall industrial water use in the Southeastern Wisconsin 

subregion has been relatively stable since interval 8 (1976–80). 

However, when the industrial component is considered separately from the combined industrial and commercial withdrawal 

estimate, water use for industry peaked during intervals 5 and 

6 (1951–70) and has since declined, whereas commercial water 

use has increased over time. In fact, the remaining industries 

in Milwaukee County that were supplied by groundwater have 

either ceased use of groundwater or ceased operation entirely 

since the last time interval (2001–5). In Waukesha County, 

industrial water use represented nearly 100 percent of the category in interval 5 (1951–60), but it represented only about 76 

percent of the category during the last time interval (2001–5) as 

the proportion of commercial water use increased. In general, 

growth in combined industrial water use has since occurred 

mainly in counties outside and along the nearfield boundary—in 

particular, Rock, Jefferson, and Portage Counties.

Most industrial withdrawals before interval 5 (1951–60) 

were from the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system, but since 

then well development has increased in the Quaternary and the 

Silurian-Devonian aquifer systems; as a result, withdrawals 

from these systems have increased (fig. 6B, appendix 2). Over 

the last seven time intervals (1951 through 2005), the average contributions for industrial withdrawals by aquifer system 

over the Wisconsin LMB model area were 27 percent from 

the Quaternary, 13 percent from the Silurian-Devonian, and 

60 percent from the Cambrian-Ordovician. More recent well 

development appears to be occurring in unconfined unconsolidated material and deep confined bedrock aquifer types, 

whereas growth in withdrawals from shallow unconfined 

bedrock appears to be minor (fig. 6C, appendix 2).

Additional Wisconsin Industrial Data Sources

High-capacity well data came primarily from WDNR 

sources: Water Well Data CD-ROMs and GRN (Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources, 2005, 2006, 2007). Wateruse purpose was determined largely by well, owner, or operator 

name and type of property classification listed in the highcapacity well approval, but the purpose could also be determined sometimes from comments within the well-construction 

report. Most of the industrial and commercial wells within these 

data sources are coded by property class: “Industrial,” “School,” 

or “Miscellaneous.” The WDNR property classification was 

evaluated and reassigned into the USGS water-use code standards (Mathey, 1990) with additional water-use site or purpose 

categorizations appended when possible. The “Well Name” field 

often included terms such as “shop well,” “barn well,” “factory well,” “low-cap potable,” “pond filling,” “main supply,” or 

“standby,” which provided a way to identify the purpose of the 

well. Well names helped to omit wells where water use is likely 

negligible (defined for the model as a site withdrawal less than 

1 Mgal/yr) or too uncertain (for example, maintenance shops, 

rural churches, stores, offices, and small municipal airports). 

Several facility or owner names were queried through Internet 

resources to verify the most likely water-use purpose for a well.

Additional reports and previously existing groundwatermodel water-use datasets were incorporated to identify wells 

and withdrawal rates as previously described in the Wisconsin “Principal Data Sources” section. Construction dates 

were used to approximate the year the well became active. 

If a construction date was not available, then the date of the 

WDNR high-capacity well approval was substituted. If neither 

construction date nor approval date was available, then an 

Internet search was done to obtain, if possible, the year of 

facility establishment. 

Certain well records for industrial and commercial uses 

were systematically removed from the final model water-use 

dataset. A record was removed if 

1. it was determined that the well was never in production or 

had never been constructed;

2. data were missing for all three variables: well status, 

pump capacity, and past water withdrawal;

3. it was a test well for probable water yield;

4. it was a standby or backup well that was used infrequently 

or only known to be exercised;

5. it was a remediation, private residential, or fire-protection 

well;

6. a water-use estimate would be too uncertain or negligible 

(less than 1 Mgal/yr); 

7. pump capacity was less than 50 gal/min; 

8. pump capacity was less than 70 gal/min and did not meet 

at least one of the following exceptions:

a. the water-use site has multiple wells with reported past 

water use having an annual sum greater than1 Mgal/yr;

b. the well had only occasional past annual withdrawals 

greater than 1 Mgal/yr; 

c. the well was a fire-protection well for an industry but 

had reported past water use greater than 1 Mgal/yr (it was 

then assumed that the well was used for an additional 

purpose);

9. reported pump capacity was between 50 and 70 gal/min 

and the “normal pumpage” or “maximum pumpage” fields 

were left blank or were populated with the value of zero 

on the withdrawal approval;

10. no pump-capacity data were given, and the reported “normal pumpage” was less than 1,000 gal/d.
30 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

Figure 6. Industrial groundwater-use estimates in Wisconsin for the Lake Michigan Basin model by time interval 

and A, model subregion, B, aquifer system, and C, aquifer type. No withdrawals were determined for the mixed 

aquifer systems. The Jurassic-Mississippian aquifer system does not exist in Wisconsin.

TIME INTERVAL AND YEARS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

 1864–

 1900

 1901–

 1920

 1921–

 1940

 1941–

 1950

 1951–

 1960

 1961–

 1970

 1971–

 1975

 1976–

 1980

 1981–

 1985

 1986–

 1990

 1991–

 2000

 2001–

 2005

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Shallow unconsolidated material

Shallow bedrock

Deep bedrock

C Aquifer type

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Quaternary

Silurian–Devonian

Cambrian–Ordovician

B Aquifer system

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Northeastern Wisconsin

Southeastern Wisconsin

Wisconsin farfield model area

A Model subregion

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
Part 2: State-by-State Descriptions of Water-Use Estimates 31

Estimation Methods for Wisconsin Industrial and 

Commercial Withdrawals 

In the first estimation method used in this category, an 

overall average withdrawal value was calculated for each 

time interval for industrial (and commercial) wells in the 

Wisconsin LMB model area for which withdrawal data were 

available. Most available industrial withdrawal data were 

from the WDNR GRN database during intervals 8 through 

10 (1976–90) and from other data sources (for example, past 

model water-use datasets) for earlier intervals. Typically, the 

withdrawal rate from the earliest reported rate was applied 

backwards to the year the well was constructed and forward 

to the next reported withdrawal rate (or overall averaged rate) 

of a later time interval. The latest withdrawal rate was applied 

forward through interval 12 (2001–5) or until the year when 

the well was assumed inactive or abandoned. There was one 

extra consideration applied only in this first method for wells 

with WDNR GRN data during intervals 8 through 10. If it was 

known that a facility had closed during the last two intervals 

(1991–2005), then the withdrawal rate of the last fully active 

time interval was reduced in half and applied to the years 

until the facility closed in these last two intervals, under the 

assumption that the industrial facility was winding down.

Withdrawal data were then used to develop three other 

water-use estimation methods for industrial (and commercial) 

wells in the Wisconsin LMB model area with missing groundwater-withdrawal data. 

In the second method, if a well record did not include 

past withdrawal data but similar wells from the same owner 

in the same county did report water-use data, then a similar 

withdrawal rate was assumed. If there was only one other well, 

then the same rate was substituted; but if there were more than 

one well, then the average of the reported withdrawal rates 

was applied. 

In the third method, well records with reported water 

withdrawal, pump capacity, and approved normal daily 

pumpage data were used to create a withdrawal coefficient—

referred to hereafter simply as a “coefficient”—to use for well 

records that reported pump capacity and approved normal 

daily pumpage but no water-withdrawal data. A coefficient 

was derived by sorting records of specific water-use types 

with the required information, dividing reported withdrawal 

by normal daily pumpage, and then calculating the average 

and median values for the water-use type. For the coefficient, 

the average was chosen if there were fewer than five records, 

and the median was chosen if there were five or more records 

because the median is more representative when outliers 

(unusual, extreme values) are in a dataset. An estimated 

withdrawal value was generated by multiplying the coefficient 

for a specific water-use type by the approved normal pumpage, then multiplying that number by the number of days that 

well was assumed to be in operation. This method was applied 

rather than directly using the approved normal daily pumpage 

because reported daily pumpage and pump capacity are more 

often artifacts of pump design and might not accurately reflect 

water withdrawals from a well (specifically, pumps rarely run 

daily at full capacity and at a constant rate). 

A final, fourth method was needed for well records 

without available data pertaining to water use, pump capacity, and normal pumpage. This water-use estimation method 

used existing withdrawal data for wells with similar water-use 

purposes to determine a baseline withdrawal amount—referred 

to hereafter as a “withdrawal default.” Two main data sources 

were used to develop the withdrawal defaults: the Wisconsin 

withdrawal data in the WDNR GRN (1976–90) and the Minnesota withdrawal data in MNDNR SWUDS (1988–2005). 

The defaults were calculated averages and medians of 

withdrawals for wells with similar water-use purposes. The 

averages and medians from Wisconsin withdrawal data were 

compared with the averages and medians from Minnesota 

withdrawal data. The values between the two states and time 

ranges were quite comparable for each water-use purpose 

analyzed, but because Minnesota data were more current and 

complete, the Minnesota median values for groundwater withdrawals were given priority when choosing a final withdrawal 

default. For some industrial (and commercial) wells of certain 

water-use purposes (those assumed to withdraw greater than 1 

Mgal/d), withdrawal data were scarce or nonexistent; for these 

wells, a minimal withdrawal default of 1 Mgal/d was applied 

to account for an active site with uncertain withdrawal. Figure 

7 and table 8 present further details about the procedures used 

in producing industrial (and commercial) water-use estimates 

in Wisconsin. 

In general, well-construction information, well status, 

and other hydrogeologic-unit information in former modeling datasets were integrated into the withdrawal estimates. A 

few well records were missing information on well or casing 

depth, which is needed for hydrogeologic-unit (model-layer) 

determination. For such wells, an estimate based on the average depth of other wells in the county by the same owner was 

substituted. If that was not possible, then the average of other 

wells with the same water-use purpose was applied; otherwise, 

either (1) an overall average depth for an industrial well (or 

for a commercial well) was applied on the basis of all reported 

depth information in the county, or (2) the well-depth data 

field was left blank and the well simply assigned to the most 

likely aquifer system. 
32 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

Figure 7. Flow chart showing the approach and methods applied for estimating industrial and commercial groundwater withdrawals 

in Wisconsin.

Does the well record meet the 

Wisconsin industrial and 

commercial well selection 

criteria listed on page 29?

Any water-use 

purposes that 

did not need 

additional 

estimation 

methods were 

indicated in 

table 8 by a 

check mark.

Is there more than one source 

for water-use data (including 

former model datasets, published 

reports, online databases)?

Calculate the average water-use 

value and apply to years since 

the well was constructed and 

until the year it became inactive 

or abandoned.

Does the owner or operator 

have any other wells nearby or 

within the same county with 

the same water-use purpose?

There is one well: 

apply rate of the other well.

There is more than one well:

calculate and apply the average 

rate from the other wells.

Use “Default Withdrawal” listed 

in table 8 for water-use purpose 

for all years the well 

is active. Does the well record have 

Reduce, by half, pump-capacity data?

the rate of the last 

fully active time 

interval and apply 

reduced rate to 

all following years 

in the next time 

interval until the 

well was inactive.

Does the record have associated 

water-use data?

Calculate average and median coefficients 

for a specific water-use purpose from records 

that have both water-use and daily approved 

pumpage data. Values are listed in table 8.

Apply earliest reported rate 

backwards to the year the 

well was constructed and

forward to the year of the next 

reported rate. If only one well had 

early reported rate, but the 

well was known to rotate with 

another well, then divide rate 

in half.

Apply coefficient for water-use 

purpose listed in table 8 to 

daily approved pumpage to 

produce water-use estimate.

Is a high-capacity well approval 

on file with the WDNR? 

Was the facility closing during 

the last two time intervals?

Then, apply last reported rate 

(use average if there are multiple 

withdrawals within the same 

time interval) forward through 

the last time interval or to the 

year the well was assumed 

inactive or abandoned.

Does the well record have 

daily approved pumpage data 

and are there more than five 

records with the same 

water-use purpose?

Is a high-capacity well approval on

file with the WDNR? 

STOP

NO

STOP

YES NO YES

NO

NO

YES

YES NO

YES

YES

YES

NO

YES

NO or UNCERTAIN

NO

YES

DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY
Part 2: State-by-State Descriptions of Water-Use Estimates 33

Table 8. Groundwater-withdrawal estimation methods for industrial water use in Wisconsin, by water-use purpose. (Industrial 

water use is defined in table 1 and for Wisconsin includes some commercial water uses. Well records must meet well-selection 

criteria defined on page 29 prior to using this table. See figure 7 flow chart for water-use estimation process.)—Continued

 [Mgal/yr, million gallons per year; N, normal daily pumpage reported on high-capacity well approval; √, no estimate needed; --, estimate not determined]

Water-use purpose

Groundwater withdrawal-estimation method

No 

estimation 

method 

neededb

Coefficientc

to normal 

daily 

pumpage

Default 

withdrawale, 

Mgal/yr

Seasonal 

calculation

Industrial well

Ammunition -- g5.00 --

Animal by-products -- e10.04 --

Beverage bottling, excluding breweries (well constructed after 1960) 0.36 f47.04 --

Beverage bottling, excluding breweries (well constructed before 1960) -- g5.00 --

Brewery (well constructed after 1950) 0.58 -- --

Brewery (well constructed before 1950) -- g50.00 --

Canning -- e21.30 --

Chemicals; except rubber 0.45 g5.00 --

Chemicals; rubber -- g10.00 --

Clay products d0.25 -- --

Dairy -- e11.92 --

Dust control √ -- -- --

Earthen materials; asphalt and aggregate -- e1.85 --

Earthen materials; concrete or cement -- e8.85 --

Earthen materials; stone/sand/gravel (records may include water used 

for washing and sorting)

0.14 f4.44 --

Ethanol -- e40.77 --

Food; other than processing 0.37 g5.00 --

Food; processing 0.37 e42.16 --

Industrial cooling; non-metal √ -- -- --

Industrial park; unspecified purposes -- h1.00 --

Leather goods; not tanning (well constructed before 1940) -- h1.00 --

Lumber (includes milling) d0.25 -- --

Manufacturing; general (well constructed after 1940) 0.34 -- --

Manufacturing; general (well constructed before 1940) -- h1.00 --

Metal; primary (such as for a foundry) 1 g50.00 --

Metal; secondary (such as to produce auto parts) 0.46 g50.00 --

Paper (well constructed after 1960) 0.37 e39.08 --

Paper (well constructed before 1960) -- g50.00 --

Petroleum products d0.25 i12.44 --

Pharmaceuticals √ -- -- --

Plastics 0.81 g10.00 --

Printing 0.11 e14.74 --

Tanning (well constructed before 1950) -- g10.00 --

Telecommunication √ -- -- --

Textiles √ -- -- --

Commercial well

Agribusiness (includes agricultural research) d0.25 e20.04 --

Airport d0.25 --

Botanical gardens (likely includes some irrigation) -- e5.84 --

Business; government building (such as a courthouse) √ -- -- --

Business; large (corporate office or business park) 0.29 e4.62 --

Campgrounds -- -- 120 days × N
34 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

Table 8. Groundwater-withdrawal estimation methods for industrial water use in Wisconsin, by water-use purpose. (Industrial 

water use is defined in table 1 and for Wisconsin includes some commercial water uses. Well records must meet well-selection 

criteria defined on page 29 prior to using this table. See figure 7 flow chart for water-use estimation process.)—Continued

 [Mgal/yr, million gallons per year; N, normal daily pumpage reported on high-capacity well approval; √, no estimate needed; --, estimate not determined]

Water-use purpose

Groundwater withdrawal-estimation method

No 

estimation 

method 

neededb

Coefficientc

to normal 

daily 

pumpage

Default 

withdrawale, 

Mgal/yr

Seasonal 

calculation

Commercial well—Continued

Car wash 0.25d --

Casino 0.25d 5.00g --

Cemetery; service or administrative building √ -- -- --

Clubhouse (typically at a country club or golf course) 0.35 --

Cold storage 0.43 14.75e --

Community center 0.25d --

Conference center 0.25d --

Construction (well constructed after 1960 and has a pump capacity 

more than 200 gallons per minute)

-- 2.68e --

Construction (well constructed before 1960) 1.00h --

Cooling; other facility (e.g. restaurant, theater) 0.34 5.00g --

Cooling; school or large business 0.34 11.24f --

Correction facility 0.25d 1.00h --

Health institution (includes hospitals) 0.26 1.00h --

Lodging 0.56 1.00h --

Museum 0.25d --

Park & recreation 0.17 --

Railroad (withdrawal prior to 1960) -- 5.00g --

Religious institution (larger only) 3.20e --

Research facility (includes most laboratories) 1.95e --

Resort 0.45 --

Restaurant 1.00h --

Schoola (well constructed before 1940) 1.00h --

Schoola (well constructed after 1940) 2.03e --

Shopping center 0.21 1.00h --

Snowmaking 12.44e --

Unspecified commercial high-capacity use 0.25d 1.00h --

Waterpark -- -- 120 days × N

Wayside (only along Interstate highways) √ -- -- --

Zoological garden √ -- -- --

a

 A well for a school was included if it met well-selection criteria outlined in the report; therefore, most small rural schools were excluded.

b Water withdrawal data were available for all wells identified with this water-use purpose.

c

 Coefficient was calculated from available data (water withdrawal, pump capacity, and approved normal daily pumpage) reported by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (2005, 2006, 2007) unless noted otherwise.

d

 Default coefficient of 0.25 applied to normal permitted pumpage approved for an industrial or commercial well that likely withdrew over 1 Mgal/yr. The coefficient was generalized to be about a quarter of the approved pumpage amounts. This generalization was based on 588 industrial water-use records that had water-use 

data and approved normal and maximum daily pumpage amounts. The calculated median coefficients are 0.33 based on normal daily pumpage and 0.21 based on 

maximum daily pumpage.

e

 Calculated median from records in the Wisconsin water-use dataset with available withdrawal data, 1976–90; original data source is from the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources (2005).

f

 Calculated median from Minnesota water-use data, 1988–2005, with the exception of cooling (applied for schools and large businesses) which was based on 

2001–5 data (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2007).

g

 A value greater than the minimum withdrawal was assumed. Most estimates requiring this default were for wells in earlier time periods, typically before 1960.

h

 Minimum default withdrawal value applied to a well that likely withdrew more than 1 Mgal/yr. 

i

 Based on average daily water demand of 136,288 gallons per day (Vickers, 2001)
Part 2: State-by-State Descriptions of Water-Use Estimates 35

Assumptions and Limitations of Wisconsin Industrial and 

Commercial Data 

Some water-use data were not available or were excluded 

for other reasons. In the earlier time intervals, various commercial establishments and industries common throughout 

the Wisconsin part of the study area—such as those alluded 

to in old industry listings, historical documents, books and 

advertisements—were not accounted for because of uncertainty in the water-supply source (groundwater or surface 

water, publicly supplied or self-supplied). Some facilities are 

not required to have high-capacity well approvals or did not 

have a well listed in the state-specific well-construction or 

geologic databases, so underestimation may have occurred 

because withdrawals at such facilities would not be accounted 

for. The selection criteria also eliminated some water-use sites 

whose water-use purposes were highly uncertain. The degree 

in which water-use withdrawals were missed can vary by time 

interval. It is likely that underestimates were more associated 

with the earlier intervals than the later intervals. 

Although most of the withdrawals reported, especially 

from the WDNR GRN database, were assumed to be reasonable, some of the values or estimates in any of the data 

sources might have been incorrect. The well status might 

have been wrong. In addition, changes in facility operations, 

such as ceasing operation or changing to a surface-water or 

purchased-water source, might not have been reflected in the 

well records.

For records with water use estimated by the application of 

a coefficient (as described in the above section called “Industrial Estimation Methods”), it was assumed reasonable to use 

pump-capacity data as an indicator to coarsely distinguish one 

facility from another with regard to variations in operation 

size, water demand, and spatial variation of aquifer properties 

affecting water availability. All but two of the industrial (and 

commercial) water-use coefficients were applied year round 

and did not take into account possible changes in operation, 

water requirements, or seasonality. The exceptions were for 

campgrounds and water parks, where summer-only operation 

was assumed for 120 days (table 8). For other seasonal places 

of water use, such as at schools or snowmaking establishments, the coefficient approach was not applied but an annual 

withdrawal default was used instead.

Furthermore, the following assumptions were applied and 

limitations were considered when using the Wisconsin industrial and commercial water-use records. If normal daily pumpage in the withdrawal approval was not reported, then half the 

maximum daily pumpage was used, if available. The data field 

called “Well Name” of WDNR data sources was searched to 

identify records with the terms “abandoned” or “replaced by” 

in order to modify the well status field. If no status information was available, then the well was assumed active for 20 

years. Source errors were adjusted as the data were analyzed, 

but some errors might have been missed. Additional interpretive errors in coding and water-use categorization are possible. More often than not, water-withdrawal estimates from 

previous studies served as a guide or check to the water-use 

estimates produced for this study, with the exception that 

Conlon’s estimates (1998) were largely accepted or revised for 

years prior to 1970 for industrial high-capacity well withdrawals in northeastern Wisconsin. 

Irrigation Water Use in Wisconsin

In Wisconsin, irrigation well records were grouped by 

three irrigation water-use purposes: principal crop, specialty 

agriculture, and other irrigation. As used in this study, principal crop irrigation refers to water applied to the growing of 

grains, grasses, legumes, and vegetables; crops that are typical 

for Wisconsin include corn, hay, soybeans, and several types 

of vegetables (for example, potatoes, tomatoes, snap peas, 

beans, and cabbage). Specialty agriculture irrigation refers to 

water applied to assist with the growing of specialty agricultural products typically found at tree farms, orchards, nurseries, and greenhouses, which includes the growing of berries, 

sod, mint, ginseng, commercial seeds, flowers, and mushrooms. Other irrigation refers to water used at athletic fields, 

cemeteries, and golf courses, or for other landscaping needs. 

The majority of Wisconsin’s irrigation water use has been for 

agricultural purposes, predominantly principal crop irrigation.

Estimated groundwater withdrawals increased from 0 

Mgal/d for the first time interval to 159.70 Mgal/d for the last 

interval (table 4). Water-use estimates are significantly lower 

before interval 6 (1961–70) because of (1) a lack of data, (2) 

predominance of dry farming (precipitation-derived water 

input), and (3) lack of adequate water-well pump and irrigation technology. The few wells that were constructed before 

1941 were for various sites such as a cemetery, country club, 

and commercial seed farm. Most irrigation in the Wisconsin 

model area remained minimal until interval 6 (1961–70), when 

groundwater well-pump technology advanced and center-pivot 

irrigation systems were developed (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1955); since then, irrigation has increased by nearly 4 

times (appendix 2). Growth of irrigation, especially after 1970, 

can be attributed in part to legislative changes in water-resource 

management (Dawson, 2003), response to severe droughts 

such as those in 1976–77 and 1987–88 (Paulson and others, 

1991; Wisconsin State Climatology Office, 2009), further 

development in irrigation technology, and farming decisions 

such as installation of backup irrigation systems to cope with 

drought and to increase crop yields (Paul Mitchell, University 

of Wisconsin-Madison, oral commun., 2008). The likely trend 

of increased agricultural irrigation water use corresponds 

to increased irrigation acreage, number of farms irrigating, 

reported number of irrigation wells used on farms (U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of the Census, 1977, 1982, 1990a, 

1990b; U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1995, 1999b, 2004b), 

number of high-capacity well withdrawals seeking approval 

from the WDNR for irrigation, and increased water-application 

rates (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2006, 

2007). Other irrigation uses made up approximately 1.6 percent 

(or 0.59 Mgal/d) of the total irrigation withdrawal in interval 6 
36 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

(1961–70) and increased to 3.7 percent (or 5.89 Mgal/d) by the 

last time interval (interval 12). Total irrigation in recent time 

intervals amounted to about a third of the total withdrawal in the 

Wisconsin LMB model area (table 4).

Overall, more irrigation water use occurred within the 

farfield model area than in the nearfield model area; and inside 

the nearfield, more irrigation water use occurred within the 

Northeastern Wisconsin subregion than in the Southeastern 

Wisconsin subregion (fig. 8A). In summary, 14 percent (509 

records) of the 3,637 irrigation wells identified were within 

the nearfield model area, of which 434 records were active in 

the last time interval. Irrigation water use by aquifer system in 

the Wisconsin model area is shown in figure 8B, and data are 

listed in appendix 2. The majority (or 84 percent) of the water 

used for irrigation since 1961 (interval 6) came from the Quaternary aquifer system, whereas the Silurian-Devonian aquifer 

system contributed 3.5 percent and the Cambrian-Ordovician 

aquifer system contributed 12.5 percent. Development in the 

farfield model area (primarily in Portage, Waushara, Wood, 

and Juneau Counties in central Wisconsin) led to an increased 

contribution from the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system 

in later time intervals. Likewise, as shown in figure 8C (data 

in appendix 2), most irrigation withdrawals were from the 

unconfined unconsolidated material aquifer type, whereas the 

remainder was split about equally between the shallow unconfined bedrock and deep confined bedrock aquifer types.

Additional Wisconsin Irrigation Data Sources

Several additional sources were used to produce the irrigation water-use estimates in Wisconsin besides those previously 

listed under the earlier Wisconsin “Principal Data Sources” 

section. A report summarizing Wisconsin’s first 100 years in 

agriculture (1848–1948) included some information about early 

irrigation and location of crops grown (Wisconsin Department 

of Agriculture, 1948); however, most data about irrigation came 

from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Census of 

Agriculture series. The earliest census reporting on agricultural 

irrigation in Wisconsin was for 1929 within the 1940 Census 

of Agriculture (U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of the 

Census, 1942). The first non-zero values for irrigation data by 

county appeared in the 1950 Census of Agriculture for 1944 and 

1949 (U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of the Census, 

1952). Additional data for irrigated acreage were collected for 

1954, 1959, 1969, 1974, 1978, 1987, 1992, 1997, and 2002 

(U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of the Census, 1956, 

1961, 1972, 1977, 1982, 1990a; U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1995, 1999a, 2004a). Both the 1969 and 1974 censuses 

include associated water-use data and report the number of 

farms that irrigate. Digital orthoimagery from the USGS (various dates) and National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) 

imagery from the U.S. Department of Agriculture–Farm Service 

Agency–Aerial Photography Field Office (2006) were acquired 

for various years during the last two time intervals (1991–2005) 

and were used when status or location of a currently approved 

irrigation well was in question. The Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey was obtained for the years 1988, 1998, and 2003, 

which span the last three time intervals (U.S. Department of 

Commerce–Bureau of the Census, 1990b; U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, 1999b, 2004b). Although these censuses summarize the entire State of Wisconsin, they showed the quantity of 

groundwater applied had increased 36 percent over intervals 

10–12 (1986–2005), whereas the model water-use estimates 

reflect a 24-percent increase over this same time period within 

the entire Wisconsin LMB model area.

Estimation Methods for Wisconsin Irrigation Withdrawals

A well inventory from source datasets was prepared to 

define irrigation water-use purpose, identify wells that were 

replaced, assign the year the well became active, and determine the hydrogeologic unit to which the well was open. All 

irrigation wells listed in GWSI, wiscLITH, or previous model 

datasets were used. Only irrigation wells listed in the WDNR 

high-capacity well approval database that met the pumpcapacity criteria outlined in the industrial water-use section 

were included. Records were sorted by similar water-use purposes, and overall averages and medians were calculated for 

records with associated water-use data. Preference was given 

to water-use data associated with the record by using those 

data if available. If data were unavailable, then an estimation 

method was applied. If water-use data associated with the 

record were available for only a few years, the average withdrawal spanning all available years was applied backwards to 

the year the well was constructed and forward to the year the 

well became inactive or was sealed.

The majority of the irrigation records that were identified were for principal crop irrigation and were collected from 

the GRN database for intervals 8, 9, and 10 (1976–90). The 

overall average from 1976 to 1990 for principal crop irrigation is 19.63 Mgal/yr (0.054 Mgal/d,) and the median is 16.41 

Mgal/yr (0.045 Mgal/d). For irrigation water-use purposes with 

limited or missing water-use data, a second approach based on 

withdrawal defaults was used. Most of these default water-use 

values were determined by examining more than 5,000 waterwell permits from Minnesota (MNDNR WAPP) for irrigation 

records with reported withdrawals. In general, the averages and 

medians calculated for withdrawals for the few comparable 

irrigation water-use purposes (golf course, principal crop, and 

berry growing) in Wisconsin were similar to those in Minnesota. 

For example, of the 4,274 MNDNR water-use permits coded 

for principal crop irrigation, the average withdrawal from 1988 

to 2005 was 17.97 Mgal/yr (0.049 Mgal/d) and the median 

withdrawal was 19.45 Mgal/yr (0.053 Mgal/d). When determining the irrigation withdrawal default for Wisconsin, typically 

the median was chosen when there were more than five records 

because the average tends to be distorted by outliers. For principal crop irrigation, however, the median withdrawal in Minnesota was very similar to the Wisconsin average for 1976–1990; 

therefore, the Wisconsin average was chosen instead of the 

median. Irrigation wells for purposes other than principal crop 

irrigation without reported water use in any time interval were 

assigned a default value listed in table 9. 
Part 2: State-by-State Descriptions of Water-Use Estimates 37

Figure 8. Irrigation groundwater-use estimates in Wisconsin for the Lake Michigan Basin model by time interval and 

A, model subregion, B, aquifer system, and C, aquifer type. The Jurassic-Mississippian aquifer system does not exist 

in Wisconsin.

TIME INTERVAL AND YEARS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1864–

1900

1901–

1920

1921–

1940

1941–

1950

1951–

1960

1961–

1970

1971–

1975

1976–

1980

1981–

1985

1986–

1990

1991–

2000

2001–

2005

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Shallow unconsolidated material

Shallow bedrock

Deep bedrock

C Aquifer type

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Quaternary

Silurian–Devonian

Cambrian–Ordovician

B Aquifer system

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Northeastern Wisconsin

Southeastern Wisconsin

Wisconsin farfield model area

A Model subregion
38 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

Estimates of groundwater used for irrigation by golf 

courses were prepared previously for the 2005 “Water Use in 

Wisconsin” compilation (Buchwald, 2009). Only golf courses 

identified as having at least one high-capacity water well for 

greens and fairway maintenance or pond-filling were included. 

The preferred estimate was the average of the associated withdrawal data for a well record; but if no withdrawal data were 

reported, then a site withdrawal estimate listed in table 9 was 

substituted. For golf courses with multiple wells but no withdrawal data, the site withdrawal estimate was divided equally 

among the wells. If withdrawal data were available for only 

some wells at the site, then those withdrawals were subtotaled 

and subtracted from the total site withdrawal estimate. This 

difference was then split equally among the remaining wells 

with no withdrawal data. The water-use defaults for golf 

course irrigation are based on the number of holes or irrigated 

greens and fairway acreage; these values reflect a composite 

of Wisconsin courses (Tom Schwab, O.J. Noer Turf Grass 

Research & Education Facility, oral commun., 2001).

An independent water-use estimation method was 

developed to evaluate the well-based dataset against irrigation data reported by the USDA in the Census of Agriculture. 

This comparison was done only for counties that were more 

than 75 percent within the Wisconsin LMB model area. The 

Table 9. Irrigation default groundwater-use values used in Wisconsin, by purpose.

[Mgal/yr, million gallons per year; MNDNR WAPP, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Water Appropriations Permit Program; IL, Illinois; MN, 

Minnesota; WI, Wisconsin]

Irrigation water-use 

purpose

Default groundwaterwithdrawal value that 

was assigned, Mgal/yr

Water-use estimation method

Well-withdrawal estimate

Orchard 2.33 Median withdrawal based on MNDNR WAPP data for wells with same water 

purpose

Nursery 2.65 Median withdrawal based on MNDNR WAPP data for wells with same water 

purpose

Flower growers 2.65 Assumed similar water use to a nursery withdrawal

Greenhouse 2.65 Assumed similar water use to a nursery withdrawal

Evergreen farms 2.65 Assumed similar water use to a nursery withdrawal

Seed farms 2.65 Assumed similar water use to a nursery withdrawal

Athletic fields 3.98 Median withdrawal based on MNDNR WAPP data for wells with same water 

purpose

Landscaping 3.98 Median withdrawal based on MNDNR WAPP data for wells with same water 

purpose

Sod 6.46 Median withdrawal based on MNDNR WAPP data for wells with same water 

purpose

Cemetery 6.59 Median withdrawal based on MNDNR WAPP data for wells with same water 

purpose

Berries (includes 

cranberries)

9.54 Average withdrawal from all available IL, MN, and WI records with this wateruse purpose

Principal cropa 19.63 Average withdrawal (1976–1990) for wells in Wisconsin with same water-use 

purpose

Unspecified other variable Calculation based on 5 days per month for 4 growing season months at normal 

pumpage rate

Other specialty foodsb variable Calculation based on 5 days per month for 4 growing season months at normal 

pumpage rate

Site-withdrawal estimate

Golf coursec 5 Based on 9 holes or 15 acres of irrigated acreage 

Golf course 10 Based on 18 holes or 30 acres of irrigated acreage 

Golf course 15 Based on 27 holes or 45 acres of irrigated acreage 

Golf course 20 Based on 36 holes or 60 acres of irrigated acreage 

Golf course 25 Based on 45 holes or 75 acres of irrigated acreage 

a

 Principal crops include those agricultural products typically reported in the Census of Agriculture by the U.S. Department of Agriculture such as corn, 

potatoes, and soybeans.

b

 Specialty foods include those agricultural products not listed, such as mushrooms, ginseng, and mint.

c

 Golf course water-use estimates were provided by Tom Schwab, O.J. Noer Turf Grass Research & Education Facility, oral commun., 2001.
Part 2: State-by-State Descriptions of Water-Use Estimates 39

evaluation assessed whether agricultural irrigation by county 

was likely underestimated or overestimated for each time 

interval by comparing the well-inventory method against an 

estimate that incorporates a water application rate and reported 

irrigated acreage. Water-use data were included only in the 

1969 and 1974 Census of Agriculture reports, and the reported 

values combined both surface-water and groundwater sources; 

however, only groundwater use was needed for the model 

water-use dataset. Therefore, a generalization of 80 percent 

groundwater based on proportions reported in the 1988, 1998 

and 2002 USDA Farm and Ranch Irrigation Surveys was 

applied to the total use reported in 1969 and 1974. The resulting estimated median groundwater application rate for 1969 is 

385 (gal/d)/acre and for 1974 is 465 (gal/d)/acre.

The approximated 1969 water-application rate was used 

as the coefficient to irrigated acreage for model time intervals before interval 7, and the approximated 1974 waterapplication rate was used for time intervals including and after 

interval 7 (1971–75). If the difference between the censusbased and well-based water-use estimates was greater than 20 

percent for a county, then the well records for that county were 

reevaluated and revised. Three types of revisions were made: 

1. Recode water-use purpose.—It was found that some 

records were assigned the wrong water-use purpose; for 

example, when an irrigation well was coded as a golf 

course well but should have been characterized as a principal crop irrigation well. Another example would be if 

the Census of Agriculture data helped to identify counties 

where specialty crops (such as sod, fruit, and mint) are 

primarily grown instead of principal crops (such as corn, 

potatoes, and beans). The irrigation water-use default rate 

was adjusted for those records that were reclassified.

2. Adjust well status or the active time intervals.—Some 

information on well owners with several approved highcapacity wells were sought to determine whether the farm 

was still active. A key database that aided in this task 

was the Farm Subsidy Database, available at http://farm.

ewg.org/farm/index.php (Environmental Working Group, 

2006). Aerial photos and imagery also aided in determining whether an irrigation high-capacity well reported to be 

in the vicinity actually existed. On occasion, the 20-year 

active status default was extended to 40 years for some 

early constructed wells in order for the data to be more 

aligned with the irrigated acreage peak shown in Census 

of Agriculture reports.

3. Add past irrigation water use.—Because well records 

were more likely unavailable in earlier time intervals, 86 

generalized reference locations were added to account 

for past irrigation that the well-based method missed. 

About half of these locations (44 records) were within the 

nearfield model area. The locations were based on where 

well construction reports indicate which well owners had 

or presently (2001–5) have the most irrigation wells. The 

generalized locations avoided areas where there were 

water bodies or areas that were highly urbanized. 

Assumptions and Limitations of Wisconsin Irrigation Data

The groundwater withdrawals compiled and estimated for 

this study include the assumption that estimates provided in 

each data source are reasonably accurate and that the general 

location of withdrawals and water source did not change. A 

well-based approach, like that which was applied for Wisconsin, has greater certainty if most irrigators are accounted for, 

the majority of the well records have associated withdrawals, 

and the crop water requirement reflects typical crops grown, 

climate, and soil type irrigated. Other farm changes such as 

ownership, operation, crops, field rotation, or well status were 

not considered. Some data for early irrigation wells (mostly 

from the USGS GWSI) represented the entire county irrigation 

estimate derived from the Census-based method, whereas others 

distributed the estimate among a few active wells. Therefore, 

the water-use estimate for these irrigation records should not be 

used in a local-scale study without further consideration. 

Several other assumptions and caveats should be kept in 

mind when using these data: 

• If a well could not be determined for specialty agriculture or for other irrigation, then it was assigned as 

principal crop irrigation well. 

