September 2012 

Oil & Gas Water Use in Texas: 

Update to the 2011 Mining Water Use Report 

Prepared for 

Texas Oil & Gas Association, Austin, Texas 

Bureau of Economic Geology 

Scott W. Tinker, Director 

Jackson School of Geosciences 

The University of Texas at Austin 

Austin, Texas 78713-8924 

 

Oil & Gas Water Use in Texas: 

Update to the 2011 Mining Water Use Report 

Jean-Philippe Nicot, P.E., P.G., Robert C. Reedy, P.G., 

Ruth A. Costley, and Yun Huang, P.E. 

Bureau of Economic Geology 

Scott W. Tinker, Director 

Jackson School of Geosciences 

The University of Texas at Austin 

Austin, Texas 78713-8924 

 

i 

Executive Summary 

In Spring 2012, we undertook an update of the hydraulic fracturing sections of the TWDBsponsored report titled “Current and Projected Water Use in the Texas Mining and Oil and Gas 

Industry” that we published in June 2011 (Nicot et al., 2011). The 2011 report provided 

estimated county-level water use in the oil and gas industry in 2008 and projections to 2060. This 

2012 update was prompted by two main events: (1) a major shift of the oil and gas industry from 

gas to oil production, displacing production centers across the state and impacting county-level 

amounts; (2) rapid development of technological advances, resulting in more common reuse and 

in the ability to use more brackish water. The timely update was enabled by a faster than 

anticipated development, translating into abundant statistical data sets from which to derive 

projections, and by an increased willingness of the industry to participate in providing detailed 

information about water use in its operations. This document follows the same methodology as 

the 2011 report but differs from it in two ways. Our current update clearly distinguishes between 

water use and water consumption. The 2011 report does not include reuse from neighboring 

hydraulic fracturing jobs, recycling from other industry operations or other treatment plants, and 

use of brackish water. Our update also presents three scenarios: high, low, and most likely water 

use and consumption with a focus on water consumption. This update has been reviewed by the 

TWDB and should supersede oil and gas industry projections from the 2011 report. 

Figure ES1. Spatial distribution of hydraulic fracturing water use in 2008 (~36,000 AF) and 2011 

(~81,500 AF). 

Overall we find that, if the total water use for hydraulic fracturing has increased from 36,000 AF 

in 2008 to ~81,500 AF in 2011 (Figure ES1), the amount of recycling/reuse and the use of 

brackish water have also increased (~17,000 AF in 2011, or 21%). Hydraulic fracturing has 

expanded to the southern and western, drier parts of the state and, by necessity, the industry has 

had to adapt to those new conditions. Collected information tends to suggest that the industry has 
ii 

been decreasing its fresh-water consumption despite the increase in water use. Total water use 

information is relatively easy to access (through the private database vendor IHS), but true 

consumption is harder to gauge. 

The updated hydraulic fracturing projections at the state level do not show a major departure 

from and are essentially consistent with the previous report but have a more subdued peak and a 

longer tail (Figure ES2). This is due to the increased likelihood that the industry has 

hydraulically fractured more formations that can be placed into the tight oil and gas category. 

The annual peak water use previously estimated at 145,000 AF in the early 2020’s is now 

thought to be a broad peak plateauing at ~125,000 AF/yr during the 2020’s. However, fresh 

water consumption is estimated to stay at the general level of ~70,000 AF/yr and to decrease in 

future decades. Adding other oil and gas industry water uses, such as waterflooding and drilling, 

brings projected maximum water use up to ~180,000 AF/yr during the 2020-2030 decade with a 

much lower consumption which brings the total mining water use to a maximum of ~340,000 

AF/yr around the year 2030. These values remain small compared to the state water use (Figure 

ES3). In 2010, hydraulic fracturing water use represented about 0.5% of the water use in the 

state. However, the hydraulic fracturing water use is unevenly distributed across the state and 

may represent locally a higher fraction of the total water use. 

Figure ES2. State-level projections to 2060 of hydraulic fracturing water use and fresh-water 

consumption and comparison to earlier water projections. 

0

50

100

150

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Calendar Year

Water Use/Consumption (thousand AF)

Water Use; 2011 report Water Use; this report Water Consumption; this report
iii 

Figure ES3. Average state level water use (all categories) in 2001-2010. 

v 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... i

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ v

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... vii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................ xiii

Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................... xiii

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1

II. Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 3

II-1. Historical and Current Water Use ........................................................................................3

II-1-1 Indicator for Quality Control ...................................................................................3

II-1-2 Hydraulically-fractured Length ...............................................................................5

II-1-3 Beyond the Database ................................................................................................6

II-2. Future Water Use Projections ..............................................................................................7

II-3. Notes on Collected Information ...........................................................................................8

III. Historical and Current Water Use ......................................................................................... 11

III-1. Play Description ...............................................................................................................11

III-1-1 Barnett Shale ..........................................................................................................11

III-1-2 Eagle Ford Shale ....................................................................................................12

III-1-3 TX-Haynesville Shale and East Texas Basin .........................................................12

III-1-4 Permian Basin ........................................................................................................13

III-1-5 Anadarko Basin ......................................................................................................14

III-1-6 East Texas Basin ....................................................................................................14

III-1-7 Gulf Coast Texas....................................................................................................15

III-2. Current Water Consumption and Sources ........................................................................54

III-2-1 Information about Recycling/Reuse and Brackish Water Use ..............................54

III-2-2 2011 HF Water Use and Consumption ..................................................................54

III-3. Comparison to Earlier Findings .......................................................................................59

III-4. Drilling Water Use ...........................................................................................................63

IV. Water Use Projections........................................................................................................... 65

V. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 93

VI. References ............................................................................................................................. 95

Appendix 1: Revision to 2011 Report .......................................................................................... 97

vii 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Comparison of five approaches to computing lateral length (Barnett Shale play). ..........9

Figure 2. Histograms of lateral lengths according to various approaches: (a) “test”; (b) 

“survey”; (c) “GIS” (Barnett Shale play); and (d) “test” (Eagle Ford Shale play). .......9

Figure 3. Water use intensity in the Barnett Shale play, showing comparison among between 

top operators in the play. ..............................................................................................10

Figure 4. Barnett Shale horizontals, various historical parameters and coefficients for 

reported and estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) 

water use; (c) average/median lateral length; (d) average/median water use per 

well; (e) average/median water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant 

loading..........................................................................................................................16

Figure 5. Barnett Shale horizontal water use intensity as a function of (a) depth; (b) operator 

and depth; and (c) formation thickness. .......................................................................17

Figure 6. Barnett Shale spatial distribution of (a) water intensity; and (b) density of lateral 

(cumulative length per area). .......................................................................................18

Figure 7. Barnett Shale county-level average lateral spacing. .......................................................19

Figure 8. Map view of lateral expression of horizontal wells in the Barnett Shale centered on 

Tarrant County. ............................................................................................................20

Figure 9. Annual well count in Johnson (a) and Tarrant (b) counties. ..........................................21

Figure 10. Eagle Ford horizontals, various historical parameters and coefficients for reported 

and estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; 

(c) average/median lateral length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) 

average/median water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant loading. ................22

Figure 11. Eagle Ford Shale horizontal wells’ water use intensity as a function of (a) depth; 

and (b) formation thickness. ........................................................................................23

Figure 12. Eagle Ford Shale spatial distribution of (a) water intensity; and (b) density of 

lateral (cumulative length per area). ............................................................................24

Figure 13. Eagle Ford Shale county-level average lateral spacing. ...............................................25

Figure 14. TX-Haynesville Shale horizontals, various historical parameters and coefficients 

for reported and estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; 

(b) water use; (c) average/median lateral length; (d) average/median water use per 

well; (e) average/median water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant 

loading..........................................................................................................................26

Figure 15. TX-Haynesville Shale horizontal water use intensity as a function of (a) depth; 

and (b) formation thickness. ........................................................................................27

Figure 16. TX-Haynesville Shale spatial distribution of (a) water intensity; and (b) density of 

lateral (cumulative length per area). ............................................................................28

Figure 17. TX-Haynesville Shale county-level average lateral spacing. .......................................29

Figure 18. Wolfberry verticals, various historical parameters and coefficients for reported 

and estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; 

(c) average/median vertical productive section length; (d) average/median water 

use per well; (e) average/median water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant 

loading..........................................................................................................................30
viii 

Figure 19. Wolfcamp horizontals, various historical parameters and coefficients for reported 

and estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; 

(c) average/median lateral length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) 

average/median water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant loading. ................31

Figure 20. Canyon Sand horizontals, various historical parameters and coefficients for 

reported and estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) 

water use; (c) average/median lateral length; (d) average/median water use per 

well; (e) average/median water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant 

loading..........................................................................................................................32

Figure 21. Clearfork verticals, various historical parameters and coefficients for reported and 

estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) 

average/median vertical productive section length; (d) average/median water use 

per well; (e) average/median water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant 

loading..........................................................................................................................33

Figure 22. San Andres-Grayburg verticals, various historical parameters and coefficients for 

reported and estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) 

water use; (c) average/median vertical productive section length; (d) 

average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water use intensity; (f) 

average/median proppant loading. ...............................................................................34

Figure 23. San Andres-Grayburg horizontals, various historical parameters and coefficients 

for reported and estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; 

(b) water use; (c) average/median lateral length; (d) average/median water use per 

well; (e) average/median water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant 

loading..........................................................................................................................35

Figure 24. Permian Basin spatial distribution of water intensity for (a) vertical and (b) 

horizontal wells. ...........................................................................................................36

Figure 25. Permian Basin spatial distribution of (a) vertical well density and (b) density of 

lateral (cumulative length per area) for horizontal wells. ............................................37

Figure 26. Permian Basin county-level average lateral spacing ....................................................38

Figure 27. Granite Wash horizontals, various historical parameters and coefficients for 

reported and estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) 

water use; (c) average/median lateral length; (d) average/median water use per 

well; (e) average/median water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant 

loading..........................................................................................................................39

Figure 28. Cleveland horizontals, various historical parameters and coefficients for reported 

and estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; 

(c) average/median lateral length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) 

average/median water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant loading. ................40

Figure 29. Marmaton horizontals, various historical parameters and coefficients for reported 

and estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; 

(c) average/median lateral length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) 

average/median water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant loading. ................41

Figure 30. Granite Wash horizontal water use intensity as a function of depth. ...........................42

Figure 31. Cleveland horizontal water use intensity as a function of depth. .................................42

Figure 32. Granite Wash spatial distribution of (a) water intensity; and (b) density of lateral 

(cumulative length per area). .......................................................................................43
ix 

Figure 33. Granite Wash horizontals county-level average lateral spacing ...................................44

Figure 34. Cleveland spatial distribution of (a) water intensity; and (b) density of lateral 

(cumulative length per area). .......................................................................................45

Figure 35. Marmaton spatial distribution of (a) water intensity; and (b) density of lateral 

(cumulative length per area). .......................................................................................46

Figure 36. Anadarko spatial distribution of (a) water intensity; and (b) density of lateral 

(cumulative length per area). .......................................................................................47

Figure 37. Map view of wells’ lateral expression and vertical well location in the Anadarko 

Basin. ...........................................................................................................................48

Figure 38. Cotton Valley verticals, various historical parameters and coefficients for reported 

and estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; 

(c) average/median vertical productive section length; (d) average/median water 

use per well; (e) average/median water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant 

loading..........................................................................................................................49

Figure 39. Cotton Valley horizontals, various historical parameters and coefficients for 

reported and estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) 

water use; (c) average/median lateral length; (d) average/median water use per 

well; (e) average/median water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant 

loading..........................................................................................................................50

Figure 40. Cotton Valley horizontal water use intensity as a function of depth. ...........................51

Figure 41. Cotton Valley spatial distribution of density of lateral (cumulative length per 

area). .............................................................................................................................51

Figure 42. Cotton Valley spatial distribution of density of vertical wells (years 2005-2011).......52

Figure 43. Olmos horizontals, various historical parameters and coefficients for reported and 

estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) 

average/median lateral length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) 

average/median water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant loading. ................53

Figure 44. Location of waste water treatment facilities that provide or have provided water to 

the industry for HF as of July 2012. ............................................................................58

Figure 45. Spatial distribution of HF water use in 2008 and 2011. ...............................................60

Figure 46. Bar plot comparison of 2011 actual water use to projections from 2009. ....................61

Figure 47. County-level cross-plot comparison of 2011 actual water use to projections from 

2008. Values on x- and y- axis represent counties whose actual (y-axis) / 

projected (x-axis) water use is 0. A total of 168 counties are represented. .................62

Figure 48. State-level projections to 2060 of HF water use and fresh-water consumption and 

comparison to earlier water projections. ......................................................................81

Figure 49. State-level projections to 2060 of oil and gas industry water use and fresh-water 

consumption. ................................................................................................................81

Figure 50. Counties with non-zero projected water use. Same coverage as in the 2011 report 

(thick blue lines) with the addition of Polk, Tyler, Jasper, and Newton counties in 

East Texas (red circle). ................................................................................................82

Figure 51. Spatial location of the oil and gas windows in the (a) Barnett Shale and (b) Eagle 

Ford Shale. ...................................................................................................................82

Figure 52. Barnett Shale water use and consumption projections: (a) comparison with earlier 

projections; (b) water use and consumption projections under the three scenarios. ....83
x 

Figure 53. Eagle Ford Shale water use and consumption projections: (a) comparison with 

earlier projections; (b) water use and consumption projections under the three 

scenarios. ......................................................................................................................84

Figure 54. Pearsall Shale water use and consumption projections: (a) comparison with earlier 

projections; (b) water use and consumption projections under the three scenarios. ....85

Figure 55. Haynesville and Bossier Shales water use and consumption projections: (a) 

comparison with earlier projections; (b) water use and consumption projections 

under the three scenarios. .............................................................................................86

Figure 56. Haynesville-West Shale water use and consumption projections: (a) comparison 

with earlier projections; (b) water use and consumption projections under the 

three scenarios. .............................................................................................................87

Figure 57. East Texas (not including Haynesville and Bossier Shales) water use and 

consumption projections: (a) comparison with earlier projections; (b) water use 

and consumption projections under the three scenarios. .............................................88

Figure 58. Gulf Coast (not including shales) water use and consumption projections: (a) 

comparison with earlier projections; (b) water use and consumption projections 

under the three scenarios. .............................................................................................89

Figure 59. Anadarko Basin water use and consumption projections: (a) comparison with 

earlier projections; (b) water use and consumption projections under the three 

scenarios. ......................................................................................................................90

Figure 60. Permian Basin water use and consumption projections: (a) comparison with earlier 

projections; (b) water use and consumption projections under the three scenarios. ....91

Figure 61. Permian Basin water use and consumption projections under the three scenarios: 

(a) Barnett and Woodford Shales; (b) Wolfcamp Shale and Wolfberry play; and 

(c) other Permian Basin formations. ............................................................................92

Figure 62. Summary of projected water use by mining industry in Texas (2012-2060). ..............94

Figure 63. Average state level water use (all categories) in 2001-2010. .......................................94
xi 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Representivity of collected information ........................................................................ 10

Table 2. Percentage of wells in each play or region that yielded a complete and consistent 

data set (water, proppant, length) from year 2011. ....................................................... 15

Table 3. Barnett Shale county-level average lateral spacing for top producing counties. ........... 19

Table 4. Eagle Ford Shale county-level average lateral spacing for top producing counties. ..... 25

Table 5. TX-Haynesville Shale county-level average lateral spacing for top producing 

counties. ........................................................................................................................ 29

Table 6. Granite Wash county-level average lateral spacing for top producing counties ........... 44

Table 7. Estimated percentages of recycling/ reused and brackish water use in main HF 

areas in 2011. ................................................................................................................ 56

Table 8. Estimated groundwater / surface water split (does not include recycling / reuse) ........ 56

Table 9. HF water use in 2008 and 2011compared to the 2011 projected water use from 

2008............................................................................................................................... 56

Table 10. County-level estimate of 2011 HF water use and water consumption (kAF). ............ 57

Table 11. Drilling water use information ..................................................................................... 63

Table 12. Recent trends in well completion and water use in hydraulic-fractured plays. ........... 69

Table 13. Coefficients (%) to compute water consumption to be applied to total water use. ..... 69

Table 14. Estimated flow back/produced water volume relative to HF injected volume. ........... 70

Table 15. County-level estimate of 2012-2060 projections for HF water use and water 

consumption (AF). ........................................................................................................ 71

Table 16. County-level estimate of 2012-2060 projections for oil and gas water use and 

water consumption (AF). .............................................................................................. 76

Table 17. Update to Table 52 of 2011 report (now obsolete and superseded by this report) ...... 97

xiii 

Acknowledgments 

The authors would like to thank engineers and staff from many oil and gas operating companies 

for giving their time in answering our requests and sharing their knowledge of the hydraulic 

fracturing process. Special thanks to C. J. Tredway for managing the project, to Dr. Dan Hardin 

(TWDB) and his staff for reviewing the report, and to BEG internal reviewers, particularly Dr. 

Bridget Scanlon. Thanks too to L’Oreal Stepney and her staff at TCEQ for providing useful 

information. We are also grateful to IHS for providing free access to their Enerdeq database, 

which was used extensively in the course of this work. The report also benefited from a thorough 

editing by Amanda R. Masterson of the Bureau of Economic Geology at The University of Texas 

at Austin. 

Acronyms 

AF Acre-foot 

BEG Bureau of Economic Geology 

EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery 

Fm. Formation 

GW Groundwater 

HF Hydraulic fracturing 

kAF Thousand acre-feet 

Mgal Million gallons 

PSD Powell Shale Digest 

RRC Railroad Commission (of Texas) 

SW Surface water 

TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

TDS Total dissolved solids 

TWDB Texas Water Development Board 

TXOGA Texas Oil & Gas Association 

1 

I. Introduction 

This work is an update of the “Current and Projected Water Use in the Texas Mining and Oil and 

Gas Industry” (Nicot at al., 2011) report released in 2011 by the Texas Water Development 

Board (TWDB) and prepared by the Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG). The 2011 report 

documents future and projected water use in all segments of the mining industry: oil and gas, 

aggregates, coal, and other industrial and metallic substances. In particular, it looked at three 

main water categories in the upstream segment of the oil and gas industry: drilling, 

waterflooding and enhanced oil recovery (EOR), and hydraulic fracturing (HF). 