• Golf course irrigation defaults may be unsuitable for 

certain areas of the Wisconsin LMB model area where 

water requirements diverge substantially from the average because of local variations in climate, turf species, 

soil moisture, and soil infiltration rates. 

• Irrigation wells were assumed to be active only for 20 

years; therefore, wells constructed before 1976 were 

assumed to be inactive unless a high-capacity well 

approval form indicated otherwise. 

• Aquifer information for several records from the 

WDNR high-capacity well database contained erroneous aquifer codes. Use of information from nearby 

wells with a similar water-use purpose, casing depth, 

and well depth helped to determine aquifer and modellayer assignment. 

• If well-depth information was missing for an irrigation 

well, the value was substituted by one of the following 

methods (in order of preference): the average depth of 

other irrigation wells owned by the same well owner 

within the county, the average depth of all other wells 

with a similar water-use purpose within the county (if 

not, then within the Wisconsin model area), or lastly, 

the average depth of all irrigation wells in the Wisconsin model area with reported depth information. 

Farm-based data such as crop type were not available 

because of a confidentiality clause of the USDA Farm Service 

Agency (Larry Cutforth, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Farm Service Agency, written commun., 2006). If these had 

been available, a Geographic Information System (GIS) would 

have been used to intersect a well location with crop type, soil 
40 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

type, topography, and climate data to derive a site-specific 

water application rate. However, these factors might have been 

indirectly incorporated. Because more significant irrigation 

occurred after 1970, which was at about the same time when 

several water-use estimates were reported to the WDNR, it 

was assumed that these estimates likely reflect some site- and 

climate-related influences on the overall withdrawal.

A recent study comparing irrigation water use between 

two Wisconsin counties (Sauk and Waukesha Counties) found 

in the last time interval (2001–5) that the average water application rate for crop irrigation was 1,008 (gal/d)/acre (Gotkowitz and others, 2008). Therefore, water-use estimates based 

on approximated 1974 or 1979 water-application rates may 

have underestimated actual groundwater usage. However, the 

1,008 (gal/d)/acre is believed likely to be too high for particular counties in the model area, because it may better describe 

counties with more sandy soil and where more water-intensive 

crops such as potatoes are grown. 

Miscellaneous Water Use in Wisconsin

Additional groundwater-use estimates not included 

within the previous water-use categories are assigned under 

the miscellaneous water-use category. In Wisconsin, this 

includes water uses identified for aquaculture (77 wells) and 

thermoelectric power generation (26 wells). The principal 

data sources were similar to those for the industrial wateruse category in that data from USGS, WDNR, and WGNHS 

were used. Miscellaneous withdrawals were represented in 

the smallest water-use category. The total estimated withdrawals for these uses range from 0 Mgal/d for the first three 

time intervals (1864–1940) to 19.09 Mgal/d for last interval 

(2001–5) (table 4). Approximately 90 percent of the miscellaneous water-use total for each time interval is attributed to 

aquacultural water use. Estimated withdrawals were notably 

lower before 1970 because of a lack of data. 

On the basis of locations where these identified uses 

occurred, most early miscellaneous withdrawals were in the 

Southeastern Wisconsin and farfield model subregions; it was not 

until after interval 6 (1961–70) that groundwater development 

in Northeastern Wisconsin surpassed that of the other two model 

subregions (fig. 9A, appendix 2). The majority of miscellaneous 

use comes from the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system, followed by the Quaternary and Silurian-Devonian aquifer systems 

(fig. 9B, appendix 2). The distribution of miscellaneous withdrawals is fairly even by aquifer type, although there was slightly 

more use from deep confined bedrock (fig. 9C, appendix 2). 

Additional Wisconsin Miscellaneous Data Sources 

Additional sources were used to determine the location 

and amount of groundwater withdrawals for thermoelectric 

powerplant facilities. Water-use data at thermoelectric powerplants were available in documents furnished to the USGS 

by the WDNR and PSC for the 1985 and 1990 “Water Use in 

Wisconsin” compilations (Ellefson and others, 1987, 1993). 

More recently, the PSC supplied some additional powerplant 

groundwater-use and energy-production data for 2005 or 2006 

(Scott Cullen and James Lepinski, Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, written commun. and unpub. data, 2006). 

Additional energy-production data and information came from 

the Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department 

of Energy electricity databases (U.S. Department of Energy–

Energy Information Administration, 2006).

Estimation Methods for Wisconsin Aquaculture 

Withdrawals

Water-use estimates for aquaculture were based largely 

on data compiled by the USGS for the 2000 and 2005 “Water 

Use in Wisconsin” compilations (Ellefson and others, 2002; 

Buchwald, 2009). These data were based on several inquiries 

to aquacultural facilities and described their facility, production, and present water uses. Some facilities also described on 

their Web sites the source and amount of water used. Withdrawal history was less certain; therefore, the oldest well that 

could be identified for the facility was used to establish when 

groundwater use began. Withdrawal estimates for intervals 

8 through 10 (1976 to 1990) were calculated by averaging 

the available reported data from the WDNR high-capacitywell database Web site (Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources, 2005). The average water-use rate was applied 

backwards to when the well was constructed. For a highcapacity aquacultural well with no withdrawal data available, 

the groundwater default of 9.64 Mgal/yr (0.0264 Mgal/d) was 

applied. This default was determined in the 2005 “Water Use 

in Wisconsin” study by analyzing data from the State of Minnesota’s water-use reporting program (Minnesota Department 

of Natural Resources, 2007; Buchwald, 2009).

Estimation Methods for Wisconsin Thermoelectric Power 

Withdrawals

Although surface water is the primary source of water 

for energy production and cooling, some powerplants supplement with groundwater for other energy-production needs 

such as plant service water (for different heat exchanges or 

plant systems), fly-ash control, or emergency cooling supplies. 

A list of Wisconsin’s thermoelectric powerplants where the 

prime mover is steam turbine or combined cycle and steam 

was compiled along with the year the plants were established. 

There were no steam-based movers for thermoelectric power 

generation before the 1930s (Public Service Commission of 

Wisconsin, 1985). Some industrial facilities also generate electricity by way of steam, but no industrial facilities were identified with water wells exclusively for this purpose. Withdrawal 

estimates were calculated by averaging the available reported 

data for each well and applying the average backwards in time 

to when the well was constructed. The average withdrawal 

value for wells at thermoelectric powerplants during intervals 

8 through 10 (1976–90) is 22.19 Mgal/yr (approximately 0.06 

Mgal/d). This value was assigned as the default groundwater 

withdrawal rate if past withdrawal data for a well were not 

known.
Part 2: State-by-State Descriptions of Water-Use Estimates 41

Figure 9. Miscellaneous groundwater-use estimates in Wisconsin for the Lake Michigan Basin model by time interval 

and A, model subregion, B, aquifer system, and C, aquifer type. Miscellaneous water use in Wisconsin includes 

groundwater withdrawals for aquaculture and thermoelectric power generation. The Jurassic-Mississippian aquifer 

system does not exist in Wisconsin.

TIME INTERVAL AND YEARS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1864–

1900

1901–

1920

1921–

1940

1941–

1950

1951–

1960

1961–

1970

1971–

1975

1976–

1980

1981–

1985

1986–

1990

1991–

2000

2001–

2005

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Shallow unconsolidated material

Shallow bedrock

Deep bedrock

C Aquifer type

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Quaternary

Silurian–Devonian

Cambrian–Ordovician

B Aquifer system

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Northeastern Wisconsin

Southeastern Wisconsin

Wisconsin farfield model area

A Model subregion
42 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

Assumptions and Limitations for Wisconsin 

Miscellaneous Data 

Only facilities meeting the well-selection criteria 

described in the “Industrial Water Use” section are included. 

The groundwater withdrawals compiled and estimated for 

this study include the assumption that estimates provided 

by each facility are reasonably accurate. Estimates prepared 

for this study exclude some water use by miscellaneous 

users that could not be identified. Therefore, these water-use 

estimates likely underestimate actual groundwater usage. The 

high-capacity approval date was used for instances when the 

well-construction date was not known. A single groundwater 

requirement at powerplants or fish hatcheries was applied for 

each record in earlier and later time intervals by using the 

average withdrawal for time intervals 8 through 10 (1976–90), 

even if energy or aquacultural production demands and efficiency standards had changed. All wells identified for miscellaneous water use were assumed to be active through the last 

time interval unless indicated otherwise in the original data 

source.

Michigan

History of Groundwater Management and WaterUse Data Collection in Michigan 

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 

(MDEQ) Water Use Reporting Program has been compiling 

information on water withdrawals for the major water uses 

in the State since 1997. The overall goal of the program is to 

establish an environmental baseline and continuing assessment of the major water uses—also referred to as “sectors” 

in Michigan—including power generation, industrial, irrigation, and public-supply water uses. These water-use data are 

collected to fulfill requirements of the Great Lakes Charter, 

a regional agreement signed by the Great Lakes States and 

Canadian Provinces in 1985, and Michigan’s water-use 

reporting law (Part 327, Great Lakes Preservation, Natural 

Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 Public Act 

451, as amended) (Michigan Department of Environmental 

Quality, 2005a). Registration and reporting requirements are 

based on pump capacity, not actual water withdrawals.

The water-use-reporting protocols established under 

Michigan law vary from sector to sector. Before 1997, only 

public-supply water-use data were collected as required under 

the authority of Part 15 of the Administrative Rules for the 

Michigan Safe Drinking Water Act (1976 Public Act 399, as 

amended) (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2006a). Water-use data for other categories, including 

irrigation and thermoelectric power generation, were collected periodically through intermittent surveys. Since 1997, 

thermoelectric powerplants, self-supplied industrial facilities, 

and irrigated golf courses that have the capacity to withdraw 

water greater than the Great Lakes Charter reporting threshold 

(100,000 gal/d averaged over a 30-day period) have been 

required to report annual withdrawals to the MDEQ. All community public water-supply systems report monthly and/or 

annual water withdrawals. In addition, reported water use may 

be actual amount withdrawn or may be estimated by using 

pump capacities or some other means. Water-use amounts may 

be aggregated by the MDEQ by county or township. Metering 

of the water-withdrawal amounts is more frequently done by 

community public water-supply systems and thermoelectric 

powerplants than by industrial facilities and non-agricultural 

irrigators (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 

2005b). 

The MDEQ has estimated agricultural irrigation withdrawals from 1997 through 2006 by using a computer model 

that utilizes weather, soils, and other resource data, including crop and acreage information reported in the Census 

of Agriculture (Michigan Department of Environmental 

Quality, 2006a). This irrigation-demand model (Jeffrey A. 

Andresen (and others), Michigan State University, written commun., 2000) is based on a 1997 Federal agricultural 

census as a baseline for 1997–2001 water-use estimates and 

a 2002 federal agricultural census as the baseline for 2002–6 

estimates (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 

2006b). Because non-agricultural irrigation water withdrawals 

typically occur from May through September, comparisons 

with other facility types that have more consistent year-round 

pumping may be difficult because the posted values are all 

annualized averages. Comparison of the reported agricultural 

water withdrawals with the 2002 National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) irrigation survey indicates that Michigan 

Department of Agriculture (MDA) reports cover about 70 

percent of the irrigated acres tabulated by NASS, with over 90 

percent of non-agricultural, primarily golf course, groundwater 

users reporting.

Overview of Michigan Data From the Lake 

Michigan Basin Study 

For this report, the Michigan LMB model area consists of 

those counties in Michigan with at least some part within the 

boundaries of the basin, plus Monroe County (fig. 10). Monroe County water use was included in the public-supply and 

industrial category estimates along with the Lake Michigan 

Basin counties because of large groundwater withdrawals for 

industrial use (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2004). From Michigan’s total of 83 counties, water-use 

estimates were determined for public-supply use in 56 counties, for industrial use in 47 counties, for agricultural irrigation 

use in 11 counties, and for golf course irrigation use in 49 

counties (fig. 11). Overall, there were 2,046 withdrawal locations estimated for counties within the Michigan LMB model 

area, and 1,860 locations were active in the last time interval 

(2001–5) for a total withdrawal of 397.72 Mgal/d (table 2). 
Part 2: State-by-State Descriptions of Water-Use Estimates 43

Figure 10. Michigan and Indiana model areas of the Lake Michigan Basin model. (Water-use data vary by category in this 

model area. Refer to figure 11 to identify farfield counties in Michigan with water-use data for each category.)

I L L I N O I S

I N D I A N A

O H I O

W I S C O N S I N

M

I

C

H

I

G

A

N

C A N A D A

EXPLANATION

Model subregions

Northern Indiana

Farfield area with water-use data

Lake Michigan Basin

Nearfield extent

Farfield extent

Northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan

Upper Peninsula of Michigan

Southern Lower Peninsula of Michigan

0 25 50 75 Miles

0 75 Kilometers

L

a

k e M i c

h i g

a

n

L a k e

H u

r

o

n

L a k e S u p e ri o r

Lake

 Erie

Lake

Winnebago

South Bend

Albion

Jackson

Cromwell Kendallville

Avilla

Ligonier

Lansing

90°W 88°W 86°W 84°W

44°N

42°N

46°N
44 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

Figure 11. Michigan counties for which groundwater-use estimates were made for the Lake Michigan Basin model, by category. 

(Shaded counties have water-use estimates.)

Agricultural Irrigation Golf Course Irrigation

Public Supply Industrial
Part 2: State-by-State Descriptions of Water-Use Estimates 45

Information on water resources in Michigan is available 

from many sources, ranging from individual county investigations to statewide summaries. In August 2003, Public Act 148 

was passed by the Michigan Legislature to address groundwater conflicts, to inventory and map Michigan’s groundwater resources, and to create the Groundwater Conservation 

Advisory Council. As part of the inventory of Michigan’s 

groundwater resources, the location and water-yielding capacity of the aquifers in the State were determined. Aquifers in the 

unconsolidated materials tend to be complex and are generally 

extremely heterogeneous. Groundwater is readily available 

from bedrock in the central and southern parts of the Lower 

Peninsula. Lower estimated yields are typical from sandstone 

and carbonate bedrock aquifers in the Upper Peninsula and 

from predominantly carbonate strata in the northern swath of 

the Lower Peninsula and in the southeast corner of the State. 

Some areas of the Lower Peninsula are characterized by shale 

bedrock units that normally do not serve as aquifers, and much 

of the western Upper Peninsula is characterized by hard-rock 

units that produce groundwater only along localized fracture 

traces. The aquifer systems available throughout the Michigan 

LMB model area are the Quaternary, Jurassic-Mississippian, 

Silurian-Devonian, and the Cambrian-Ordovician. In general, 

groundwater development in the Michigan LMB model area 

has occurred in areas of greater groundwater availability, 

which have been where Quaternary deposits of glacial material 

are thick or where bedrock units subcrop beneath the glacial 

deposits. Aquifer-distribution and thickness maps can be found 

in the stratigraphy report for the LMB model (Lampe, 2009).

Well logs collected for this study show that most early 

development was in the central part of the Lower Peninsula 

of Michigan, which corresponds to the northern part of the 

Southern Lower Peninsula subregion and the southern part of 

the Northern Lower Peninsula subregion used in this report. 

Estimated withdrawals for the nearfield model area equal 7.43 

Mgal/d in time interval 1 (1864–1900) and 359.91 Mgal/d in 

interval 12 (2001–5); farfield model area withdrawals equal 

0.63 Mgal/d in interval 1 and 37.81 Mgal/d in interval 12 (table 

2). When evaluating these estimated withdrawals for Michigan, it is important to remember that water-use estimates were 

compiled primarily for counties within the nearfield model 

area and that these estimates do not represent the total amount 

of groundwater withdrawn in Michigan for these categories. 

Farfield estimates compiled for this study are from Monroe 

County and other counties intersected by the nearfield model 

boundary. Estimated withdrawals by nearfield model subregions 

for interval 1 (1864–1900) to interval 12 (2001–5) range from 

7.21 Mgal/d to 306.15 Mgal/d in the Southern Lower Peninsula, 

0.22 Mgal/d to 44.83 Mgal/d in the Northern Lower Peninsula, 

and 0 to 8.94 Mgal/d in the Upper Peninsula (table 3).

Additional analysis was done for farfield counties not 

mentioned above. These farfield counties are located primarily 

along the eastern side of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan and 

to the north in the Upper Peninsula. No withdrawals in Houghton and Keweenaw Counties were included in model datasets 

because wells were outside of the model boundaries. This 

analysis of farfield model area withdrawals was done to quantify withdrawals omitted from model simulations, even though 

such omissions would most likely have little effect on model 

results; most withdrawals are from the unconsolidated material and shallow unconfined bedrock aquifers, so drawdowns in 

these areas are expected to have little influence on the exchange 

of water between the model farfield and nearfield areas (Daniel 

Feinstein, U.S. Geological Survey Wisconsin Water Science 

Center, oral commun., 2008). In interval 12 (2001–5), groundwater withdrawals of 397.72 Mgal/d were reported for counties 

in the Michigan study area, with 285.36 Mgal/d from unconsolidated materials and 112.36 Mgal/d from bedrock aquifers. 

Groundwater withdrawals of 51.23 Mgal/d were reported for 

public-supply, industrial, and golf course uses in 2004 for the 

counties not included in the Lake Michigan Basin analysis, 

with 40.62 Mgal/d from unconsolidated materials, 9.03 Mgal/d 

from bedrock aquifers, and 1.59 Mgal/d from unknown sources. 

Groundwater withdrawals of 35.92 Mgal/d were reported for 

agricultural irrigation uses in 2004 for the counties not included 

in the Lake Michigan Basin analysis; however, the aquifer units 

for these withdrawals were not determined.

Principal Michigan Data Sources

The MDEQ Water Use Reporting Program maintains a 

Web site where groundwater and surface-water withdrawal 

data by county and USGS hydrologic basin are available for 

1997 to 2005 for the public-supply category and for 1997 to 

2004 for the industrial and irrigation categories (Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality, 2005a). As part of 

the groundwater inventory and mapping (GWIM) project, 

the location and pump capacity of all public water-supply 

systems, all registered industrial facilities, and all registered 

non-agricultural irrigation facilities that have the capacity to 

withdraw more than 100,000 gal/d average in any consecutive 30-day period were compiled on the basis of 2003 data 

(Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2006c). The 

information on the GWIM Web site includes groundwater use 

by system with facility location, 2003 groundwater withdrawals, source information, and pump-capacity information with 

selected well-construction details. In addition, the GWIM Web 

site contains water use reported to the Michigan Department of 

Agriculture (MDA) for agricultural producers in the State that 

met water-pump capacity thresholds (70 gal/min) during the 

2004 calendar year. This agricultural water use was required 

to be aggregated by township by Public Act 148. As described 

in subsequent sections, the information on the GWIM Web 

site was used primarily as a source of supplemental withdrawal data that permitted the distribution of county-level data 

proportionally to point locations, as a source of supplemental 

well-construction information, and as a means to determine 

locations for water withdrawals for the industrial and irrigation 

categories. The MDEQ also maintains an extensive electronic 

database of water-well records, Wellogic, which was used for 

additional well-construction information including construction date, depth, and lithologic description.
46 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

Additional water-use data were compiled from previous 

investigations and data-compilation efforts or were estimated 

for this study. If there were water-use data representing 

multiple years within a model time interval, then the average of these data was assigned to the midpoint of the model 

time interval. Groundwater withdrawals were determined for 

the available years of data for those time intervals when the 

well was assumed to be in operation for 3 or more years of 

the interval, and that average was used to represent the entire 

interval; otherwise, no withdrawals were specified. Because of 

the generally sparse historical data available and the uncertainty in knowing the actual date withdrawals were initiated 

(because well-construction information for many wells was 

missing or incomplete), this method helps ensure that withdrawal estimates are reasonable for each time interval. Using a 

zero value for years with unreported data would yield wateruse estimates that would not be representative for facilities 

where a well was suspected to have been in operation but was 

without reported withdrawals for some years. When sufficient 

detailed information was available, water use was estimated 

for each withdrawal location or well; however, in some cases, 

site-specific data were unavailable, and a composite estimate 

was assigned to the facility or to an approximate well-field 

center point.

Population data for communities with public water-supply systems within the selected counties were compiled from 

U.S. Bureau of the Census reports. In the selected counties, at 

least some population data was reported for 231 communities 

from 1880 to 2000. The population data indicate an upward 

trend (fig.12); however, population figures from before 1930 

were unreported for many communities, possibly because they 

had not been incorporated yet. For 1970 until 2000, all 231 

communities except for 1 had reported data for each census 

year. In 1880, population was reported for 144 communities, compared to 231 in 2000. Available data for the selected 

counties in the Michigan Lake Michigan Basin area indicate 

growth in population from 1.8 million people in 1930 to about 

4.3 million people in 2000, an increase of over 133 percent.

Public-Supply Water Use in Michigan

During the mid-1800s, water supply was primarily from 

surface-water sources; however, with increased urbanization 

during the late 1800s, public water-supply systems withdrawing groundwater were developed to supplement private wells. 

The City of Jackson, Jackson County, is one of the oldest 

water-supply systems in the area and supplied potable groundwater in 1880. Within the Michigan Lake Michigan Basin 

area, 51 public water-supply systems were operating prior to 

1900. Surface-water use peaked between 1920 and 1930; after 

1930, some public water-supply systems began using groundwater that was less susceptible to contamination. After 1960, 

surface-water use increased again in areas with inadequate 

groundwater supplies, mostly near large cities that already 

used surface water as their primary source of water (Baltusis 

and others, 1992). Groundwater-withdrawal data indicate an 

upward trend until the late 1960s, after which withdrawals leveled off as surface water became a more important source for 

some public water-supply systems (fig. 13).

For time interval 1 (1864–1900), groundwater-withdrawal data were reported or estimated for 31 utilities, or public water-supply systems, in the Michigan LMB model area. 

Most of the remaining 20 utilities withdrawing surface water 

during the first time interval later switched to groundwater, 

mostly from unconsolidated material sources. For the last time 

interval, groundwater-withdrawal data were available for 796 

utilities in the Michigan LMB model area. For this category, 

initial withdrawals were estimated for combined timespans of 

1971–80 and 1981–90 instead of separate 5-year time periods. 

Later, as these data were incorporated into the groundwaterflow model, withdrawals estimated for 1971–80 were assigned 

to intervals 7 and 8 (1971–75 and 1976–80), and withdrawals 

estimated for 1981–90 were assigned to intervals 9 and 10 

(1981–85 and 1986–90). Each time interval combined both 

reported (from current and historic studies) and estimated data 

except interval 12 (2001–5), which relied on reported data. 

Of the total amount of groundwater withdrawn in 

Michigan for public supply in 2004, about 81 percent was 

withdrawn by counties within the Michigan LMB model area. 

Estimated total groundwater withdrawals by public watersupply systems in the Michigan LMB model area equaled 

8.06 Mgal/d for the first time interval (1864–1900) and 196.98 

Mgal/d for the last interval (2001–5) (table 4). Groundwater 

withdrawals from the Michigan LMB model area are and 

have historically been primarily from the Southern Lower 

Peninsula; withdrawals since 1971 have remained relatively 

constant from each of the model subregions (fig. 14A, appendix 3A). Most public water-supply systems within the Michigan LMB model area withdrew water from a single aquifer 

system; however, some systems that relied on the Quaternary 

aquifer system later added, or switched to, wells that withdraw water from one of the bedrock aquifer systems. Publicsupply groundwater withdrawals have been primarily from the 

Quaternary and the Jurassic-Mississippian aquifer systems, 

whereas few withdrawals have been from the deeper aquifer 

systems (fig. 14B, appendix 3B). Groundwater withdrawals 

from the Quaternary aquifer system show a slight upward 

trend since 1971 (interval 7). Public-supply groundwater withdrawals have also been primarily from unconfined unconsolidated material, followed by shallow unconfined bedrock and 

deep confined bedrock (fig. 14C, appendix 3C). Groundwater 

withdrawals from the deep confined bedrock have remained 

relatively constant since 1971, whereas groundwater withdrawals from the unconfined unconsolidated materials have 

increased slightly and withdrawals from the deep confined 

bedrock have decreased slightly since 1971. 
Part 2: State-by-State Descriptions of Water-Use Estimates 47

Figure 12. Population and number of communities in Michigan counties in the Lake Michigan Basin area.

Figure 13. Michigan groundwater-use estimates for the Lake Michigan Basin model by time interval and 

category. No estimates were determined for industrial use for time intervals 1 to 5 and for irrigation use for 

time intervals 1 to 2. Irrigation estimates for time intervals 6 to 10 include agricultural use only; estimates 

for time intervals 11 and 12 include agricultural and golf course uses. Industrial and irrigation groundwater 

use prior to time interval 11 is estimated and likely does not represent historical trends. Values reflect only a 

partial estimate of water use in Michigan.

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

4,500,000

5,000,000

POPULATION

50

0

100

150

200

250

NUMBER OF COMMUNITIES

YEAR

1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Population

Number of 

communities

0

50

100

150

200

250

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

TIME INTERVAL AND YEARS

GROUNDW

A

TER WITHDRA

W

ALS,

IN

MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

Public supply

Industrial

Irrigation

1864–

1900

1901–

1920

1921–

1940

1941–

1950

1951–

1960

1961–

1970

1971–

1975

1976–

1980

1981–

1985

1986–

1990

1991–

2000

2001–

2005
48 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

Figure 14. Public-supply groundwater-use estimates in Michigan for the Lake Michigan Basin model by time interval and 

A, model subregion, B, aquifer system, and C, aquifer type. Values reflect only a partial estimate of water use in Michigan.

1864–

1900

1901–

1920

1921–

1940

1941–

1950

1951–

1960

1961–

1970

1971–

1975

1976–

1980

1981–

1985

1986–

1990

1991–

2000

2001–

2005

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

TIME INTERVAL AND YEARS

Shallow unconsolidated material

Shallow bedrock

Deep bedrock

C Aquifer type

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Quaternary

Jurassic–Mississippian

Silurian–Devonian

Cambrian–Ordovician

Mixed

B Aquifer system

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Southern Lower Peninsula

Northern Lower Peninsula

Upper Peninsula

Michigan farfield model area

A Model subregion

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
Part 2: State-by-State Descriptions of Water-Use Estimates 49

Additional Michigan Public-Supply Data Sources 

Water withdrawals for public supply were estimated by 

using data from previous reports, former USGS modeling 

water-use datasets, the MDEQ Water Use Reporting Program 

and GWIM Web sites, written communications, and estimated 

per capita use. Some historical groundwater-withdrawal data 

from 1970 to 1990 have been supplied by public water-supply 

systems for annual groundwater-data reports prepared by 

the USGS (Huffman and Thompson, 1971, 1973; Huffman, 

1974a, 1974b, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1979a, 1979b, 1980, 1981, 

1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988; Huffman and Whited, 

1988, 1989, 1991, 1993). Additional data were available from 

previously published reports, including those by the Michigan 

Department of Public Health (1943), the Michigan Department 

of Health (1961), Bedell (1982), Baltusis and others (1992), 

Holtschlag and others (1996), Luukkonen and Westjohn 

(2001), and Luukkonen and others (2004). Some additional 

withdrawal information was available from written communications by Mark Breithart (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 1995) and Ron Van Til (Michigan Department 

of Environmental Quality, 1995, 2004) or was compiled from 

survey forms received from individual public water-supply 

systems in 1992.

Reported geologic information, along with the well 

depth, primarily came from the Wellogic database and was 

used with data from previous studies and reports to determine 

the hydrologic unit where withdrawals came from. For those 

utilities with missing or incomplete well-log data, an effort 

was made to locate data via the GWIM Web site; wells near 

the reported utility’s withdrawal location were inspected to 

determine whether there was a match to any other wells with 

the same owner, operator name, or well address field. These 

data sources often included well-construction dates, which 

were helpful for determining when the well became active. 

Altogether, there were 852 public water-supply systems relying on groundwater with withdrawal estimates determined for 

1,041 well, well-field, or utility locations.

Estimation Methods for Michigan Public-Supply 

Withdrawals

Water-use estimates for each public water-supply system 

for time intervals with available withdrawal data were calculated by averaging the reported data in each interval. These are 

considered estimates for each water-supply system because 

complete data for each year were not available for any of the 

intervals. 

For time intervals with no reported withdrawal data, 

water-use estimates were based on estimated per capita use 

and population. Per capita use was calculated for the time 

intervals with reported data as follows: 

• An average withdrawal per year for each community 

was calculated for each year of available data. 

• An average population was determined for each timeinterval midpoint by using the population data as 

reported by the census for each decade. 

• This average withdrawal was then divided by the average population to produce a per capita use rate. 

The per capita use estimates tended to vary between the communities and among the time intervals (fig. 15) in response to 

short-term economic changes, changes associated with local 

population changes, and reported source changes (Baltusis and 

others, 1992). Over all time intervals and communities, estimated per capita use ranges from 0.7 to 1,305 gal/d per person 

and averages 148 gal/d per person. Small per capita use rates 

likely represent public water-supply systems that supply water 

almost exclusively for residential use; larger per capita use 

rates likely represent public water-supply systems that supply 

water for many uses, such as residential, commercial, industrial, and/or thermoelectric power generation. For each community, an average per capita use was computed to represent 

those time intervals with no available withdrawal data, using 

adjacent intervals for which estimated values were available. 

This per capita use rate was multiplied by the average population for each time-interval midpoint to determine the publicsupply water-use estimate. This rate was assigned to the community or well-field location for those water-supply systems 

with incomplete well data or was divided equally between 

all possible wells assigned to each community. In only a few 

cases does a water-supply system’s well field extend over multiple model cells; therefore, assignment of water-use estimates 

to the water-supply system or well-field location produces the 

same net effect on model simulations, assuming withdrawals 

are from the same layer. In those cases where well data were 

incomplete but where withdrawals were determined to come 

from multiple cells or multiple layers within the same cell, 

water-use estimates were applied to the appropriate cells and 

layers so that model input data would represent system withdrawal depths. A withdrawal amount was estimated for each 

decade with a reported population count. 

The initial start date for pumping in each community was 

determined by the well-construction date or from information 

in available reports. Water-use estimates were specified for 

each time interval beginning with the interval when the well 

was installed. Withdrawal amounts were estimated from the 

trend observed for the more recent intervals for which reported 

data were available. If no well data were available, as was 

the case for some schools and mobile home parks, withdrawals were estimated back to time interval 9 (1981–85). No 

water-use estimates were specified before interval 9 for these 

types of facilities because, in the absence of well-log data, no 

information was available to determine when withdrawals had 

begun. 
50 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

Assumptions and Limitations of Michigan Public-Supply 

Data

The groundwater withdrawals compiled and estimated for 

this study include the assumption that estimates furnished by 

each utility are accurate, reliable, and consistent from year to 

year. Estimates for each year also are based on the assumption 

that the location of withdrawals and sources did not change over 

time unless reported otherwise. Estimates were determined for 

utilities listed as water-supply systems in 2003. Therefore, the 

estimates prepared for this study could be missing water use 

by communities that were not listed in 2003 and that withdrew water and then ceased operations or changed to surface 

water or a purchased source. Only those utilities that met the 

reporting-capacity threshold are included in the data reported 

Figure 15. Public-supply per capita water use in the nearfield model area of Michigan, 1869–2004.

for 1997–2005; therefore, these water-use estimates likely 

underestimate actual groundwater usage. For those water-supply 

systems without individual well data, estimates are based on the

assumption that the utility location is near the actual well field 

and is thus representative of the withdrawal location and that 

any supplemental information available accurately identifies 

the aquifer from which water is withdrawn. Water-use estimates 

prepared for 1971–1980 and 1981–90 are assumed to be representative of withdrawals for the 5-year intervals in intervals 

7 through 10. Impacts from withdrawals outside the Michigan 

LMB model area that were not included in this compilation are 

expected to be small and inconsequential to the water levels in 

the nearfield model area or primary area of interest in the basin. 

However, these withdrawals could affect inset-model results if 

any local models are placed in this area.

x

xxx

x

x

xx

x

xx

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

xx

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

77

26

98 86

57

98

92

68

99 90

69

97 119

66

169

123

81

192

152

108

209

145

111

193

149

110

203

128

107

177

8 51 52 173 90 127 190 178 146 207

127

EXPLANATION

Total number of values

75th Percentile

25th Percentile

Median

x Outside value

Largest value less (>1.5 × IQR)

than1.5 × IQR

IQR, interquartile range, is the 

distance between 75th 

and 25th percentiles

Smallest value 

{

x Outside value

(<1.5 × IQR)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

PER CAPITA WATER USE, IN GALLONS PER DAY PER PERSON 

(1864−1900) (1901−1920) (1921−1940) (1941−1950) (1951−1960) (1961−1970) (1971−1980) (1981−1990) (1991−2000) (2001−2004)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7−8 9−10 11 12

TIME INTERVAL AND YEARS 
Part 2: State-by-State Descriptions of Water-Use Estimates 51

model time intervals prior to interval 6 (1961–70) because of 

the absence of data about groundwater-withdrawal amounts 

and locations and the years of operation of various industries 

(table 4). Available data from 1997 to 2004 indicate that most 

industrial facilities are publicly supplied (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2006b) and that the majority 

of self-supplied industrial withdrawals are from surface water; 

therefore, it is possible that groundwater withdrawals prior to 

1960 were small. 

For this category, withdrawals were estimated for each 

time interval after 1960, intervals 6 through 12. Groundwater use for interval 6 was estimated for 14 facilities with 

available well-log data in the area. For interval 12 (2001–5), 

groundwater-withdrawal data were available for 198 facilities 

in the Michigan LMB model area. Estimated total industrial 

withdrawals in the Michigan LMB model area equaled 21.47 

Mgal/d for interval 6 (1961–70) and 89.36 Mgal/d for interval 

12 (2001–5) (table 4). Some water withdrawn for industrial 

use in the LMB model area is released to nearby wetland 

areas, lakes, or rivers to recharge the groundwater system 

after being used for noncontact cooling purposes (table 10). 

For the purposes of this report, however, total withdrawals 

listed in tables in this report do not reflect a subtraction of 

any amounts that might be used to recharge the groundwater 

system. No withdrawals were estimated for commercial use, 

owing to a lack of data on withdrawal amounts and uncertainty 

in whether the water was publicly supplied or self-supplied; 

however, some facilities classified as industrial in Michigan 

may be considered as a commercial type in other states.

About 98 percent of the groundwater withdrawn for 

self-supplied industrial uses in 2004 in Michigan was withdrawn by counties in the LMB model area. For the last two 

time intervals, groundwater withdrawals from the Michigan 

LMB model area were primarily from the Southern Lower 

Peninsula. Withdrawals from the Northern Lower Peninsula 

and the farfield model area were about equal, and withdrawals from the Upper Peninsula were relatively minor (fig. 16A, 

appendix 3A). Withdrawals before 1990 were estimated for 

facilities primarily in the Southern Lower Peninsula, owing 

to the relative lack of well-log data or knowledge of the years 

of operation of industrial facilities. Withdrawal estimates in 

the farfield model area consist almost entirely of data from 

industrial users in Monroe County and likely do not represent 

actual historical regional trends for the area of Michigan that 

is outside the LMB nearfield model area. For the last two time 

intervals, industrial groundwater withdrawals were primarily from the Quaternary aquifer system, with a somewhat 

The population estimates compiled from U.S. Bureau 

of the Census reports also are assumed to be accurate and 

collected in a consistent manner each census year. Water use 

estimated by means of population data includes the assumption that population data were accurately recorded and 

published by census at the same time the water-supply system 

began supplying customers and, likewise, that withdrawals 

were initiated when a well was installed. Water use estimated 

from per capita use includes the assumption that all people 

residing in the community were supplied by the public watersupply system and that no areas outside of the community 

were supplied by the same water system. Thus, these estimates 

could be missing water withdrawn by one water-supply system 

and sold to another and could be overestimating withdrawals 

if only part of the community is served by the water-supply 

system. Water-use estimates calculated from per capita values 

are based on the assumption that the proportion of residential 

versus other uses is the same for each time interval for each 

community. Therefore, these public-supply water-use estimates could be missing water distributed for publicly supplied 

industrial or other uses before 1985 or could be overestimating 

withdrawals in areas where industrial facilities ceased operation during the time interval. 

Industrial Water Use in Michigan

At the national level, the Great Lakes Region withdraws the largest volume of water for self-supplied industrial 

purposes, with a relatively small number of facilities accounting for the majority of withdrawals (Michigan Department of 

Environmental Quality, 2004). Increasingly, however, process water is being recycled or recirculated, reducing water 

withdrawals in some manufacturing sectors. In 2004, about 

62 percent of Michigan’s industrial self-supplied groundwater 

withdrawals were for chemicals and allied products, mining and quarrying, and food and kindred products (Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality, 2004). 

Unfortunately, historical data on amounts of water 

withdrawn for industrial uses are sparse in Michigan. Census of Manufacturing data were available (for example, U.S. 

Department of Commerce–Bureau of the Census, 1982, 1992); 

however, the relationship between the number of manufacturing establishments and water use is unclear and likely has 

changed over time. The percentage of the total number of 

manufacturing establishments that are self-supplied and withdraw groundwater is unknown and also has likely changed 

over time. Therefore, withdrawals were not estimated for 

Table 10. Estimated amount of groundwater withdrawn for industrial use in part of Michigan that is released to recharge the groundwater 

system. 

[Withdrawals are in million gallons per day; --, estimate not determined]

Time interval

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1864–1900 1901–20 1921–40 1941–50 1951–60 1961–70 1971–75 1976–80 1981–85 1986–90 1991–2000 2001–5

Estimated discharge water -- -- -- -- -- 7.85 5.73 5.76 6.6 7.45 8.18 10.14
52 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

Figure 16. Industrial groundwater-use estimates in Michigan for the Lake Michigan Basin model by time 

interval and A, model subregion, B, aquifer system, and C, aquifer type. Groundwater use for time intervals 6 to 

10 is estimated and likely does not represent historical trends. Groundwater use was not estimated prior to time 

interval 6 because of the absence of data on withdrawal amounts and locations and on the years of operation of 

various industries. Values reflect only a partial estimate of water use in Michigan.

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

TIME INTERVAL AND YEARS

1864–

1900

1901–

1920

1921–

1940

1941–

1950

1951–

1960

1961–

1970

1971–

1975

1976–

1980

1981–

1985

1986–

1990

1991–

2000

2001–

2005

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Shallow unconsolidated material

Shallow bedrock

Deep bedrock

C Aquifer type

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Quaternary

Jurassic–Mississippian

Silurian–Devonian

Cambrian–Ordovician

B Aquifer system

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Southern Lower Peninsula

Northern Lower Peninsula

Upper Peninsula

Michigan farfield model area

A Model subregion

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
Part 2: State-by-State Descriptions of Water-Use Estimates 53

lesser amount from the Silurian-Devonian aquifer system. 

Few withdrawals were from the Jurassic-Mississippian and 

Cambrian-Ordovician systems (fig. 16B, appendix 3B). For 

the last two time intervals, industrial groundwater withdrawals 

also were primarily from unconfined unconsolidated materials (fig. 16C, appendix 3C). Groundwater withdrawals before 

1990 were estimated and may not represent the actual aquifer 

proportions.

Additional Michigan Industrial Data Sources

Water withdrawals for industrial use were estimated 

by using data from previous reports, the MDEQ Water-Use 

Reporting Program and GWIM Web sites, and the Wellogic 

database. During 1996–97, the MDEQ conducted a comprehensive survey to determine what proportion of the State’s 

17,000 manufacturing facilities are self-supplied, as opposed 

to receiving water from a public water-supply system. Survey 

results indicated that nearly 90 percent of the manufacturing 

facilities received water from a public water-supply system. 

Of the remaining self-supplied facilities, nearly 400 had the 

capacity for water withdrawals greater than the reporting 

threshold. The MDEQ receives water-withdrawal information 

from over 90 percent of these self-supplied facilities. Waterwithdrawal information is available by county for industrial 

water use starting in 1997 and continuing through 2004, the 

most recent year that data were available during this study 

(Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2004), 

whereas withdrawal data by facility (and not by well) were 

available for 2003 (Michigan Department of Environmental 

Quality, 2006c).

Estimation Methods for Michigan Industrial Withdrawals

The industrial water-use estimation method for Michigan was based largely on available withdrawal data for time 

intervals 11 and 12 (1991–2000 and 2001–5). For each 

county, the 2003 withdrawal data by facility were used to 

calculate the proportion of the county withdrawals for 2003. 

This proportion of withdrawals for 2003 by facility was then 

used to determine the facility withdrawals for other years that 

have withdrawal data by county. The reported data for 2003 

included only the withdrawal location and no information 

about the well depth or aquifer. To determine the well depth 

and aquifer and to estimate the date withdrawals were initiated, the 2003 locational information was used to determine 

the closest well from the Wellogic database. For some facilities, multiple wells in the area were examined because of 

incomplete well-log data reporting. For facilities where the 

well-log data were incomplete, well depths and aquifer assignments were determined from information associated with 

nearby wells. The well-construction date was used to determine when pumping was initiated for the facility. Withdrawals 

before 1991 were estimated by using the trend observed from 

1997 through 2004 and were estimated for each time interval 

back to the well-installation date for those locations for which 

a well was within 500 ft of the industrial withdrawal location. 

For those industrial withdrawal locations for which all local 

wells were greater than 500 ft away, no withdrawals were 

estimated for time intervals before 1991. Therefore, industrial 

data estimated for this study indicate smaller withdrawals 

before 1985, but this result is an artifact of the estimation 

method and lack of data—it is not indicative of actual withdrawal trends (fig. 13). For example, the estimated withdrawal 

for interval 9 (1981–85) of 29.64 Mgal/d is only about half 

the reported withdrawal for 1982 of about 61 Mgal/d in 

“Water Use in Manufacturing” (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1982). Although these data are not directly comparable 

because the manufacturing census reported withdrawal is for 

all of Michigan, this comparison does illustrate that the modelestimated values are likely low for early intervals. However, 

early withdrawals for several counties with large withdrawals 

are accounted for, and missing withdrawals are likely small 

or widely dispersed and likely would have little impact on 

groundwater-flow-model water levels.

Assumptions and Limitations of Michigan Industrial Data 

The groundwater withdrawals compiled and estimated 

for industrial use in the Michigan LMB model area include 

the assumption that estimates furnished by each facility are 

accurate, reliable, and consistent from year to year. Estimates 

determined for industrial facilities were based on 2003 locational information, and these locations were assumed to be 

accurate and inclusive of all or most industrial self-supplied 

locations. Only those facilities that meet the reporting-capacity 

threshold and were self-supplied were included in the data 

reported for 1997–2004. Because the majority of industries in 

Michigan are publicly supplied, most water withdrawals for 

industrial use already have been included in the public-supply 

category. A few estimates of water withdrawals for industrial water use were available from historical reports. These 

estimates typically were for local areas; however, some were 

more regional and likely included withdrawal data already 

incorporated for this study. These early reports did not give 

enough identifying information to easily locate the facility or 

to determine the source of water. Additionally, no information is available on when withdrawals were initiated or how 

long withdrawals occurred, so most of these data could not 

be included in this study, and no estimates for those facilities 

were derived for this study. Therefore, estimated industrial 

withdrawals before 1985 likely underestimate actual historical 

withdrawals because of a lack of data; thus, the trend shown 

for these data is not indicative of historical industrial withdrawals in the Michigan LMB model area.

Because the reported data for 2003 did not include individual well data, the estimated aquifer information is assumed 

to be approximated correctly by using local nearby wells. 

Likewise, the estimated data are based on the assumption that 

pumping began when the well was installed and that pumping follows the trends reported for 1997–2004. Estimates for 

each year also are based on the assumption that the withdrawal 

location and sources did not change over time and that the 
54 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

cemeteries, facility lawns, golf courses, or other uses. In addition, owner information is sometimes incomplete, or facilities 

are listed under the owner name with no mention of the facility. Of the approximately 4,000 well logs identified as for irrigation, only 95 listed a golf course or country club as the well 

owner, with the earliest well-log dated 1967. Because of the 

uncertainty in associating withdrawal data from 1997–2004 

with an irrigation well and the lack of information on the golf 

course size or number of irrigated acres, no golf course withdrawals were estimated for time intervals before 1991 (interval 

11). Withdrawals for golf course use were likely small before 

1990 and probably had only a local impact on water levels. 

For intervals 11 (1991–2000) and 12 (2001–5), groundwateruse data were estimated for 210 golf course facilities, primarily in counties in the Michigan LMB model area. 

Estimated irrigation withdrawals in the Michigan LMB 

model area equal 0.08 Mgal/d for interval 3 (1921–40) and 

111.38 Mgal/d for interval 12 (2001–5) (table 4). These 

withdrawals are exclusively for agricultural uses in intervals 

3 through 10 (1921–1990) and combine agricultural and golf 

course uses for intervals 11 and 12 (1991–2005). Estimated 

withdrawals for agricultural uses account for over 85 percent 

of the total irrigation withdrawals for intervals 11 and 12. 

Groundwater withdrawals for agricultural irrigation were estimated exclusively for selected counties in the Southern Lower 

Peninsula, and groundwater withdrawals for golf course irrigation were estimated for the Lake Michigan Basin and several 

adjacent counties for the last two time intervals. Irrigation 

withdrawals are primarily from the Southern Lower Peninsula, with only minor withdrawals from the Northern Lower 

Peninsula and farfield model area in the last two time intervals 

(fig. 17A, appendix 3A). About 71 percent of the groundwater 

withdrawn for golf course irrigation and 79 percent of the 

groundwater withdrawn for agricultural irrigation in Michigan 

was withdrawn by those counties for which data were estimated in the LMB model area. Irrigation groundwater withdrawals were primarily from the Quaternary aquifer system; 

few withdrawals were from the deeper Jurassic-Mississippian, 

Silurian-Devonian, and Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer systems 

(fig. 17B, appendix 3B). Irrigation groundwater withdrawals 

were primarily from unconfined unconsolidated material (fig. 

17C, appendix 3C). Very few irrigation withdrawals were from 

deep confined bedrock wells.

Additional Michigan Irrigation Data Sources 

Water-use estimates for agricultural irrigation in Michigan were determined for time intervals 3 to 10 (1921–90) by 

using data from published Census of Agriculture reports, an 

irrigation scheduler model, and records maintained by the 

MDEQ for 11 Michigan counties within the Lake Michigan Basin. Water withdrawals for agricultural irrigation for 

intervals 11 and 12 (1991–2005) were estimated from data for 

1997–2004 (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2005a). Water-use estimates for golf course irrigation for 

intervals 11 and 12 (1991–2005) were estimated from data for 

proportions can be approximated as described above. Withdrawals that occur within the farfield model area were, for 

the most part, not included in this compilation, although the 

impact of these is expected to be small and to have little effect 

on water levels in the LMB nearfield model area. However, 

these omissions could affect inset-model results if any local 

models are placed in this area.

Irrigation Water Use in Michigan

In Michigan, irrigation water uses include withdrawals 

for agriculture and golf courses. Agriculture is a major contributor to Michigan’s economy even though many changes 

in non-farm factors, technology, and economic conditions 

have affected Michigan farms over time. From 1950 to 1987, 

the number of farms generally declined whereas overall farm 

size increased. However, with the decrease in total farmland, 

the percentage of irrigated land increased over the same time 

period (Michigan State University Extension, 1998). The 

artificial application of irrigation water to crops is widely 

practiced in Michigan and permits growers to have greater 

control over the timing and amount of water applied throughout the growing season (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2006b). The artificial application of irrigation 

water to golf courses permits the maintenance of healthy turf 

grasses and improves the recreational value of golf course 

lands (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 

2006d). Irrigation water use can vary considerably in response 

to weather conditions, the availability of adequate water supplies, and basic management decisions made by irrigators, in 

addition to water needs of specific crop types or golf course 

characteristics. 

The availability of agricultural census and precipitation 

data, along with crop moisture requirements, allows for estimation of historical agricultural irrigation water use; however, 

historical data on water withdrawal amounts for golf course 

irrigation were unavailable. Irrigation water-use estimates for 

the Michigan part of the LMB model area were calculated 

differently for these two types of irrigation uses. Agriculture 

water-use estimates were determined only for those counties with the largest groundwater withdrawals because of the 

complexity of the estimation method. Groundwater withdrawals in the following 11 counties accounted for 79 percent of 

total agricultural irrigation-water withdrawals in Michigan in 

2004: Allegan, Berrien, Branch, Calhoun, Cass, Kalamazoo, 

Kent, Montcalm, Ottawa, St. Joseph, and Van Buren (figs. 10 

and 11). Withdrawals in counties other than those listed above 

are expected to have only a local impact on water levels. 

Because of a lack of data on withdrawal amounts or locations, 

no withdrawals were estimated for time intervals before 1920 

(interval 3) for agricultural use. For interval 3 to interval 12 

(1921–2005), agricultural groundwater-use data were estimated for 11 counties in the LMB model area. 

Well logs are coded for well type, including irrigation, 

but the type of facility or the way the well is used is not specified. Therefore, irrigation wells could be for farms, nurseries, 
Part 2: State-by-State Descriptions of Water-Use Estimates 55

Figure 17. Irrigation groundwater-use estimates in Michigan for the Lake Michigan Basin model by time interval and A, model 

subregion, B, aquifer system, and C, aquifer type. Groundwater use for time intervals 3 to 10 is estimated and likely does not represent 

historical trends. Groundwater use was not estimated for agricultural irrigation prior to time interval 3 or for golf course irrigation prior 

to time interval 11 because of a lack of data. Therefore, estimates for time intervals 3 to 10 include agricultural use only; estimates for 

time intervals 11 and 12 include agricultural and golf course uses. Values reflect only a partial estimate of water use in Michigan.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

TIME INTERVAL AND YEARS

1864–

1900

1901–

1920

1921–

1940

1941–

1950

1951–

1960

1961–

1970

1971–

1975

1976–

1980

1981–

1985

1986–

1990

1991–

2000

2001–

2005

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Shallow unconsolidated material

Shallow bedrock

Deep bedrock

C Aquifer type

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Quaternary

Jurassic–Mississippian

Silurian–Devonian

Cambrian–Ordovician

Mixed

B Aquifer system

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Southern Lower Peninsula

Northern Lower Peninsula

Upper Peninsula

Michigan farfield model area

A Model subregion
56 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

1997–2004 from the MDEQ Water-Use Reporting Program 

(Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2005a) and 

GWIM Web sites (Michigan Department of Environmental 

Quality, 2006c) and the Wellogic database. 

Census of Agriculture farm and crop data (U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of the Census, 1927, 1932, 1942, 

1946, 1952, 1956, 1961, 1967, 1971, 1977, 1982, 1984, 1990) 

were entered into a spreadsheet database for selected Michigan counties within the Lake Michigan Basin. Farm data were 

presented in units of acres and included the area of all land in 

farms, cropland, pastureland, woodland not used for pasture, 

all other land in farms, and irrigated land (which was reported 

as a single number representing both cropland and pastureland 

combined). Irrigated land was not reported for censuses before 

1940. Crop data also were presented in acres, and only crop 

types used for the irrigation scheduling program were entered 

into the spreadsheet database. Because the census reports 

included data from the previous census year, values for both 

census years from each report were input to ensure data quality. All differences between census reports were explored and 

noted or corrected. Overall, for each county, acreage irrigated 

appears to have increased over time even as total acreage of 

cropland decreased over time.

The Census of Agriculture data are reported by county; 

therefore, a method was needed to distribute the estimated 

agricultural withdrawals within each county. Large-scale 

survey section maps for the 11 focus counties were printed 

and compared against aerial photograph indexes for the 1938, 

1955, 1967, 1974, 1981, and 1992 or 1998 photograph years. 

Each survey section covered an approximately 1-mi2 area and 

was noted as being either predominantly agricultural or not 

during each of the photograph years. Information on these 

areas that were delineated as likely being agricultural was 

input later into a GIS so it could be used when determining the 

geographic areas where irrigation-withdrawal estimates could 

best be concentrated. It was noted that, over time, the same 

decrease in total cropland reported in the Census of Agriculture also was apparent in the photograph data.

In order to determine the amount of water needed to 

produce the crops reported in the Census of Agriculture, an 

irrigation scheduling program was used. This program was 

developed through the Agricultural Engineering Department 

at Michigan State University (MSU) (Shayya and Bralts, 

1994) and is run as a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet macro. This 

program uses crop type, the crop emergence date, length of 

the growing season, soil type, and climate data (temperature 

and precipitation) to estimate the amount of water (in inches) 

needed for a particular crop and the appropriate schedule for 

when a field would need to be irrigated. For this study, determining when to irrigate was not the focus; rather, the emphasis 

was on the total volume of water that was applied over the 

growing season (and later distributed annually for the model 

datasets). 

Crop types that can be modeled with the irrigation scheduling program are corn, potatoes, soybeans, dry edible beans, 

and alfalfa. The emergence date and length of the growing 

season depend on the crop type. The dates and growing season 

lengths used were based on average climate conditions and 

agricultural practices (table 11; Steve Miller, Michigan State 

University Department of Agricultural Engineering, oral commun., August 2007). Knowledge of the crop type also was 

translated into the crop profile effective rooting depth (table 

12) and into the minimum soil moisture content (also referred 

to as the maximum allowable depletion; table 13). The crop 

profile effective rooting depth for corn was also used for 

alfalfa because of similarities in the rooting structure between 

the two plants (Joe Duris, U.S. Geological Survey Michigan 

Water Science Center, oral commun., August 2007). The 

irrigation scheduling program uses the data described above 

to estimate the soil water that would be available in the crop 

root zone for the particular time period being estimated. As 

the growing season progresses, the program accounts for the 

increasing root depth in computing the estimate of crop water 

demand.

Table 11. Emergence dates and length of growing season 

used in the irrigation scheduling program.

Crop type Emergence date Length of growing 

season (days)

Corn............................... May 15 120

Potatoes.......................... June 1 70

Soy beans....................... June 1 120

Dry beans....................... June 1 120

Alfalfa............................ May 1 120

Table 12. Effective rooting depth, by crop, provided as 

defaults used in the irrigation-scheduling program.

Crop type Effective rooting depth (feet)

Corn............................................. 2.5 to 4

Potatoes........................................ 1.5 to 2

Soy beans..................................... 1.5 to 2

Dry beans..................................... 1 to 2

Turfgrass...................................... 0.5 to 1.5

Table 13. Maximum allowable depletion, by crop type.

 [From Bauder and Carlson, 2005]

Crop type Depletion allowance 

(percent)

Alfalfa.......................................... 65

Potatoes or corn........................... 40

Beans............................................ 40
Part 2: State-by-State Descriptions of Water-Use Estimates 57

The soil types used in the program were determined 

by using the 1:250,000 State Soil Geographic database 

(STATSGO) published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (1994), and were translated 

into default values for the available soil moisture (table 14). 

By using a GIS, soil data, and the previously described aerial 

photo survey sections, areas of interest were analyzed to 

account for the changing acreage of cropland and the distribution of cropland across each county along with soil type. For 

the irrigation scheduler program, only the two primary soil 

types were included in the analysis if they represented at least 

80 percent of the total agricultural land. If the combined two 

soil types represented less than 80 percent of the total agricultural land, the third most prevalent soil type was included in 

the analysis. 

Climate data were downloaded from the National Climatic Data Center (2005) for each of the 11 focus counties. 

These data included temperature (as minimum, maximum, 

and observed, in degrees Fahrenheit) and precipitation (as 

hundredths of inches) at selected climate observation stations. These observation locations and the period of record 

available varied from county to county. A description of the 

observations that were used is presented in table 15. Observed 

temperature data were missing for the 1930, 1940, 1945, 1950, 

and 1955 census years for Calhoun County and for all census 

years in Kent County. The average of the minimum and maximum temperatures for each day for each of these two counties 

within these years was used in place of the observed temperature data. Additionally, because of a gap in climate data for 

Kent County for 1930, 1935, and 1940, irrigation models were 

not run for these model years.

Estimation Methods for Michigan Agricultural Irrigation 

Withdrawals

The approach described above resulted in just greater 

than 1,700 irrigation estimates for each different combination 

of county, crop and soil type, and census date. Each model 

run within the irrigation scheduling program resulted in a total 

irrigation estimate in inches of water that was applied over the 

growing season. To convert inches of water applied onto the 

irrigated acres reported in the Census of Agriculture into withdrawal units of million gallons per day, the equation displayed 

below was used:

Irrigation

applied

inches

Length of

growing

season days

Are

( )

( )

×

a of

soil type

acres

Total soil

area

acres

× Crop area acre ( s

Total irrigated

area acres

Total crop

area acres

) ( )

( )

×























× ( )

( )

  −

×

27 154

1

1

1 000 000

,

, ,

gallons

acres

inch

Mgal

 gallons

= Total irrigation applied Mgal d ( / )

Table 14. Default values for the available soil moisture for 

various soils used in the irrigation-scheduling program.

Soil type Soil moisture 

(inches per foot)

Sand................................................... 0.5

Loamy sand....................................... 1

Sandy loam........................................ 1.5

Loam.................................................. 2

Silt and clay loam (including sandy 

clay loam)...................................... 2.5

Clay.................................................... 2

These estimates were averaged for the census years corresponding to the time intervals used in the LMB model. Irrigation water use was estimated for each growing season, which 

was approximately a 70- to 120-day period. No water was 

withdrawn for irrigation during the other months of the year. 

However, in order to represent these estimates of irrigation 

water use as an annual rate assuming steady year-round pumping and to account for possible years in which the modeled 

crop type was not grown due to crop rotations, each seasonal 

daily estimate was divided by 4 to get a representative annual 

daily rate (presuming there are 4 seasons in the year). Table 16 

outlines the irrigation-estimate years and the aerial-photograph 

years (used in determining where to distribute the irrigation estimate across each county) matched to the model time 

intervals.

For the 11 counties in this analysis, well data stored 

within the Wellogic database were extracted. Within the 

extraction, the oldest well dates from 1954, whereas irrigated 

acres have been reported in the Census of Agriculture since 

1940. Also, because the true distribution of irrigated acres 

across each county is unknown, agricultural survey sections 

identified through aerial photographs were used. Working 

county by county with a GIS, the LMB model finite-difference 

grid was overlaid against the agricultural survey sections by 

year, and the intersecting centroids of the grid cells were identified. Because this produced far more points than needed, the 

ratio of total irrigated acres versus the total acres of cropland 

reported was used to scale down the number of points used. 
58 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

Working through each time interval, points were selected on 

the basis of their proximity to actual irrigation-well locations 

(regardless of construction year, though priority was placed on 

the oldest wells). The irrigation estimate was assigned to each 

point for the interval being reviewed, and the nearby irrigation-well characteristics (well depth, casing depth, screened 

interval, well lithology of either unconsolidated materials 

or bedrock, and surface elevation) also were applied to each 

point. If no irrigation wells were within a 1-mi radius of the 

point (approximated from the survey sections), the characteristics from a nearby domestic well were applied. If there 

were several wells to choose from, then the characteristics 

that best resembled the closest irrigation well were used. In all 

cases, the corresponding well identification number also was 

Table 15. County and climate-observation station name and time period of temperature and precipitation data used in the irrigationscheduling program. 

[Data from the National Climatic Data Center, 2005; -- data not available]

County Climate-observation 

station name

Temperature

Precipitation Minimum Maximum Observed

Allegan Allegan 5 NE May 1, 1910–

Sept. 30, 1987

May 1, 1910–

Sept. 30, 1987

May 1, 1925–

Sept. 30, 1987

May 1, 1910–

Sept 30. 1987

Berrien Eau Claire 4 NE May 1, 1925–

Sept. 30, 1987

May 1, 1925– 

Sept. 30, 1987

May 1, 1925–

Sept. 30, 1987

May 1, 1925–

Sept. 30, 1987

Branch Coldwater Street School May 1, 1910–

Sept. 30, 1987

May 1, 1910–

Sept. 30, 1987

May 1, 1910–

Sept. 30, 1987

May 1, 1910–

Sept. 30, 1987

Calhoun Albion May 1, 1930–

Sept. 30, 1930

May 1, 1930–

July 30, 1930

-- May 1, 1920–

Sept. 30, 1987

Calhoun Battle Creek Kellog GAP May 1, 1930–

Sept. 30, 1955

May 1, 1930–

Sept. 30, 1955

May 1, 1960–

Sept. 30, 1960

May 1, 1920–

Sept. 30, 1960

Calhoun Battle Creek 5 NW -- -- May 1, 1965–

Sept. 30, 1987

May 1, 1965– 

Sept. 30, 1987

Cass Dowagiac 2 E May 1, 1940–

Sept. 30, 1950

May 1, 1940–

Sept. 30, 1950

May 1, 1940–

Sept. 30, 1950

May 1, 1940–

Sept. 30, 1950

Cass Dowagiac 1 W May 1, 1955–

Sept. 30, 1987

May 1, 1955–

Sept. 30, 1987

May 1, 1955–

Sept. 30, 1987

May 1, 1955–

Sept. 30, 1987

Kalamazoo Kalamazoo State Hospital May 1, 1910–

Sept. 30, 1987

May 1, 1910–

Sept. 30, 1987

May 1, 1910–

Sept. 30, 1987

May 1, 1910–

Sept. 30, 1987

Kent Grand Rapids Aug. 1, 1945–

Sept. 30, 1987

Aug. 1, 1945–

Sept. 30, 1987

-- Aug. 1, 1945–

Sept. 30, 1987

Kent Kent City 2 SW May 1, 1935–

Sept. 30, 1935

-- -- May 1, 1930–

Sept. 30, 1987

Montcalm Greenville 2 NNE May 1, 1920–

Sept. 30, 1987

May 1, 1920–

Sept. 30, 1987

May 1, 1920–

Sept. 30, 1987

May 1, 1920–

Sept. 30, 1987

Ottawa Grand Haven Fire 

Department

May 1, 1935–

Sept. 30, 1987

May 1, 1935–

Sept. 30, 1987

May 1, 1940–

Sept. 30, 1982

May 1, 1935–

Sept. 30, 1987

St. Joseph Three Rivers May 1, 1930–

Sept. 30, 1987

May 1, 1930–

Sept. 30, 1987

May 1, 1930–

Sept. 30, 1987

May 1, 1930–

Sept. 30, 1987

Van Buren South Haven May 1, 1910–

Sept. 30, 1987

May 1, 1910–

Sept. 30, 1987

May 1, 1910–

Sept. 30, 1987

May 1, 1910–

Sept. 30, 1987

assigned to each point so that this assignment could be traced 

back to the original well file. Every effort was made to ensure 

that well characteristics were not applied to more than one grid 

centroid within each time interval. However, the well characteristics were moved to a different centroid if the cell that was 

originally used ceased at some time to be agricultural. 

Irrigation water use for intervals 11 and 12 (1991–2000 

and 2001–5) was not determined by using the irrigation 

scheduling program because these estimates already were 

available directly from the MDEQ (2006b). However, the 

process described above was used to assign these estimates 

to the centroid points used. Because these values represented 

the irrigation total directly, the irrigated acres versus acres of 

cropland were not immediately known. Therefore, the same 
Part 2: State-by-State Descriptions of Water-Use Estimates 59

for each time interval for each county were applied to each 

location according to the proportions reported for each facility 

in the county for 2003 on the basis of data from the GWIM 

Web site (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 

2006c). The reported data for 2003 included only the withdrawal location and no information about the well depth or 

aquifer. To determine the well depth and aquifer, the 2003 

locational information was used to determine the closest 

well from the Wellogic database. For some facilities, multiple wells in the area were examined because of incomplete 

well-log data reporting. For facilities where the well-log data 

were incomplete, well depths and aquifer assignments were 

determined from information associated with nearby wells. 

In most instances, the nearest well was coded as being a type 

other than irrigation. Because this resulted in considerable 

uncertainty when extending these estimates earlier than the 

reported withdrawal years, such estimates were not made for 

years before 1990. Golf course irrigation data estimated for 

this study indicate no withdrawals before 1990 because of the 

estimation method and lack of data and are not indicative of 

actual withdrawal trends (fig. 13). 

Table 16. Irrigation-estimate and aerial-photograph years matched to each model time period. 

[--, estimate not determined]

Model time period

Irrigation-estimate years 

(Agriculture census 

years)

Aerial photograph year Source agency1 Photograph 

scale

1864–1900 -- --

1901–20 -- --

1921–40 1925 1938

National 

Archives and 

Records 

Administration

1:20,000

1930

1935

1940

1941–50 1945 1938 1:20,000

1950 1955

Farm Services Agency 

(U.S. Department of Agriculture)

1:20,000

1951–60 1955 1955 1:20,000

1960

1961–70 1965 1967 1:20,000

1970

1971–75 1975 1974 1:40,000

1976–80 1978 1974 1:40,000

1981–85 1982 1981 1:58,000

1986–90 1987 1981 1:58,000

1991–2000 *1997 1992/1998 1:40,000

*1998

*1999

*2000

2001–9 * 1992/1998 1:40,000

1

 All photographs were accessed from the Remote Sensing & Geographic Information System Aerial Archive at Michigan State 

University, East Lansing, Mich.

*

 Data estimated directly from Michigan Department of Environmental Quality reports.

number of points calculated for interval 10 (1986–90) was 

used. The 1991–2000 data were distributed to the sections 

identified as being agricultural by using either the 1992 or 

1998 aerial photographs. Data for interval 12 (2001–5) were 

received as a GIS layer subdivided by township. This dataset 

was intersected with the 1992/1998 agricultural sections, and 

the overlapping townships were selected. The point locations 

used for interval 11 (1991–2000) that intersected the selected 

townships were chosen. The total irrigation reported for each 

township was divided by the number of points selected, and 

that average was assigned to each of the selected points. Once 

the well characteristics and irrigation estimates were applied, 

all of the model centroids used in this analysis were selected 

and subset into a stand-alone GIS shapefile.

Estimation Methods for Michigan Golf Course Irrigation 

Withdrawals

Golf course irrigation water-use estimates were determined from available data for each county for intervals 11 

and 12 (1991–2000 and 2001–5). The average withdrawals 
60 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

Assumptions and Limitations of Michigan Irrigation Data 

Many limitations and assumptions are involved in this 

approach to estimate agricultural irrigation water use. Census 

of Agriculture data are limited to the methods used to collect and report the data and the way in which the data were 

distributed across each county. The assignment of expected 

agricultural water use to sections from the aerial-photograph 

analysis was limited by the interpretation of the analyst, the 

scale and quality of the photographs, and the lack of photographs representing time intervals before 1938. The irrigation 

scheduling program was limited to the five crop types analyzed by the program and included the assumptions that (1) the 

crop yield each year was 100 percent and (2) the crop emergence date and growing season matched the average value for 

each crop every census year. Use of the climate data from each 

station was based on the assumption that these data adequately 

represented climate conditions throughout the entire county. 

The base soil data are not meant to be used at the scale used in 

this analysis, though they are the most detailed data currently 

available. The textures used are those coarsely assigned on the 

basis of soil families and were not checked against countylevel soil surveys. By using this crop-demand approach, the 

assumption is made that all irrigation waters are supplied from 

groundwater sources and not supplemented by surface-water 

sources. Lastly, the assumption also is made that the irrigation is optimally applied and measured exactly as modeled 

by the farmer overseeing the irrigator operations, and that the 

expected crop yield is 100 percent. Realistically, the farmer 

may irrigate the field on a time basis, and the expected crop 

yield may be lower. Water use for intervals 11 and 12 (1991–

2000 and 2001–5) was estimated by the MDEQ, who used a 

different program than was used for the earlier intervals; therefore, these estimates likely differ in their completeness and 

may not be directly comparable, although both are assumed to 

adequately estimate agricultural irrigation water use. Agricultural irrigation withdrawals determined by using the irrigation 

scheduling program in this study and the estimates determined 

by the MDEQ were assigned to locations on the basis of existing irrigation or nearby wells and areas determined to be agricultural through aerial photo interpretation. Although assumed 

to be representative for the purposes of the LMB model, these 

irrigation water-use estimates should not be used in a localscale study without further consideration.

The self-supplied golf course water-use estimates compiled and estimated for this study are based on the assumption 

that estimates furnished by each facility are accurate, reliable, 

and consistent from year to year. Estimates were determined 

for facilities listed as irrigators in 2003. Only those facilities that meet the reporting-capacity threshold and are selfsupplied are included in the data reported for 1997–2004, and 

no estimates were compiled for years before 1991 because of 

a lack of data. The trend shown for the data is not indicative 

of actual golf course irrigation withdrawals in the included 

counties. However, some water withdrawals for golf course 

use already have been included in the public-supply estimate. 

About 35 percent of the golf courses in the State are supplied 

by a public water-supply system, have a withdrawal capacity 

less than the reporting threshold for irrigation water use, or 

do not irrigate at all (Michigan Department of Environmental 

Quality, 2006d). Because the reported data for 2003 did not 

include individual well data, the estimated aquifer information 

is assumed to be approximated correctly by using information from local nearby wells. Estimates for each year also are 

based on the assumption that the location of withdrawals and 

sources did not change over time and that the proportions can 

be approximated as described above. Withdrawals that occur 

in counties other than those listed above were, for the most 

part, not included in this compilation, although the impact of 

these is expected to be small and to have little effect on the 

groundwater-flow-model water levels in the nearfield model 

area or primary area of interest in the basin. However, these 

omissions and the method of assignment of withdrawals to 

locations could affect inset-model results if any local models 

are placed in this area. 

Indiana

History of Groundwater Management and WaterUse Data Collection in Indiana 

The Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), 

Division of Water, has been inventorying the State’s significant water withdrawal facilities since 1985 and collecting 

monthly withdrawal data for the categories described in table 1. 

In Indiana, a “significant water withdrawal facility” is defined 

as having the capability to withdraw 100,000 gal/d or more of 

water from a groundwater or surface-water source. (For this 

report, only groundwater data were included.) This reporting 

requirement was mandated by the Water Resource Management Act (Indiana Code 14–25–7, previously 13–2–6.1) and 

passed by the State Legislature in 1983. Registration and 

reporting requirements are based on pump capacity, not actual 

water withdrawals. Each year, registered facility owners report 

total monthly withdrawals based on flowmeter readings, pump 

capacity and hours of operation, or some other alternative 

estimation technique. In 1996, withdrawal data were reported 

for 3,536 active registered facilities (Arvin and Spaeth, 2009). 

In 2004, withdrawal data were reported for 3,409 active registered facilities.

Information on water resources in Indiana is available 

from individual county investigations and basin to statewide 

studies. In addition to the inventory of water withdrawals, 

the Water Resource Management Act mandates a continuing assessment of water-resource availability in the State and 

plans for the development, conservation, and utilization of 

the water resources for beneficial uses. To help assess water 

availability, the Natural Resources Commission has divided 

the State into 12 water management basins in which the IDNR 

Division of Water characterizes the water resource on and 

below the Earth’s surface. Four of these water management 
Part 2: State-by-State Descriptions of Water-Use Estimates 61

basins include counties within the Indiana LMB model area 

(Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 1987, 1990, 1994, 

and 1996). The IDNR has prepared a Generalized Groundwater Availability Map (Indiana Department of Natural 

Resources, 2009a) that describes seven groundwater-yield 

categories and indicates a measure of the relative productivity 

of the depicted aquifers. Detailed studies would be necessary 

to adequately evaluate the groundwater resource and the probable impacts of pumping in an area. 

Overview of Indiana Data From the Lake 

Michigan Basin Study 

The Indiana part of the LMB model area consists of 11 

counties in the Northern Indiana subregion, all of which have 

at least some part within the Lake Michigan Basin boundary: 

Allen, Dekalb, Elkhart, Kosciusko, Lagrange, Lake, La Porte, 

Noble, Porter, St. Joseph, and Steuben (fig. 10). Water use 

in the Indiana farfield area consists of only those parts of the 

above-listed counties that are outside of the nearfield model 

area. Therefore, Indiana water-use estimates are primarily 

within the nearfield model area (table 2). Overall, a total of 

2,002 withdrawal locations were estimated for counties within 

the Indiana LMB model area, and 1,104 locations were active 

in the last model time interval (2001–5) for a total withdrawal 

of 128.3 Mgal/d (table 2). 

In general, northern Indiana can be characterized as 

having a good to excellent groundwater resource. Major areas 

of groundwater availability are found where the SilurianDevonian bedrock aquifer system unit underlies large areas 

and where Quaternary deposits of glacial material as much 

as 500 ft in thickness contain highly productive inter-till sand 

and gravel aquifers (Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 

2009a). The Jurassic-Mississippian and Cambrian-Ordovician 

aquifer systems are not used for water supply in northern 

Indiana.

Total withdrawals for the nearfield model area range from 

0.21 Mgal/d in interval 3 (1921–40) to 117.42 Mgal/d in interval 12 (2001–5), and withdrawals from the farfield model area 

range from 0 Mgal/d in interval 3 to 10.88 Mgal/d for interval 

12 (table 2). No withdrawals were estimated for the first two 

time intervals because of a lack of data. It should be emphasized that water-use estimates were compiled primarily for 

counties within the LMB nearfield model area and that these 

estimates do not represent the total amount of groundwater 

withdrawn in Indiana for these categories. 

An analysis to quantify withdrawals omitted from model 

simulations for counties excluded from the Indiana farfield 

model area (Adams, Fulton, Huntington, Jasper, Marshall, 

Miami, Newton, Pulaski, Starke, Wabash, Wells, and Whitley) 

showed that omission of these withdrawals would likely have 

little effect on model results; the majority of withdrawals are 

from the shallow unconsolidated and bedrock aquifer types, 

so drawdowns are expected to have little influence on the 

exchange of water between the model farfield and nearfield 

areas (Daniel Feinstein, U.S. Geological Survey Wisconsin Water Science Center, oral commun., 2008). In 2001–5, 

groundwater withdrawals of 128.30 Mgal/d were reported 

for counties in the Lake Michigan Basin, with 124.78 Mgal/d 

from unconsolidated aquifers and 3.52 Mgal/d from bedrock 

aquifers (table 5). Groundwater withdrawals of 43.04 Mgal/d 

were reported in 2004 for the farfield counties not included in 

the LMB model analysis, with 30.39 Mgal/d from unconsolidated aquifers, 11.52 Mgal/d from bedrock aquifers, and 

1.13 Mgal/d from unknown aquifer sources.

Principal Indiana Data Sources

The IDNR Division of Water’s Water Rights and Use 

Section maintains the Significant Water Withdrawal Facility (SWWF) database and the Online Water Well Database 

(Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 2009b). Water-use 

data from the SWWF database included location and facility data fields, well depth, well diameter, aquifer, water-use 

category, and monthly and annual water withdrawal amounts 

for 1985 to 2005 (Ralph Spaeth, Indiana Department of 

Natural Resources, written commun, 2006). Reported aquifer 

and well-construction information was used to determine the 

hydrologic unit that withdrawals tapped. Water-use information was available or estimated for the public-supply, industrial, and irrigation report-specific categories (table 1). Additional well-construction details, including construction dates, 

were retrieved from the Online Water Well Database and were 

helpful for determining when the well became active. 