How is this report different from the 2011 Report? 

This report focuses on HF water use and associated drilling; the information in the 2011 report 

relating to waterflooding and EOR water use as well as drilling not associated with 

hydraulically-fractured wells did not require updating. This update also benefited from more 

participation from the industry, especially for information not typically available or easily 

extractable from state records. We also have a longer record for many plays, indicating trends 

and allowing for better future projections. In addition, we presented three scenarios for water use 

and water consumption for each play (high, medium, low) as was done in Bené et al. (2007) but 

not in the 2011 report. Furthermore we made the distinction between water use and water 

consumption more explicit. Water use is the amount of water used in an operation regardless of 

the water source provided; water is either fresh or brackish. Fresh water is defined as any water 

with a total dissolved solids (TDS) content of <1,000 mg/L; the upper limit for brackish water is 

35,000 mg/L, but often in this document the limit will be <10,000 mg/L. Water consumption is 

fresh water use excluding recycling and reuse. Reuse is understood as the water originating from 

previous HF operations whereas recycling is more general and could include, for example, 

produced water from conventional wells or waste water obtained from other industries or 

municipalities. 

Scope of work 

As in the 2011 report, this update’s scope of work includes two main tasks: (1) documenting 

current (year 2011) and past water use from HF; and (2) estimating projected water use. Both 

tasks are completed at the county level for the entire state of Texas. Task 1 consists of gathering 

water use data and establishing statistics needed for the projection phase in the spirit of what was 

done in the 2011 report but with a more detailed processing of the data. Task 2 is to produce a 

projection of county- level water use to 2060 using previously derived statistics and input from 

the industry. 

This current document is organized in the following way. We first describe the methodology and 

its caveats as well as the challenges to making projections. We then examine the 2011 water use 

and compare our new findings to the 2011 projections made in 2008 as a way to validate our 

approach. We then present projections to 2060 according to three scenarios: high estimates, most 

likely estimates, and low estimates. 

3 

II. Methodology 

II-1. Historical and Current Water Use 

We followed a methodology similar to that used in the 2011 report, making use of the IHS 

Enerdeq database (http://www.ihs.com/products/oil-gas-information/dataaccess/enerdeq/browser.aspx). The IHS data were cross-checked with information from 

individual companies (number of oil/gas wells, of vertical/horizontal wells, amount of proppant) 

through discussion with company experts. In addition to production data, the Enerdeq database 

contains completion information submitted by operators to the Railroad Commission (RRC) of 

Texas through the W-2 and G-1 forms for oil and gas, respectively. In the best cases, and as 

noted by statistics provided in forthcoming sections of this report, the database contains all 

information of interest to us: API number, location of the well, well geometry, amount of water 

used, and amount of proppant used. Because, across plays, the completeness of the data is 

variable and because typographical errors are not infrequent, we developed several indicators for 

quality control: water intensity (amount of water used per unit length of lateral or useful vertical 

section) and proppant loading (amount of proppant per unit water volume). When either water 

intensity or proppant loading for a given well is out of range, the well is flagged and obvious 

errors corrected (for example, reporting water use in gal but displaying bbl as the unit instead of 

gal). Details on the approach follow. 

The three primary data types used to estimate HF water volumes include reported values of fluid 

and proppant used to fracture each well and the total well length over which fracturing 

procedures were performed. Data were extracted separately from the IHS database for individual 

producing formations having a significant number (> ~100 to 200) of wells located in Texas that 

were completed between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2011 that upon preliminary 

accounting had been fractured using > 100,000 gal of fluids. These include the Barnett, Eagle 

Ford, Haynesville, Cotton Valley, and Olmos formations, and several formations in the 

Anadarko Basin (Granite Wash, Cleveland, Marmaton) and the Permian Basin (Wolfcamp, 

Spraberry, Canyon, Clear Fork, San Andres, and Grayburg). For this analysis, the Wolfcamp and 

Spraberry were combined and the San Andres and Grayburg were combined. 

As we did in the 2011 report we relied on the IHS database to recognize the currently active 

plays by downloading basic information on all wells drilled in Texas since 2010 (included early 

2012 but with many gaps in the reporting). Our interest was not in computing water use but in 

determining those plays with enough activity to warrant a more detailed study. Many additional 

wells were fractured in other plays and did count toward the total water use in 2011, but they 

were not part of the detailed analyses of those plays cited earlier. Those minor plays are, 

however, accounted for in the general Gulf Coast and Permian Basin count. 

II-1-1 Indicator for Quality Control 

For producing formations having a sufficient number of wells completed during this period, the 

data were analyzed by annual intervals. Wells having actual or estimated total HF water use of 

<100,000 gal (i.e., small-scale traditional fracturing performed primarily on vertical/directional 

wells) were omitted from calculations as they account for comparatively insignificant water 

volumes compared to the fracturing currently being practiced in many plays. This minimum 
4 

volume distinction was applied to vertical/directional wells only, and all horizontal wells were 

included in the estimates. 

Critical evaluation and editing of the raw data was required. The purpose of the editing process 

was, through a step-wise logical procedure, to exclude wells that used or (in the absence of 

accurate data) were likely to have used <100,000 gal of HF fluids while retaining and accounting 

for wells that used or (again, in the absence of accurate data) were likely to have used ≥100,000 

gal of HF fluids. For many wells, one or more of the reported data values is absent, incomplete, 

or inaccurate, due either to clerical errors or to partial reporting (omission errors). Clerical errors 

include the incorrect assignment of units (gal vs. bbl, lb vs. ton, etc.) and/or typographical errors. 

Omission errors primarily include the non-reporting or under-reporting of fluid volumes 

(proppant amounts seem to be accurately reported much more consistently than fluid volumes). 

The data were screened for errors by examining ratios between the different values, including the 

total reported volume of fluids used per linear foot of the total fractured well depth interval 

(water use intensity, gal/ft), the total mass of proppant per total volume of HF fluids (proppant 

loading, lb/gal), and the total mass of proppant per linear foot of the total fractured well depth 

interval (proppant intensity, lb/ft). These ratios were examined for outliers and inaccuracies by 

sorting hierarchically through the data based on the various ratios. Edits were performed on the 

raw data where rectifiable errors could be identified, the most prevalent consisting of modifying 

units where such changes resulted in ratios consistent with other similar wells. In some cases, 

sufficient details were reported in the data comments to correct inaccurate data values, although 

this type of edit was extremely limited. 

In general, proppant loading (lb/gal) was used as the primary data screening ratio because of the 

generally consistent reporting of total proppant amounts. HF fluid volumes resulting in proppant 

loading values (average of all stages) >5 lb/gal were deemed as under-reported. Barring a unit’s 

error, these values generally reflect reported fluid volumes that include only acid treatments and 

in some cases raw gel product volumes and do not also include the volumes of water used. For 

vertical/directional wells having reported proppant amounts and with absent or under-reported 

HF volumes, wells with <100,000 lb of proppant were excluded from the estimates based on an 

assumed 1.0 lb/gal loading ratio. 

A finer level of resolution in the water use data could be achieved by binning the hydraulic 

fracturing stages into slickwater, gel, and cross-linked gel systems with the latter two having a 

smaller water use intensity. Unfortunately the database does not allow for an accurate count in 

each category. The information, however, was used in a qualitative way, checking its consistency 

with common practices in a play. 

Following the data screening and editing procedures, the data were classified into two main 

groups: 1) wells judged to have accurately reported fluid volumes and 2) wells judged to have 

inaccurately reported fluid volumes. The average (annual) water use intensity (gal/ft) values of 

the Group 1 wells were multiplied by the (annual) sum total fractured length (ft) of the Group 2 

wells to produce annual estimates of the total water use of the Group 2 wells. The average 

intensity values represent truncated averages based on 90% of the data that were calculated by 

eliminating values less than the 5th percentile or greater than the 95th percentile of the Group 1 

population to reduce the impacts of extreme values. The Group 2 annual total estimates were 

then added to the Group 1 annual total values to produce estimates of actual annual total water 
5 

use. Values are reported for the major producing formations listed above by year and by county. 

County locations were assigned based on the wellhead coordinates. 

A separate estimate using the same procedures was calculated for the HF water used during 2011 

for all wells meeting the minimum 100,000 gal criteria but that were not completed in one of the 

producing formations listed above and for which insufficient data exist for temporal trend 

analysis. 

II-1-2 Hydraulically-fractured Length 

HF lengths for individual wells were determined using five approaches, each relying on different 

information in the database. All five approaches were applied to varying degrees to determine 

horizontal well HF lengths while only the first two were applied to vertical/directional wells. The 

first approach used the difference between the minimum and maximum reported test treatment 

depths and is referred to as the “test” length. This was the primary length used in an estimated 

minimum of 95% of all wells. The second approach used the difference between the minimum 

and maximum perforation depths, which was identical in most cases to that of the test length and 

is referred to as the “perf” length. The “perf” length was used in place of the test length in a few 

cases that resulted in more realistic use intensity values. The test and “perf” lengths are 

considered to be the most accurate length information available for most wells. 

A third approach utilized the survey information and is referred to as the “survey” length. In this 

approach, the angle relative to the horizontal plane between successive well survey points was 

calculated. The horizontal length of the well was determined as the difference between the 

minimum depth at which that angle became less than 2.5 degrees and the maximum well depth. 

This approach also provided the average depth of the horizontal well section and additionally the 

beginning and ending X-Y coordinate locations of the horizontal well section used to map well 

density in GIS for the various plays. If no information was available to calculate a test or perf 

length, the survey length was considered to be the next-best available length information. In most 

cases where all three were available, the survey length is in good agreement with both the test 

and perf lengths. This value was used only in a few cases where neither a test nor a perf length 

was available. 

A fourth length value was calculated as the difference between the reported driller’s well depth 

and the bottom hole true depth, referred to as the “true value” or “TV” length and a fifth length 

value was calculated as the simple horizontal linear distance between the X-Y coordinates of the 

well surface and bottom hole coordinates (“GIS” length). Both of these values are considered to 

be only general estimates of the horizontal section length and were used in a very limited number 

of instances where more accurate information was not available. For a very few instances 

(<<1%) no length values were available for a given well. In these cases, the annual (truncated) 

average well length for that producing formation was assigned. 

The fourth and fifth approaches, simpler to use, were adopted in the 2011 report. The HF water 

intensity for horizontal wells is computed slightly differently from the approach in the 2011 

report. Instead of using the distance between the wellhead of the toe of the lateral, we used a 

shorter distance defined by the operator-defined “test length” more representative of the true 

length of the lateral. The test length is consistent with the “test” length but consistently smaller 

by 10 to 25%. The lateral length value matters as it used to compute water intensity, itself used to 

make projections. There is relatively little difference between the different approaches (Figure 1) 
6 

but the “test” approach used in this document is systematically smaller than the “GIS” approach 

used in the 2011 document, that is, water intensity values reported in this document are 

systematically greater than those in the 2011 report. The median value of water intensity using 

the “test” and “survey” approaches are 26% and 23% larger than the “GIS” median value (Figure 

2) in the Barnett Shale play. The “test” water intensity median in the Eagle Ford play is 16% 

larger than the “GIS” median value (Figure 2d). 

II-1-3 Beyond the Database 

In the 2011 report we made the explicit distinction between shale plays and tight gas plays. 

Although, as explained in the 2011 report, there are real differences between them, from an 

operational standpoint the difference is blurred (for example, wells taping Wolfcamp shale oil 

and Spraberry tight oil) and, in this update, we did not try systematically to assign one of either 

category to some plays. 

For each of the plays with sufficient data we extracted yearly information, presented in the 

Results Section, about: 

‐ Total number of wells 

‐ Total water use, including estimation of data gaps 

‐ Average/median length of laterals 

‐ Water use in Mgal/ft 

‐ Water intensity in gal/ft 

‐ Proppant loading in lb/gal 

The IHS database provides only water use, that is, the amount of water used during a given HF 

job regardless of the water source(s). In actuality, water can come from several sources. It can be 

“new” water or it can also be recycled or reused water. “New” water can be surface water or 

groundwater or it can be from an alternative source such as municipal water or treated waste 

water. Water also be fresh (<1,000 mg/L) and its use can directly compete with other more 

conventional users (municipal use, irrigation use). It can be brackish or even more saline than sea 

water (that is, >~35,000 mg/L). Water consumption is simply defined as the water use which is 

not from recycled or reused water and from which brackish and saline water use is taken out. 

Note, however, that this simple definition does not capture a more complex reality. Use of 

brackish water in areas with limited fresh water supplies could compete with conventional users. 

This document does not try to sort out such issues; we simply define water consumption as water 

use minus recycled/reused water volumes and minus brackish or saline water volumes. 

Access to detailed information about water sources on the provider side is difficult. Large water 

suppliers do not necessarily track the ultimate usage of their water. Groundwater conservation 

districts (GCD’s) do not always collect information about withdrawal amounts and eventual use 

of the water. A request to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) on reuse of 

treatment water yielded a helpful list of facilities but not the amount of water transferred, and 

further this does not account for direct reuse at a site. The demand side, that is, operators, is very 

fragmented. 

We collected information not present in the IHS database but of interest to TWDB and the 

general public about: (1) nature of the water source (river, lake, city water, groundwater, stock 

pond/gravel pit / quarry, wholesaler, treated industrial waste water) and it status (private, public). 

The ultimate goal is to determine the groundwater and surface water (GW/SW) split. Optimally, 
7 

this issue would be resolved at the county level but it may not be possible; (2) amount of water 

injected from reuse of flow back water, recycled water can include water from commercial and 

municipal waste water treatment facilities; (3) TDS of the new water [fresh (<1000 mg/L), 

slightly brackish (1000-3000 mg/L), brackish (3000-10,000 mg/L or 10,000-35,000 mg/L), 

saline (>35,000 mg/L)]. 

In this document, we applied to all counties within a play / region the same brackish water use, 

recycling/reuse fraction, and GW/SW split. Undoubtedly, this is an approximation but the 

amount of information available does not allow accurate assessments at the county level. 

II-2. Future Water Use Projections 

The 2011 report followed a mixed approach to estimate projected water use, the so-called 

resource-based and production-based approaches. Although both approaches are somehow 

interdependent, we believe that the resource-based approach gives the best results and is used in 

this document. As described in more details in the 2011 report, it consists of four steps: 

(1) Gather historical data in terms of average well water use and average well spacing. It is 

important to establish these elements through time to see trends rather than just focusing 

on the past few months. 

(2) Estimate ultimate well density across the play; it is a function of several factors, such as 

geological prospectivity (for example, within play core or not, shale thickness) and 

cultural features (urban/rural). In this step, ultimate boundaries of the play are identified. 

(3) Compute approximate total number of wells needed. 

(4) Distribute through time and space, constrained by the assumed number of drilling rigs 

available (see earlier comment). 

After obtaining water use, correction factors to account for recycling/reuse and use of non-fresh 

water are applied. We asked industry operators for projected recycling/reuse, brackish water use, 

and groundwater / surface water split in 2020. Given the rapid pace of change in the industry, the 

values obtained are somewhat speculative. Although not a guarantee for accuracy, those values 

are, however, consistent with what industry observers report and consistent with our own 

knowledge of treatment techniques and state of surface water and groundwater withdrawals 

across the state. The basic reporting unit for the water use projections is the county. Projections 

for recycling / reuse, brackish water use beyond 2020 to 2060, were made accounting for the 

typical current volume of flow back (limiting reuse) and for brackish water resources / lack of 

fresh water in the area of interest. 

As discussed in the 2011 report, despite our best efforts, it is likely that the projected water use 

amounts will be more accurate at the play than at the county level. As done in the 2011 report, 

we did not assume any repeat HF, as discussions with industry experts and recent publications 

(Sinha and Ramakrishnan, 2011) suggest that little repeat HF will take place. 

The 2011 report provides only one annual estimate. However, in an earlier report on the Barnett 

Shale only (Nicot and Potter, 2007; Bené et al, 2007), BEG made use of high, medium, and low 

water use scenarios. The different scenarios were based on various level of prospectivity and 

anticipated gas price. This update also makes use of three scenarios, high, most likely, and low 

water use, but in addition to prospectivity and gas price, they take into account level of 

recycling/reuse and use of brackish and saline water. 
8 

II-3. Notes on Collected Information 

We obtained information on all the major plays, some with better coverage, by contacting 

operators. Fraction of HF wells drilled by contacted operators in the 2010-2012 period is 

documented by play and provides an estimate of the uncertainty. The coverage (Table 1) was 

calculated by adding the number of wells completed in the 2010-early 2012 period by contacted 

operators and normalizing that sum by the total number of wells completed during the same 

period. We collected information about recycling/reuse, use of brackish water, surface 

water/groundwater split. Coverage varies from 40% (Barnett Shale) to 10.5% (Permian Far 

West). Consistency in information from operators in a given play suggests that even low 

percentages are representative of the industry as a whole in that play despite some variability 

among operators (Figure 3). The figure shows a slight overall increase in water use intensity with 

increasing depth but it also shows that operators can have different approaches. 
9 

Figure 1. Comparison of five approaches to computing lateral length (Barnett Shale play). 

 (a) (b) 

 (c) (d) 

Figure 2. Histograms of lateral lengths according to various approaches: (a) “test”; (b) “survey”; 

(c) “GIS” (Barnett Shale play); and (d) “test” (Eagle Ford Shale play). 

 

0

50

100

150

200

0-200

400- 6 00

800- 1 000

1200 - 1400

1600 - 1800

2000 - 2200

2400 - 2600

2800 - 3000

3200 - 3400

3600 - 3800

4000 - 4200

4400 - 4600

4800 - 5000

5200 - 5400

5600 - 5800

6000 - 6200

6400 - 6600

6800 - 7000

7200 - 7400

7600 - 7800

8000 - 8200

8400 - 8600

8800 - 9000

9200 - 9400

9600 - 9800

>1000 0

"test" Length (ft)

Number of bins: 51; Bin size: 200; Number of data points: 1837

Well Count

Histogram2.0 lateralComputation Barnett.xlsx

Histogram2.0 lateralComputation EagleFord.xls

Histogram2.0 lateralComputation Barnett.xlsx
10 

Table 1. Representivity of collected information 

Play/Region Consumption information (%) 

Permian Far West 10.5% 

Permian Midland 23% 

Anadarko Basin 11% 

Barnett Shale 40% 

Eagle Ford Shale 31.2% 

East Texas Basin 14.5% 

All Plays 27.2% 

Figure 3. Water use intensity in the Barnett Shale play, showing comparison among between top 

operators in the play. 
11 

III. Historical and Current Water Use 

After a short description of the major HF plays in Texas (Section III-1), we present water use and 

consumption numbers (Section III-2) that we compare to findings of the 2011 report (Section III3). We also briefly address drilling water use (Section III-4). 