Population data for publicly supplied communities 

within the selected counties were compiled from U.S. Bureau 

of the Census reports. In the selected counties, at least some 

population data were reported for 82 communities from 1880 

to 2000. The population data indicate an upward trend until 

about 1960, after which population remains relatively constant (fig. 18); however, no population was reported for many 

communities before 1930, possibly because they had not been 

incorporated yet. For 1970 until 2000, data were unreported 

for only two communities. In 1880, population was reported 

for 40 communities compared to 81 in 2000. Arvin and Spaeth 

(2009) report an increase in population for the entire State of 

Indiana from 3.24 million people in 1930 to more than 5.80 

million people in 1995, a greater than 79-percent increase in 

65 years. Available data for the selected 11 counties in Northern Indiana indicate a population increase from 0.82 million 

people in 1930 to more than 1.75 million people in 2000, an 

increase of greater than 112 percent.
62 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

Figure 18. Population and number of communities in Northern Indiana counties in the Lake Michigan Basin area.

Figure 19. Indiana groundwater-use estimates for the Lake Michigan Basin model by time interval and category. No 

estimates were determined for public-supply use for time intervals 1 to 2 and for industrial and irrigation uses for time 

intervals 1 to 3. Groundwater use prior to time interval 9 is estimated and likely does not represent historical trends. 

Values reflect only a partial estimate of water use in Indiana. POPULATION

YEAR

1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2,000,000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Population

Number of communities

NUMBER OF COMMUNITIES

TIME INTERVAL AND YEARS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1864–

1900

1901–

1920

1921–

1940

1941–

1950

1951–

1960

1961–

1970

1971–

1975

1976–

1980

1981–

1985

1986–

1990

1991–

2000

2001–

2005

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Public supply

Industrial

Irrigation

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
Part 2: State-by-State Descriptions of Water-Use Estimates 63

Public-Supply Water Use in Indiana

The oldest public water-supply systems determined 

from available well records and for which withdrawals were 

estimated in the Indiana LMB model area are for the communities of Cromwell (1920s) and Albion (1920s), Noble County. 

Because there were 40 communities with reported population 

data in 1880, it is likely that other public water-supply systems 

were operating before the 1920s in this area; however, these 

data were not available because well-log information was not 

required to be recorded before the 1950s. Later analysis of 

historical reports indicated the presence of early public-supply 

wells in 1880s and 1890s in the communities of Kendalville, 

Albion, Avilla, and Ligonier, Noble County (Stallman and 

Klaer, 1950). In St. Joseph County, South Bend’s first public 

water-supply system was established in 1873 and utilized 

surface water; however, in 1886, use of surface water was 

abandoned and water wells were installed as the community’s 

water source (Klaer and Stallman, 1948). 

Groundwater-use estimates were determined for facilities 

with wells coded as public supply by the IDNR (table 1). The 

majority (about 75 percent) of these public-supply wells were 

for publicly or privately owned water-supply systems, including public water-supply utilities, housing complexes, mobile 

home parks, and subdivisions. About 24 percent were for 

facilities such as religious and academic institutions, airports, 

lodgings, hospitals, and campgrounds that could have been 

considered commercial in other states’ databases. Information 

was insufficient to distinguish the type of public-supply withdrawal for the remaining 1 percent of the wells.

On the basis of available data, groundwater-use estimates 

are most reliable for model time intervals 9 to 12 (after 1985); 

before 1985, all public-supply water use was estimated, and 

trends are likely not indicative of actual historical withdrawal 

amounts in the Northern Indiana area (fig. 19, on preceding 

page). For this category, initial estimates of withdrawals were 

made for combined time intervals of 1971–80 and 1981–90 

instead of separate 5-year time intervals. Later, as these data 

were incorporated into the groundwater-flow model, wateruse estimates for 1971–80 were assigned to intervals 7 and 8 

(1971–75 and 1976–80) and water-use estimates for 1981–90 

were assigned to intervals 9 and 10 (1981–85 and 1986–90).

About 21 percent of the groundwater withdrawals in 2004 

for public-water supply in Indiana was withdrawn by the 11 

counties in Northern Indiana within the Lake Michigan Basin 

(fig. 10). Estimated withdrawals ranged from 0.21 Mgal/d for 

interval 3 (1921–40) to 76.62 Mgal/d for interval 12 (2001–5) 

(table 4) and were primarily from the Northern Indiana model 

subregion; a few withdrawals were in the farfield model 

area (fig. 20A, appendix 4A). For the last four time intervals, public-supply groundwater withdrawals were primarily 

from the Quaternary aquifer system, with a few withdrawals 

from the Silurian-Devonian aquifer system (fig. 20B, appendix 4B). Also for the last four time intervals, public-supply 

groundwater withdrawals were primarily from unconfined 

unconsolidated material (fig. 20C, appendix 4C). Because 

groundwater withdrawals before the last four time intervals 

were estimated, proportions of withdrawals by aquifer system 

and aquifer type in appendix 4C are more speculative than 

data from 1981 on.

Public-supply water use was estimated from data from 

the SWWF database as well as from per capita use rates and 

population, as described below. Water-use estimates for each 

community well in the IDNR database were determined 

by averaging the available withdrawal data for intervals 11 

(1991–2000) and 12 (2001–5). Because the IDNR has collected data every year since 1985, withdrawals were assumed 

to be zero in any year with no reported water use for a well. 

Estimated withdrawals were determined for 1981–90 as the 

average of the available data from 1985–90 based on the 

assumption that the well had been in operation since 1981. 

For time intervals before 1981, water-use estimates were 

derived from per capita use rates and population by use of 

the same procedure as described for the estimation of publicsupply water use for Michigan. Per capita use tended to vary 

between the communities and between the time intervals 

(fig. 21). For those communities showing a downward trend 

in per capita use, the value for the combined intervals 9 and 

10 (1981–90) was used; for the remaining communities, an 

average per capita use was determined for each community to 

represent the time intervals before 1981. Average per capita 

use for time intervals before 1981 ranges from 34 to 239 gal/d 

per person and averages 120 gal/d per person. This per capita 

use rate was multiplied by the average population for each 

time-interval midpoint to determine estimated public-supply 

water use; this value was divided equally between all possible 

wells assigned to each community. A withdrawal amount was 

estimated for each year with a reported population value. 

The initial start date for pumping in each community 

was determined by the well-construction date, if available. 

Well-construction dates also were used for public water-supply 

facilities such as schools and mobile home parks for which 

there were no reported population data. Water-use estimates 

were specified for each time interval, beginning with the interval when the well was installed, by using the trend observed 

for the more recent intervals with reported data. 

The reported aquifer information, along with the reported 

well depth from the SWWF, was used to determine the aquifer 

system and hydrogeological model unit for each withdrawal.
64 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

Figure 20. Public-supply groundwater-use estimates in Indiana for the Lake Michigan Basin model by time 

interval and A, model subregion, B, aquifer system, and C, aquifer type. Groundwater use prior to time interval 9 is 

estimated and likely does not represent historical trends. No groundwater-use estimates were determined for the 

Jurassic-Mississippian, Cambrian-Ordivician, or mixed aquifer systems. Values reflect only a partial estimate of 

water use in Indiana.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

TIME INTERVAL AND YEARS

1864–

1900

1901–

1920

1921–

1940

1941–

1950

1951–

1960

1961–

1970

1971–

1975

1976–

1980

1981–

1985

1986–

1990

1991–

2000

2001–

2005

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Quaternary

Silurian-Devonian

B Aquifer system

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Northern Indiana

Indiana farfield model area

A Model subregion

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Shallow unconsolidated material

Shallow bedrock

Deep bedrock

C Aquifer type
Part 2: State-by-State Descriptions of Water-Use Estimates 65

Industrial Water Use in Indiana

Abundant freshwater from Lake Michigan has promoted 

the development of industries along the southern coast of the 

lake, especially in Lake and Porter Counties (Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 1994). In 1977, approximately 93 

percent of industries were self-supplied, whereas the remaining industries were served by public supplies. The primarymetals industries along the Lake Michigan shoreline in Lake 

and Porter Counties constitute more than 77 percent of all 

industrial self-supplied groundwater and surface-water withdrawals in Indiana (Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 

2008). In 1990, the industries that were the largest water users 

in northwestern Lake County included steel manufacturing 

plants, oil companies, and consumer-product and buildingmaterial manufacturers. In the Lake Michigan Basin, Maumee 

River Basin, and Kankakee River Basin Regions of Indiana, 

the majority of water for industry is from surface-water 

sources (Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 1990, 

1994, 1996). In the St. Joseph River Basin, about 63 percent of 

withdrawals were from groundwater in 1985, with the largest 

groundwater withdrawals in Elkhart and St. Joseph Counties 

by machinery, fabricated-metals, and transportation-equipment 

industries (Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 1987). 

Figure 21. Public-supply per capita water use in the nearfield model area of Indiana, 1980–2000.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1980 1990 2000

PER CAPITA WATER USE, IN GALLONS PER DAY PER PERSON

YEAR 

 46

EXPLANATION

Total number of values

75th Percentile

25th Percentile

Median

Largest value less 

than1.5 × IQR

IQR, interquartile range, is the 

distance between 75th 

and 25th percentiles

Smallest value 

{

28 30 46

149

116

169

138

110

192

121

84

177
66 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

About 19 percent of the groundwater withdrawn in 2004 

for industrial uses in Indiana was pumped by the 11 counties 

within the Indiana LMB area. For model summaries of withdrawals from the various aquifer systems and types, “other 

water use” (coded as “miscellaneous” in the Indiana database) and energy-production water uses were combined with 

industrial water use (table 1). Most withdrawals were from the 

Northern Indiana model subregion, with very few withdrawals 

from the farfield model area (fig. 22A, appendix 4A). Industrial 

groundwater withdrawals were primarily from the Quaternary 

aquifer system, with a few withdrawals from the SilurianDevonian aquifer system; no withdrawals were from the 

Jurassic-Mississippian or Cambrian-Ordovician systems for 

the last four time intervals (fig. 22B, appendix 4B). For the last 

four intervals, industrial groundwater withdrawals also were 

primarily from the unconsolidated material aquifer type (fig. 

22C, appendix 4C). Groundwater withdrawals before 1980 

were estimated and likely do not represent the actual proportions of use by aquifer system and type.

The original data from the SWWF database supplied by 

IDNR (Ralph Spaeth, written commun, 2005) included information for 546 industrial wells, 213 energy-production wells, 

and 429 other (miscellaneous) wells. However, there were 

multiple entries for some locations because of changes in registration dates; therefore, the final number of industrial wells 

was reduced to 296, energy-production wells was reduced to 

118, and other wells was reduced to 256. Estimated withdrawals range from 0.13 for interval 4 (1941–50) to 29.59 Mgal/d 

for interval 12 (2001–5) (table 4). No withdrawals were 

estimated for the first three time intervals because of a lack 

of data. Estimated withdrawals are significantly lower before 

1985, but this difference is an artifact of the estimation method 

and lack of data and likely not indicative of actual withdrawal 

trends (fig. 18). 

Water-use estimates for each industrial well in the IDNR 

database were determined by averaging the available withdrawal data for intervals 11 (1991–2000) and 12 (2001–5). 

Because the IDNR has collected data every year since 1985, 

withdrawals were assumed to be zero in any year with no 

reported water use for a well. However, for those facilities 

with no reported withdrawals in the last interval (2001–5), 

withdrawals from interval 11 (1991–2000) were substituted 

as the data were incorporated into the LMB model. Estimated 

withdrawals were determined for 1981–1990 as the average 

of the available data from 1985–1990 on the assumption that 

the well had been in operation since 1981. For time intervals 

before 1981, water-use estimates were determined by using 

the trend in reported withdrawals, and well-construction 

information from the Online Water Well Database was used to 

determine the date that pumping began.

Irrigation Water Use in Indiana

The number of irrigated acres in Indiana more than 

doubled between 1967 and 1977 and doubled again from 1978 

to 1987 (Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 1990). 

Agricultural irrigation is most intensive in the northwest and 

north-central region of Indiana. In counties that are part of the 

Lake Michigan Basin and in the Kankakee River Basin, average annual increases in irrigated land have been the greatest 

in La Porte and St. Joseph Counties. In the Kankakee River 

Basin, irrigation withdrawals are from both groundwater and 

surface-water sources and are used primarily for agricultural 

purposes (Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 1990). In 

the Lake Michigan Region, most withdrawals are from surfacewater sources and are used primarily for golf course irrigation 

(Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 1994). In the St. 

Joseph River Basin, the largest irrigation withdrawals have 

been in Elkhart, LaGrange, and Kosciusko Counties and from 

both groundwater and surface-water sources (Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 1987). In the Maumee River Basin, 

most withdrawals are used primarily for golf course irrigation 

(Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 1996).

About 50 percent of the groundwater withdrawn for 

irrigation in 2004 in Indiana was among the 11 counties within 

the Indiana LMB area. For model summaries of usage by 

the various aquifer systems and types, rural water use was 

included in the irrigation report-specific water-use category 

(table 1). Most withdrawals were from the Northern Indiana 

model subregion, and very few withdrawals were from the 

farfield model area (fig. 23A, appendix 4A). Irrigation groundwater withdrawals were primarily from the Quaternary aquifer 

system, with very small amounts from the Silurian-Devonian 

aquifer system (fig. 23B, appendix 4B). For the last four 

time intervals, irrigation groundwater withdrawals also were 

primarily from the unconsolidated material aquifer type (fig. 

23C, appendix 4C). Groundwater withdrawals before 1980 

were estimated and may not represent the actual proportions of 

use by aquifer system and type.

The original data from the SWWF database supplied by 

IDNR (Ralph Spaeth, written commun, 2005) included information for 915 irrigation wells and 17 rural-use wells. However, there were multiple entries for some locations because 

of changes in registration dates; therefore, the final number of 

irrigation wells was reduced to 566, and the number of ruraluse wells was reduced to 13. Estimated withdrawals range 

from 0.26 Mgal/d for interval 4 (1941–50) to 22.10 Mgal/d for 

interval 12 (2001–5) (table 4). No withdrawals were estimated 

for the first three intervals. Estimated withdrawals are substantially smaller before interval 9 (1981–85), but this difference is 

an artifact of the estimation method and lack of data and might 

not be indicative of actual withdrawal trends (fig. 18). Wateruse estimates for irrigation in Indiana were determined by the 

same procedures outlined for the Indiana industrial water-use 

estimates.
Part 2: State-by-State Descriptions of Water-Use Estimates 67

Figure 22. Industrial groundwater-use estimates in Indiana for the Lake Michigan Basin model by time 

interval and A, model subregion, B, aquifer system, and C, aquifer type. Groundwater use prior to time interval 9 

is estimated and likely does not represent historical trends. No groundwater-use estimates were determined 

for the Jurassic-Mississippian, Cambrian-Ordivician, or mixed aquifer systems. Values reflect only a partial 

estimate of water use in Indiana.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

TIME INTERVAL AND YEARS

1864–

1900

1901–

1920

1921–

1940

1941–

1950

1951–

1960

1961–

1970

1971–

1975

1976–

1980

1981–

1985

1986–

1990

1991–

2000

2001–

2005

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Shallow unconsolidated material

Shallow bedrock

Deep bedrock

C Aquifer type

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Quaternary

Silurian-Devonian

B Aquifer system

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Northern Indiana

Indiana farfield model area

A Model subregion
68 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

Figure 23. Irrigation groundwater-use estimates in Indiana for the Lake Michigan Basin model by time interval and A, 

model subregion, B, aquifer system, and C, aquifer type. Groundwater use prior to time interval 9 is estimated and likely 

does not represent historical trends. No groundwater-use estimates were determined for the Jurassic-Mississippian, 

Cambrian-Ordivician, or mixed aquifer systems. Values reflect only a partial estimate of water use in Indiana.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

TIME INTERVAL AND YEARS

1864–

1900

1901–

1920

1921–

1940

1941–

1950

1951–

1960

1961–

1970

1971–

1975

1976–

1980

1981–

1985

1986–

1990

1991–

2000

2001–

2005

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

0

5

10

15

20

25

Shallow unconsolidated material

Shallow bedrock

Deep bedrock

C Aquifer type

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

0

5

10

15

20

25

Quaternary

Silurian-Devonian

B Aquifer system

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

0

5

10

15

20

25

Northern Indiana

Indiana farfield model area

A Model subregion
Part 2: State-by-State Descriptions of Water-Use Estimates 69

Assumptions and Limitations of Indiana PublicSupply, Industrial, and Irrigation Data

The groundwater withdrawals compiled and estimated for 

this study include the assumption that estimates furnished by 

each facility are accurate, reliable, and consistent from year to 

year. Estimates for time intervals before interval 9 (1981–85) 

are based on the assumption that the location of withdrawals 

and sources did not change before 1985. Some withdrawal 

information for industrial use was available from historical 

reports; however, insufficient information was available to 

determine withdrawal locations, well depths, and duration of 

pumping. The estimates prepared for this study likely exclude 

water use by facilities that withdrew water and then ceased 

operations or changed to a surface-water or a purchased source 

before 1985. Only those facilities that meet the reportingcapacity threshold are included; therefore, these water-use 

estimates likely underestimate actual groundwater usage. Any 

withdrawals from counties other than those listed above were 

not included in this compilation, although the impact of these 

is expected to be small and to have little effect on water levels 

in the nearfield model area or primary area of interest in the 

basin. However, these omissions could affect inset-model 

results if any local models are placed in this area.

The population estimates compiled from U.S. Bureau of 

the Census reports also are assumed to be accurate and collected in a consistent manner each census year. Water-use estimates determined by using population data are based on the 

assumption that population figures were recorded accurately 

and published by the census at the same time the water-supply 

system began supplying customers and, likewise, that withdrawals were initiated when a well was installed. Public-supply withdrawals may be underestimated for those water-supply 

systems with no early well records. The water-use estimates 

determined from per capita use are based on the assumption 

that all people residing within the community were supplied 

by the public water-supply system and that no areas outside of 

community were supplied by that same water-supply system. 

Thus, these estimates could be excluding water that is withdrawn by one water-supply system and sold to another area, 

and they could be overestimating withdrawals if only part of 

the community is served by the water supplier. Water-use 

estimates determined from per capita use also are based on 

the assumption that the proportion of residential versus other 

uses is the same for each time interval for each community. 

Thus, these estimates could be excluding water distributed for 

publicly supplied industrial or other uses before 1985. 

Illinois

History of Groundwater Management and WaterUse Data Collection in Illinois

Groundwater withdrawals in Illinois, like surface-water 

withdrawals, are governed under the rule of reasonable use 

(the resource will not be diminished in quantity, impaired 

in quality, exploited wastefully, or used maliciously), in 

accordance with the Illinois Water Use Act of 1983 (WUA) 

(Illinois General Assembly, 1984). Before the WUA, wateruse disputes and issues were handled as a matter of case law; 

for example, referencing the doctrine of absolute ownership 

of water, by which it was a landowner’s right to withdraw 

groundwater if that use does not unreasonably interfere with a 

neighbor’s use (Clark, 1985). Although the Illinois WUA does 

not require withdrawal permits for groundwater use or reporting of groundwater use, it requires well-drilling permits from 

the Department of Public Health, USEPA, and Illinois Department of Natural Resources for most wells, including those for 

households, public supply, irrigation, industrial use, and other 

uses not involving drinking water (Beck and others, 1996). 

The Illinois WUA and later amendments require notification from property owners to the local county Soil and Water 

Conservation District (SWCD) regarding high-capacity wells 

capable of withdrawing 100,000 gal/d or more of water from a 

groundwater source. The SWCD, along with the Illinois State 

Water Survey (ISWS) and Illinois State Geological Survey, 

review and disclose effects of the proposed withdrawal, such 

as potential effects on other neighboring groundwater users. 

In addition, withdrawals may be restricted from high-capacity 

wells during emergency intervals within four counties of the 

Illinois LMB model area: Kankakee, Iroquois, McLean, and 

Tazewell (fig. 3) (Beck and others, 1996).

To help in the assessment of water availability, documentation of annual water withdrawals throughout Illinois 

began in 1964 with a water-withdrawal program established 

by ISWS. This program involved collecting and maintaining 

paper records of well driller’s geological logs and estimated 

withdrawals for individual wells associated with major water 

users, which included mostly public-supply and industrial 

wells. It was not until 1978, under a cooperative agreement between the ISWS and USGS as part of the Northern 

Midwest Regional Aquifer Systems Analysis (RASA) study 

area (Young, 1992; Sun and others, 1997), that the earlier 

withdrawal-tracking program was officially expanded and 

established as the Illinois Water Inventory Program (IWIP). 

This program collects annual withdrawal data by voluntary 

submission of a form (known as the Public Industrial-Commercial-Survey (PICS)) sent to high-capacity water users and 

populates the electronic database for the collected information. Then in 1985, the State of Illinois also signed the Great 

Lakes Charter along with the other Great Lakes States and 

Canadian Provinces to cooperatively manage the waters of the 
70 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

Great Lakes (Council of Great Lakes Governors, 1985). After 

completion of the RASA study, the IWIP continued to collect 

these data through the Center for Groundwater Science of the 

ISWS (Scott Meyer, Illinois State Water Survey, unpub. data, 

2006). Even though only a small part of Illinois is within the 

Lake Michigan Basin, groundwater withdrawals in Chicago 

and other surrounding metropolitan areas have caused regional 

drawdown (the amount of water-level decline from predevelopment conditions caused by pumping); this drawdown 

amounts to hundreds of feet and extends into southeastern 

Wisconsin (Sasman and others, 1961; Burch, 1991; Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission and Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, 2002; Feinstein 

and others, 2004). Much of these withdrawals is from the 

Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system. For the LMB model, 

water-use data for Illinois were not compiled and estimated in 

the same manner as for Wisconsin and Michigan. Rather, the 

data were provided as an electronic database file by the ISWS, 

similar to the way Indiana data were provided by the IDNR. 

Therefore, specifics about how these water-use data were 

derived are not discussed in this report, although a summary 

describing the water-use categories is provided. 

Overview of Illinois Data From the Lake Michigan 

Basin Study 

The Illinois water-use data can be considered in three distinct blocks of time (1864–1964, 1964–1979, and 1979–2004) 

based on how the data were inventoried. The groundwaterwithdrawal data from before 1964, corresponding to model 

time intervals 1 through 5 (1864–1960) and part of interval 6 

(1961–1970), were limited to the nearfield model area (which 

is also the Northeastern Illinois subregion). Those withdrawals were summarized for seven major pumping centers: 

Aurora, Batavia, Chicago, Des Plaines, Elgin, Elmhurst, and 

Joliet. The water-use data compiled for those seven pumping 

centers were estimated originally by Suter and others (1959) 

and became part of previous groundwater modeling efforts by 

Prickett and Lonnquist (1971) and Burch (1991); these studies 

were limited to the deep Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system 

(table 5). Grouping the withdrawals by pumping center ceased 

in 1964 and, as a result, a 21-Mgal/d increase was recorded 

simply because of increased availability of data. Water-use 

estimates from 1964 to 2004 were assigned to intervals 6 

through 12 (1961–2005). ISWS did not furnish water-use data 

for 2005.

A total of 40 counties shown in figure 3 are included 

in the Illinois LMB model area, of which 11 counties are 

within the nearfield model area. Total withdrawals by model 

area for Illinois are listed in table 2. In the nearfield model 

area, withdrawals ranged from 6.76 Mgal/d in time interval 1 

(1864–1900) to 301.71 Mgal/d in interval 8 (1976–80), then 

decreased to 166.93 Mgal/d in interval 12 (2001–5). This 

large decrease in total withdrawal is mostly due to facilities 

abandoning their wells and connecting to a public watersupply system that used surface water as its water resource; 

however, during later time intervals—especially intervals 

9 and 10 (1981–1990)—some industries ceased operation. 

No withdrawal estimates are available in the farfield model 

area until interval 6 (1961–70); withdrawals increased from 

50.74 Mgal/d in interval 6 to 114.85 Mgal/d in interval 11 

(1991–2000) and then decreased to 110.78 Mgal/d in interval 

12 (table 2). Wells in the nearfield model area withdrew water 

primarily from bedrock aquifers, whereas wells in the farfield 

model area withdrew water primarily from unconsolidated 

material (tables 6 and 7). Withdrawals by subregion are listed 

in appendix 5A and are the same as the withdrawals by model 

area (table 3) because the boundaries are the same. 

Appendix 5B lists total water-use estimates for Illinois 

by water-use category and aquifer system, and appendix 5C

lists estimates by water-use category and aquifer type. The 

uppermost units of the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system 

(specifically the Ironton-Galesville formation) have been 

the most heavily used, followed by the Silurian-Devonian 

aquifer system. Water from the deepest hydrogeologic unit, the 

Mount Simon Sandstone, is generally too saline for domestic 

or industrial use for most of the Illinois model area (Illinois 

State Water Survey and Hittman Associates, 1973); therefore, 

withdrawals are limited to the uppermost 300 ft (model layer 

19) (table 6, appendix 1).

Public-Supply Water Use in Illinois

The majority of the withdrawals in the Illinois model 

area were for public supply and, on average since interval 6 

(1961–70), represented 79 percent of total water use (table 2). 

Of the 5,819 total records, 3,421 wells were coded as being in 

the public-supply category by the ISWS (including the 7 early 

pumping centers). The majority of these public-supply wells 

were for publicly and privately owned water-supply systems, 

including community utilities, housing complexes, mobile 

home parks, and subdivision wells; however, around 7 percent 

of the wells were for facilities that could have been considered 

commercial in this database (as they were for Wisconsin).11

These commercial establishments include nursing homes, 

prisons, asylums, religious and academic institutions, airports, 

and campgrounds, and they represent between 1 and 2 percent 

of the total withdrawal from the Illinois LMB area for each 

time interval.

Public supply for Chicago and several other lakeshore 

communities was initially from surface-water sources; therefore, most of the public-supply groundwater pumpage for 

time intervals 1 through 6 (1864–1970) can be attributed to 

communities that are more to the interior of the Northeastern 

Illinois subregion and adjacent to Chicago, such as Joliet and 

Des Plaines. Public-supply withdrawals peaked in interval 

9 (1981–85) at 326.12 Mgal/d and have since been declining (table 4, appendix 5). The majority of these withdrawals 

11According to table 3 called “List of Standard Industrial Classification 

(SIC) codes by water-use category” of the 2000 guidelines for USGS wateruse compilation (Kenny, 2004).
Part 2: State-by-State Descriptions of Water-Use Estimates 71

were from deep confined bedrock, particularly the CambrianOrdovician aquifer system (figs. 24B and 24C). Withdrawals 

from the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system after interval 8 

(1976–80) listed in table 5 decreased considerably as withdrawals increased from other water sources, such as Lake 

Michigan, the Fox River, and the Quaternary aquifer system. 

Public-supply withdrawals from the Silurian-Devonian aquifer 

system increased from interval 6 to interval 8 (1961–80) but 

then declined from interval 9 to interval 12 (1981–2005). Only 

small amounts were withdrawn from the Jurassic-Mississippian and mixed aquifer systems (fig. 24B).

Industrial Water Use in Illinois

Groundwater withdrawals for industrial use in the 

Illinois nearfield model area before 1964 were combined with 

estimates for public-supply water use at the seven pumping 

centers listed earlier. Withdrawals since interval 6 (1961–70) 

were on average around 19 percent of total water use (table 2). 

Of the 5,819 total records, 1,690 wells were coded as being 

in the industrial category by the ISWS. The records furnished 

for this study did not specify industrial water-use purposes, 

nor did most records have an associated well-owner name 

that could be used to extrapolate a water-use purpose. (Names 

were withheld in accordance with ISWS rules associated with 

confidentiality disclosures.) Additionally, because there was 

no miscellaneous water-use category for the original Illinois 

data, the few facilities that withdrew groundwater for thermoelectric power generation have been classified under industrial 

water use. Although this use can be considered minor when 

compared to total industrial use, their associated withdrawal 

can be large (Tim Bryant, Illinois State Water Survey, written 

commun., 2008). 

Most industrial water use occurred in Illinois before 

interval 9 (1981–1985) (fig. 25A); but after peaking during 

interval 7 (1971–75) at 71.58 Mgal/d, the total industrial 

withdrawals—especially those within the Northeastern Illinois 

subregion—have been declining (appendix 5A). In effect, 

total industrial use for the most recent time interval (2001–5) 

approached about the same rate of withdrawal that occurred 

in interval 6 (1961–70). The largest industrial groundwater 

withdrawals for all time intervals were from the CambrianOrdovician aquifer system. Withdrawals ranked second 

from the Silurian-Devonian aquifer system for intervals 6–8 

(1961–80) but then ranked second from the Quaternary aquifer 

system for intervals 9–12 (1981–2005). Few withdrawals were 

from the Jurassic-Mississippian and mixed aquifer systems 

(fig. 25B, appendix 5B). Industrial withdrawals by aquifer type 

are shown in figure 25C, and data are listed in appendix 5C. 

Irrigation Water Use in Illinois

Documentation of irrigation withdrawals for agricultural 

crop production is not comprehensive. The ISWS presumes 

that there are probably only a few high-capacity irrigation 

wells within western McHenry and Kankakee Counties (fig. 

3) (Scott Meyer, Illinois State Water Survey, unpub. data, 

2006). High-capacity wells supplying sod farms, golf courses, 

and nurseries are included, when known. Withdrawals since 

interval 6 (1961–70) are on average around 2 percent of total 

Illinois water use (table 2) for the Illinois LMB model area. 

Irrigation water-use estimates varied from time interval to time 

interval. The least amount of irrigation water use was estimated 

for interval 9 (1981–85) at 2.80 Mgal/d; however, this dip, 

which extended to interval 10 (1986–90), was more the result 

of changing water-use data-collection methods than actual 

decreased irrigation. The peak in irrigation water use occurred 

during interval 11 (1991–2000) at 9.44 Mgal/d (table 4).

Most of the groundwater for irrigation in the Illinois 

LMB area has been withdrawn in the Northeastern Illinois 

subregion (appendix 5A); but from interval 10 (1986–90) to 

interval 11 (1991–2000), the irrigation withdrawals in the 

Illinois farfield model area more than doubled (fig. 26A). 

Most of these withdrawals were from the Silurian-Devonian 

aquifer system, but there has been a general increase over 

time in withdrawals from the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer 

system and Quaternary aquifer system (fig. 26B, appendix 

5B). There are no withdrawals from Jurassic-Mississippian 

and mixed aquifer systems. Irrigation water use had been 

distributed rather similarly between the shallow unconfined 

and deep confined bedrock aquifer types, but this proportion 

shifted over the last two intervals, 11 and 12 (1991–2005), in 

that withdrawals from unconfined unconsolidated material and 

deep confined bedrock increased (fig. 26C, appendix 5C). 
72 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

Figure 24. Public-supply groundwater-use estimates in Illinois for the Lake Michigan Basin model by time 

interval and A, model subregion, B, aquifer system, and C, aquifer type. No farfield model area estimates were 

determined for time intervals 1 to 5.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

TIME INTERVAL AND YEARS

1864–

1900

1901–

1920

1921–

1940

1941–

1950

1951–

1960

1961–

1970

1971–

1975

1976–

1980

1981–

1985

1986–

1990

1991–

2000

2001–

2005

0

50

100

150

200

250

Shallow unconsolidated material

Shallow bedrock

Deep bedrock

C Aquifer type

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

0

50

100

150

200

250

Quaternary

Jurassic-Mississippian

Silurian-Devonian

Cambrian-Ordovician

Mixed

B Aquifer system

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

0

50

100

150

200

250

Northeastern Illinois

Illinois farfield model area

A Model subregion
Part 2: State-by-State Descriptions of Water-Use Estimates 73

Figure 25. Industrial groundwater-use estimates in Illinois for the Lake Michigan Basin model by time interval 

and A, model subregion, B, aquifer system, and C, aquifer type. No estimates were determined for time intervals 

1 to 5.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

TIME INTERVAL AND YEARS

1864–

1900

1901–

1920

1921–

1940

1941–

1950

1951–

1960

1961–

1970

1971–

1975

1976–

1980

1981–

1985

1986–

1990

1991–

2000

2001–

2005

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Shallow unconsolidated material

Shallow bedrock

Deep bedrock

C Aquifer type

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Quaternary

Silurian-Devonian

Cambrian-Ordovician

B Aquifer system

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Northeastern Illinois

Illinois farfield model area

A Model subregion
74 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

Figure 26. Irrigation groundwater-use estimates in Illinois for the Lake Michigan Basin model by time interval 

and A, model subregion, B, aquifer system, and C, aquifer type. No estimates were determined for time intervals 

1 to 5.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

TIME INTERVAL AND YEARS

1864–

1900

1901–

1920

1921–

1940

1941–

1950

1951–

1960

1961–

1970

1971–

1975

1976–

1980

1981–

1985

1986–

1990

1991–

2000

2001–

2005

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Shallow unconsolidated material

Shallow bedrock

C Aquifer type

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Quaternary

Silurian-Devonian

Cambrian-Ordovician

B Aquifer system

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, 

IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Northeastern Illinois

Illinois farfield model area

A Model subregion
Summary 75

Assumptions and Limitations of Illinois PublicSupply, Industrial, and Irrigation Data 

Groundwater-withdrawal data, for various historical 

reasons, are not well documented in Illinois for the earlier time 

intervals, especially intervals 1 through 6 (1864–1970); therefore, available data reflect only a partial estimate of water use. 

The withdrawal data for the seven pumping centers identified 

earlier represent the best public-supply and industrial groundwater-withdrawal data currently available, although these data 

were not separated by aquifer system but rather lumped by the 

ISWS into the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system. Withdrawals from the unconsolidated aquifers were not furnished 

for the years before 1964 but were given for the most recent 

40 years (1964–2004). The ISWS explains that this exclusion 

from the regional model was justified because heads in these 

shallow aquifers equilibrate quickly to changing withdrawals 

(Scott Meyer, Illinois State Water Survey, written commun., 

2008). For later intervals 7 through 12 (1971–2005), it is 

assumed by the ISWS that not all wells in the Illinois LMB 

area are represented, but the public water-supply and industrial 

wells included are believed to represent the wells from which 

the majority of total groundwater withdrawals occurred since 

1964. The IWIP annual PICS of community and high-capacity 

industrial users did not begin until 1978, and the data are most 

complete after 1980 (Scott Meyer, Illinois State Water Survey, 

unpub. data, 2006). Because data collection was improved by 

the PICS, many earlier wells identified from paper records 

were updated as being inactive or abandoned. The survey 

also was able to capture many facilities that switched from 

self-supplied groundwater sources to publicly supplied surface 

water sources, especially during intervals 9 and 10 (1981–90).

For annual water-use data between 1980 and 2004, the 

ISWS provided withdrawal estimates that reflected wellconstruction and sealing dates, which defined the first and last 

years that individual wells were active. For wells for which 

these data were not known, the first year the well was active 

was assumed to be 1980, and the last year was assumed to 

be 2004. However, when these data were further analyzed, it 

became apparent that withdrawal values were not available 

for some wells for some years. Several records contained 

years populated with zero withdrawals, yet it was not possible 

to determine from the provided dataset which zeros should 

have been null values and which were for zero pumpage. For 

Illinois, all water-use data were averaged for each of the 12 

defined time intervals, and by including those zero values this 

method possibly lowered the averaged rate for some intervals. 

Some aspects of water-use category definitions vary from 

state to state. Some facilities that typically would be grouped 

in the commercial category in other states would be assigned 

to other categories in Illinois. Because the ISWS database does 

not contain a commercial water-use category, most of those 

types of withdrawals would be assigned either to the publicsupply category or the irrigation category. Most were coded as 

public supply and include taverns, restaurants, nursing homes, 

prisons, asylums, religious and academic institutions, airports, 

and campgrounds. Almost all country clubs and municipal 

parks were coded as irrigation, and the data were stored as irrigation even though some of the water might be used for other 

purposes. For example, country clubs often use water for the 

recreational club, pool house, restaurant, lodging, and maintenance shop. Likewise, parks use water for restrooms, showers, nature centers, maintenance and gift shops, and offices. 

The ISWS database has no miscellaneous water-use category. 

There was no attempt, as part of this study, to reassign facilities from other categories in to the miscellaneous category as 

defined for the LMB model. Even if such facilities were reassigned to the miscellaneous category, it is presumed that those 

withdrawals would be very small and have very little effect on 

the model. 

Summary

The Great Lakes Basin, which encompasses Lakes 

Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario, contains 95 

percent of the fresh surface water in North America and 18 

percent of the fresh surface water in the world. Groundwater 

within the Great Lakes Basin constitutes another large volume 

of freshwater. Yet, even in this water-abundant area, depletion 

can happen. Sometimes water withdrawals, diversions, and 

use conflict with the needs of other users and ecosystems in 

the basin. Thus, at the request of Congress, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is assessing the availability and use of 

the Nation’s water resources to gain a clearer understanding 

of the status of the resources and the land-use, water-use, and 

climatic trends that affect them. This national assessment of 

water availability and use will help characterize how much 

water is available now, how water availability is changing, and 

how much water can be expected to be available in the future. 

The Great Lakes Basin Pilot project of the USGS national 

assessment of water availability and use focused on the Great 

Lakes Basin and included detailed studies of the processes 

governing water availability. One of these studies included 

the development of a groundwater-flow model of the Lake 

Michigan Basin. 

This report describes the compilation and estimation of 

the groundwater withdrawals in those areas in Wisconsin, 

Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois that were needed for the Lake 

Michigan Basin study groundwater-flow model (LMB model). 

These data were aggregated for 12 model time intervals spanning 1864 to 2005 and were summarized by model area, model 

subregion, category of water use, aquifer type, aquifer system, 

and hydrogeologic unit model layer. Within this period, time 

was broken down into 12 intervals as follows: (1) 1864–1900, 

(2) 1901–20, (3) 1921–40, (4) 1941–50, (5) 1951–60, (6) 

1961–70, (7) 1971–75, (8) 1976–80, (9) 1981–85, (10) 1986–

90, (11) 1991–2000, and (12) 2001–5. Water withdrawal for a 

site or well has been represented by one of four report-specific 

water-use categories: public supply, industrial, irrigation, and 

miscellaneous. For most states, additional data represented by 
76 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

other water-use categories also were estimated. These reportspecific categories, and the types of data they include, may 

differ from other USGS or state-specific categories because 

of differences in how the data were collected, classified, and 

estimated for each state. For the purposes of this report, wateruse estimates were subdivided into aquifer type on the basis 

of whether withdrawals were from (1) shallow unconsolidated 

material, (2) shallow bedrock, and (3) deep bedrock. Wateruse information also was divided into groups corresponding to 

the following hydrogeologic aquifer systems: (1) Quaternary 

unconsolidated deposits (model layers 1–3); (2) Jurassic to 

Mississippian (Marshall Sandstone) bedrock units (model 

layers 4–8); (3) Silurian-Devonian bedrock units (model layers 9–12); and (4) Cambrian-Ordovician (Sinnipee to Mount 

Simon) bedrock units (model layers 13–20). 

Much of the data included in these datasets can be 

described more as an assemblage of estimates rather than 

an assemblage of measured groundwater withdrawals. The 

types and availability of information on groundwater withdrawals vary considerably among states because water-use 

programs often differ in the types of data collected and in the 

methods and frequency of data collection. As a consequence, 

the methods used to estimate and verify the data also vary. 

Additionally, because of the different sources of data and different terminologies applied for the purposes of this report, the 

water-use data published in this report may differ from wateruse data presented in other reports. These data represent only a 

partial estimate of groundwater use in each state because estimates were compiled only for areas in Wisconsin, Michigan, 

Indiana, and Illinois within the Lake Michigan Basin model 

area. Groundwater-withdrawal data were compiled for both 

nearfield and farfield model areas in Wisconsin and Illinois, 

whereas these data were compiled primarily for the nearfield 

model area in Michigan and Indiana. 

Overall water use for the selected areas in Wisconsin, 

Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois was smaller during early 

time intervals than during more recent intervals, with large 

increases beginning around the 1960s. These increases in the 

1960s are partially explained by the availability of well-log 

data which were used to determine when pumping began for 

facilities in the LMB model area. For the most part, early 

water-use estimates for Michigan and Indiana were based on 

either minimal reported data or no reported data at all, so the 

apparent trends for these two states likely are not indicative 

of actual water use. In some cases for Michigan and Indiana, 

water withdrawals were not estimated for early time intervals 

because no information was available.

Total estimated groundwater withdrawals for model 

input range from 18.01 million gallons per day for interval 1 

(1864–1900) to 1,280.25 million gallons per day for interval 

12 (2001–5). Withdrawals for the public-supply category make 

up the majority of the withdrawals in Wisconsin, Michigan, 

Indiana, and Illinois. In Wisconsin and Michigan, the second 

largest withdrawals are for the irrigation category; in Indiana 

and Illinois, industrial withdrawals account for the second 

largest withdrawal amounts. The smallest withdrawals are for 

miscellaneous uses in Wisconsin and irrigation uses in Indiana 

and Illinois. No withdrawals were estimated for miscellaneous 

uses in Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois.

Estimated groundwater withdrawals in the Southern 

Lower Peninsula of Michigan, Northeastern Illinois, and 

the farfield model area are generally larger than in the other 

model subregions. Withdrawals in Michigan and Indiana are 

predominantly from the Quaternary aquifer system, whereas 

withdrawals in Illinois are predominantly from the CambrianOrdovician aquifer systems. Withdrawals in Wisconsin are 

about equal from the Quaternary and Cambrian-Ordovician 

aquifer systems. The Jurassic-Mississippian aquifer system 

also is an important source of water in Michigan but not in 

the other states. Some wells in Wisconsin and Michigan are 

completed in the unconsolidated material and underlying 

bedrock units (classified as a mixed aquifer system), but data 

from Indiana and Illinois do not specify withdrawals from any 

wells that are open to both of these different aquifer systems. 

Estimated groundwater withdrawals in Michigan and Indiana are predominantly from the unconfined unconsolidated 

aquifer type. Withdrawals in Illinois are largely from the deep 

confined bedrock aquifer type, although they have decreased 

considerably in more recent time intervals. Wisconsin withdrawals are about equal from unconfined unconsolidated and 

deep confined bedrock aquifer types. 

Wisconsin groundwater use was estimated by using 

groundwater information and data from the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources high-capacity well approval 

program combined with several other key data sources, such 

as the wiscLITH well-log and USGS databases, previous 

groundwater-modeling project archives, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) Census of Agriculture reports, information searches, and correspondence. Groundwater-withdrawal 

estimates were compiled for the 47 easternmost counties in 

Wisconsin within the boundary of the LMB model, of which 

32 counties, though not entirely contained, are at least partly 

within the Lake Michigan Basin. Overall, 6,457 withdrawal 

locations were estimated in the Wisconsin part of the LMB 

model area, and 5,151 locations were active in the last time 

interval (2001–5) for a total groundwater withdrawal of 

476.51 Mgal/d. 

Wisconsin well-log records collected for this study show 

that most early development was within the nearfield model 

area south of Green Bay and was within proximity of Lake 

Winnebago and Lake Michigan. In general, much water is still 

used in this part of the State, although water-use growth has 

been considerable in adjacent regions of the farfield model 

area, especially within and surrounding the Central Sand 

Plains of Wisconsin (which includes most central Wisconsin 

counties). Total withdrawals in Wisconsin increased consistently from 1.84 Mgal/d in time interval 1 (1864–1900) to 

192.88 Mgal/d in interval 12 (2001–5) for the nearfield model 

area and increased from 1.35 Mgal/d in interval 1 to 283.63 

Mgal/d in interval 12 for the farfield model area. The Northeastern Wisconsin subregion is quite extensive and covers all 

or parts of 24 counties, whereas the Southeastern Wisconsin 
Summary 77

subregion comprises all or parts of 9 counties; therefore, total 

withdrawals in the Northeastern Wisconsin subregion for most 

time intervals are greater than those for the Southeastern Wisconsin subregion, the exceptions being the first two intervals 

(1864–1920). The withdrawals in Northeastern Wisconsin 

increased from 0.82 Mgal/d in interval 1 to 118.59 Mgal/d 

in interval 12. The withdrawals in Southeastern Wisconsin 

increased from 1.02 Mgal/d in interval 1 to 76.57 Mgal/d in 

interval 12, with the exception of interval 10 (1986–1990). 

Michigan groundwater use was estimated by using groundwater information and data from the Michigan Department of 

Environmental Quality Water Use Reporting Program and Wellogic database, Groundwater Inventory and Mapping Web sites, 

previous reports, former USGS modeling water-use datasets, 

information searches, USDA Census of Agriculture reports, an 

irrigation scheduler model, and correspondence. The Michigan 

LMB model area consists of those counties in Michigan with at 

least some part within the boundaries of the basin, plus Monroe 

County. Monroe County water use was included in the publicsupply and industrial category estimates along with the Lake 

Michigan Basin counties because of large groundwater withdrawals for industrial use. From Michigan’s total of 83 counties, 

water-use estimates were determined for public-supply use in 

56 counties, for industrial use in 47 counties, for agricultural 

irrigation use in 11 counties, and for golf course irrigation use in 

49 counties. Overall, there were 2,046 withdrawal locations estimated for counties within the Michigan LMB model area, and 

1,860 locations were active in the last time interval (2001–5) for 

a total withdrawal of 397.72 Mgal/d. 

Michigan well logs collected for this study show that 

most early development was in the central part of the Lower 

Peninsula of Michigan, which corresponds to the northern part 

of the Southern Lower Peninsula subregion and the southern part of the Northern Lower Peninsula subregion used in 

this report. Estimated withdrawals for the nearfield model 

area equaled 7.43 Mgal/d in time interval 1 (1864–1900) and 

359.91 Mgal/d in interval 12 (2001–5); farfield model area 

withdrawals equaled 0.63 Mgal/d in interval 1 and 37.81 

Mgal/d in interval 12. When evaluating these estimated withdrawals in Michigan, it is important to remember that wateruse estimates were compiled primarily for counties within the 

nearfield model area and that these estimates do not represent 

the total amount of groundwater withdrawn in Michigan for 

these categories. Farfield estimates compiled for this study 

were from Monroe County and other counties intersected 

by the nearfield model boundary. Estimated withdrawals by 

nearfield model subregions for interval 1 to interval 12 ranged 

from 7.21 Mgal/d to 306.15 Mgal/d in the Southern Lower 

Peninsula, 0.22 Mgal/d to 44.83 Mgal/d in the Northern Lower 

Peninsula, and 0 to 8.94 Mgal/d in the Upper Peninsula.

Indiana groundwater use was estimated by using groundwater information and data from the Indiana Department of 

Natural Resources Division of Water’s Water Rights and Use 

Section Significant Water Withdrawal Facility database and 

the Online Water Well Database, information searches, and 

previous reports. The Indiana part of the LMB model area 

consists of 11 counties in the Northern Indiana subregion, 

all of which have at least some part within the Lake Michigan Basin boundary: Allen, Dekalb, Elkhart, Kosciusko, 

LaGrange, Lake, La Porte, Noble, Porter, St. Joseph, and 

Steuben. Water use in the Indiana farfield area consists of only 

those parts of the above-listed counties that are outside of the 

nearfield model area. Therefore, Indiana water-use estimates 

were primarily within the nearfield model area. Overall, a total 

of 2,002 withdrawal locations were estimated for counties 

within the Indiana LMB model area, and 1,104 locations were 

active in the last model time interval (2001–5) for a total withdrawal of 128.3 Mgal/d. 

Total withdrawals in Indiana for the nearfield model area 

ranged from 0.21 Mgal/d in interval 3 (1921–40) to 117.42 

Mgal/d in interval 12 (2001–5), and withdrawals from the 

farfield model area ranged from 0 Mgal/d in interval 3 to 10.88 

Mgal/d for interval 12. No withdrawals were estimated in Indiana for the first two time intervals because of a lack of data. It 

should be emphasized that water-use estimates were compiled 

primarily for counties within the LMB nearfield model area 

and that these estimates do not represent the total amount of 

groundwater withdrawn in Indiana for these categories. 

Illinois groundwater use was estimated by using groundwater information and data from the Illinois State Water Survey, the Illinois Water Inventory Program, previous reports, 

and correspondence. The Illinois water-use data can be considered in three distinct blocks of time (1864–1964, 1964–1979, 

and 1979–2004) based on how the data were inventoried. The 

groundwater-withdrawal data from before 1964, corresponding to model time intervals 1 through 5 (1864–1960) and 

part of interval 6 (1961–1970), were limited to the nearfield 

model area (which is also the Northeastern Illinois subregion). 

Those withdrawals were summarized for seven major pumping centers: Aurora, Batavia, Chicago, Des Plaines, Elgin, 

Elmhurst, and Joliet, and were limited to the deep CambrianOrdovician aquifer system. Grouping the withdrawals by 

pumping center ceased in 1964 and, as a result, a 21-Mgal/d 

increase was recorded simply because of increased availability 

of data. Water-use estimates from 1964 to 2004 were assigned 

to intervals 6 through 12 (1961–2005) and were estimated for 

a total of 40 counties in the Illinois LMB model area, of which 

11 counties are within the nearfield model area. 

Total withdrawals in Illinois for the nearfield model area 

ranged from 6.76 Mgal/d in time interval 1 (1864–1900) to 

301.71 Mgal/d in interval 8 (1976–80), then decreased to 

166.93 Mgal/d in interval 12 (2001–5). This large decrease in 

total withdrawal is mostly due to facilities’ abandoning their 

wells and connecting to a public water-supply system that 

used surface water as its water resource; however, during later 

time intervals—especially intervals 9 and 10 (1981–1990)—

some industries ceased operation. No withdrawal estimates are 

available in the farfield model area until interval 6 (1961–70); 

withdrawals increased from 50.74 Mgal/d in interval 6 to 

114.85 Mgal/d in interval 11 (1991–2000) and then decreased 

to 110.78 Mgal/d in interval 12. 
78 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

References

General References

Feinstein, D.T., Hunt, R.J., and Reeves, H.W., in press, 

Regional ground-water-flow model of the Lake Michigan 

Basin in support of Great Lakes Basin water availability and 

use studies: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5109. 

Grannemann, N.G., and Reeves, H.W., 2005, Great Lakes 

Basin water availability and use—A study of the national 

assessment of water availability and use program: U.S. 

Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2005–3113, 4 p.

Lampe, D.C., 2009, Hydrogeologic framework of bedrock units 

and initial salinity distribution for a simulation of groundwater flow for the Lake Michigan Basin: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5060, 49 p. 

Reilly, T.E., Dennehy, K.F., Alley, W.M., and Cunningham, 

W.L., 2008, Ground-water availability in the United States: 

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1323, 70 p.

Sheets, R.A., and Simonson, L.A., 2006, Compilation of 

regional ground-water divides for principal aquifers corresponding to the Great Lakes Basin, United States: U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006–

5102, 23 p.

Solley, W.B., Pierce, R.R., and Perlman, H.A., 1998, Estimated 

use of water in the United States in 1995: U.S. Geological 

Survey Circular 1200, 71 p. 

Wisconsin References

Buchwald, C.A., 2009, Water use in Wisconsin: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009–1076, 74 p., accessed 

October 16, 2009, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1076/. 

Central Brown County Water Authority, 2007, Who we are, 

accessed May 23, 2008, at http://www.cbcwaterauthority.

com/.

Cherkauer, D.S., and Carlson, D.A., 2002, Development and 

calibration of Fond du Lac model, central Wisconsin—Final 

report to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

Source Water Protection Program: 63 p.

Conlon, T.D., 1998, Hydrogeology and simulation of groundwater flow in the sandstone aquifer, northeastern Wisconsin: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 97–4096, 60 p.

Council of Great Lakes Governors, 1985, The Great Lakes 

Charter—Principles for the management of Great Lakes 

Water Resources, February 11, 1985, 20 p., accessed September 3, 2009, at http://www.cglg.org/projects/water/docs/

GreatLakesCharter.pdf.

Dawson, Tom, 2003, Wisconsin law of groundwater withdrawal—A primer, in 2003 Wisconsin Lakes Convention, 

Green Bay, Wis., April 10–12, 2003, Proceedings: Madison, 

Wis., Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources–Wisconsin Groundwater Coordinating Council, Breakout Session 

A—Water supply—Will there be enough and why is getting 

enough becoming more and more difficult?, accessed July 

10, 2008, at http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/dwg/gcc/

TD-TalkOutline.pdf. 

East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, 2007, 

Demographic data center, accessed January 26, 2007, at 

http://www.eastcentralrpc.org/data_center/demographics.

htm.

Ellefson, B.R., Mueller, G.D., and Buchwald, C.A., 2002, 

Water use in Wisconsin, 2000: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 02–356, 1 sheet.

Ellefson, B.R., Rury, K.S., and Krohelski, J.T., 1987, Water 

use in Wisconsin, 1985: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 87–699, 1 sheet.

Ellefson, B.R., Sabin, T.J., and Krohelski, J.T., 1993, Water 

use in Wisconsin, 1990: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 93–118, 1 sheet.

Environmental Working Group, 2005, National Tap Water 

Quality Database, accessed September 8, 2009, at http://

www.ewg.org/tapwater/index.php. 

Environmental Working Group, 2006, Farm Subsidy Database, 

accessed September 8, 2009, at http://farm.ewg.org/farm/

index.php.

Feinstein, D.T., Eaton, T.T., Hart, D.J., Krohelski, J.T., and 

Bradbury, K.R., 2005, Regional aquifer model for southeastern Wisconsin—Report 1—Data collection, conceptual 

model development, numerical model construction, and 

model calibration: Administrative report to the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, Technical 

Report Number 41, 81 p. 

Feinstein, D.T., Hart, D.J., Eaton, T.T., Krohelski, J.T., and 

Bradbury, K.R., 2004, Simulation of regional groundwater 

flow in southeastern Wisconsin: Wisconsin Geological and 

Natural History Survey Open-File Report 2004–01 [Groundwater flow model plus documentation], 1 CD-ROM.

Foley, F.C., Walton, W.C., and Drescher, W.J., 1953, Groundwater conditions in the Milwaukee–Waukesha area, Wisconsin: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1229, 96 p.
References 79

Forstall, R.L., ed., 1995, Wisconsin population of counties 

by decennial census—1900 to 1990: U.S. Bureau of the 

Census–Population Division, data file, March 27, 1995, 

accessed December 6, 2006, at http://www.census.gov/

population/cencounts/wi190090.txt. 

Green, J.H., and Hutchinson, R.D., 1965, Ground-water pumpage and water-level changes in the Milwaukee-Waukesha 

area, Wisconsin, 1950–61: U.S. Geological Survey WaterSupply Paper 1809–I, 19 p.

Gotkowitz, M., Hart, D., and Dunning, C., 2008, Groundwater 

sustainability in a humid climate—Groundwater pumping, 

groundwater consumption, and land-use change: Wisconsin 

Geologic and Natural History Survey, Open-File Report 

2008–2, 47 p., 16 color pl. [Also on CD-ROM in PDF

format.]

Hutchinson, R.D., 1970, Water resources of Racine and 

Kenosha Counties, southeastern Wisconsin: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 1878, 63 p. 

Jansen, J.R., and Rao, M., 1998, Southeastern Wisconsin 

sandstone aquifer screening model report: Milwaukee, Wis., 

Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc., 62 p.

Knowles, D.B., 1964, Ground-water conditions in the Green 

Bay area, Wisconsin, 1950–60: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 1669–J, 37 p. 

Knowles, D.B., Dreher, F.C., and Whetstone, G.W., 1964, 

Water resources of the Green Bay area, Wisconsin: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1499–G, 67 p. 

Krohelski, J.T., Bradbury, K.R., Hunt R.J., and Swanson, S.K., 

2000, Numerical simulation of groundwater flow in Dane 

County, Wisconsin: Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey Bulletin 98, 31 p.

Lawrence, C.L., and Ellefson, B.R., 1982, Water use in Wisconsin, 1979: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

82–444, 98 p.

Lawrence, C.L., Ellefson, B.R., and Cotter, R.D., 1984, 

Public-supply pumpage in Wisconsin, by aquifer: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 83–931, 40 p.

LeRoux, E.F., 1957, Geology and ground-water resources of 

Outagamie County, Wisconsin: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 1421, 57 p. 

Mandle, R.J., and Kontis, A.L., 1992, Simulation of regional 

ground-water flow in the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system in the northern Midwest, United States: U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 1405–C, 97 p.

Mathey, S.B., 1990, National water information system user’s 

manual, v. 2, chap. 5, water use data system, pt. 1, Site 

Specific Water-use Data System (SSWUDS): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 90–198, ver. 90.2 [variously 

paged].

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2007, Water 

Appropriation Permit Program, accessed June 26, 2007, 

at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/

appropriations/wateruse.html. 

Newport, T.G., 1962, Geology and ground-water resources of 

Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 1604, 52 p.

Oconto County, 2007, Oconto County 20-year comprehensive plan, v. 2, County resources, chap. 6, Population and 

housing—Draft: UW-Extension, 21 p., accessed January 

26, 2007, at http://www.uwex.edu/ces/cty/oconto/cnred/

documents/ch_6_housing_and_populationjune2007.pdf.

Olcott, P.G., 1966, Geology and ground-water resources of 

Winnebago County, Wisconsin: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 1814, 61 p.

Paulson, R.W., Chase, E.B., Roberts, R.S., and Moody, D.W., 

1991, National water summary 1988–89—Hydrologic 

events and floods and droughts: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 2375, 591 p.

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, 1985, Generating 

plants operated by Wisconsin electric utilities: Accounts and 

Finance Division Bulletin No. 46, August 1985, 10 p.

Reilly, T.E., Dennehy, K.F., Alley, W.M., and Cunningham, 

W.L., 2008, Ground-water availability in the United States: 

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1323, 70 p., accessed September 8, 2009, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1323/. 

Schmid, A.A., 1961, Water allocation by permit in Wisconsin: 

Madison, Wis., University of Wisconsin Press, Land Economics, v. 37, no. 2, p. 182–187.

Schmid, A.A., 1962, Water and the law in Wisconsin: Madison, Wis., Wisconsin Historical Society, Wisconsin Magazine of History, v. 45, no. 3, p. 203–215.

Soller, D.R., 1992, Text and references to accompany “Map 

showing the thickness and character of Quaternary sediments in the glaciated United States east of the Rocky 

Mountains”: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1921, 71 p. 

Soller, D.R., and Packard, P.H., 1998, Digital representation 

of a map showing the thickness and character of Quaternary 

sediments in the glaciated United States east of the Rocky 

Mountains: U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series 

DDS–38.
80 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, 

2004, The population of southeastern Wisconsin: Technical 

Report Number 11, July 2004, 114 p., accessed September 

8, 2009, at http://maps.sewrpc.org/publications/techrep/

tr-011_population_southeastern_wisconsin.pdf.

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, 

2008, A regional water supply plan for southeastern Wisconsin, Chapter III—Existing water supply conditions in 

the region: Planning Report No. 52—Preliminary draft, 

accessed September 8, 2009, at http://www.sewrpc.org/

watersupplystudy/pdfs/pr-052_chapter-03_preliminary_

draft.pdf. 

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, 

2010, Regional water supply plan, accessed May 17, 2010, 

at http://www.sewrpc.org/SEWRPC/Environment/RegionalWaterSupplyPlan.htm.

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission and 

Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, 2002, 

Groundwater resources of southeastern Wisconsin: Technical Report Number 37, June 2002, 203 p., accessed September 8, 2009, at http://maps.sewrpc.org/publications/techrep/

tr-037_groundwater_resources.pdf. 

Sun, R.J., Weeks, J.B., and Grubb, H.F., 1997, Bibliography 

of Regional Aquifer-Systems Analysis Program of the 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1978–96: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 97–4074, 63 p., 

accessed September 8, 2009, at http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/

rasa/html/introduction.html. 

Trotta, L.C., 1985, Depth to bedrock in Wisconsin: U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with Wisconsin Department 

of Natural Resources, scale 1:500,000.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1955, Irrigation—Water 

management guide for Wisconsin tentative for the design of 

sprinkler irrigation systems: Madison, Wis., Soil Conservation Service Information Circulars, 25 p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1995, 1992 Census of agriculture, Volume 1, Part 49, Chapter 1—Wisconsin state and 

county data: Washington, D.C., National Agricultural Statistics Service, accessed November 24, 2009, at http://www.

agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/1992/Volume_1/Wisconsin/

wi_intro.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1999a, 1997 Census of agriculture, Volume 1, Part 49, Chapter 2—Wisconsin state and 

county level data: Washington, D.C., National Agricultural 

Statistics Service, accessed November 24, 2009, at http://

www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/1997/index.asp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1999b, 1997 Census of agriculture, Farm and ranch irrigation survey (1998), Volume 3, 

Special Studies, Part 1: Washington, D.C., National Agricultural Statistics Service, AC97–SP–1, 148 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2004a, 2002 Census of 

agriculture, Volume 1, Chapter 2—County level data, 

Wisconsin: Washington, D.C., National Agricultural 

Statistics Service, accessed September 28, 2009, at http://

www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2002/Volume_1,_

Chapter_2_County_Level/Wisconsin/index.asp. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2004b, 2002 Census of agriculture, Farm and ranch irrigation survey (2003), Volume 3, Special Studies, Part 1: Washington, D.C., National Agricultural 

Statistics Service, AC–02–SS–1, tables 12 and 28, 193 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture–Farm Service Agency–Aerial 

Photography Field Office, 2006, Wisconsin county National 

Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) 2006 imagery, 

accessed May 9, 2006, at http://www.wisconsinview.org/. 

U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of the Census, 1942, 

Sixteenth census of the United States, 1940—Agriculture, 

Volume I, First and Second Series State Reports—Part 

1, Statistics for counties—Farms and farm property, with 

related information for farms and farm operators, livestock 

and livestock products, and crops, accessed September 

8, 2009, at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/

Historical_Publications/1940/Farms%20and%20Farm%20

Property_New%20England/00179375v1p1.pdf.

U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of the Census, 1952,

United States census of agriculture, 1950—Irrigation of 

agricultural lands of the United States, Volume III, Enterprises, irrigation works, farms and acreage irrigated, investment, water used, and cost, accessed September 8, 2009, 

at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/Historical_

Publications/1950/vol3%20irrigated%20lands/38921062v3.

pdf. 

U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of the Census, 1956, 

United States census of agriculture, 1954—Volume 1, 

Counties and state economic areas—Part 7, Wisconsin: 

Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 

p. 108–113.

U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of the Census, 1961, 

United States census of agriculture, 1959—Volume I, Counties—Part 14, Wisconsin: Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 211 p. 

U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of the Census, 1972, 

Census of agriculture, 1969—Volume 1, Area reports—Part 

14, Wisconsin section 1 summary data and section 2 county 

data: Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 

576 p.

U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of the Census, 1977, 

United States census of agriculture, 1974—Volume 1, State 

and county data—Part 49, Wisconsin: Washington, D.C., 

U.S. Government Printing Office [variously paged].
References 81

U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of the Census, 1982, 

United States census of agriculture, 1978—Volume 1, State 

and county data—Part 49, Wisconsin: Washington, D.C., 

U.S. Government Printing Office, AC78–A–49 [variously 

paged].

U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of the Census, 1990a, 

United States census of agriculture, 1987—Volume 1, Geographic areas series—Part 49, Wisconsin state and county 

data: Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 

p. 220–229.

U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of the Census, 1990b, 

1987 Census of agriculture, Farm and ranch irrigation survey (1988), Volume 3, Special Studies Part 1: Washington, 

D.C., 114 p.

U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of the Census, 2006, 

Population estimates, County population datasets, Population data by county for 2000, accessed March 21, 2006, at 

http://www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html.

U.S. Department of Energy–Energy Information Administration, 2006, EIA-767 Data Files—Annual Steam-Electric 

Plant Operation and Design Data (1996–2005), accessed 

June 26, 2006, at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/

page/eia767.html. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006, Safe Drinking 

Water Information System (SDWIS), accessed March 23, 

2007, at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/sdw_form_v2.create_

page?state_abbr=WI. 

U.S. Geological Survey, ed. [various dates], The National 

Map—Digital orthoimagery, accessed September 28, 2009, 

at http://seamless.usgs.gov/index.php. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1998, National Water Information System (NWIS): U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 

FS–027–98, 2 p., accessed September 28, 2009, at http://

pubs.usgs.gov/fs/FS-027-98/. 

U.S. Geological Survey Wisconsin Water Science Center, 

2009, Groundwater systems team current projects, accessed 

November 24, 2009, at http://wi.water.usgs.gov/groundwater/projects.html.

Vickers, Amy, 2001, Water use and conservation—Homes, 

landscapes, businesses, industries, farms: Amherst, Mass., 

Waterplow Press, 446 p. 

Walker, J.F., Saad, D.A., and Krohelski, J.T., 1998, Optimization of ground-water withdrawal in the Lower Fox River 

communities, Wisconsin: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 97–4218, 24 p.

Wisconsin Department of Administration–Demographic Services Center, 2006, Table—Time series of the final official 

population estimates and census counts for Wisconsin 

municipalities in existence on January 1, 2006, accessed 

December 6, 2006, at http://www.doa.state.wi.us/section_

detail.asp?linkcatid=11&linkid=64&locid=9. 

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, [1948], A century of 

Wisconsin agriculture, 1848–1948: Wisconsin Department 

of Agriculture Bulletin no. 290, 119 p.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1997, Status of 

groundwater quantity in Wisconsin: PUBL-DG-043-97, 

accessed September 28, 2009, at http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/

org/water/dwg/gcc/gw-quantity.pdf. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2005, Groundwater retrieval network and high capacity well database: 

Bureau of Drinking Water and Groundwater, accessed 

December 7, 2005, at http://prodoasext.dnr.wi.gov/inter1/

hicap$.startup. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2006, Water well 

data CD-ROM: Madison, Wis., Bureau of Drinking Water 

and Groundwater, ver. 2, July 2006. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2007, Water well 

data CD-ROM: Madison, Wis., Bureau of Drinking Water 

and Groundwater, ver. 3, July 2007. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2008a, High 

capacity well program: Madison, Wis., Bureau of Drinking Water and Groundwater, accessed October 30, 2008, at 

http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/dwg/hicap.html. 

Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, 1983, 

Thickness of unconsolidated material in Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Extension, Wisconsin Geological and 

Natural History Survey page-size map series number 18.

Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, 2004, 

wiscLITH—A digital lithologic and stratigraphic database 

of Wisconsin geology: Wisconsin Geological and Natural 

History Survey Open–File Report 2003–05, ver. 2.0, 1 CDROM.

Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, 2008, 

Geology research projects: University of Wisconsin Extension, accessed August 21, 2008, at http://www.uwex.edu/

wgnhs/proj_geol.htm. 

Wisconsin State Climatology Office, 2009, Long-term variability of annual climate—Statewide annual precipitation 

(1895–present), accessed September 29, 2009, at http://

www.aos.wisc.edu/~sco/clim-history/state/index.html. 

Wisconsin State Legislature, 2004, 2003 Wisconsin Act 310, 

accessed September 29, 2009, at http://www.legis.state.

wi.us/2003/data/acts/03Act310.pdf. 
82 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

Wisconsin State Legislature, 2007, Chapter NR 820—Groundwater quantity protection: Register, August 2007, no. 620, p. 

233–237, accessed September 29, 2009, at http://www.legis.

state.wi.us/rsb/code/nr/nr820.pdf. 

Wisconsin State Legislature, 2009, Text from Legislative 

Reference Bureau database of 2007–08 Wisconsin statutes and annotations updated through August 17, 2009, 

and 2009 Wisconsin Act 39—Chapters 60, 61, 62, 66, 

and 200, accessed September 29, 2009, at http://nxt.legis.

state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.

htm&d=stats&jd=top. 

Young, H.L., 1992, Hydrogeology of the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system in the northern Midwest, United States: 

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1405–B, 99 p.

Michigan References

Baltusis, M.A., Quigley, M.F., and Mandle, R.J., 1992, 

Municipal ground-water development and withdrawals in 

the central lower peninsula of Michigan, 1870–1987: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 91–215, 89 p. 

Bauder, Jim, and Carlson, Linzy, 2005, Soil moisture monitoring—What does 65% depletion mean?: Montana State 

University, Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Water Quality and Irrigation Management, 

accessed August 17, 2007, at http://waterquality.montana.

edu/docs/irrigation/depletion.shtml. 

Bedell, D.J., 1982, Municipal water withdrawals in Michigan: 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Water Management Division, 43 p.

Holtschlag, D.J., Luukkonen, C.L., and Nicholas, J.R., 1996, 

Simulation of ground-water flow in the Saginaw aquifer, 

Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham Counties, Michigan: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2480, 49 p.

Huffman, G.C., 1974a, Summary of ground-water hydrological data in Michigan in 1972: U.S. Geological Survey 

Report (unnumbered), 90 p.

Huffman, G.C., 1974b, Ground-water data for Michigan, 

1973: U.S. Geological Survey Report (unnumbered), 86 p.

Huffman, G.C., 1975, Ground-water data for Michigan, 1974: 

U.S. Geological Survey Report (unnumbered), 89 p.

Huffman, G.C., 1976, Ground-water data for Michigan, 1975: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 77–139, 56 p.

Huffman, G.C., 1977, Ground-water data for Michigan, 1976: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 77–782, 56 p.

Huffman, G.C., 1979a, Ground-water data for Michigan, 1977: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 79–332, 75 p.

Huffman, G.C., 1979b, Ground-water data for Michigan, 

1978: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 80–002, 

61 p.

Huffman, G.C., 1980, Ground-water data for Michigan, 1979: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 80–1212, 56 p.

Huffman, G.C., 1981, Ground-water data for Michigan, 1980: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 81–811, 57 p.

Huffman, G.C., 1982, Ground-water data for Michigan, 1981: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 82–754, 55 p.

Huffman, G.C., 1983, Ground-water data for Michigan, 1982: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 83–753, 54 p.

Huffman, G.C., 1984, Ground-water data for Michigan, 1983: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 84–623, 47 p.

Huffman, G.C., 1985, Ground-water data for Michigan, 1984: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 85–420, 50 p.

Huffman, G.C., 1986, Ground-water data for Michigan, 1985: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 86–417W, 50 p.

Huffman, G.C., 1988, Ground-water data for Michigan, 1986: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 88–87, 52 p.

Huffman, G.C., and Thompson, T., 1971, Summary of groundwater hydrological data in Michigan in 1970: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 72–173, 94 p.

Huffman, G.C., and Thompson, T., 1973, Summary of groundwater hydrological data in Michigan in 1971: U.S. Geological Survey Report (unnumbered), 88 p.

Huffman, G.C., and Whited, C.R., 1988, Ground-water data 

for Michigan, 1987: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 88–704, 56 p.

Huffman, G.C., and Whited, C.R., 1989, Ground-water data 

for Michigan, 1988: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 89–597, 54 p.

Huffman, G.C., and Whited, C.R., 1991, Ground-water data 

for Michigan, 1989: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 91–55, 51 p.

Huffman, G.C., and Whited, C.R., 1993, Ground-water data 

for Michigan, 1990: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 92–114, 51 p.

Luukkonen, C.L., Blumer, S.P., Weaver, T.L., and Jean, Julie, 

2004, Simulation of the ground-water-flow system in the 

Kalamazoo County area, Michigan: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5054, 65 p.

Luukkonen, C.L., and Westjohn, D.B., 2001, Ground-water 

flow and contributing areas to public-supply wells in Kingsford and Iron Mountain, Michigan: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 00–4226, 43 p. 
References 83

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2004, Water 

withdrawals for self-supplied industrial manufacturing in 

Michigan 2004, accessed July 14, 2009, at http://www.deq.

state.mi.us/documents/deq-wd-wurp-Industrial04.pdf

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2005a, Water 

use, levels, & diversion Web site, accessed November 

22, 2005, at http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-

3313_3677_3704---,00.html. 

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2005b, 

Public Act 148—Groundwater Inventory and Map (GWIM) 

Project, Executive Summary, 31 p., accessed September 29, 

2009, at http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/public_

act148_aug_2005_270734_7.pdf. 

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2006a, State 

of Michigan Public Act 148—Groundwater Inventory and 

Map (GWIM) Project, Technical Report, 257 p., accessed 

September 29, 2009, at http://gwmap.rsgis.msu.edu/

Technical_Report.pdf. 

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 

2006b, Water withdrawals for agricultural irrigation 

in Michigan 2006, accessed July 14, 2009, at http://

www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-wd-wurpagriculturereport06_208259_7.pdf. 

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2006c, 

Groundwater mapping project website, accessed September 

29, 2009, at http://gwmap.rsgis.msu.edu/. 

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2006d, 

Water withdrawals for golf course irrigation in Michigan 

2004, accessed July 14, 2009, at http://www.deq.state.mi.us/

documents/deq-wd-wurp-golf04.pdf. 

Michigan Department of Health, 1961, Data on public water 

supplies in Michigan: Engineering Bulletin No. 4, 57 p.

Michigan Department of Public Health, 1943, Public water supplies in Michigan: Engineering Bulletin No. 12, Section 1.

Michigan State University Extension, 1998, Changes in Michigan agriculture—1950 to 1987: by Richard H. Bernsten, 

accessed March 10, 2009, at http://web1.msue.msu.edu/imp/

modsr/sp000001.html. 