III-1. Play Description 

In this section we describe relevant features of each play which will then be used in the 

Projections Section (Section IV). Note that water use intensity and proppant loading values 

represent an average of the sometimes time-varying mix of slickwater / gel systems applied to 

the play at a given time. For example, a decrease in water use intensity may mean a better water 

efficiency in a technique or a move to a more water-efficient technique. 

III-1-1 Barnett Shale 

The Barnett Shale is the first in Texas and around the world to submit to intense slick-water HF 

since the mid-1990’s, first using vertical wells. After a transition period, Barnett Shale operators 

use currently horizontal wells almost exclusively. After a strong growth in the mid-2000’s 

(>2000 wells completed per year), the play has seen a relative decrease in the total number of 

wells completed in a year (Figure 4a) because of the reduced demand following the economic 

slump and the decreasing price of gas. Although drilling activity has abated at the edges of the 

play core, it is very vigorous in the core itself (Denton, Johnson, Tarrant, and Wise counties) and 

has considerably picked up in the so-called combo play in the northern confines of the play in 

Cooke and Montague counties. A weekly newsletter, the Powell Shale Digest (PSD; May 29, 

2012) noted a sharp increase in oil production since mid-2010. Substantial amounts of oil and 

condensate have made those counties attractive to operators. Overall the total amount of water 

used is relatively steady at 25 kAF/yr (Figure 4b). The Barnett play is the Texas play with the 

highest degree of reporting water use at >90% (Table 2). Note that the bottom four plots of 

composite Figure 4 (as well as on similar figures in this document) show the fraction of wells 

used to compute the parameter on the secondary axis. High well reporting, allied with the large 

number of wells, gives us confidence that the water use values are particularly accurate in this 

play. The length of the laterals has been slowly increasing in the past few years (~3,500 ft in 

2011) with a concomitant water use increase (Figure 4c and d). However water intensity (water 

amount per unit length) has stayed steady at ~1,200 gal/ft (Figure 4e). Note that the water 

intensity as reported in this document is higher than that reported in the 2011 report because of a 

slight change in computing it (see Section II-1-2). In contrast to water intensity, proppant loading 

has been increasing slightly over time to ~0.8 lb/gal in 2011 (Figure 4f). 

In order to better understand water intensity and in an effort to modulate it across a play, we 

plotted water intensity against depth and thickness (Figure 5a and c). The trend seems upwards 

with increasing depth and thickness but is very noisy and tenuous at best. Water intensity appears 

to be rather dependent on the well operator (Figure 5b) and, thus, somehow difficult to vary 

across a play. Nevertheless, spatial distribution of water intensity shows a higher intensity in 

Denton County and in the eastern half of Wise County, areas in which the Barnett is the deepest 

as well as in Montague County in the oil window (Figure 6a). 

In agreement with our methodology, it is also useful to understand the cumulative length of 

laterals in a given area or within a county. A key input to the projected water use is to assume 
12 

that the entire county will be hypothetically drilled up by parallel laterals extending from one 

side of the county to the other side and at regularly spaced intervals (at, for example, a 1,000- ft 

interval [see Nicot et al., 2011 for details]). Figure 6b displays such density of well laterals, 

which is fairly high in Johnson County and the southern half of Tarrant County. The average 

lateral spacing, which is simply the inverse of the lateral density, is shown in Figure 7 and 

detailed in Table 3 (it is calculated in those sections of the county with an actual shale footprint). 

The county with the highest relative cumulative length of laterals (Johnson County) yields an 

average spacing between assumed parallel laterals of ~1,700 ft. This is still removed from the 

operational distance between laterals of 1,000 ft or even 500 ft, suggesting that this county, 

despite its past activity will still see further significant activity as illustrated by the coverage gaps 

in Figure 8. The decrease in well completion activity in Johnson County as seen in Figure 9a is 

more related to price gas than to a true depletion of the resource in the county. 

III-1-2 Eagle Ford Shale 

The Eagle Ford Shale play has seen tremendous development in the past 2 years. Initially started 

as a new Barnett Shale, it quickly turned into a different type of play when the extent of the oil 

window became clear. In addition to the fast increase in wells completed (~1,400 in 2011) 

(Figure 10a) and the subsequent increase in water use at ~24 kAF in 2011 (Figure 10b), the 

Eagle Ford Shale has the unique feature among all the plays examined in this document to 

experience a sharp decrease in water intensity (Figure 10e) decreasing almost in half in 4 years to 

~850 gal/ft in 2011. This is seemingly due to operational changes moving from high-volume 

slick water HF operations to gel fracs that can carry as much proppant with much less water. The 

use of cross-link gels for oil production requires a higher proppant loading (Fan et al., 2011). 

This decrease in water intensity combined with an increase in average lateral length (~5,000 ft, 

Figure 10c) still translates into a decrease in water use per well to ~5 million gallons/well (Figure 

10d). Not surprisingly, the proppant loading has considerably increased to 1 lb/gal in 2011 

(Figure 10f). The question we will not try to answer despite its relevance to water use projection 

is how transferable to other plays is this switch to gel fracs and whether it could happen 

elsewhere on a large scale. The percentage of wells with consistent data sets is only ~47% (Table 

2), making the Eagle Ford data set more uncertain that than of the Barnett Shale. 

The cross-plots of water intensity vs. depth and thickness are inconclusive and even misleading 

(Figure 11a and b). They show no real trend except perhaps a decrease in water intensity with 

depth. However, Figure 12a clearly shows a higher water intensity in the down dip sections of 

the play, suggesting an intensity as high as 1400 gal/ft in the gas-rich area and 800 gal/ft in the 

oil-rich area. Densities of lateral (Figure 12b) and average lateral spacing (Figure 13, Table 4) 

suggest that the Eagle Ford Shale play has two cores: next to the Mexican border in Dimmit, 

LaSalle, and Zavala Counties and south of San Antonio in Karnes and De Witt Counties. The 

low average lateral spacing (>10,000 ft) suggests that many more wells will be drilled and 

completed there in the future. 

III-1-3 TX-Haynesville Shale and East Texas Basin 

This document deals only with the Texas section of the Haynesville Shale. In East Texas the 

Haynesville is a deep gas play, despite a report that one company has located a liquid-rich area 

in the Haynesville in Panola County with 350 horizontal drill sites (PSD, May 29, 2012). These 

are expensive wells, but they are located in an area with multiple stacked formations amenable to 
13 

HF. The Texas section of the play has seen a quick increase in the number of wells drilled (~250 

in 2011, Figure 14a) and a subsequent increase in water use (~1.6 kAF, Figure 14b). This play, 

with the Cotton Valley Fm., also in East Texas, has the smallest fraction of wells with usable 

data (32% in 2011, Table 2). Lateral length (~5,00 ft), well water use (~8 million gal/well), and 

water intensity (~1,400 gal/ft in 2011) have all increased in the past 3 years (Figure 14c, d, and 

e) whereas proppant loading has stayed stable at 0.8 lb/gal (Figure 14f). Water intensity as a 

function of depth and thickness does not show any reliable pattern (Figure 15). Water intensity 

(Figure 16b) and density of lateral (Figure 16c) are spatially correlated. The highest correlations 

are in Harrison County and where Shelby and San Augustine counties meet (Harrison, Shelby, 

San Augustine, and Panola counties are all in the TX-Haynesville core area). County-level 

average lateral spacing (Figure 17and Table 5) with a minimum value at ~24,000 ft suggests that 

many more wells will be completed in this play. 

III-1-4 Permian Basin 

The Permian Basin, comprising the Midland Basin to the East and the Delaware Basin to the 

West, with the Central Platform in between, has a long history of mostly oil production. It has 

also received much attention recently because of hydraulically fractured vertical wells in the socalled Wolfberry play (Wolfcamp and Spraberry, Figure 18). More recently, attention has shifted 

to horizontal wells in the Wolfcamp Shales (Figure 19), one of the source rocks of the many oil 

accumulations in the Permian Basin. Several other plays are also being hydraulically fractured in 

the basin such as the Canyon Formation (Figure 20), the Clear Fork Formation (Figure 21), and 

the San Andres (Figure 22 and Figure 23) among others. 

The Wolfberry was the first play in the Permian Basin to benefit from the technological progress 

made in the Barnett Shale play. The wells are vertical and have grown from <500 wells/yr to 

>1,500 wells in 2011 (Figure 18a). The annual amount of water use had also increased to almost 

8 kAF in 2011 (Figure 18b). Approximately 80% of the wells have consistently good data. As 

the length of the productive vertical section has increased from 1.500 ft to >2,500 ft in the past 

few years (Figure 18c), so has the average water use per well which is >1 million gal/well in 

2011, relatively small volume compared to that of horizontal wells in shale plays. As productive 

sections become longer, the water intensity increased slightly to ~400 gal/ft (Figure 18e), but 

proppant loading remained constant at ~0.9 lb/gal (Figure 18f). Water intensity seems to be 

higher in the Wolfberry of the Delaware Basin (Figure 24a), but that basin contains very few 

wells (Figure 25a), (and they might even be misnamed). The well density is the highest in 

Glasscock and Reagan Counties. 