National Climatic Data Center, 2005, Daily surface data: 

Asheville, N.C., accessed August 16, 2007, at http://www.

ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html. 

Shayya, W.H., and Bralts, V.F., 1994, Guide to SCS—Microcomputer Irrigation Scheduling Package, SCS-Scheduler 

Version 3.00: Michigan State University, Department of 

Agricultural Engineering, 341 p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture–Soil Conservation Service, 

1994, State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) database for Michigan: Fort Worth, Tex., electronic GIS data, 1:250,000 scale. 

U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of the Census, 1927, 

United States census of agriculture, 1925—Part I, Northern 

states: Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 

p. 587–630.

U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of the Census, 1932, 

Fifteenth census of the United States, 1930—Census of 

agriculture, Volume II—Part 1, The northern states: Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 657–704.

U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of the Census, 1942, 

Sixteenth census of the United States, 1940—Census of 

agriculture, Volume I, First and second series state reports—

Part 1, Statistics for counties: Washington, D.C., U.S. 

Government Printing Office, p. 786–872.

U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of the Census, 1946, 

United States census of agriculture, 1945—Volume 1, Part 

6, Michigan, statistics for counties: Washington, D.C., U.S. 

Government Printing Office, p. 18–91.

U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of the Census, 1952, 

United States census of agriculture, 1950—Volume 1, Counties and state economic areas—Part 6, Michigan: Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 42–98.

U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of the Census, 1956, 

United States census of agriculture, 1954—Volume 1, Counties and state economic areas—Part 6, Michigan: Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 44–132.

U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of the Census, 1961, 

United States census of agriculture, 1959—Volume 1, 

Counties—Part 13, Michigan: Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 134–230.

U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of the Census, 1967, 

United States census of agriculture, 1964—Volume 1, State 

and county statistics—Part 13, Michigan: Washington, D.C., 

U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 258–383.

U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of the Census, 1971, 

United States census of agriculture, 1969—Volume 1, Area 

reports—Part 13, Michigan—Section 2, County data: Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 300–313.

U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of the Census, 1977, 

United States census of agriculture, 1974—Volume 1, State 

and county data—Part 22, Michigan: Washington, D.C., 

U.S. Government Printing Office, p. II-1–II-45. 

U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of the Census, 1982, 

1982 Census of manufacturing, Subject series, Water use in 

manufacturing: Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office [variously paged].

U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of the Census, 1982, 

United States census of agriculture, 1978— Volume 1, State 

and county data—Part 22, Michigan: Washington, D.C., 

U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 118–166. 
84 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of the Census, 1984, 

United States census of agriculture, 1982—Volume 1, Geographic areas series—Part 22, Michigan state and county 

data: Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 

p. 120–371.

U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of the Census, 1990, 

United States census of agriculture, 1987— Volume 1, Geographic areas series—Part 22, Michigan state and county 

data: Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 

p. 197–340.

U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of the Census, 1992, 

1992 Census of manufacturers, Geographic area series, 

Michigan: Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing 

Office [variously paged].

Indiana References

Arvin, D.V., and Spaeth, Ralph, 2009, Trends in Indiana’s 

water use, 1986–96: State of Indiana, Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Water, Special Report No. 1, 19 p., 

accessed September 29, 2009, at http://www.in.gov/dnr/

water/files/trendstext.pdf. 

Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 1987, Water 

resource availability in the St. Joseph River Basin, Indiana: 

Indianapolis, Ind., Water Resource Assessment 87–1.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 1990, Water 

resource availability in the Kankakee River Basin, Indiana: 

Indianapolis, Ind., Water Resource Assessment 90–3.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 1994, Water 

resource availability in the Lake Michigan Region, Indiana: 

Indianapolis, Ind., Water Resource Assessment 94–4.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 1996, Water 

resource availability in the Maumee River Basin, Indiana: 

Indianapolis, Ind., Water Resource Assessment 96–5.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 2008, Utilization of 

the water resource, accessed July 16, 2008, at http://www.

in.gov/dnr/water/files/804_Util_Water_Res.pdf. 

Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 2009a, Groundwater availability, accessed July 14, 2009, at http://www.

in.gov/dnr/water/3650.htm. 

Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 2009b, Water well 

record database, accessed July 14, 2009, at http://www.

in.gov/dnr/water/3595.htm. 

Klaer, F.H., Jr., and Stallman, R.W., 1948, Ground-water 

resources of Saint Joseph County, Indiana: Indiana Department of Conservation–Division of Water Resources Bulletin 

No. 3.

 Stallman, R.W., and Klaer, F.H., Jr., 1950, Ground-water 

resources of Noble County, Indiana: Indiana Department of 

Conservation–Division of Water Resources Bulletin No. 5.

Illinois References

Beck, R., Harrington, K.W., Hardy, W.P., and Feather, T.D., 

1996, Assessment of Illinois water quantity law: Planning and Management Consultants, Ltd., report submitted to Illinois Department of Natural Resources–Office 

of Water Resources, July 1996, accessed December 

19, 2008, at http://www.isws.uiuc.edu/iswsdocs/wsp/

IlWaterQuantityLaw.pdf. 

Burch, S.L., 1991, The new Chicago model—A reassessment of the impacts of Lake Michigan allocations on the 

Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system in northeastern Illinois: Champaign, Ill., Illinois State Water Survey Research 

Report 119, 58 p.

Clark, G.R., 1985, Illinois groundwater law—The rule of 

reasonable use—A report to the Illinois Groundwater Association, October 8, 1985: Joliet, Ill., Illinois Department of 

Transportation–Division of Water Resources, September 18, 

1985 (draft), accessed December 19, 2008, at http://www.

isws.illinois.edu/iswsdocs/wsp/IllinoisGroundwaterLaw.pdf. 

Kenny, J.F., ed., 2004, Guidelines for preparation of State 

water-use estimates for 2000: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods Report 4–A4, 49 p., accessed October 

1, 2009, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/2005/tm4A4/. 

Illinois General Assembly, 1984, Water Use Act of 1983, 

Public Act 83–700, approved September 23, 1983, effective 

January 1, 1984, Text from the Illinois Legislative Information System for Illinois Compiled Statutes, Chapter 525 

Conservation—Statute 45 (525 ILCS 45/), at http://www.

ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs.asp.

Illinois State Water Survey and Hittman Associates, 1973, 

Feasibility study on desalting brackish water from the 

Mt. Simon aquifer in northeastern Illinois: Champaign, Ill., 

Illinois State Water Survey Contract Report 153, 120 p.

Prickett, T.A., and Lonnquist, C.G., 1971, Selected digital 

computer techniques for groundwater resource evaluation: 

Champaign, Ill., Illinois State Water Survey Bulletin 55, 62 p.

Sasman, R.T., Prickett, T.A., and Russell, R.R., 1961, Waterlevel decline and pumpage during 1960 in deep wells in 

the Chicago Region, Illinois: Illinois State Water Survey 

Circular 83, 43 p.
References 85

Sun, R.J., Weeks, J.B., and Grubb, H.F., 1997, Bibliography 

of Regional Aquifer-Systems Analysis Program of the 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1978–96: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 97–4074, 63 p., 

accessed October 1, 2009, at http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/

rasa/html/introduction.html.

Suter, M., Bergstrom, R.E., Smith, H.F., Emrich, G.H., Wal-

ton, W.C., and Larson, T.E., 1959, Preliminary report on 

the ground-water resources of the Chicago Region, Illinois: 

Champaign–Urbana, Ill., Illinois State Water Survey and 

Illinois State Geological Survey Cooperative Ground-Water 

Report 1, 89 p.

Young, H.L., 1992, Hydrogeology of the Cambrian-Ordovi-

cian aquifer system in the northern Midwest, United States: 

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1405–B, 99 p.
86 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005
Glossary 87

Glossary

A

agricultural irrigation Refers to water 

applied artificially to the growing of nonspecialty crops, specifically grains, grasses, 

legumes, and vegetables.

aquaculture water use Water used in the 

production of organisms that live in water 

within a confined space and under controlled 

feeding, sanitation, and harvesting procedures, 

and establishments primarily engaged in hatching fish and in operating fishing preserves.

aquifer In general terms, underground soil 

or rock through which groundwater can easily 

move. More specifically, a geologic formation, 

group of formations, or part of a formation that 

contains sufficient saturated permeable material to yield significant quantities of water to 

wells or springs. See also groundwater.

B

C

coefficient A mathematical term for a number (quantity) placed before and multiplying 

another number (quantity).

commercial water use Water used at facilities involved in the sale of goods or services, 

such as hotels, restaurants, office buildings, 

hospitals, schools, and civilian and military 

institutions.

community A collaboration of people 

living together in a particular location. A 

community may or may not be incorporated 

with governing oversight. All communities 

considered in this report must have at 

least 25 year-round residents. Examples of 

communities are neighborhood suburbs, 

mobile home parks, townships, or cities. 

community withdrawal Refers to water 

withdrawals for a community. See also 

community and water withdrawal.

D

default water withdrawal rate The 

amount of water that has been estimated and 

substituted for withdrawal site (for example, 

well, facility) having no reported water-use 

data.

E

energy production water use (Indiana-specific 

definition) A water-use category in Indiana 

for water withdrawn for the primary purpose 

of power generation including coal mining 

operations or for the cooling of condensers 

at fossil fuel plants. See also thermoelectricpower water use.

F

farfield model area Outer area of the Lake 

Michigan Basin groundwater-flow model 

beyond the Lake Michigan Basin boundary, 

composed of cells with larger grid spacing.

G

golf course irrigation Refers to water 

applied artificially at golf courses for uses 

such as to maintain turfgrass or fill water 

hazards.

groundwater Generally all subsurface water 

as distinct from surface water; specifically, 

that part of the subsurface water in the 

saturated zone (a zone in which open spaces 

are filled with water).

groundwater-flow model A numerical 

representation used to simulate how water 

or chemical solutes move through local and 

regional aquifers. This representation consists 

of one or more model layers.

groundwater withdrawal Removal of water 

from a groundwater source such as an aquifer. 

The water that is supplied by a well or spring. 

See also aquifer.
88 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

H

high capacity Refers to the flow rate of a 

water withdrawal that is at or above a defined 

threshold. This rate is specific to each state. 

For example, in Wisconsin, it is when the total 

pumping or flowing capacity of all wells, drill 

holes, or mine shafts on one property is 70 or 

more gallons per minute, or, in Illinois, it is 

when a withdrawal is 100,000 gallons or more 

a day.

high-capacity property In general, means 

a property that is able of withdrawing water 

at a high-capacity flow rate. Specifically for 

Wisconsin, means a property where there is a 

well or wells that have a pumping capacity, in 

aggregate, able of withdrawing water at a rate 

of 70 or more gallons per minute.

high-capacity well A well constructed that 

meets the state-defined criteria for what is 

considered high capacity or a well constructed 

on a high-capacity property. See also high 

capacity and high-capacity property.

high-capacity well approval The review 

and positive determination of an application 

for high-capacity water withdrawal by a state 

authorizing department. Prior approval is 

also necessary before a high-capacity well or 

water-supply system can be operated. This 

especially applies after a change of ownership. 

An approval is not the same as a high-capacity 

well permit. See also high capacity, highcapacity well permit, and water withdrawal.

housing subdivision Means the division of 

a lot, tract, or parcel of land into two or more 

lots, plats, sites, or other divisions of land for 

the purpose of building residences.

hydrogeologic unit Any rock unit or zone of 

identifiable origin and age range that because 

of its hydraulic properties has a distinct 

influence on the storage or movement of 

groundwater. See also groundwater.

hydrogeologic unit model layer Hydrogeologic units that have been assigned to 

a model layer of the groundwater-flow 

model. See also groundwater-flow model, 

hydrogeologic unit, and model layer.

I

incorporated place A community that 

has grouped together to create a political 

decisionmaking structure by typically a 

governing body. See also community.

industrial water use Water used for 

industrial purposes, such as manufacturing, 

fabrication, processing, washing, and cooling.

irrigation water use Water applied to 

lands to assist in the growing of crops and 

pastures or to maintain vegetative growth 

on recreational lands such as parks and golf 

courses.

J

K

L

M

miscellaneous water use A report-specific 

water-use category for water withdrawn in 

Wisconsin for a variety of uses. Miscellaneous 

water use in Wisconsin includes aquaculture 

and thermoelectric-power water uses. The 

above-listed uses were categorized differently 

for Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois due to how 

data are collected, classified, and estimated 

for each state. See also aquaculture water use 

and thermoelectric-power water use.

model layer How aquifers or hydrogeologic 

units are represented in the groundwater-flow 

model. See also groundwater-flow model and 

hydrogeologic unit.

model subregion (or subregion) Area of 

the Lake Michigan Basin groundwater-flow 

model corresponding to one of the following 

geographical areas: Northeastern Wisconsin, 

Southeastern Wisconsin, Northeastern Illinois, 

Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Northern 

Lower Peninsula of Michigan, Southern 

Lower Peninsula of Michigan, and Northern 

Indiana.

municipal Public ownership and access that 

is authorized by a local or state government.
Glossary 89

N

nearfield model area Central area of the 

Lake Michigan Basin groundwater-flow 

encompassing the Lake Michigan Basin and 

composed of cells with smaller grid spacing.

O

other irrigation (Wisconsin-specific 

definition) Other irrigation refers to 

water applied artificially at athletic fields, 

cemeteries, and golf courses, or for other 

landscaping needs.

other water use (Indiana-specific 

definition) A water-use category in Indiana 

for water withdrawn for a variety of uses, 

including snow-making, aquaculture, operating 

fish and wildlife areas, lake-level maintenance, 

and construction dewatering. Landfills were 

included in this category until 1996. See also

aquaculture water use, rural water use, and 

thermoelectric-power water use.

P

per capita water use (per capita use) The 

average amount of water used per person 

during a standard time period, usually one day.

principal crop irrigation See agricultural 

irrigation.

public-supply water use Water withdrawn 

by public and private water suppliers that 

furnish water to as least 25 people or have a 

minimum of 15 connections year-round or for 

Wisconsin at least 60 days per year. Public 

supply provides water for a variety of uses, 

such as domestic, commercial, industrial, 

thermoelectric power, and public water use.

public water-supply system (or water 

supplier) A utility or another provider that 

delivers water through a water conveyance 

system in a community for use by the public. 

See also community and public-supply water 

use.

Q

R

rural water use (Indiana-specific 

definition) A water-use category in Indiana 

for water withdrawals with the primary 

purpose of watering livestock and operating 

fish hatcheries.

S

self-supplied water use Water withdrawn 

from a groundwater source by a user rather 

than being obtained from a public supply. All 

self-supplied water use in this report is from 

groundwater sources.

significant water withdrawal The amount 

of water that is considered large. Legislation 

under each state can define the amount or 

withdrawal rate that is important as it may 

have effect on local water resources. For 

example, a significant water withdrawal from 

a groundwater source in Michigan is from a 

well capable of producing 100,000 gallons 

or more per day; whereas in Wisconsin, 

it is from a property with a well having a 

withdrawal rate of 70 gallons or more per 

minute.

specialty agricultural irrigation (Wisconsinspecific definition) Specialty agriculture 

irrigation refers to water applied artificially to 

assist with the growing of non-standard crops 

or ornamental products typically found at tree 

farms, orchards, nurseries, and greenhouses, 

which includes the growing of berries, sod, 

mint, ginseng, commercial seeds, flowers, and 

mushrooms. 

subregion See model subregion.

T

thermoelectric-power water use Water 

used in the process of generating electricity 

with steam-driven turbine generators.
90 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

time interval Discrete intervals of time used 

in a groundwater-flow model (also known 

as stress periods). For the Lake Michigan 

Basin groundwater-flow model the following 

12 time intervals were used: (1) 1864–1900; 

(2) 1901–20; (3) 1921–40; (4) 1941–50; (5) 

1951–60; (6) 1961–70; (7) 1971–75; (8) 

1976–80; (9) 1981–85; (10) 1986–90; (11) 

1991–2000; and (12) 2001–05.

U

unconsolidated material A mixture of loose 

material composed of sand, gravel, silt or 

clay. The source of this material may be from 

alluvial, eluvial, or glacial origins. It is also 

sometimes referred to as unlithified deposits 

or deposits of a specific geologic time period 

such as Quaternary deposits.

V

W

water supplier See public water-supply 

system.

water use Water that is used for a specific 

purpose, such as for domestic use, irrigation, 

or industrial processing.

water withdrawal Removal of water from 

either a surface water or groundwater source. 

All withdrawals in this report are from 

groundwater sources. See also groundwater 

withdrawal.

well permit (Wisconsin-specific 

definition) Means authorization for a well 

location or pump installation that is considered 

high capacity. This permission is obtained 

from the Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources although in some counties extra 

permits are required through other government 

agencies. A permit is not the same as a highcapacity well approval. See also high capacity 

and high-capacity well approval.

X

Y

Z
Appendixes 91

Appendixes

1. Stratigraphic columns for Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan and assigned 

hydrogeologic-unit model layers and aquifer systems............................................................92

2. Wisconsin water-use category estimates by time interval and A, model subregion; 

B, aquifer system; and C, aquifer type........................................................................................93

3. Michigan water-use category estimates by time interval and A, model subregion; 

B, aquifer system; and C, aquifer type........................................................................................96

4. Indiana water-use category estimates by time interval and A, model 

subregion; B, aquifer system; and C, aquifer type....................................................................99

5. Illinois water-use category estimates by time interval and A, model 

subregion; B, aquifer system; and C, aquifer type..................................................................102

6. Water-use estimates for 2040:

A. Estimation methods for 2040 water use................................................................................105

B. Lake Michigan Basin model time interval 12 (2001–5) and 2040 groundwateruse estimates by category, model subregion, and aquifer system.............................111

C. Methods for estimating 2040 water use by category and state........................................113

D. References used in the estimation of 2040 water use, by state .......................................115

E. Adjusted model rates and estimated percent change in employment for 

Wisconsin industrial water-use projections for the year 2040....................................120
92 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

Time-stratigraphic

unit

System Series

Reference: Modified stratigraphic columns from Lampe, 2009.

Quaternary

Jurassic

Pennsylvanian

Mississippian

Devonian

Silurian

Ordovician

Cambrian

Precambrian

Upper

Glacial or alluvial

deposits

Wisconsin Illinois Indiana Ohio Michigan

Ionia Fm

Upper

Lower

Upper

Middle

Lower

Upper

Middle

Lower

Grand River Fm

Saginaw Fm

Parma Sandstone

Bayport Ls

Michigan Fm

Marshall Sandstone

Coldwater Shale

Sunbury Shale

Ellsworth Shale

Antrim Shale

Traverse Group

Detroit River Group

Bass Islands Group 

Salina Group

Niagara Group

Manistique Group

Burnt Bluff Group

Cataract Group

Upper Richmond Group

Middle

Trenton Fm

Black River Fm

Glenwood Fm

St. Peter Sandstone

Prairie du Chien Gr

Trempealeau Fm

Lower

Franconia Fm

Galesville

Sandstone

Eau Claire Fm

Mount Simon

Sandstone

Middle

Upper

Lower

Absent

Jacobsville Sandstone

Crystalline Basement

Complex

Coldwater Shale

Sunbury Shale

Ellsworth Shale

Antrim Shale

Muscatatuck

Group

Salina Group

Salamonie Dolomite

Brassfield Limestone

Absent

Maquoketa Group

Trenton Limestone

Black River Limestone

Ancell Group

Prairie du Chien Gr

Potosi Dolomite

Franconia Sandstone

Ironton Sandstone

Galesville Sandstone

Eau Claire Sandstone

Mount Simon

Sandstone of 

Dresbach Group

Crystalline Basement

Complex

Absent

Coldwater Shale

Sunbury Shale

Bedford Shale

Antrim Shale

Traverse Group

Dundee Formation

Detroit River Group

Absent

Salina Group

Lockport Group

Cataract Group

Rochester Shale

Dayton Formation

Cincinnati Group

Trenton Limestone

Black River Group

Wells Creek Fm

Absent

Knox Dolomite

Kerbel Fm

Eau Claire Fm

Mount Simon

Sandstone

Crystalline Basement

Complex

Antrim Shale

Milwaukee Fm

Thiensville Fm

Absent

Waubakee Fm

Racine Fm

Manistique Fm

Hendricks Fm

Byron Fm

Mayville Fm

Neda Fm

Maquoketa Fm

Sinnipee Group

Prairie du Chien Gr

Glenwood Fm

St. Peter Fm

Trempealeau Group

Tunnel City Group

Eau Claire Fm

Mount Simon

Formation

Wonewoc Fm

Absent

Keweenawan

Supergroup

Maquoketa Group

Galena Group

Platteville Group

Ancell Group

Prairie du Chien Gr

Potosi Dolomite

Franconia Fm

Ironton Sandstone

Galesville Sandstone

Eau Claire Fm

Mount Simon

Sandstone

Crystalline Basement

Complex

New Albany Shale

Group

Cedar Valley Limestone

Wapsipinicon Limestone

Racine Dolomite

Sugar Run Dolomite

Joliet Dolomite

Kankakee Dolomite

Wilhelmi Fm

Absent

Mississippian System

(Undifferentiated)

Absent

Hydrogeologic

unit

(Model layer)

Quaternary

(1–3)

Jurassic (4)

Upper

Pennsylvanian

(5)

Lower

Pennsylvanian

(6)

Michigan (7)

Marshall (8)

MississippianDevonian

(9)

Silurian-Devonian

(11–12)

Maquoketa (13)

Sinnipee

(14)

St. Peter

(15)

Prairie du ChienFranconia

(16)

IrontonGalesville

(17)

Eau Claire (18)

Mount Simon 

(19–20)

EXPLANATION

Aquifer

Aquifer/Confining unit

Confining unit Erosional surface

Absent

Pennsylvanian System

(Undifferentiated)

Modelassigned

aquifer

systems

Silurian-Devonian

(10)

Abbreviations: Group (Gr), Formation (Fm), Limestone (Ls), feet (ft)

Depositional surface

Cambrian-Ordovician Silurian-Devonian Jurassic-Mississippian Quat- ernary

Glacial or alluvial

deposits

Glacial or alluvial

deposits

Glacial or alluvial

deposits

Glacial or alluvial

deposits

The following hydrogeologic units, if present, were subdivided into multiple model layers 

based on unit thickness: 

 Quaternary: layer 1 (0–100 ft); layer 2 (100–200 ft); and layer 3 (more than 300 ft)

 Silurian-Devonian: layer 10 (0–50 ft); layer 11 (50–300 ft); and layer 12 (more than 300 ft)

 Mount Simon: layer 19 (0–300 ft) and layer 12 (more than 300 ft)

Appendix 1. Stratigraphic columns for Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan and assigned hydrogeologic-unit model layers 

and aquifer systems.
Appendixes 93

Appendix 2A. Wisconsin groundwater-use category estimates by time interval and model subregion for the Lake Michigan Basin model.[Withdrawals are in million gallons per day; subtotals may not match totals reported in other tables because of rounding and because the assignment of model cells to each subregion or aquifer differed among the data in the tables for each state]

Model subregion

Time interval

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1864–1900 1901–20 1921–40 1941–50 1951–60 1961–70 1971–75 1976–80 1981–85 1986–90 1991–2000 2001–5

Public supply

Northeastern Wisconsin 0.79 3.15 10.21 21.53 29.38 31.02 39.67 44.81 47.16 51.88 55.93 57.22Southeastern Wisconsin 0.64 2.32 5.82 12.50 16.86 26.86 38.31 47.34 56.08 50.29 54.95 54.71Wisconsin farfield model area 1.35 6.64 13.15 31.13 44.42 74.06 92.39 108.01 110.91 116.07 125.68 123.94

PUBLIC-SUPPLY TOTAL 2.78 12.11 29.18 65.17 90.66 131.94 170.38 200.16 214.15 218.24 236.55 235.87

Industrial

Northeastern Wisconsin 0.03 0.57 2.88 8.39 14.69 14.51 14.60 15.13 15.33 16.39 16.88 17.05Southeastern Wisconsin 0.38 1.99 5.53 11.35 13.38 14.09 13.46 12.68 11.93 11.68 12.02 11.73Wisconsin farfield model area 0.00 0.06 0.51 2.80 6.16 10.99 14.13 16.33 21.11 26.49 29.45 31.18

INDUSTRIAL TOTAL 0.41 2.62 8.92 22.54 34.23 39.60 42.19 44.13 48.37 54.56 58.35 59.96

Irrigation

Northeastern Wisconsin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 2.40 8.15 12.22 18.03 21.83 24.88 29.71 32.36Southeastern Wisconsin 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.54 0.66 2.02 3.04 5.33 4.96 4.65 5.50 6.53Wisconsin farfield model area 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.57 3.14 26.53 45.95 70.38 89.85 99.01 113.86 120.81

IRRIGATION TOTAL 0.00 0.04 0.08 1.47 6.20 36.70 61.21 93.75 116.64 128.54 149.07 159.70

Miscellaneous

Northeastern Wisconsin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.72 1.53 3.45 5.17 7.57 8.74 10.94 12.42Southeastern Wisconsin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.51 0.77 1.80 2.03 1.67 3.11 3.42 3.39Wisconsin farfield model area 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.32 1.62 1.61 1.61 1.91 2.03 2.91 3.28

MISCELLANEOUS TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 2.55 3.92 6.87 8.82 11.16 13.88 17.26 19.09
94 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005 Appendix 2

B. Wisconsin groundwater-use category estimates by time interval and aquifer system for the Lake Michigan Basin model.

[Withdrawals are in million gallons per day; subtotals may not match totals reported in other tables because of rounding and because the assignment of model cells to each subregion or aquifer differed among the data in the tables for each state; the Jurassic-Mississippian aquifer system is not present in Wisconsin; “mixed” represents withdrawal from mixed aquifer systems of Quaternary and a bedrock aquifer system, or two bedrock aquifer systems]

Aquifer system

Time interval

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1864–1900 1901–20 1921–40 1941–50 1951–60 1961–70 1971–75 1976–80 1981–85 1986–90 1991–2000 2001–5

Public supply

Quaternary 0.17 0.63 3.71 10.60 20.71 39.91 50.23 62.52 61.06 64.66 68.04 66.65Silurian-Devonian 0.00 0.19 1.16 3.33 4.30 5.89 7.60 10.31 11.63 11.07 12.55 12.43Cambrian-Ordovician 2.61 11.28 24.29 51.22 65.65 86.32 112.84 127.70 141.79 142.74 156.23 156.92Mixed 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.09 0.25

PUBLIC-SUPPLY TOTAL 2.78 12.11 29.20 65.21 90.75 132.16 170.68 200.54 214.49 218.53 236.91 236.24

Industrial

Quaternary 0.00 0.00 0.31 1.27 2.74 6.61 9.58 11.07 14.39 16.72 18.03 18.87Silurian-Devonian 0.00 0.17 0.33 1.44 3.71 5.13 6.27 6.07 6.54 7.26 7.27 7.93Cambrian-Ordovician 0.41 2.45 8.28 19.99 28.21 28.26 26.87 27.84 28.29 31.43 34.14 34.67Mixed 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

INDUSTRIAL TOTAL 0.41 2.62 8.92 22.69 34.66 40.00 42.73 44.98 49.21 55.41 59.44 61.47

Irrigation

Quaternary 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.76 4.59 31.39 53.87 81.78 99.17 107.22 118.49 123.88Silurian-Devonian 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.67 2.01 2.77 2.88 3.18 3.49 4.52 5.75Cambrian-Ordovician 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.21 0.90 3.21 4.48 9.04 14.25 17.78 26.06 30.07Mixed 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

IRRIGATION TOTAL 0.00 0.04 0.08 1.47 6.16 36.60 61.12 93.71 116.60 128.49 149.07 159.71

Miscellaneous

Quaternary 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.99 1.76 3.13 3.54 3.85 4.75 5.67Silurian-Devonian 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.37 0.60 0.69 0.29 1.69 2.93 2.85Cambrian-Ordovician 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 1.83 2.56 4.51 5.00 7.33 8.34 9.59 10.57Mixed 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

MISCELLANEOUS TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 2.55 3.92 6.87 8.82 11.16 13.88 17.26 19.09
Appendixes 95

Appendix 2C. Wisconsin groundwater-use category estimates by time interval and aquifer type for the Lake Michigan Basin model.[Withdrawals are in million gallons per day; subtotals may not match totals reported in other tables because of rounding and because the assignment of model cells to each subregion or aquifer differed among the data in the tables for each state]

Aquifer type

Time interval

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1864–1900 1901–20 1921–40 1941–50 1951–60 1961–70 1971–75 1976–80 1981–85 1986–90 1991–2000 2001–5

Public supply

Shallow unconsolidated material 0.17 0.63 3.63 10.50 20.59 39.62 49.90 62.16 60.70 64.31 67.20 65.89Shallow bedrock 0.187 1.13 3.728 8.584 12.613 17.426 20.267 23.566 23.277 26.592 28.601 29.966Deep bedrock 2.42 10.17 20.96 44.98 56.47 73.75 99.14 113.15 128.52 125.51 138.78 138.29

PUBLIC-SUPPLY TOTAL 2.78 12.11 29.20 65.21 90.75 132.16 170.68 200.54 214.49 218.53 236.91 236.24

Industrial

Shallow unconsolidated material 0.00 0.00 0.31 1.27 2.74 6.61 9.58 11.06 14.39 16.72 18.03 18.86Shallow bedrock 0.03 0.40 1.39 5.76 8.88 10.88 12.08 12.21 12.10 13.16 13.37 14.33Deep bedrock 0.38 2.21 7.14 15.31 22.49 22.15 20.79 21.49 22.50 25.25 27.76 27.99

INDUSTRIAL TOTAL 0.41 2.62 8.92 22.69 34.66 40.00 42.73 44.98 49.21 55.41 59.44 61.47

Irrigation

Shallow unconsolidated material 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.76 4.59 31.39 53.87 81.78 99.17 107.22 118.49 123.88Shallow bedrock 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.83 3.36 4.46 6.33 9.30 11.81 17.43 19.84Deep bedrock 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.17 0.74 1.86 2.80 5.59 8.13 9.46 13.16 15.99

IRRIGATION TOTAL 0.00 0.04 0.08 1.47 6.20 36.70 61.21 93.75 116.64 128.54 149.07 159.70

Miscellaneous

Unconfined unconsolidated material 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.98 1.76 3.13 3.53 3.85 4.74 5.66Unconfined bedrock 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.27 1.38 1.60 1.90 3.19 3.84 5.66 5.62Confined bedrock 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.82 1.55 3.50 3.79 4.43 6.19 6.86 7.80

MISCELLANEOUS TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 2.55 3.92 6.87 8.82 11.16 13.88 17.26 19.09
96 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005 Appendix 3

A. Michigan groundwater-use category estimates by time interval and model subregion for the Lake Michigan Basin model.

[Withdrawals are in million gallons per day; subtotals may not match totals reported in other tables because of rounding and because the assignment of model cells to each subregion or aquifer differed among the data in the tables for each state; no water-use estimates were determined for the miscellaneous category; --, estimate not determined]

Model subregion

Time interval

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1864–1900 1901–20 1921–40 1941–50 1951–60 1961–70 1971–75 1976–80 1981–85 1986–90 1991–2000 2001–5

Public supply

Southern Lower Peninsula 7.21 15.34 37.98 64.90 99.18 128.60 141.35 141.35 141.70 141.70 146.76 146.10Northern Lower Peninsula 0.22 0.50 0.81 5.14 9.84 12.95 17.55 17.55 19.60 19.60 21.55 24.34Upper Peninsula 0.00 0.00 0.24 3.18 5.06 6.48 7.87 7.87 9.13 9.13 8.77 7.52Michigan farfield model area 0.63 1.45 2.51 10.31 19.14 23.31 22.39 22.39 22.61 22.61 21.20 19.02

PUBLIC-SUPPLY TOTALa 8.06 17.29 41.54 83.53 133.21 171.34 189.16 189.16 193.05 193.05 198.28 196.98

Industrialb

Southern Lower Peninsula -- -- -- -- -- 21.05 24.95 28.27 22.50 26.76 63.75 58.16Northern Lower Peninsula -- -- -- -- -- 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 1.56 15.75 16.28Upper Peninsula -- -- -- -- -- 0.00 .15 .70 .70 .70 .90 1.05Michigan farfield model area -- -- -- -- -- 0.00 6.01 6.01 6.02 8.61 12.86 13.86

INDUSTRIAL TOTALa -- -- -- -- -- 21.47 31.53 35.40 29.64 37.64 93.25 89.36

Irrigationc,d

Southern Lower Peninsulad -- -- 0.08 0.77 3.2 3.85 8.24 38.5 50.88 42.92 105.10 101.88Northern Lower Peninsula -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.83 4.2Upper Peninsula -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.37Michigan farfield model area -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.35 4.93

IRRIGATION TOTALa -- -- 0.08 0.77 3.2 3.85 8.24 38.5 50.88 42.92 113.54 111.38

a Totals reflect only a partial estimate of water use in Michigan.b Does not include water-use estimates for commerical use.c Estimates prior to 1990 do not include water withdrawals for golf course use.d Estimates for agricultural use are for 11 Michigan counties in the Southern Lower Peninsula.
Appendixes 97

Appendix 3B. Michigan groundwater-use category estimates by time interval and aquifer system for the Lake Michigan Basin model.[Withdrawals are in million gallons per day; subtotals may not match totals reported in other tables because of rounding and because the assignment of model cells to each subregion or aquifer differed among the data in the tables for each state; “mixed” represents withdrawal from mixed aquifer systems of Quaternary and a bedrock aquifer system, or two bedrock aquifer systems; no water-use estimates were determined for the miscellaneous category; --, estimate not determined]

Aquifer system

Time interval

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1864–1900 1901–20 1921–40 1941–50 1951–60 1961–70 1971–75 1976–80 1981–85 1986–90 1991–2000 2001–5

Public supply

Quaternary 5.38 10.26 19.58 46.62 72.66 93.41 110.14 110.14 114.44 114.44 118.50 122.09Jurassic-Mississippian 2.67 7.04 21.97 33.90 51.08 67.70 72.36 72.36 71.10 71.10 72.02 70.23Silurian-Devonian 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.10 1.42 1.70 2.54 2.54 2.64 2.64 3.38 3.45Cambrian-Ordovician 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.91 2.31 2.51 0.43 0.43 1.38 1.38 1.22 1.19Mixed 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.75 6.03 3.69 3.69 3.49 3.49 3.17 0.02

PUBLIC-SUPPLY TOTALa 8.06 17.29 41.54 83.53 133.21 171.34 189.16 189.16 193.05 193.05 198.28 196.98

Industrialb

Quaternary -- -- -- -- -- 21.47 25.53 29.22 23.44 29.33 65.30 61.45Jurassic-Mississippian -- -- -- -- -- 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.13 6.76 7.06Silurian-Devonian -- -- -- -- -- 0.00 6 6 6 8 20.78 20.29Cambrian-Ordovician -- -- -- -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.42 0.57Mixed -- -- -- -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

INDUSTRIAL TOTALa -- -- -- -- -- 21.47 31.53 35.40 29.64 37.64 93.25 89.36

Irrigationc,d

Quaternary -- -- 0.07 0.61 2.7 3.33 7.39 35.31 46.81 39.29 103.33 101.82Jurassic-Mississippian -- -- 0.00 0.1 0.38 0.32 0.45 1.77 2.31 2.04 6.47 6.33Silurian-Devonian -- -- 0.01 0.06 0.12 0.16 0.26 0.98 0.99 1.09 2.72 2.16Cambrian-Ordovician -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.06Mixed -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.14 0.44 0.77 0.5 0.89 0.89

IRRIGATION TOTALa -- -- 0.08 0.77 3.2 3.85 8.24 38.5 50.88 42.92 113.43 111.26

a Totals reflect only a partial estimate of water use in Michigan.b Does not include water-use estimates for commerical use.c Estimates prior to 1990 do not include water withdrawals for golf course use.d Estimates for agricultural use are for 11 Michigan counties in the Southern Lower Peninsula.
98 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005 Appendix 3

C. Michigan groundwater-use category estimates by time interval and aquifer type for the Lake Michigan Basin model.

[Withdrawals are in million gallons per day; subtotals may not match totals reported in other tables because of rounding and because the assignment of model cells to each subregion or aquifer differed among the data in the tables for each state; no water-use estimates were determined for the miscellaneous category; --, estimate not determined]

Aquifer type

Time interval

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1864–1900 1901–20 1921–40 1941–50 1951–60 1961–70 1971–75 1976–80 1981–85 1986–90 1991–2000 2001–5

Public supply

Shallow unconsolidated material 5.38 10.25 19.58 46.55 78.25 99.24 113.06 113.06 117.01 117.01 120.73 121.08Shallow bedrock 1.49 4.89 15.53 26.07 35.71 49.15 53.61 53.61 54.46 54.46 54.47 55.77Deep bedrock 1.18 2.14 6.43 10.84 19.1 22.75 21.71 21.71 20.6 20.6 22.07 19.02