Slick water horizontal wells have been jumped in 2011 from a low level of <50 wells/yr to 160 

wells (Figure 19a), with a concomitant increase in total water use (~1.5 kAF in 2011, Figure 

19b). Lateral length (~5,000 ft in 2011), well water use (~5 million gal/well in 2011), and water 

intensity (800 gal/ft in 2011) all increased too (Figure 19c, d, and e), but average proppant 

loading stayed steady at ~1 lb/gal (Figure 19f). Water intensity is higher in the center of the 

Midland Basin (Figure 24b), and the density of lateral is the highest in Ward County (Figure 

25b) but the average lateral spacing is still very high at ~23,000 ft (Figure 26), which suggests 

that many wells remain to be drilled and completed. 

Other, less publicized plays also received increased interest, as shown by water intensity rising or 

remaining steady (Figure 20e, Figure 21e, Figure 22e, and Figure 23e). Other plays, not targeted 

for the same scrutiny, have also seen a development of HF. They were included in a 
14 

miscellaneous file that included all fractured wells not included in a targeted play. Overall the 

Permian Basin has a high fraction (~85%) of wells with a consistent data set (Table 2), thus 

giving us confidence that that the water use values are relatively accurate (especially for those 

formations hosting a large number of wells). 

III-1-5 Anadarko Basin 

The Anadarko Basin contains several formations of interest, in particular the Granite Wash 

(Figure 27) but also the Cleveland and Marmaton formations (Figure 28 and Figure 29). 

Similarly to the development of the horizontal wells in the Wolfcamp in an area where HF was 

done on mostly vertical wells, the Anadarko Basin is seeing a shift toward horizontal wells. The 

Granite Wash has seen an increase from a few horizontal wells in 2006 to >300 in 2011 (Figure 

27a) with a parallel increase in water use to <4 kAF in 2011 (Figure 27b). In the same time the 

length of the lateral has grown to ~4,500 ft (in 2011) (Figure 27c) and the average well water use 

to >5 million gallons (Figure 27d). Water intensity has reached a value of ~1,200 gal/ft (Figure 

27e), but the proppant loading has remained steady at ~0.6 lb/gal (Figure 27f). The Cleveland 

and Marmaton horizontal wells display a similar evolution but for a smaller number of wells 

(~150 and ~40, respectively) and smaller water intensity at ~300 gal/ft (Figure 28e and Figure 

29e). the fraction of wells with directly usable information was calculated at ~70% (Table 2). 

Water intensity as a function of depth failed to show a clear trend (Figure 30 and Figure 31). 

Spatial distribution of Granite Wash water intensity (Figure 32a) and density of lateral (Figure 

32b) confirms that Wheeler County is the most attractive county. At the county level, Wheeler 

County shows the smallest lateral spacing and plenty of room for additional wells (Figure 33 and 

Table 6). HF activities in the Cleveland and Marmaton Formations are focused on Hemphill, 

Lipscomb, and Ochiltree Counties (Figure 34 and Figure 35). Combining information from the 

three plays illustrates that the county with the smallest average lateral spacing (Lipscomb 

County) still allows for significant development at ~11,000 ft (Figure 36), as illustrated in Figure 

37. 

III-1-6 East Texas Basin 

The East Texas Basin contains many formations susceptible to being hydraulically fractured. 

This section focuses on the Cotton Valley Fm., but, as was done for the Permian Basin and the 

Gulf Coast Basin, all water use data from wells in formations that were not part of the plays 

targeted for detailed study were still added to the total water use. 

The Cotton Valley Fm. has been producing for decades and has been subjected to HF for almost 

as long. However, as observed in the rest of the state, there is a general shift from vertical to 

horizontal wells. Annual completions of vertical wells have been decreasing from ~1500 wells 

per year in 2007 to ~300 in 2011 (Figure 38a), whereas horizontal wells have been increasing 

from almost none in 2005 to ~100 in 2011 (Figure 39a). Total water use has followed the same 

path from ~1.5 kAF/yr to ~0 and from ~0 to 0.6 kAF/yr, respectively (Figure 38b and Figure 

39b). In 5 years, the length of lateral has increased from ~1,000 ft to ~4,000 ft in 2011 (Figure 

39c) with the associated water use increase to 4 million gallons per well in 2011 (Figure 39d). In 

the same period, water intensity has stayed steady at ~1,000 gal/ft (Figure 39e) and proppant 

loading has remained at ~0.8 lb/gal (Figure 39f). The overall representivity of the usable data set 

is at a steady ~70% for the horizontal wells but decreasing to only 25% for the vertical wells. A 

water intensity vs. depth cross-plot (Figure 40) displays no obvious trends but maps of well 
15 

density (Figure 41 and Figure 42) show that horizontal wells are being completed in the same 

areas as where the vertical wells were drilled and that there is a good overlap of the high density 

values. 

III-1-7 Gulf Coast Texas 

Similarly to the Permian Basin and the East Texas Basin, the Gulf Coast Basin, which includes 

many counties from the Mexican border to the Louisiana state line, contains several formations 

amenable to being hydraulically fractured. Each of these formations is not described here (for 

example, the Austin Chalk), but their water use is included in the total reported below. In this 

section, we document the Olmos Sands, where HF is taking place through horizontal wells. The 

annual number of completion is still low at 70 completions a year (Figure 43a) but growing and 

the total water use displays the same growth (~0.5 kAF in 2011, Figure 43b). Average lateral 

length has reached ~4,000 ft in 2011 (Figure 43c), and the average water use per well has 

increased to 4 million gal/well (Figure 43d). Although irregular through the years, water 

intensity has reached a value of ~1,000 gal/ft (Figure 43e) consistent with what has been 

observed elsewhere. 

Table 2. Percentage of wells in each play or region that yielded a complete and consistent data 

set (water, proppant, length) from year 2011. 

Play / Region Percent 

Barnett 92.7% 

Eagle Ford 46.9% 

Haynesville 31.8% 

Cotton Valley 31.4% 

Anadarko 69.4% 

Permian Basin 84.9% 

ResultsSummary_year2011.xlsx
16 

Barnett Shale: 

 (a) (b) 

 (c) (d) 

 (e) (f) 

Note: red squares represent average ; blue diamonds represent median; only partial data for 2012 

Figure 4. Barnett Shale horizontals, various historical parameters and coefficients for reported 

and estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) 

average/median lateral length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water 

use intensity; (f) average/median proppant loading. 
17 

Barnett Shale: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

Figure 5. Barnett Shale horizontal water use intensity as a function of (a) depth; (b) operator and 

depth; and (c) formation thickness. 
18 

Barnett Shale: 

(a) 

(b) 

Note: 25 km2 = 154 × 40 acres, that is, 154 wells/25 km2 = 1 well/40 acres 

Figure 6. Barnett Shale spatial distribution of (a) water intensity; and (b) density of lateral 

(cumulative length per area). 
19 

Barnett Shale: 

Figure 7. Barnett Shale county-level average lateral spacing. 

Table 3. Barnett Shale county-level average lateral spacing for top producing counties. 

County

Name

Sum lateral length /

county area (km/km2

)

Average Lateral

Spacing (1000 ft)

Johnson 1.94 1.69

Tarrant 1.66 1.98

Hood 0.75 4.35

Parker 0.53 6.20

Wise 0.48 6.77

Denton 0.47 6.99

Somervell 0.34 9.76

Others    >10×103 ft

Note: Average spacing = 1/ (lateral length density); 

Counties are sorted by decreasing lateral length density 
20 

Figure 8. Map view of lateral expression of horizontal wells in the Barnett Shale centered on Tarrant County. 
21 

(a) 

(b) 

Figure 9. Annual well count in Johnson (a) and Tarrant (b) counties. 
22 

Eagle Ford Shale: 

 (a) (b) 

 (c) (d) 

 (e) (f) 

Note: red squares represent average ; blue diamonds represent median; only partial data for 2012 

Figure 10. Eagle Ford horizontals, various historical parameters and coefficients for reported and 

estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) average/median 

lateral length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water use intensity; (f) 

average/median proppant loading. 
23 

Eagle Ford Shale: 

(a) 

(b) 

Figure 11. Eagle Ford Shale horizontal wells’ water use intensity as a function of (a) depth; and 

(b) formation thickness. 
24 

Eagle Ford Shale: 

(a) 

(b) 

Note: 25 km2 = 154 × 40 acres, that is, 154 wells/25 km2 = 1 well/40 acres

Figure 12. Eagle Ford Shale spatial distribution of (a) water intensity; and (b) density of lateral 

(cumulative length per area). 
25 

Eagle Ford Shale: 

Figure 13. Eagle Ford Shale county-level average lateral spacing. 

Table 4. Eagle Ford Shale county-level average lateral spacing for top producing counties. 

County

Name

Sum lateral length /

county area (km/km2

)

Average Lateral

Spacing (1000 ft)

Karnes 0.236 13.93

Dimmit 0.162 20.30

La Salle 0.116 28.20

De Witt 0.111 29.63

Gonzales 0.080 41.01

McMullen 0.075 43.79

Webb 0.080 41.11
26 

TX-Haynesville Shale: 

 (a) (b) 

 (c) (d) 

 (e) (f) 

Note: red squares represent average ; blue diamonds represent median; only partial data for 2012 

Figure 14. TX-Haynesville Shale horizontals, various historical parameters and coefficients for 

reported and estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) 

average/median lateral length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water 

use intensity; (f) average/median proppant loading. 
27 

TX-Haynesville Shale: 

(a) 

(b) 

Figure 15. TX-Haynesville Shale horizontal water use intensity as a function of (a) depth; and (b) 

formation thickness. 
28 

TX-Haynesville Shale: 

 (a) 

 (b) 

Note: 25 km2 = 154 × 40 acres, that is, 154 wells/25 km2 = 1 well/40 acres 

Figure 16. TX-Haynesville Shale spatial distribution of (a) water intensity; and (b) density of 

lateral (cumulative length per area). 
29 

TX-Haynesville Shale: 

Figure 17. TX-Haynesville Shale county-level average lateral spacing. 

Table 5. TX-Haynesville Shale county-level average lateral spacing for top producing counties. 

County

Name

Sum lateral length /

county area (km/km2

)

Average Lateral

Spacing (1000 ft)

San Augustine 0.137 23.97

Shelby 0.074 44.24

Nacogdoches 0.065 50.78

Sabine 0.061 54.11

Panola 0.046 72.03

Harrison 0.045 72.84
30 

Permian Basin, Wolfberry Verticals: 

(a) (b) 

 (c) (d) 

 (e) (f) 

Note: red squares represent average ; blue diamonds represent median; only partial data for 2012 

Figure 18. Wolfberry verticals, various historical parameters and coefficients for reported and 

estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) average/median 

vertical productive section length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median 

water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant loading. 
31 

Permian Basin, Wolfcamp Horizontals: 

 (a) (b) 

 (c) (d) 

 (e) (f) 

Note: red squares represent average ; blue diamonds represent median; only partial data for 2012 

Figure 19. Wolfcamp horizontals, various historical parameters and coefficients for reported and 

estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) average/median 

lateral length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water use intensity; (f) 

average/median proppant loading. 

 
32 

Permian Basin, Canyon – Horizontals: 

 (a) (b) 

 (c) (d) 

 (e) (f) 

Note: red squares represent average ; blue diamonds represent median; only partial data for 2012 

Figure 20. Canyon Sand horizontals, various historical parameters and coefficients for reported 

and estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) 

average/median lateral length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water 

use intensity; (f) average/median proppant loading. 
33 

Permian Basin, Clearfork - Verticals 

 (a) (b) 

 (c) (d) 

 (e) (f) 

Note: red squares represent average ; blue diamonds represent median; only partial data for 2012 

Figure 21. Clearfork verticals, various historical parameters and coefficients for reported and 

estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) average/median 

vertical productive section length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median 

water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant loading. 

 
34 

Permian Basin, San Andres-Grayburg -Verticals 

 (a) (b) 

 (c) (d) 

 (e) (f) 

Note: red squares represent average ; blue diamonds represent median; only partial data for 2012 

Figure 22. San Andres-Grayburg verticals, various historical parameters and coefficients for 

reported and estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) 

average/median vertical productive section length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) 

average/median water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant loading. 

 
35 

Permian Basin, San Andres-Grayburg -Horizontals 

 (a) (b) 

 (c) (d) 

 (e) (f) 

Note: red squares represent average ; blue diamonds represent median; only partial data for 2012 

Figure 23. San Andres-Grayburg horizontals, various historical parameters and coefficients for 

reported and estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) 

average/median lateral length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water 

use intensity; (f) average/median proppant loading. 

 
36 

Permian Basin:

(a) 

(b) 

Figure 24. Permian Basin spatial distribution of water intensity for (a) vertical and (b) horizontal 

wells. 
37 

Permian Basin:

(a) 

Note: 25 km2 = 154 × 40 acres, that is, 154 wells/25 km2 = 1 well/40 acres 

(b) 

Figure 25. Permian Basin spatial distribution of (a) vertical well density and (b) density of lateral 

(cumulative length per area) for horizontal wells. 
38 

Permian Basin

Figure 26. Permian Basin county-level average lateral spacing 

 
39 

Anadarko Basin: Granite Wash Horizontals: 

 (a) (b) 

 (c) (d) 

 (e) (f) 

Note: red squares represent average ; blue diamonds represent median; only partial data for 2012 

Figure 27. Granite Wash horizontals, various historical parameters and coefficients for reported 

and estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) 

average/median lateral length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water 

use intensity; (f) average/median proppant loading. 

 
40 

Anadarko Basin: Cleveland Horizontals: 

 

 (a) (b) 

 

 

 (c) (d) 

 

 (e) (f) 

Note: red squares represent average ; blue diamonds represent median; only partial data for 2012 

Figure 28. Cleveland horizontals, various historical parameters and coefficients for reported and 

estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) average/median 

lateral length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water use intensity; (f) 

average/median proppant loading. 

 
41 

Anadarko Basin: Marmaton Horizontals: 

 

 (a) (b) 

 

 (c) (d) 

 

 (e) (f) 

Note: red squares represent average ; blue diamonds represent median; only partial data for 2012 

Figure 29. Marmaton horizontals, various historical parameters and coefficients for reported and 

estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) average/median 

lateral length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water use intensity; (f) 

average/median proppant loading. 

 
42 

Anadarko Basin: Granite Wash Horizontals: 

Figure 30. Granite Wash horizontal water use intensity as a function of depth. 

Anadarko Basin: Cleveland Horizontals: 

Figure 31. Cleveland horizontal water use intensity as a function of depth. 

 
43 

Anadarko Basin: Granite Wash Horizontals: 

(a) 

(b) 

Note: 25 km2 = 154 × 40 acres, that is, 154 wells/25 km2 = 1 well/40 acres 

Figure 32. Granite Wash spatial distribution of (a) water intensity; and (b) density of lateral 

(cumulative length per area). 
44 

Anadarko Basin: Granite Wash Horizontals: 

Figure 33. Granite Wash horizontals county-level average lateral spacing 

Table 6. Granite Wash county-level average lateral spacing for top producing counties 

County

Name

Sum lateral length /

county area (km/km2

)

Average Lateral

Spacing (1000 ft)

Wheeler 0.351 9.34

Hemphill 0.082 39.74

Roberts 0.036 90.54
45 

Anadarko Basin: Cleveland Horizontals: 

(a)

(b) 

Note: 25 km2 = 154 × 40 acres, that is, 154 wells/25 km2 = 1 well/40 acres 

Figure 34. Cleveland spatial distribution of (a) water intensity; and (b) density of lateral 

(cumulative length per area). 
46 

Anadarko Basin: Marmaton Horizontals: 

 (a) 

 (b) 

Note: 25 km2 = 154 × 40 acres, that is, 154 wells/25 km2 = 1 well/40 acres 

Figure 35. Marmaton spatial distribution of (a) water intensity; and (b) density of lateral 

(cumulative length per area). 
47 

Anadarko Basin: Horizontals: 

(a) 

Note: 25 km2 = 154 × 40 acres, that is, 154 wells/25 km2 = 1 well/40 acres 

 (b) 

Figure 36. Anadarko spatial distribution of (a) water intensity; and (b) density of lateral 

(cumulative length per area). 
48 

Figure 37. Map view of wells’ lateral expression and vertical well location in the Anadarko 

Basin. 
49 

East Texas Basin: Cotton Valley Verticals 

 (a) (b) 

 (c) (d) 

 (e) (f) 

Note: red squares represent average ; blue diamonds represent median; only partial data for 2012 

Figure 38. Cotton Valley verticals, various historical parameters and coefficients for reported and 

estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) average/median 

vertical productive section length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median 

water use intensity; (f) average/median proppant loading. 

 
50 

East Texas Basin: Cotton Valley Horizontals 

 

 (a) (b) 

 

 (c) (d) 

 

 (e) (f) 

Note: red squares represent average ; blue diamonds represent median; only partial data for 2012 

Figure 39. Cotton Valley horizontals, various historical parameters and coefficients for reported 

and estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) 

average/median lateral length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water 

use intensity; (f) average/median proppant loading. 

 
51 

East Texas Basin: Cotton Valley 

Figure 40. Cotton Valley horizontal water use intensity as a function of depth. 

Note: 25 km2 = 154 × 40 acres, that is, 154 wells/25 km2 = 1 well/40 acres 

Figure 41. Cotton Valley spatial distribution of density of lateral (cumulative length per area). 

 
52 

East Texas Basin: Cotton Valley 

Note: 25 km2 = 154 × 40 acres, that is, 154 wells/25 km2 = 1 well/40 acres 

Note: Cotton Valley wells drilled before 2005 are not included (see Nicot et al., 2011 for details). 

Figure 42. Cotton Valley spatial distribution of density of vertical wells (years 2005-2011). 

 
53 

Gulf Coast Basin, Olmos - Horizontal 

 (a) (b) 

 (c) (d) 

 (e) (f) 

Note: red squares represent average ; blue diamonds represent median; only partial data for 2012 

Figure 43. Olmos horizontals, various historical parameters and coefficients for reported and 

estimated water use as a function of time: (a) number of wells; (b) water use; (c) average/median 

lateral length; (d) average/median water use per well; (e) average/median water use intensity; (f) 

average/median proppant loading. 