PUBLIC-SUPPLY TOTALa 8.05 17.28 41.54 83.46 133.06 171.14 188.38 188.38 192.07 192.07 197.27 195.87

Industrialb

Shallow unconsolidated material -- -- -- -- -- 21.47 25.53 29.22 23.44 29.15 65.12 61.18Shallow bedrock -- -- -- -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.2 0.29 15.28 15.64Deep bedrock -- -- -- -- -- 0.00 6.01 6.01 6.01 8.02 12.61 12.2

INDUSTRIAL TOTALa -- -- -- -- -- 21.47 31.54 35.41 29.65 37.46 93.01 89.02

Irrigationc,d

Shallow unconsolidated material -- -- 0.07 0.61 2.7 3.26 7.29 35.15 46.13 38.77 102.45 101.21Shallow bedrock -- -- 0.01 0.11 0.41 0.48 0.78 2.86 3.63 3.23 8.93 8.14Deep bedrock -- -- 0.00 0.05 0.09 0.04 0.07 0.33 0.44 0.4 1.18 1.3

IRRIGATION TOTALa -- -- 0.08 0.77 3.20 3.78 8.14 38.34 50.20 42.40 112.56 110.65

a Totals reflect only a partial estimate of water use in Michigan.b Does not include water-use estimates for commerical use.c Estimates prior to 1990 do not include water withdrawals for golf course use.d Estimates for agricultural use are for 11 Michigan counties in the Southern Lower Peninsula.
Appendixes 99

Appendix 4A. Indiana groundwater-use category estimates by time interval and model subregion for the Lake Michigan Basin model.[Withdrawals are in million gallons per day; subtotals may not match totals reported in other tables because of rounding and because the assignment of model cells to each subregion or aquifer differed among the data in the tables for each state; no water-use estimates were determined for the miscellaneous category; --, estimate not determined]

Model subregion

Time interval

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1864–1900 1901–20 1921–40 1941–50 1951–60 1961–70 1971–75 1976–80 1981–85 1986–90 1991–2000 2001–5

Public supply

Northern Indiana -- -- 0.21 8.82 17.22 45.77 48.00 48.00 66.84 66.84 68.34 67.57Indiana farfield model area -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.41 0.41 5.96 5.96 6.32 9.05

PUBLIC-SUPPLY TOTALa -- -- 0.21 8.82 17.22 46.15 48.42 48.42 72.79 72.79 74.65 76.62

Industrialb

Northern Indiana -- -- -- 0.13 1.37 2.61 2.85 3.04 20.93 27.49 30.38 28.27Indiana farfield model area -- -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 1.96 2.21 1.57 1.32

INDUSTRIAL TOTALa -- -- -- 0.13 1.37 2.62 2.86 3.04 22.89 29.70 31.95 29.59

Irrigationc

Northern Indiana -- -- -- 0.26 0.31 1.14 1.94 4.89 14.19 13.55 18.97 21.58Indiana farfield model area -- -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.52 0.82 0.51

IRRIGATION TOTALa -- -- -- 0.26 0.31 1.14 1.94 4.89 14.64 14.07 19.79 22.10

a Totals reflect only a partial estimate of water use in Indiana.b Includes estimates for industrial water use combined with other and energy production uses; does not include any estimates for commercial use.c Includes estimates for irrigation water use combined with rural uses.
100 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005 Appendix 4

B. Indiana groundwater-use category estimates by time interval and aquifer system for the Lake Michigan Basin model.

[Withdrawals are in million gallons per day; subtotals may not match totals reported in other tables because of rounding and because the assignment of model cells to each subregion or aquifer differed among the data in the tables for each state; no withdrawals were estimated for the Jurassic-Mississippian, Cambrian-Ordovician, or mixed aquifer systems; --, estimate not determined]

Aquifer system

Time interval

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1864–1900 1901–20 1921–40 1941–50 1951–60 1961–70 1971–75 1976–80 1981–85 1986–90 1991–2000 2001–5

Public supply

Quaternary -- -- 0.21 8.82 17.22 46.15 48.42 48.42 69.30 69.30 72.56 74.26Silurian-Devonian -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.50 3.50 2.09 2.36

PUBLIC-SUPPLY TOTALa -- -- 0.21 8.82 17.22 46.15 48.42 48.42 72.79 72.79 74.65 76.62

Industrialb

Quaternary -- -- -- 0.13 1.37 2.62 2.86 3.04 22.28 28.37 30.87 28.67Silurian-Devonian -- -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61 1.33 1.09 0.91

INDUSTRIAL TOTALa -- -- -- 0.13 1.37 2.62 2.86 3.04 22.89 29.70 31.95 29.59

Irrigationc

Quaternary -- -- -- 0.26 0.31 1.14 1.94 4.89 14.23 13.73 19.40 21.84Silurian-Devonian -- -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.34 0.39 0.25

IRRIGATION TOTALa -- -- -- 0.26 0.31 1.14 1.94 4.89 14.64 14.07 19.79 22.10

a Totals reflect only a partial estimate of water use in Indiana.b Includes estimates for industrial water use combined with other and energy production uses; does not include any estimates for commercial use.c Includes estimates for irrigation water use combined with rural uses.
Appendixes 101

Appendix 4C. Indiana groundwater-use category estimates by time interval and aquifer type for the Lake Michigan Basin model. [Withdrawals are in million gallons per day; subtotals may not match totals reported in other tables because of rounding and because the assignment of model cells to each subregion or aquifer differed among the data in the tables for each state; no water-use estimates were determined for the miscellaneous category; --, estimate not determined]

Aquifer type

Time interval

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1864–1900 1901–20 1921–40 1941–50 1951–60 1961–70 1971–75 1976–80 1981–85 1986–90 1991–2000 2001–5

Public supply

Shallow unconsolidated material -- -- 0.21 8.82 17.22 46.15 48.42 48.42 69.3 69.3 72.56 74.26Shallow bedrock -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.34 3.34 1.91 2.16Deep bedrock -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.19

PUBLIC-SUPPLY TOTALa -- -- 0.21 8.82 17.22 46.15 48.42 48.42 72.8 72.8 74.65 76.61

Industrialb

Shallow unconsolidated material -- -- -- 0.13 1.37 2.62 2.86 3.04 22.28 28.37 30.82 28.63Shallow bedrock -- -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.06 0.03 0.02Deep bedrock -- -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.5 1.27 1.05 0.9

INDUSTRIAL TOTALa -- -- -- 0.13 1.37 2.62 2.86 3.04 22.89 29.7 31.9 29.55

Irrigationc

Shallow unconsolidated material -- -- -- 0.25 0.31 1.14 1.94 4.88 14.23 13.73 19.4 21.84Shallow bedrock -- -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.07 0.14 0.08Deep bedrock -- -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.27 0.25 0.17

IRRIGATION TOTALa -- -- -- 0.25 0.31 1.14 1.94 4.88 14.64 14.07 19.79 22.09

a Totals reflect only a partial estimate of water use in Indiana.b Includes estimates for industrial water use combined with other and energy production uses; does not include any estimates for commercial use.c Includes estimates for irrigation water use combined with rural uses.
102 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005 Appendix 5

A. Illinois groundwater-use category estimates by time interval and model subregion for the Lake Michigan Basin model.

[Withdrawals are in million gallons per day; subtotals may not match totals reported in other tables because of rounding and because the assignment of model cells to each subregion or aquifer differed among the data in the tables for each state; no estimates were compiled for miscellaneous water use in Illinois; the Illinois State Water Survey had included the few thermoelectric ground-water withdrawals in the industrial category; --, estimate not determined]

Model subregiona

Time interval

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1864–1900 1901–20 1921–40 1941–50 1951–60 1961–70 1971–75 1976–80 1981–85 1986–90 1991–2000 2001–5

Public supply

Northeastern Illinois 6.76 32.36 51.11 57.29 66.38 125.40 206.34 244.75 247.00 203.10 133.84 135.09Illinois farfield model area -- -- -- -- -- 37.23 63.06 66.59 79.12 84.19 87.95 86.82

PUBLIC-SUPPLY TOTALb,c 6.76 32.36 51.11 57.29 66.38 162.63 269.40 311.34 326.12 287.29 221.79 221.91

Industrial

Northeastern Illinois -- -- -- -- -- 36.78 54.53 51.71 42.23 36.95 34.76 26.33Illinois farfield model area -- -- -- -- -- 13.04 17.04 17.09 25.15 23.55 24.51 21.03

INDUSTRIAL TOTAL -- -- -- -- -- 49.83 71.58 68.80 67.37 60.50 59.26 47.36

Irrigation

Northeastern Illinois -- -- -- -- -- 3.05 5.37 5.25 1.88 2.97 7.04 5.51Illinois farfield model area -- -- -- -- -- 0.46 0.76 1.11 0.93 1.18 2.40 2.93

IRRIGATIONTOTALd -- -- -- -- -- 3.51 6.13 6.36 2.80 4.15 9.44 8.44

a There are no estimates of water withdrawals for the Illinois farfield model area until 1964.b Public-supply water use was compiled for only seven major pumping centers in Illinois until 1964.c Commercial water use in Illinois was compiled by the Illinois State Water Survey as public-supply water use; these estimates were not compiled until 1964.d No estimates were compiled for irrigation water use until 1964 in Illinois; the Illinois State Water Survey had included aquacultural water use in this category.
Appendixes 103

Appendix 5B. Illinois groundwater-use category estimates by time interval and aquifer system for the Lake Michigan Basin model.[Withdrawals are in million gallons per day; subtotals may not match totals reported in other tables because of rounding and because the assignment of model cells to each subregion or aquifer differed among the data in the tables for each state; no estimates were compiled for miscellaneous water use in Illinois; the Illinois State Water Survey had included the few thermoelectric ground-water withdrawals in the industrial category; “mixed” represents withdrawal from mixed aquifer systems of Quaternary and a bedrock aquifer system, or two bedrock aquifer systems; --, estimate not determined]

Aquifer system

Time interval

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1864–1900 1901–20 1921–40 1941–50 1951–60 1961–70 1971–75 1976–80 1981–85 1986–90 1991–2000 2001–5

Public supply

Quaternary -- -- -- -- -- 13.81 27.28 36.27 48.18 46.91 55.53 60.74Jurassic-Mississippian -- -- -- -- -- 0.10 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.07Silurian-Devonian -- -- -- -- -- 22.87 38.75 44.08 44.95 38.97 30.98 25.79Cambrian-Ordovician 6.76 32.36 51.11 57.29 66.38 124.68 200.19 227.67 229.49 197.12 134.17 134.75Mixed -- -- -- -- -- 1.18 3.15 3.27 3.43 4.21 1.03 0.57

PUBLIC-SUPPLY TOTALa,b 6.76 32.36 51.11 57.29 66.38 162.63 269.40 311.34 326.12 287.29 221.79 221.91

Industrial

Quaternary -- -- -- -- -- 2.21 3.18 4.43 11.84 13.84 12.37 10.78Jurassic-Mississippian -- -- -- -- -- 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00Silurian-Devonian -- -- -- -- -- 6.19 8.67 7.60 5.76 5.34 3.94 4.47Cambrian-Ordovician -- -- -- -- -- 41.40 59.68 56.74 49.76 41.31 42.90 32.11Mixed -- -- -- -- -- 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.00

INDUSTRIAL TOTALc -- -- -- -- -- 49.83 71.58 68.80 67.37 60.50 59.26 47.36

Irrigation

Quaternary -- -- -- -- -- 0.35 0.88 1.06 0.41 0.96 1.53 2.16Jurassic-Mississippian -- -- -- -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Silurian-Devonian -- -- -- -- -- 2.02 3.29 3.10 1.02 1.17 4.08 2.87Cambrian-Ordovician -- -- -- -- -- 1.14 1.96 2.20 1.37 2.02 3.82 3.40Mixed -- -- -- -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00

IRRIGATION TOTALd -- -- -- -- -- 3.51 6.13 6.36 2.80 4.15 9.44 8.44

a Public-supply water use was compiled for only seven major pumping centers in Illinois until 1964. These withdrawals were assigned entirely to the predominant aquifer system; that is the CambrianOrdovician; however, some withdrawals did occur from the Quaternary and Silurian-Devonian aquifer systems (Suter and others, 1959).b Commercial water use in Illinois was compiled by the Illinois State Water Survey as public-supply water use; these estimates were not compiled until 1964.c Self-supplied industrial withdrawals were estimated to be about 30 Mgal/d during time interval 5 (1951–60). These withdrawals were almost all entirely from the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer 

system (Suter and others, 1959).

d No estimates were compiled for irrigation water use until 1964 in Illinois; the Illinois State Water Survey had included aquacultural water use in this category.
104 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005 Appendix 5

C. Illinois groundwater-use category estimates by time interval and aquifer type for the Lake Michigan Basin model.

[Withdrawals are in million gallons per day; subtotals may not match totals reported in other tables because of rounding and because the assignment of model cells to each subregion or aquifer differed among the data in the tables for each state; totals may not sum to totals provided in other tables because of independent rounding; no estimates were compiled for miscellaneous water use in Illinois; the Illinois State Water Survey had included the few thermoelectric ground-water withdrawals in the industrial category; --, estimate not determined]

Aquifer type

Time interval

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1864–1900 1901–20 1921–40 1941–50 1951–60 1961–70 1971–75 1976–80 1981–85 1986–90 1991–2000 2001–5

Public supply

Shallow unconsolidated material -- -- -- -- -- 13.81 27.28 36.27 48.18 46.91 55.53 60.74Shallow bedrock -- -- -- -- -- 24.48 52.86 60.33 63.93 68.61 35.72 25.37Deep bedrock 6.76 32.36 51.11 57.29 66.38 123.87 188.80 214.24 213.37 171.38 130.41 135.75

PUBLIC-SUPPLY TOTALa,b 6.76 32.36 51.11 57.29 66.38 162.16 268.94 310.84 325.48 286.90 221.66 221.86

Industrial

Shallow unconsolidated material -- -- -- -- -- 2.21 3.18 4.42 11.72 13.74 12.30 10.78Shallow bedrock -- -- -- -- -- 8.51 12.00 11.37 8.90 8.47 9.40 8.08Deep bedrock -- -- -- -- -- 38.59 55.65 52.78 46.63 38.19 37.50 28.50

INDUSTRIAL TOTALc -- -- -- -- -- 49.31 70.83 68.57 49.21 60.40 59.19 47.36

Irrigation

Shallow unconsolidated material -- -- -- -- -- 0.35 0.88 1.06 0.41 0.96 1.53 2.16Shallow bedrock -- -- -- -- -- 1.49 2.54 2.68 1.16 1.72 4.77 2.11Deep bedrock -- -- -- -- -- 1.67 2.71 2.62 1.23 1.47 3.13 4.16

IRRIGATION TOTALd -- -- -- -- -- 3.51 6.13 6.36 2.80 4.15 9.43 8.43

a Public-supply water use was compiled for only seven major pumping centers in Illinois until 1964. These withdrawals were assigned entirely to the predominant aquifer type, deep bedrock; however, 

some withdrawals did occur from shallow aquifer types (Suter and others, 1959).

b Commercial water use in Illinois was compiled by the Illinois State Water Survey as public-supply water use; these estimates were not compiled until 1964.c Self-supplied industrial withdrawals were estimated to be about 30 Mgal/d during time interval 5 (1951–60). These withdrawals were almost all entirely from deep bedrock aquifers (Suter and others, 

1959).

d No estimates were compiled for irrigation water use until 1964 in Illinois; the Illinois State Water Survey had included aquacultural water use in this category.
Appendixes 105

Appendix 6A. Estimation Methods for 

2040 Water Use

In support of the groundwater-flow-model evaluation 

of the potential effect of future groundwater withdrawals on 

water availability, water-use estimates were prepared for 2040 

for each model subregion by aquifer system and water-use category (appendix 6B). The same water-use categories (public 

supply, industrial, irrigation, and miscellaneous) defined for 

the initial 12 model time intervals from 1864 through 2005 

were used without any changes to the category definitions. 

(See table 1 in main part of report.) 

Estimates of water use rely on understanding the factors 

that influence water demand (Thompson, 1998; Horn, 2007). 

Water-use changes can be attributed to population growth and 

to climatic, economic, and social changes (Hutson and others, 

2004). These projections are based on population projections, 

land-use changes, projected employment information, waterapplication rates, irrigated farms and acreage, available waterwithdrawal data, and previous projections and were developed 

according to the methods outlined in appendix 6C. Projections 

in this appendix are based on a set of expected changes in the 

future and may vary significantly from actual 2040 water withdrawals, depending on such factors as future water-resources 

or irrigation practices, population changes, legislation, conservation practices, new industries, and climate changes (see the 

Limitations section in this appendix).

Population projections were used in the estimates of 

future public-supply water use. Land-use projections for 2040 

were assessed to determine the types of development expected 

in the Lake Michigan Basin model (hereafter referred to as 

“LMB model”) area. Most growth is projected to be outwards 

from community centers and along transportation corridors 

(Purdue University, 2008). These projected future growth 

areas, along with projected employment information, were 

used as a guide in the estimation of industrial water use. 

Although an important controlling factor in water use, climatic 

variables were not considered in the estimates of future irrigation water use because of the many uncertainties with predicting future climate. However, withdrawals for agricultural 

irrigation in the LMB model area have been relatively constant 

(as described in a U.S. Department of Agriculture publication 

for the North Central region for 1969 through 1998) as a result 

of greater efficiencies in water management and irrigationsystem technology (Heimlich, 2003), even though irrigated 

acreage has increased. Water-application rates, water-use 

trends, and projections of irrigated acreage or land use were 

used in the estimation of irrigation water use.

Projected water use for 2040 for each model subregion 

was estimated by summing county water-use estimates in each 

respective subregion. County water-use estimates were developed by using data from various sources in combination with 

the methods tabulated in appendixes 6C and 6D and described 

below. In Wisconsin and Michigan, a few counties straddle 

subregion boundaries. If generally a third or more of a county 

was within one subregion and the rest in another, then the 

total estimated water use for the county was divided among 

the subregions on the basis of the area within each subregion. 

If approximately a quarter or less of a county was within a 

subregion, then the total county estimate was assigned to the 

subregion that contained the majority of the county.

Distribution of these estimates between aquifer systems 

was based on the distribution percentage from interval 12 

(2001–5), the last model time interval for each subregion. The 

only modification to this method for determining the aquifersystem distributions was for a few counties in Wisconsin 

(Brown, Calumet, Door, Kenosha, Racine, Walworth, and 

Waukesha Counties), because some public-supply utilities are 

or will be switching water sources (groundwater to surface 

water) or aquifer sources (bedrock to glacial). These shifts 

were identified from correspondence or trends in recently constructed and abandoned public-supply wells and are discussed 

in the Public Supply section.

Public Supply

The general approach for estimating 2040 public-supply 

water use in the Wisconsin, Michigan, and Indiana LMB model 

areas relied on projected population and per capita use rates 

(appendix 6C). Specifically, to determine these estimates, the 

projected 2040 population being served groundwater by a 

public water-supply system was multiplied by an estimated 

groundwater per capita use rate. In the Illinois LMB model area, 

2040 public-supply groundwater use was estimated by Southern 

Illinois University Carbondale (Southern Illinois University 

Carbondale, 2005; Dziegielewski and Chowdhury, 2008).

For Wisconsin, Michigan, and Indiana, estimated publicsupply data for 2005—including population served, total 

groundwater withdrawn, and per capita use—were assembled. 

The estimated 2005 public-supply per capita use for each 

county in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Indiana was assigned for 

2040 except for five counties in Wisconsin (Kenosha, Portage, 

Racine, Sauk, and Waupaca Counties) where public-supply 

groundwater per capita use was greater than 200 gal/d per person. For these counties, the per capita use was reduced by 15 

percent on the basis of southeastern Wisconsin projections for 

2035 of reductions in maximum daily demands from 6 to 18 

percent (Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, 2009). This reduction reflects both supply-side efficiency 

and demand-side conservation measures and accounts for possible future conservation initiatives or increased domestic and 

commercial uses in replace of typically larger industrial uses. 

Projected populations for 2040 were determined from 

available data as follows for each State (appendixes 6C and 

6D). In general, an estimate of the population in 2040 was 

determined from the average percentage change in population 

over the available years of data. 

For Wisconsin, total county populations listed by community were collected from the Wisconsin Department of 

Administration (WI DOA) (2009) for the census year 2000 and 
106 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

other available years with projected population through 2030. 

Estimates of the population in 2040 for Wisconsin communities were based on half of the calculated annual 30-year growth 

rate because WI DOA future population projections tend to be 

slightly overestimated and have not been adjusted at this time 

(2009) for the future pattern of births and deaths (David EganRobertson, Wisconsin Department of Administration, written 

commun., 2009). Five exceptions of community populations 

were projected with a different method because additional 

information was available to supplement the WI DOA projected 

populations. The City of Milwaukee, Milwaukee County, had an 

annual loss of 8.9 percent. Rather than continue with this rate of 

decline, the 2025 WI DOA population projection estimate was 

substituted. For four other communities (Town of Greenville, 

Outagamie County; Towns of Lawrence and Ledgeview, Brown 

County; and the Town of Harrison, Calumet County), the 2030 

population projection estimate was substituted because population growth is expected to decline in response to downtrends in 

the areas’ economies (Lisa Beyer, Greenville Water & Sewer 

Department, oral commun., 2009). 

For Michigan and Indiana, county populations were compiled from census reports (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2009) 

and other years with available projected populations (appendix 

6D). In Michigan, some county population projections were 

available to 2035 from the state planning and development 

regions; but in general, most counties could furnish projections 

only to 2020 (Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, 

1992, 2008; Northeast Michigan Council of Governments, 

2006; Tim Anderson, Region 2 Planning Commission, written 

commun., 2008; Jeff Hagan, Eastern Upper Peninsula Regional 

Planning and Development Commission, written commun., 

2008; Kathy TenWolde, East Central Michigan Planning and 

Development Regional Commission, written commun., 2009; 

West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission, 

2009). Some areas of Michigan are not experiencing much 

growth or are expected to have declining populations (Kathy 

TenWolde, East Central Michigan Planning and Development 

Regional Commission, and Richard Deuell, Northeast Michigan 

Council of Governments, written commun., 2008). In Indiana, 

county population projections were available to 2025 (Indiana 

Business Research Center–Indiana Department of Workforce 

Development, 2009). Estimates of the 2040 projected population in Michigan and Indiana counties were based on the average of the trends for each 10-year interval from 1970 to 2000 

applied to the projected 2020 values. County population projections to 2040 for Indiana were discovered after estimates were 

completed (Indiana Business Research Center–Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business, 2009). These 2040 population 

projections for counties within the Indiana LMB model area 

were within 1 percent of the values estimated for this study by 

using the method described in appendix 6C. 

Population served groundwater by public water-supply 

systems for each subregion was determined for Wisconsin 

at the community level by summarizing 2040 community 

population-served estimates. In most cases, 100 percent of the 

2040 population for a community was assumed to be served 

by public supply; but if a community was partially served 

by public supply in 2005 (Buchwald, 2009), then the same 

percentage of the community population from 2005 was used 

to calculate the 2040 community population-served groundwater estimate. For communities in Wisconsin without a 

public water-supply system in 2005 that are expected to grow 

by more than 40 percent, it was assumed that the community 

could develop a public water-supply system. In these communities, half of the 2040 community population estimate was 

assumed to be served by public supply. The other communities without a public water-supply system and not expected 

to grow by more than 40 percent were assumed to remain 

self-supplied. 

Communities in Wisconsin that have switched since the 

last model time interval (2001–5) from groundwater to surface 

water as a source for public supply were identified (Central 

Brown County Water Authority, 2007; City of Green Bay, 

2009). Additionally, several calls were placed to community 

water utilities in Wisconsin to identify public water-supply 

systems that were considering or planning a change in water 

source from groundwater to surface water. The associated 

populations served by groundwater during the last model time 

interval (interval 12, 2001–5) but determined most likely to 

be served surface water by 2040 were removed from the 2040 

county estimate for population being served groundwater. Also 

available were public-supply water-use projections for 2035, 

by community, from a study within the Southeastern Wisconsin 

subregion (Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, 2008b). The estimates produced in this study by community and summarized by county were within the projected range 

of future groundwater withdrawals produced by Southeastern 

Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) except 

for Waukesha County; there, it was assumed that a few additional communities not listed by SEWRPC have the possibility 

for expanding their existing surface-water supply system or converting, at least partially, to surface water as a source for public 

supply. Additionally, this study helped identify communities 

with a public supply that is planning to change from one aquifer 

system to some other, or at least incorporate some portion of its 

supply from a previously unused aquifer system.

In Michigan and Indiana, the percentage of the county 

population relying on groundwater from a public water-supply 

system for 2040 was estimated on the basis of the most recent 

data available. Because the population served by groundwater 

from a public water-supply system was not reported in 2000 

or 2005, this percentage was determined from 1998 data for 

Michigan (Ron Van Til, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, written commun., 2002) and from 1995 data 

for Indiana (U.S. Geological Survey, 2009). The more detailed 

approach of using community-level population estimates was 

needed to capture some of the water-source shifts that were 

expected for particular counties of Wisconsin that were unlike 

those in Michigan and Indiana. Overall, most county-level 

populations relying on groundwater from a public water-supply system for 2040 were assumed to be similar to the percentage of those populations served during 2005.
Appendixes 107

Industrial

Approaches for estimating 2040 industrial water use 

differed in the LMB model areas because of the types of data 

available (appendixes 6C and 6D). However, employment 

projections were considered in each state as an indication of the 

amounts of water that might be used in the future. In general, 

industrial water use in 2040 was estimated for Wisconsin by 

adjusting regional estimates for model time interval 12 (2001–5) 

with projected percentage change in employment. For Michigan 

and Indiana, industrial water use in 2040 was estimated by using 

the average change in reported withdrawals as described below. 

Illinois industrial groundwater use estimates for 2040 were used 

directly from Dziegielewski and Chowdhury (2008) or were 

determined by one of two methods described further below. 

Regional employment projection data for 2016 were 

obtained from the Wisconsin Department of Workforce 

Development (2009) and assigned to the model subregion 

that the employment region predominantly described. The 

employment regions of Wisconsin were assigned to the model 

subregions as follows: Bay Area and Fox Valley to Northeastern Wisconsin subregion; Milwaukee/Washington, Ozaukee, 

and Waukesha (WOW) Counties and Southeast Wisconsin to 

Southeastern Wisconsin subregion; and North Central, South 

Central, and Southwest to the farfield Wisconsin model area. 

Additional regional employment forecasts for Southeastern 

Wisconsin were obtained for 2010 through 2035 but were used 

only as reference to the method developed for the entire Wisconsin model area (Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning 

Commission, 2004). 

Regional employment forecasts for 2014 were obtained 

from the Michigan Department of Energy, Labor, and Economic Growth (2004) for various metropolitan areas or 

regions throughout Michigan; employment forecasts for 2014 

were assigned to the county or counties within the appropriate 

region or metropolitan area. 

Long-range employment projections for 2012–29 for the 

State of Indiana were obtained from the Indiana University 

Center for Econometric Model Research at the Kelley School 

of Business (2009). 

Employment data such as employment and labor productivity growth rates were obtained from various sources, including the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009) and the Illinois 

Department of Employment Security (2009). These data were 

not incorporated into the industrial water-use estimates for 

Illinois but served only for comparison of the direction and 

magnitude of the estimates. 

Part of the Wisconsin industrial water-use category for 

this model water-use dataset contained commercial water 

use; therefore, both industrial and commercial water use and 

employment projections were considered. The Department of 

Workforce Development definition of “industry,” in general, 

means the type of employment field and therefore includes 

commercial businesses, much as the industrial water-use 

category may contain some commercial water uses in this 

report. The employment-projection data for employment types 

of construction/mining/natural resources and various forms 

of manufacturing were grouped as industrial employment, 

whereas employment-projection data for all other employment 

types (such as trade, education and health services, leisure 

and hospitality) were considered commercial employment. Of 

these two groupings, the 10-year average percentage change 

for industrial and commercial employment types was calculated, and it was then assumed that the same 10-year trends 

in the employment rates would continue until 2040. These 

changes in employment rates are summarized by model subregion in appendix 6E and were used to adjust the model-defined 

industrial water-use category (table 1).

Alternatively, public-supply delivery data categorized 

for industrial and commercial uses by county in Wisconsin 

and stored in the USGS AWUDS database for 1985, 1990, 

1995, 2005 were analyzed (data for 2000 were not collected). 

The change between the 2005 and 20-year average for both 

commercial and industrial uses was considered. In most cases, 

the changing rate could be projected forward with the assumption that the observed trend in public-supply delivery would 

be similar to the growth rate of self-supplied withdrawals. 

However, rates in some counties changed considerably over 

the last two time intervals and required review on a case-bycase basis. Therefore, a more regional approach was used 

that could be based on a broad trend. Also, employment data 

cannot directly be applied as a coefficient to withdrawals during the last time interval because no clear relationship can be 

shown without further statistical analysis. However, inspection 

of the rates of employment changes does indicate the likely 

direction of industry and gives some insight into potential 

water-use trends.

In Michigan and Indiana, public-supply delivery data 

are largely estimated and often derived by different methods 

for different summary years; therefore, these data could not 

be reliably used to determine the projected trend in rate of 

change in industrial withdrawals. Instead, existing withdrawal 

information was used to determine the expected rate of change 

for industrial withdrawals. In Michigan, the rate of change 

was determined from reported data for 1997–2004 (Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality, 2009). Projected water 

use for 2040 in Michigan was reduced in the Southern Lower 

Peninsula subregion because of some reductions in water use 

by industry in Kalamazoo County just after the last LMB 

model time interval (2001–5). Michigan water use determined 

from groundwater-withdrawal trends differed by less than 

1 percent from estimates determined by using employment 

forecasts without any reductions in expected water use in 

Kalamazoo County and by about 12 percent with the same 

reduction in use in Kalamazoo County applied to the estimates 

determined by using employment forecasts. 

In Indiana, the rate of change was determined from 

reported data for 1995–2000 (U.S. Geological Survey, 2009). 

Indiana water use determined from groundwater-withdrawal 

trends indicated a larger increase than has been projected on 

the basis of industry forecasts for 2012–29; however, estimated 2040 withdrawals are lower than estimated withdrawals 
108 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

for industry in 1990 and 1995. Projected trends in employment and gross state product variables for Indiana generally 

indicate low growth; however, some metropolitan areas show 

stronger employment growth. Thus, the estimates for 2040 

water use estimated for this study for Indiana are based on the 

assumption that economic conditions in the area will improve; 

however, these estimates may be overly optimistic and may 

overestimate actual water use.

Illinois 2040 industrial groundwater-use values were 

determined by using one of three methods: 

1. use the estimates directly from Dziegielewski and 

Chowdhury (2008);

2. adjust, if needed, baseline estimates prepared by the 

Southern Illinois University Carbondale (2005), calculate 

the annual change in water use (2000–25), and project to 

2040 using same rate; or 

3. calculate the annual change in groundwater use (1995–

2000) reported by the USGS (U.S. Geological Survey, 

2009) and project to 2040 by using the same rate. 

In the nearfield model area of Illinois, the 2040 industrial 

groundwater use under a current-trend scenario was estimated 

by Dziegielewski and Chowdhury (2008). In the farfield model 

area of Illinois, the combined surface-water and groundwateruse baseline estimates for 2025 industrial use (Southern Illinois University Carbondale, 2005) were corrected to account 

for groundwater use only. This correction was based on the 

percent contribution by water source from USGS data for the 

year 2000 (U.S. Geological Survey, 2009). If the county was 

not identified by the USGS as using surface water for industrial withdrawals, then no adjustment was applied. The annual 

change in water use (2000–25) was calculated and projected to 

2040. Method three was used to estimate water use in Bureau 

County. The Southern Illinois University Carbondale 2025 

baseline water-use estimate of 8.152 Mgal/d was assumed to 

be incorrect because the withdrawal for 2000 appears to be 

too high. (The university report uses an historical estimate for 

2000 of 5.239 Mgal/d that is 175 percent greater than industrial use (0.03 Mgal/d) and almost twice public supply use 

(2.90 Mgal/d) reported for 2000 by USGS.)

All counties in Wisconsin vary annually in the amount of 

groundwater withdrawn, but certain counties were known to 

have more recent changes; an example is Milwaukee County, 

where the last industry withdrawing groundwater closed during 

the last LMB model time interval (2001–5). Therefore, 2007 

groundwater withdrawals reported to the WDNR were retrieved 

and evaluated for 12 counties: 5 counties in the Northeastern 

Wisconsin subregion closest to Green Bay and Lake Winnebago, 5 other counties in the Southeastern Wisconsin subregion, and 2 counties in the farfield model area with the largest 

withdrawal amounts. The status of an existing well in the model 

water-use database was updated if there were changes and if 

new wells not previously identified were added at the 2007 

withdrawal rate (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 

2009). Ultimately, a new base water-use estimate by subregion 

was determined to adjust withdrawal amounts for the last time 

interval closer to 2007 actual withdrawals (appendix 6E).

Irrigation

Approaches for estimating 2040 irrigation water use 

differed for all states in the LMB model area because of the 

types of data available (appendixes 6C and 6D). In Wisconsin, water-application rates, based on total amounts of water 

withdrawn, determined during the development of water-use 

estimates for the LMB model were applied to projected irrigated acreage for an estimate of 2040 water use. In Michigan, 

irrigation water-use estimates for agriculture and golf courses 

were developed separately. The average percentage change in 

irrigated land acreage was applied to the agricultural irrigation 

withdrawal amount from the last time interval of the LMB 

model. Previously collected data on groundwater withdrawals for golf course irrigation were used for the estimate of 

2040 water use. In Indiana, the average percentage change 

in the number of farms with irrigated cropland was applied 

to the withdrawal amount from the last time interval of the 

LMB model. In Illinois, 2040 irrigation groundwater use was 

estimated in part by Dziegielewski and Chowdhury (2008) for 

the Northeastern Illinois subregion and in part by extending 

current water-application rates to estimated future irrigated 

acreage for the Illinois farfield model area.

In Wisconsin, an irrigation water-use estimate for 2040 

was determined for each county by using a base value for irrigation acreage multiplied by a water-application rate. The base 

irrigation acreage was determined as described in appendix 

6C. This base value was then adjusted for anticipated percentage change of land for agricultural crop production. This 

rate of projected land-use change was derived from output 

geographic information system grids from the Land Transformation Model (Purdue University, 2009). Land-use type 

projections for 2000 and 2030 were developed by using the 

Land Transformation Model data. The annual rate of change 

was calculated for the 30-year time span and applied directly 

to estimate percentage change for the year 2040. Land acreage 

irrigated for crops in the LMB model was determined from 

land use coded as agricultural row crops in the Land Transformation Model. Generally less land use is expected in the 

future for agricultural row crops, based on Land Transformation Model estimates. Overall, agricultural production land use 

in the Wisconsin LMB model area was projected to decrease 

by about 6.5 percent or 18,198 irrigated acres, from a total 

irrigated acreage of 280,660 acres in time interval 12 (2001–5) 

to 262,462 acres in 2040. No change in land for golf courses 

was expected in the Land Transformation Model; therefore, no 

adjustment for golf course water use was made.

In Michigan and Indiana, an irrigation water-use estimate for 2040 was determined for each county from the 

average change in reported data multiplied by current waterwithdrawal amount. Data were compiled on number of 

farms, irrigated acreage, and reported withdrawals (National 
Appendixes 109

Agricultural Statistics Service, 1992; U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, 1992, 1994, 1997, 2002, and 2007). Additional 

data were available in Michigan on the number of golf 

courses (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 

2009). Agricultural data for Michigan indicated the tendency 

towards fewer farms with larger acreages; specifically, a trend 

toward increased irrigated acreage over time coincident with 

decreased total acreage of cropland over time. Trends in number of farms or golf courses, irrigated acreage, and groundwater withdrawals, along with the potential impact of these trends 

on estimated water use in 2040, were examined. In Michigan, 

2040 estimates determined by using the trend in irrigated acreage during 2002–7 indicated low to moderate growth, which 

is believed to be the most representative of potential water use 

in 2040. 

For Indiana, trends in number of farms, irrigated acreage, and groundwater withdrawals were examined, along with 

the potential impact of these trends on estimated water use in 

2040. In Indiana, 2040 estimates determined by using the trend 

in number of farms with irrigated cropland during 1978–2002 

also indicated low to moderate growth, which is believed to 

be the most representative of potential water use in 2040. This 

estimate for Indiana was similar to the estimate determined by 

using groundwater withdrawal trends for 1987–2002 and was 

slightly higher than the estimate determined by using the trend 

in irrigated land.

In Illinois, groundwater-use estimates in the Northeastern 

Illinois subregion reported by Dziegielewski and Chowdhury 

(2008) for 2040 were summed by county for cropland irrigation and golf course irrigation and directly applied as the 2040 

groundwater-use estimates (appendix 6B). However, irrigation water use in farfield model area was estimated rather than 

adopted directly from available projected withdrawals for 

2025 (Southern Illinois University Carbondale, 2005) because 

the projections included surface-water use and were 15 years 

short of the future target year of 2040. For the 18 counties within the farfield model area, irrigation water use was 

determined by using the average groundwater-application rate 

of 0.6 acre-foot per year per acre (or 535.6 gal/d/acre) based 

on data from an irrigation survey for 2003 (U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, 2004b) and projected irrigated acreage, with 

the exception of Winnebago County; there, the approximated 

application rate was twice as much, at 1.12 acre-foot per year 

per acre (or 1,000 gal/d/acre). The projected irrigated acreage 

for 2040 was based on evaluating the current trend (similar to 

how Wisconsin irrigated acreage was estimated) to create a 

base amount used for the last time interval multiplied by the 

county’s expected population growth rate between 2000 and 

2040 (Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, 

2009). Typically, population growth is not commonly used as 

an indicator for predicting future irrigation water use; rather, 

variables such as climate, economics, crop and soil characteristics, and irrigation practices are used. However, after an 

evaluation of Census of Agriculture and USGS water-use data, 

it was discovered that some county irrigation water-use estimates in the Illinois farfield model area were underrepresented 

in the model. Total groundwater use for irrigation in 2000 

summarized for the farfield counties was reported by the 

USGS at 37.76 Mgal/d (U.S. Geological Survey, 2009), which 

includes some water use for six counties that are outside the 

study extent; in contrast, the model water-use dataset from the 

ISWS accounted for 2.93 Mgal/d (appendix 5A). By using the 

population growth rates as a corrective factor, the estimates 

that were produced were reasonably similar to withdrawals examined in the Southern Illinois University Carbondale 

report (appendix 6D). The model estimate for 2040 is 87.08 

Mgal/d, whereas the report estimate for 2025 is 75.07 Mgal/d; 

however, the latter includes some surface-water use. Therefore, the total irrigation groundwater-use estimate for 2040 in 

the LMB farfield model area (appendix 6B) contained a larger 

contributing amount of withdrawal from the Illinois farfield 

model area. Because of how these Illinois farfield estimates 

were created, the authors suggest they not be used at the 

county level without comparing to values from other available 

data sources, some of which are described in appendix 6D. 

Miscellaneous

Miscellaneous water-use estimates for 2040 were determined for Wisconsin. No estimates of miscellaneous water use 

were determined for the model areas of Michigan, Indiana, 

and Illinois because these water uses were either combined 

into other categories in the initial water use datasets (table 1) 

or were presumed to be negligible. For the most part, miscellaneous water use for Wisconsin was estimated by taking the 

average rate of change over the last 20 years in the model 

simulation (time intervals 10 through 12, 1986–2005) for 

each model subregion and then directly applying that rate 

forward to 2040 (appendix 6C). However, because Wisconsin’s fish farms are expected to grow in order to meet future 

product demand (Wisconsin State Roundup, 1998), a small but 

additional amount of miscellaneous water use was added to 

the main estimation method described above. It was assumed 

that aquaculture operators will expand existing facilities rather 

than establish new sites; therefore, it was estimated that one 

new water well would be developed per decade per subregion 

at any existing aquacultural facility. A groundwater withdrawal 

value of 0.0264 Mgal/d was assigned to these new facilities 

on the basis of median water withdrawal in Wisconsin for 

2005 (Buchwald, 2009). The total for the subregion was then 

distributed between the aquifer-system types on the basis of 

distribution of the last time interval (interval 12, 2001–5). 

Limitations

In general, the methods used to estimate 2040 water 

use by category for each state were based on data that were 

commonly available for each state so that methods would 

be consistent. However, in some cases, different approaches 

were used because of the types of data that were available. 
110 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

The authors acknowledge that many factors locally and 

regionally affect water demand, and many of these factors 

are not accounted for in the 2040 water-use estimates developed for this study for use in the LMB model. Communities 

may expand water-supply service areas, respond to changing 

water rates, attract new large-scale developments or waterintensive industries, or institute water-conservation measures 

in response to water-availability constraints or community 

goals. Likewise, in response to water-availability constraints, 

farmers may change crops or agricultural practices, utilities 

may implement a new automatic meter-reading program or 

advanced metering infrastructure, and industries may begin or 

increase their practice of reusing or reclaiming process water. 

Changes in technology could permit increased use of groundwater for irrigation or industry or could permit decreased use 

of groundwater because of more efficient practices. Climatic 

fluctuations also affect water use, but these effects are difficult 

to isolate and predict (Hutson and others, 2004). Therefore, 

these estimates of future water use likely have high uncertainties because all of the climatic, social, economic, and political 

or policy variables that potentially influence water demand 

were not taken into account in the development of these 

estimates.

Public-supply estimates were calculated on a per capita 

basis. These estimates do not take into account the possibility that conservation measures may be adopted by individual 

communities. These estimates also do not take into account 

how deliveries for domestic, industrial, commercial, public, 

and utility use may change over time. The potential for communities to change water sources or create service areas was 

accounted for only on a limited basis in Wisconsin and not at 

all in Michigan and Indiana because these changes depend on 

many factors and are difficult to predict, which was beyond 

the scope of this project. The percentage of each county 

population relying on groundwater in 2040, and the distribution of withdrawals from aquifers, may differ from that in 

2005. Population projections for each state were estimated by 

various entities using different methods, so projections may be 

overestimated or underestimated.

Industrial estimates were calculated on the basis of 

employment data, land-use changes, and past water-use trends. 

These estimates also do not take into account possible waterconservation measures by various industries or possible shifts 

in facility types. Employment projections could not be directly 

incorporated into the water-use estimates without further statistical analysis. The employment data projected for each area 

were not reported for specific industries and do not directly 

relate to withdrawals. Some of these industries likely are 

publicly supplied or may rely on surface-water sources. And 

because water usage varies considerably among different types 

of industries, employment projections for specific industry

types would be preferable to use. In addition, economic conditions, which can affect industries and their associated water 

use, may improve, stay the same, or worsen over time to 2040, 

thus complicating the estimation of water use because of the 

uncertainty in predicting these changes.

Irrigation estimates were calculated on the basis of 

water-use trends, irrigated-acreage or land-use changes, and 

water-application rates. Although the largest controls on 

irrigation water use are climate (that is, precipitation, temperature, evapotranspiration), soil type, and crop type (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, 1955), the authors assumed that 

crop type and the application and methods of irrigation would 

remain unchanged because it is uncertain how climate would 

change by 2040 and how farmers would react to such changes. 

Thus, these estimates do not account for potential changes 

in withdrawal amounts in response to changes in climate. A 

projected increase in withdrawals in response to drier weather 

in 2040 may be offset by increased efficiencies (and the need 

to withdraw less water to irrigate the same crop acreage) 

or by irrigators supplementing from surface-water sources. 

Similarly, a projected decrease in water demand due to wetter 

conditions in 2040 may be offset by more irrigators relying on 

groundwater sources, therefore resulting in higher withdrawal 

rates than would have been predicted solely on the basis of 

projected climate changes. So, although irrigation water use 

varies from year to year in response to changes in climate or 

other variables, estimation of these future climate variables 

and inclusion of all potential variables affecting irrigation 

withdrawal amounts was beyond the scope of this study. 

Miscellaneous water-use estimates for 2040 were developed only for the areas of the model that were estimated in the 

initial water-use dataset, which would be for the subregions of 

Wisconsin. Any additional miscellaneous water uses that could 

be identified but were not previously accounted for in the original category definition for a state were excluded to preserve 

the opportunity to compare totals for each state between past 

and future estimated use. For each state, additional miscellaneous water uses could have been identified and added, such 

as for wastewater treatment, mining, remediation, livestock, 

or self-supplied domestic withdrawals. Additionally, particular 

types of uses grouped under the chosen model categories (public supply, industrial, or irrigation) possibly could have been 

filtered and reassigned as miscellaneous water use; however, 

different methods for estimating future miscellaneous water 

use for the various types of use would be needed.

Additional information could improve the future estimates. County-level or well-based estimates, for example, 

could be provided rather than estimates by subregion to 

improve the future modeling scenario of water availability 

and to permit more realistic distribution of withdrawals within 

each subregion. More analysis of different scenarios may be 

warranted with respect to water price, conservation, climate, 

and economic changes. Also, categorical ranges of future 

water use could be estimated instead of single values. These 

estimates could be improved by verifying withdrawal estimates with reported use or confirming withdrawal amounts 

with the overseeing state agency. Improvements in record 

keeping and record availability by the public water-supply 

systems and other high-capacity water users are underway, so 

creation of future estimates could greatly improve in response 

to these updates. 
Appendixes 111

Appendix 6B. Lake Michigan Basin model time interval 12 (2001–5) and 2040 groundwater-use estimates by category, model 

subregion, and aquifer system. All subregions listed except for “Farfield model area” are part of the nearfield model area.—Continued

[Withdrawals in million gallons per day; “mixed” represents withdrawal from mixed aquifer systems of Quaternary and a bedrock aquifer system, or two 

bedrock aquifer systems; --, estimate not determined]

Subregion

Total estimated water 

use By aquifer system 

Average 

during 

time 

interval 12

Estimate 

for future Quaternary JurassicMississippian

SilurianDevonianCambrianOrdovician Mixed

2001–5 2040 2040 2040 2040 2040 2040

Public supply

Northeastern Wisconsin 57.22 62.15 20.11 0.00 10.55 31.50 --

Southeastern Wisconsin 54.71 68.25 24.54 0.00 18.90 24.81 --

Southern Lower Peninsula of Michigan 146.1 183.90 101.85 82.05 0.00 0.00 0.00

Northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan 24.34 33.66 28.56 0.00 5.10 0.00 0.00

Upper Peninsula of Michigan 7.52 10.32 9.15 0.00 0.03 1.14 0.00

Northern Indiana 67.57 84.59 82.10 -- 2.49 -- --

Northeastern Illinois 135.09 275.40a 79.82 0.36 59.63 135.60 --

Farfield model area 238.83 270.99 81.24 0.00 7.65 182.09 --

PUBLIC-SUPPLY TOTAL 731.38 989.26 427.38 82.41 104.35 375.14 0.00

Industrial

Northeastern Wisconsin 17.05 18.32 7.97 0.00 2.93 7.41 --

Southeastern Wisconsin 11.73 3.27b 0.15 0.00 0.54 2.57 --

Southern Lower Peninsula of Michigan 58.16 51.94c 45.78 6.16 0.00 0.00 0.00

Northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan 16.28 23.83 10.53 0.00 13.30 0.00 0.00

Upper Peninsula of Michigan 1.05 1.02 0.49 0.00 0.02 0.51 0.00

Northern Indiana 28.27 31.42 30.40 -- 1.02 -- --

Northeastern Illinois 26.33 41.60 3.05 0.00 10.39 28.15 --

Farfield model area 67.39 58.52 27.07 0.00 1.64 29.80 --

INDUSTRIAL TOTAL 226.26 229.92 128.18 6.16 39.00 57.43 0.00

Irrigation

Northeastern Wisconsin 32.36 57.12 46.02 0.00 1.81 9.29 --

Southeastern Wisconsin 6.53 5.44d 1.71 0.00 1.65 2.08 --

Southern Lower Peninsula of Michigan 101.88 111.54 102.24 8.33 0.97 0.00 0.00

Northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan 4.2 5.88 5.80 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00

Upper Peninsula of Michigan 0.37 0.41 0.12 0.00 0.21 0.08 0.00

Northern Indiana 21.58 27.17 26.74 -- 0.43 -- --

Northeastern Illinois 5.51 29.15e 6.36 0.53 8.04 14.22 --

Farfield model area 129.18 158.82 75.81 0.00 16.09 66.92 --

IRRIGATION TOTAL 301.61 368.37 264.80 8.86 29.28 92.59 0.00
112 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

Appendix 6B. Lake Michigan Basin model time interval 12 (2001–5) and 2040 groundwater-use estimates by category, model 

subregion, and aquifer system. All subregions listed except for “Farfield model area” are part of the nearfield model area.—Continued

[Withdrawals in million gallons per day; “mixed” represents withdrawal from mixed aquifer systems of Quaternary and a bedrock aquifer system, or two 

bedrock aquifer systems; --, estimate not determined]

Subregion

Total estimated water 

use By aquifer system 

Average 

during 

time 

interval 12

Estimate 

for future Quaternary JurassicMississippian

SilurianDevonianCambrianOrdovician Mixed

2001–5 2040 2040 2040 2040 2040 2040

Miscellaneous

Northeastern Wisconsin 12.42 18.86 9.90 0.00 6.32 2.64 --

Southeastern Wisconsin 3.39 3.88 0.05 0.00 1.15 2.69 --

Southern Lower Peninsula of Michigan -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Upper Peninsula of Michigan -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Northern Indiana -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Northeastern Illinois -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Farfield model area 3.28 5.47 1.23 0.00 0.00 4.24 --

MISCELLANEOUS TOTAL 19.09 28.21 11.18 0.00 7.47 9.57 0.00

Additional information about these data:

• Values reflect only a partial estimate of water use in Michigan and Indiana. 

• 2040 estimates for Michigan and Indiana were divided among the nearfield model areas because farfield area withdrawals generally were small. 

• Irrigation estimates for the Upper Peninsula and Northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan do not include water withdrawals for agricultural uses.

• Irrigation estimates for the Southern Lower Peninsula include water withdrawals for golf course uses; water withdrawals for agricultural uses were 

estimated for only 11 counties. 

• Totals among tables do not match because of differences in how model cells were divided among subregions and aquifer systems. 

• Also, the overall total may be slightly different than the total by aquifer system due to rounding.

a

The nearfield area extends beyond the Lake Michigan Basin divide, and this increase is from adjacent counties; data are from Southern Illinois University 

Carbondale (Dziegielewski, Benedykt, 2008). 

b

The decrease is largely attributed to deindustrialization of the area; however, other reasons such as expanded service areas delivering surface water from 

Lake Michigan may contribute. This deindustrialization mostly ended during the last time model interval, and the model rate was adjusted based on obtained 

water-use records (appendix 6E; Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2009).

c

The decrease is largely attributed to reductions in water use that occurred in the Southern Lower Peninsula after the last model time interval.

d

The decrease is attributed mostly from increased urbanization and decreased land in agriculture (calculated from the land transformation model and 

Census of Agriculture sources listed in Appendix 6D).

e

Value reported by the Southern Illinois University Carbondale (Dziegielewski, Benedykt, 2008). 
Appendixes 113

Appendix 6C. Methods for estimating 2040 water use by category and state.—Continued

 [Methods for most of the Illinois study area were not needed because future projections were available from other sources; there were no 2040 miscellaneous 

water-use estimates for Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois; LMB, Lake Michigan Basin; gal/acre/d, gallons per acre per day]

State(s) Estimate Equation Comments

Public supply

Wisconsin 2040 

population

2030 population+(0.5×(2030 

population−2000 

population)÷30 years)

The average percentage change in population by community 

for the 30-year interval from 2000 to 2030 was calculated. 

This value was then converted into the number of persons 

to add or remove on an average annual basis. Half of this 

rate was applied forward for 10 more years until 2040.

Michigan and 

Indiana

2040 

population

2020 population+(2020 

population×average percentage 

change over 10-year interval)

The average percentage change in population by county was 

determined for each 10-year interval from 1970 to 2000.

The average of these changes was applied to the 2020 

population projection.

Wisconsin, 

Michigan, 

and Indiana

2040 water use 2040 population×percentage served 

groundwater through public 

supply×county-specific 

per capita use

Percentage served groundwater through public supply 

determined basis on 2005 data in Wisconsin, 1998 data in 

Michigan, and 1995 data in Indiana; county per capita use 

is based on 2005 values for all three States.

Industrial

Wisconsin 2040 water use Adjusted 2001–5 withdrawals×

projected percent change in 

employment for 2040

To account for areas having more recent withdrawal changes 

(including new or abandoned wells identified since the last 

model time interval), withdrawals by subregion during 

2001–05 were adjusted from data available for the year 

2007 prior to calculating future withdrawals. This estimate 

was then multiplied by the 40-year trend in employment 

rates, which are based on regional employment projections 

available for 2016.

Michigan 2040 water use 2004 withdrawal×the average 

change in groundwater 

withdrawals for 1997–2004

The average change in groundwater withdrawals by county 

was determined for each annual interval from 1997 to 

2004. The average of these changes was applied to the 

2004 withdrawal amount.

Indiana 2040 water use 2005 withdrawal×the average 

change in groundwater 

withdrawals for 1995–2005

The average change in industrial groundwater withdrawals by 

county was determined for each annual interval from 1995 

to 2005. The average of these changes was applied to the 

2005 withdrawal amount.

Irrigation

Wisconsin 2040 irrigated 

acreage

Base irrigated acreage+(base 

irrigated acreage×40-year rate of 

land-use change)

The base irrigation acreage was calculated from evaluating the trend in irrigation for the three most recent years 

(1997, 2002, and 2007) of the Census of Agriculture (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, 2004a, 2009a). If there was a 

pronounced trend in irrigation (as in a steadily increasing 

or decreasing rate) the latest year of reported data (2007) 

was used as the base value; otherwise, if the irrigated acreage trend was not well defined (variable changes with no 

consistent increasing or decreasing rate) then the average 

of 1997, 2002, and 2007 irrigated acreage was used.

Wisconsin 2040 water use 2040 irrigated acreage×waterapplication rateApproximate water application rates for each county were 

based on the estimated withdrawals for the last time period 

in the LMB model divided by the 2002 county USDA irrigated acreage, and then assigned to one of five application rate categories: (1) 100–300 = 200 gal/acre/d; (2) 

301–500 = 400 gal/acre/d; (3) 501–700 = 600 gal/acre/d; 

(4) 701–900 = 800 gal/acre/d; and (5) 901 or higher = 

1,000 gal/acre/d.
114 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

Appendix 6C. Methods for estimating 2040 water use by category and state.—Continued

 [Methods for most of the Illinois study area were not needed because future projections were available from other sources; there were no 2040 miscellaneous 

water-use estimates for Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois; LMB, Lake Michigan Basin; gal/acre/d, gallons per acre per day]

State(s) Estimate Equation Comments

Irrigation—Continued

Michigan 2040 golf 

course water 

use

2004 withdrawal×average change 

in groundwater withdrawals for 

1997–2004

The average change in groundwater withdrawals by county 

was determined for each annual interval from 1997 to 

2004. The average of these changes was applied to the 

2004 withdrawal amount.

Michigan 2040 

agricultural 

irrigation 

water use

2001–5 LMB withdrawal 

amount×average change in 

irrigated lands acreage from 

2002–7

The average change in irrigated lands acreage, by county, was 

determined for each annual interval from 2002 to 2007. 

The average of these changes was applied to the withdrawal amount from the last time interval in the LMB model.

Indiana 2040 water use 2001–5 withdrawals×the average 

change in number of farms with 

irrigated cropland for 1978–2002

The average change in the number of farms with irrigated 

cropland, by county, was determined for each annual 

interval from 1978 to 2002. The average of these changes 

was applied to the withdrawal amount from the last time 

interval in the LMB model.

Illinois (farfield 

model area 

only)

2040 irrigated 

acreage

Base irrigated acreage+(base 

irrigated acreage×40-year rate of 

land-use change)

Same method as described for Wisconsin.

Illinois (farfield 

model area 

only)

2040 water use Base irrigated acreage×water 

application rate×40-year rate of 

population change

A statewide average groundwater-application rate of 536 gal/

acre/d was calculated for Illinois from the Farm and Ranch 

Irrigation Survey (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2004b, 

listed in appendix 6D]. The 40-year rate of population 

change was used to increase an underestimated water use 

in the model. Population growth is not commonly used to 

calculate future agricultural and golf course irrigation uses.

Miscellaneous

Wisconsin 2040 water use 2001–5 withdrawals by aquifer 

system×annual rate of change

×35 years

Calculated annual rate of change during 1985–2005 (last 3 

time intervals in LMB model) and projected rate forward 

to 2040 (for 35 years).
Appendixes 115

Appendix 6D. References used in the estimation of 2040 water use, by state.—Continued

Reference Data theme Scale

Categories or 

report location 

in which used

Multiple states

Heimlich, Ralph, 2003, Agricultural resources and environmental indicators, 

2003: Agriculture Handbook No. AH722, released February 2003,

chap. 2, sec. 1—Water use and pricing, accessed October 1, 2009, at

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/arei/ah722/.

Water-application 

rates, regional 

trends in 

irrigation

National Irrigation

Horn, M.A., Moore, R.B., Hayes, Laura, and Flanagan, S.M., 2007, Methods 

for and estimates of 2003 and projected water use in the Seacoast Region, 

Southeastern New Hampshire: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5157, 88 p.

Water-use 

estimation

National Used in appendix 

6A text

Hutson, S.S., Barber, N.L., Kenny, J.J., Linsey, K.S., Lumia, D.S., and 

Maupin, M.A., 2004, Estimated use of water in the United States in 2000: 

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1268, 46 p.

Water-use 

estimation

National Used in appendix 

6A text

Purdue University, 2009, Land transformation model—A GIS and neural 

net based land change model, accessed March 24, 2009, at http://ltm.

agriculture.purdue.edu/default_ltm.htm [electronic datasets].

Land-use 

projections

Community 

(Wisconsin, 

Michigan, and 

Illinois)

Irrigation

Thompson, S.A., 1999, Water use, management, and planning in the United 

States: Academic Press, chap 6.

Water demand 

and supplymanagement 

and planning

National Used in appendix 

6A text

U.S. Geological Survey, 2009, Water use in the United States, accessed June 

23, 2009, at http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/.

Aggregated 

Water-Use Data 

System data 

for 1985, 1990, 

1995, and 2000

County (Wisconsin, Michigan, 

and Indiana)

Industrial, irrigation

Wisconsin

Buchwald, C.A., 2009, Water use in Wisconsin, 2005: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2009–1076, 74 p., accessed October 16, 2009, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1076/.

Groundwater 

per capita use 

and estimates 

of population 

served groundwater

County Public supply

Central Brown County Water Authority, 2007, Who we are, accessed May 

23, 2008, at http://www.cbcwaterauthority.com/.

Communities that 

changed water 

source from 

groundwater to 

surface water 

after 2005

Community 

(Northeastern 

Wisconsin)

Public supply

City of Green Bay, 2009, Green Bay Water Utility, accessed July 2, 2009, at 

http://www.ci.green-bay.wi.us/water/index.html.

Communities 

that have 

changed water 

source from 

groundwater to 

surface water 

after 2005

Community 

(Northeastern 

Wisconsin)

Public supply
116 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

Appendix 6D. References used in the estimation of 2040 water use, by state.—Continued

Reference Data theme Scale

Categories or 

report location 

in which used

Wisconsin—Continued

Cobb, Kathy, 1998, Wisconsin’s fish farms grow to meet product demand: 

Wisconsin State Roundup, July 1998, accessed March 13, 2009, at http://

www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=2534.

Aquacultural 

trend

State Miscellaneous

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, 2004, The economy of Southeastern Wisconsin: Technical report number 10, 4th ed., released July 2004, 784 p., accessed October 1, 2009, at http://www.sewrpc.

org/publications/techrep/tr-010_economy_southeastern_wisconsin.pdf.

Regional 

economic 

projection by 

employment 

industry

Community 

(Southeastern 

Wisconsin)

Industrial

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, 2008, A Regional 

water supply plan for Southeastern Wisconsin—Chapter III, Existing 

water supply conditions in the region: SEWRPC Planning Report No. 

52, Preliminary Draft, 115 p., accessed October 1, 2009, at http://www.

sewrpc.org/watersupplystudy/pdfs/pr-052_chapter-03_preliminary_draft.

pdf.

Estimated 

withdrawals of 

existing watersupply systems

Community 

(Southeastern 

Wisconsin)

Public supply

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1955, Irrigation—Water management guide 

for Wisconsin—tentative, for the design of sprinkler irrigation systems: 

Madison, Wis., Soil Conservation Service, 12 p.

Principal factors 

for controlling 

the amount of 

irrigation

State Irrigation

U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service, 

2004, 2002 Census of Agriculture—Volume 1, Geographic area series—

Part 49, Wisconsin—Chapter 2, County level data, accessed October 1, 

2009, at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2002/Volume_1,_

Chapter_2_County_Level/Wisconsin/index.asp.

Table 10. 

Irrigation: 2002 

and 1997 

County Irrigation

U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service, 

2009, 2007 Census of Agriculture—Volume 1, Geographic area series—

Part 49, Wisconsin—Chapter 2, County level data, accessed October 1, 

2009, at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/

Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/Wisconsin/index.asp.

Table 10. 

Irrigation: 2007 

and 2002 

County Irrigation

Wisconsin Department of Administration, 2006, Population projections 

data—MCD and municipal (MCD’s crossing county lines combined) 

population projections, 2000-2030, accessed March 13, 2009, at http://

www.doa.state.wi.us/subcategory.asp?linksubcatid=105&linkcatid=11&l

inkid=64&locid=9. 

Community 

population 

projections, 

2000–2030

Community Public supply

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2009, Groundwater Retrieval 

Network and High Capacity Well database: Bureau of Drinking Water 

and Groundwater, accessed June 1, 2009, at http://prodoasext.dnr.wi.gov/

inter1/hicap$.startup.

Reported 

groundwater 

withdrawals for 

2007

Local (selected 

counties)

Industrial

Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, 2009, Regional employment projections—Long-term projections, 2006–2016: Office of Economic Advisors, accessed March 4, 2009 at http://dwd.wisconsin.gov/oea/

employment_projections/employment_projections.htm.

Employment 

forecasts

Subregion 

assignment 

(described in 

appendix 6A)

Industrial

Michigan

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor, & Economic Growth—Labor Market Information, 2004, Industry forecasts, 2004–2014, accessed March 25, 

2009, at http://www.milmi.org/?PAGEID=67&SUBID=177.

Industry employment forecasts 

for 2004–2014

Metropolitan area 

and (or) county

Industrial

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2009, Water withdrawal 

reports, data and graphics, accessed March 11, 2009, at http://www.

michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3313_3684_45331-72931--,00.html.

Water-use data for 

1997–2004

County Public supply, 

industrial, and 

irrigation
Appendixes 117

Appendix 6D. References used in the estimation of 2040 water use, by state.—Continued

Reference Data theme Scale

Categories or 

report location 

in which used

Michigan—Continued

Northeast Michigan Council of Governments, 2006, 2006 County populations for the NEMCOG region, accessed on March 12, 2009, at http://

www.nemcog.org/pdfs/Data/2006%20County%20Population.pdf.

Population for 

2006

County (Alcona, 

Alpena, 

Cheboygan, 

Crawford, 

Montmorency, 

Oscoda, Otsego, 

and Presque 

Isle)

Public supply

Office of the State Demographer–Michigan Information Center, 1996, 

Preliminary population projections to the year 2020 for Michigan by 

counties, accessed October 31, 2008, at http://www.michigan.gov/

documents/8510_26104_7.pdf.

Populations and 

projections for 

1970–2020

County Public supply

Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, 1992, Tri-county regional water 

feasibility study: Burns and McDonnell; Snell Environmental Group; and 

Dickinson, Wright, Moon, Van Busen, and Freeman Report 90–338–4–

005 [variously paged].

Water use for 

2020

Community 

(Clinton, 

Eaton, and 

Ingham 

Counties)

Public supply

Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, 2008, Socio-economic forecasts, adopted June 2008, accessed February 18, 2009, at http://www.

tri-co.org/SE_Forecast%20June%202008%20(Final).html.

Populations and 

projections for 

2005–2045

County (Clinton, 

Eaton, and 

Ingham)

Public supply

U.S. Census Bureau, 2009, Selected historical decennial census population 

and housing counts, accessed March 10, 2009, at http://www.census.gov/

population/www/censusdata/hiscendata.html.

Populations for 

1970–2000

County Public supply

U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service, 1992a, 1992 Census of agriculture—State and county highlights, 

Michigan, accessed October 1, 2009, at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/

Publications/1992/State_and_County_Highlights/Michigan/index.asp.

Irrigated acres 

and number of 

farms for 1992

County Irrigation

U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service, 

1992b, 1992 Census of agriculture—County data—Table 8, Irrigation, 

1992 and 1987, accessed March 11, 2009, at http://www.agcensus.usda.

gov/Publications/1992/Volume_1_Chapter_2_County_Tables/Michigan/

mi2_08.pdf.

Irrigated acres 

and number of 

farms for 1992 

and 1987

County Irrigation

U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service, 1994, 1992 Census of agriculture—Farm and ranch irrigation 

survey (1994)—Table 2, Irrigated farms by acres irrigatied, 1994 and 

1988, accessed March 11, 2009, at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/

Publications/1992/Farm_and_Ranch_Irrigation_Survey/table2.pdf.

Irrigated acres 

and number of 

farms for 1994 

and 1998

County Irrigation

U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service, 

1997, 1997 Census of agriculture—County data—Table 8, Irrigation, 

1997 and 1992, accessed March 11, 2009, at http://www.agcensus.usda.

gov/Publications/1997/Vol_1_Chapter_2_County_Tables/Michigan/

mi2_08.pdf.

Irrigated acres 

and number of 

farms for 1997 

and 1992

County Irrigation

U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service, 

2002, 2002 Census of agriculture—County data—Table 10, Irrigation, 

2002 and 1997, accessed March 11, 2009, at http://www.agcensus.usda.

gov/Publications/2002/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/Michigan/

st26_2_010_010.pdf.

Irrigated acres 

and number of 

farms for 2002 

and 1997

County Irrigation
118 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005

Appendix 6D. References used in the estimation of 2040 water use, by state.—Continued

Reference Data theme Scale

Categories or 

report location 

in which used

Michigan—Continued

U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service, 

2007, 2007 Census of agriculture—County data—Table 10, Irrigation, 

2007 and 2002, accessed March 11, 2009, at http://www.agcensus.usda.

gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/

Michigan/st26_2_010_010.pdf. 

Irrigated acres 

and number of 

farms for 2007 

and 2002

County Irrigation

West Michigan Regional Planning Commission, 2009, Population data, accessed June 23, 2009, at http://wmrpc.org/population_data.htm.Population 

projections for 

2010, 2015, 

and 2020

County 

(Allegan, Ionia, 

Kent, Mecosta, 

Montcalm, 

Osceola, and 

Ottawa)

Public supply

Indiana

Indiana Business Research Center–Indiana University’s Kelley School of 

Business, 2009, STATS Indiana—Population projections, accessed June 

23, 2009, at http://www.stats.indiana.edu/topic/projections.asp.

Population 

projections for 

2040

County Public supply

Indiana Department of Workforce Development, 2009, County highlights, 

accessed June 23, 2009, at http://www.hoosierdata.in.gov/highlights/

default.asp.

Population 

projections for 

2010, 2015, 

2020, and 2025

County Public supply

Indiana University–Center for Econometric Model Research, 2009, Longrange projections, accessed June 9, 2009, at http://www.iu.edu/~cemr/

current_summaries/long_range.html.

Employment 

projections 

(2012–29)

State Industrial

U.S. Census Bureau, 2009, Selected historical decennial census population 

and housing counts, accessed March 10, 2009, at http://www.census.gov/

population/www/censusdata/hiscendata.html.

Populations for 

1970–2000

County Public supply

U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service, 1992a, 1992 Census of agriculture, State and county highlights, 

Indiana, accessed March 9, 2009, at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/

Publications/1992/State_and_County_Highlights/Indiana/index.asp.

Irrigated acres 

and number of 

farms for 1992

County Irrigation

U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service, 

1992b, 1992 Census of agriculture—County data—Table 8, Irrigation, 

1992 and 1987, accessed March 11, 2009, at http://www.agcensus.usda.

gov/Publications/ 1992/Volume_1_Chapter_2_County_Tables/Indiana/

in2_08.pdf.

Irrigated acres 

and number of 

farms for 1992 

and 1987

County Irrigation

U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service, 

1997, 1997 Census of agriculture—County data—Table 8, Irrigation, 

1997 and 1992, accessed March 11, 2009, at http://www.agcensus.usda.

gov/Publications/1997/Vol_1_Chapter_2_County_Tables/Indiana/in2_08.

pdf.

Irrigated acres 

and number of 

farms for 1997 

and 1992

County Irrigation

U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service, 

2002, 2002 Census of agriculture—County data—Table 10, Irrigation, 

2002 and 1997, accessed March 11, 2009, at http://www.agcensus.usda.

gov/Publications/2002/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/Indiana/

st18_2_010_010.pdf.

Irrigated acres 

and number of 

farms for 2002 

and 1997

County Irrigation

U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service, 

2007, 2007 Census of agriculture—County data—Table 10, Irrigation, 

2007 and 2002, accessed March 11, 2009, at http://www.agcensus.usda.

gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/

Indiana/st18_2_010_010.pdf.

Irrigated acres 

and number of 

farms for 2007 

and 2002

County Irrigation
Appendixes 119

Appendix 6D. References used in the estimation of 2040 water use, by state.—Continued

Reference Data theme Scale

Categories or 

report location 

in which used

Illinois

Dziegielewski, Benedykt, 2008, Regional water demand scenarios for 

Northeastern Illinois, 2005–2050—Project completion report, June 15, 

2008 (modified June 27, 2008): Southern Illinois University Carbondale, 

Department of Geography and Environmental Resources, 218 p., accessed 

October 1, 2009, at http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/WorkArea/showcontent.

aspx?id=9040.

Water-use estimates for 2040County 

(Northeastern 

Illinois)

Public supply, 

industrial, and 

irrigation 

Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, 2009, Population projections, accessed October 1, 2009, at http://www.commerce.state.

il.us/dceo/Bureaus/Facts_Figures/Population_Projections/.

Population 

projections for 

2010, 2015, 

2020, 2025, 

and 2030

County Irrigation

Illinois Department of Employment Security, 2009, Employment Projections: County and Metropolitan area data, accessed November 20, 2009, 

at http://lmi.ides.state.il.us/projections/employproj.htm.

Employment 

projections by 

sector (2006 to 

2016)

Metropolitan area 

and (or) county

Industrial

Southern Illinois University Carbondale, 2005, County-level forecasts of 

water use in Illinois, 2005-2025—Project completion report, January 

2005 (revised March 30, 2005): Carbondale, Ill., Department of Georgraphy, 211 p., accessed October 1, 2009, at http://info.geography.siu.edu/

geography_info/research/documents/ISWS_IL_Water_Use_Projections.

pdf. 

Water-use estimates for 2025County Public supply, 

industrial, and 

irrigation 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009, Economy at a glance—Illinois, Metropolitan area data, accessed November 20, 2009, at http://www.bls.gov/

eag/eag.il.htm.

Employment data 

by sector since 

1990

State and metropolitan areaIndustrial

U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service, 

1999, 1997 Census of agriculture—Volume 1, Geographic area series—

Part 13, Illinois—Chapter 2, County level data, accessed October 1, 2009, 

at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/1997/Vol_1_Chapter_2_

County_Tables/Illinois/index.asp.

Irrigated acres 

and number of 

farms for 1997 

and 1992

County Irrigation

U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service, 

2004, 2002 Census of agriculture—Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey 

(2003): v. 3, Special Studies, Part 1, AC–02–SS–1; table 12; table 28, 

193 p. 

Groundwater 

application rate 

for irrigation

State Irrigation

U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service, 

2009, 2007 Census of agriculture—Volume 1, Geographic area series—

Part 13, Illinois—Chapter 2, County level data, accessed October 1, 

2009, at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/

Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/Illinois/index.asp.

Irrigated acres 

and number of 

farms for 2007 

and 2002

County Irrigation

U.S. Geological Survey, 2009, Water use in the United States, accessed 

October 1, 2009, at http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/.

Groundwater-use 

estimates for 

1995 and 2000

County Industrial, 

irrigation
120 Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005 Appendix 6

E. Adjusted model rates and estimated percent change in employment for Wisconsin industrial water-use projections for the year 2040. 

[The Wisconsin industrial water-use category includes some commercial water uses as described in table 1. The withdrawal rates in the last time interval of the groundwater model were adjusted for 12 counties to capture more recent changes in industrial water use. Mgal/d, million gallons per day; %, percent; LMB, Lake Michigan Basin]

Model subregion

Model 

rates, in 

Mgal/d, 

for time 

interval 12 

(2001–5)

Adjusted 

model rate, 

in Mgal/d, 

based on 

2007 dataa

Distribution of water 

use, by type, for 2007

Adjusted withdrawals, 

in Mgal/d, by wateruse type for 2007

Estimated percent 

change in employment 

from time interval 12 

(2001–5) to 2040

Projected groundwater 

withdrawals, in Mgal/d, for the 

industrial water-use category based 

on employment trend for 2040

Industrial Commer- cial Industrial Commer- cial Industrial Commer- cial Industrial Commer- cial Total with- drawal

Northeastern Wisconsin 17.05 17.80 82.6% 17.4% 14.70 3.10 -2.5% 28.7% 14.33 3.99 18.32Southeastern Wisconsin 11.73 3.02 74.9% 25.1% 2.26 0.76 0.9% 30.1% 2.28 0.99 3.27Wiconsin farfield model area 31.18 26.00 77.9% 22.1% 20.27 5.74 -3.9% 27.1% 19.48 7.29 26.77Wisconsin LMB model area total 59.96 46.82 48.36

a Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2009 (listed in appendix 6

D).
Buchwald and others—Estimation of Groundwater Use, Lake Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, 1864–2005—Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5068

Printed on recycled paper