 
54 

III-2. Current Water Consumption and Sources 

III-2-1 Information about Recycling/Reuse and Brackish Water Use 

We collected information about recycling/reuse and brackish water use gathered during 

discussions with operators (Table 7). The amount of fresh water used is quite unequal across the 

different plays as a function of the local conditions. It can be as low as 20% in Far-West Texas or 

nearly 100% in East Texas. Collecting a sufficient amount of information concerning 

recycling/reuse and brackish water use is an improvement over the 2011 report which overall 

underestimated it. Reuse is limited by the amount of flow back that varies across plays. We could 

not document volumes of water recycled from wastewater treatment plants, but the TCEQ lists 

~30 municipal and industrial facilities located in the Barnett Shale and Eagle Ford Shale plays 

that provide water to the industry (Figure 44). Groundwater/surface water could be extremely 

variable within a single play, but water data also reflect local conditions (Table 8): heavy surface 

water use towards the eastern part of the state and reliance on groundwater (sometimes brackish) 

elsewhere. The following short paragraphs discuss recycling/reuse and brackish water use and 

GS/SW split in major plays/regions. 

Barnett Shale: For the most part, operators use fresh surface water in this play (estimated at 80% 

of “new” water). This is a change from the 50%+ groundwater use estimated in 2006 in Bené et 

al. (2007) and Nicot and Potter (2007). Some operators use brackish water, particularly in the 

combo play and on the western edges of the play. Some also use outfall from wastewater 

treatment plants. Overall, little recycling/reuse and brackish water use is currently occurring in 

this play as compared to other plays further west or south. 

Eagle Ford Shale: Operators rely mostly on groundwater (estimated at 90% of “new” water) and 

there is a significant amount of brackish water being used (currently estimated at 20% but 

variable among operators). Several aquifers are brackish in the footprint of the play: the Gulf 

Coast aquifers and the Wilcox aquifers as well as the downdip section of the Carrizo aquifer. 

Haynesville Shale and East Texas Basin: Water is generally plentiful in East Texas and no 

significant recycling/reuse and use for brackish water was documented during this study. We 

estimated it at 5%, mostly from treatment plants and produced water from Cotton Valley wells. 

We estimated that about 70% of the “new” water is groundwater. 

Permian Basin: A significant percentage (30% or more) of the HF water used in both the 

Midland and Delaware basins is brackish. Nearly all of the water used is groundwater tapping 

aquifers such as the Ogallala (which is often brackish towards its southern domain, where the 

industry has many HF operations), and the Dockum, Trinity Edwards, Capitan, and other 

aquifers. The industry currently does little recycling/reuse, although several companies use 

produced water from conventional oil and gas operations. Such produced water has relatively 

low salinity at several places in the basin. 

Anadarko Basin: This basin has hosted much recycling/reuse (estimated at 20%) and use of 

brackish water (estimated at 30%). Most of the “new” water is groundwater (estimated at 80%). 

III-2-2 2011 HF Water Use and Consumption 

Combining information collected from the IHS database, industry information, and selected 

information from the 2011 report results in an estimated water use for HF of ~81,500 AF across 

the state in 2011 (Table 9). The Barnett Shale and the Eagle Ford shale used a similar amount of 
55 

water (~25 kAF), but less fresh water was used in the Eagle Ford. The Permian Basin is catching 

up (~15 kAF), but it uses relatively less fresh water than the two shale plays. Water use in the 

Texas section of the Haynesville Shale is becoming subordinate to other plays located in the 

same area (for example, Cotton Valley). County-level water use (Table 10) shows that many 

counties across the state have some HF water use (126 counties with >1AF in 2011 and 26 

counties with >1kAF). The top 10 HF users consist of Tarrant County in the Barnett core (8.8 

kAF), Webb County in the southern Eagle Ford (4.6 kAF), Johnson County in the core of the 

Barnett Shale (4.2 kAF), Karnes County in the Eagle Ford (3.9 kAF), Wheeler County in the 

Granite Wash of the Anadarko Basin (3.8 kAF), Dimmit County in the Eagle Ford (3.7 kAF), 

Denton County in the core of the Barnett Shale (3.2 kAF), Montague County in the combo play 

of the Barnett Shale (3.2 kAF), La Salle County in the Eagle Ford (2.9 kAF), and Wise County in 

the core of the Barnett Shale (2.3 kAF). The top ten counties total about half of the HF water use 

in the state. The top 10 counties stay the same when only water consumption is considered 

despite some reshuffling because of the variable impact of recycling/reuse and brackish water 

use. 

In the next section we compare our current findings to the findings of the 2011 report (that 

projected a water use of 62 kAF in 2011, Table 9) and explain the discrepancies. 

 
56 

Table 7. Estimated percentages of recycling/ reused and brackish water use in main HF areas in 

2011. 

Play / Region Type 

Current (2011)

% 

Permian Far West

Recycled/reused 0% 

Brackish 80% 

Fresh 20% 

Permian Midland

Recycled/reused 2% 

Brackish 30% 

Fresh 68% 

Anadarko Basin

Recycled/reused 20% 

Brackish 30% 

Fresh 50% 

Barnett Shale

Recycled/reused 5% 

Brackish 3% 

Fresh 92% 

Eagle Ford Shale

Recycled/reused 0% 

Brackish 20% 

Fresh 80% 

East Texas Basin

Recycled/reused 5% 

Brackish 0% 

Fresh 95% 

Table 8. Estimated groundwater / surface water split (does not include recycling / reuse) 

Play / Region Groundwater Surface Water 

Barnett Shale 20% 80% 

Eagle Ford Shale 90% 10% 

East Texas Basin 70% 30% 

Anadarko Basin 80% 20% 

Permian Basin 100% 0% 

Table 9. HF water use in 2008 and 2011compared to the 2011 projected water use from 2008. 

Play / Region 

Unit: kAF 

2011 Actual 

Water Use 

Fraction 

Non-R/R 

Non-brackish 

2011 Actual Water 

Consumption 

2011 Projected 

Water Use 

Barnett Shale 25.75 0.92 23.69 33.08 

Eagle Ford Shale 23.76 0.8 18.81 10.07 

East Texas Basin 7.54 0.95 7.06 8.46 

Anadarko Basin 6.52 0.5 3.21 2.26 

Permian Basin 14.44 0.68 / 0.2 8.55 7.26 

Gulf Coast Basin 3.49 0.95 / 0.8 3.31 1.00 

Statewide 81.51 0.79* 64.63 62.13 

*: computed from state consumption and use columns (sum of other rows) 

FrackingWaterUse2008&2011_Bob-JPComp_2.xls
57 

Table 10. County-level estimate of 2011 HF water use and water consumption (kAF). 

County 

HF Water Use 

(kAF) 

HF Water 

Consumption 

(kAF) County 

HF Water Use 

(kAF) 

HF Water 

Consumption 

(kAF) 

Andrews 1.391 0.946 Limestone 0.268 0.214

Angelina 0.007 0.006 Lipscomb 0.382 0.191

Archer 0.017 0.016 Live Oak 0.972 0.777

Atascosa 1.009 0.807 Loving 0.189 0.038

Bee 0.066 0.053 McMullen 1.752 1.401

Borden 0.033 0.023 Madison 0.204 0.163

Brazos 0.238 0.191 Marion 0.010 0.010

Brooks 0.008 0.006 Martin 2.035 1.384

Burleson 0.247 0.197 Maverick 0.192 0.154

Caldwell 0.075 0.060 Midland 1.573 1.070

Carson 0.085 0.042 Milam 0.034 0.027

Cherokee 0.010 0.009 Mitchell 0.018 0.012

Clay 0.058 0.053 Montague 3.221 2.963

Cochran 0.031 0.021 Moore 0.076 0.038

Coke 0.001 n/a Nacogdoches 1.128 1.072

Cooke 1.480 1.362 Newton 0.098 0.093

Crane 0.159 0.108 Nolan 0.011 0.008

Crockett 0.475 0.323 Nueces 0.016 0.013

Crosby 0.012 0.008 Ochiltree 0.273 0.136

Culberson 0.166 0.033 Orange 0.006 n/a

Dallas 0.079 0.073 Palo Pinto 0.041 0.038

Dawson 0.089 0.061 Panola 0.966 0.917

Denton 3.249 2.989 Parker 1.086 1.000

DeWitt 2.151 1.721 Pecos 0.110 0.022

Dimmit 3.706 2.965 Polk 0.133 0.126

Ector 0.756 0.514 Potter 0.044 0.022

Ellis 0.038 0.035 Reagan 1.240 0.843

Erath 0.012 0.011 Reeves 0.522 0.104

Fayette 0.132 0.106 Roberts 0.393 0.197

Franklin 0.014 0.014 Robertson 0.306 0.245

Freestone 0.424 0.339 Runnels 0.004 0.003

Frio 0.729 0.583 Rusk 0.158 0.150

Gaines 0.142 0.096 Sabine 0.147 0.139

Garza 0.001 n/a San Augustine 1.622 1.541

Glasscock 1.434 0.975 Schleicher 0.090 0.061

Gonzales 2.224 1.779 Scurry 0.010 0.007

Grayson 0.021 0.020 Shackelford 0.002 0.002

Gregg 0.025 0.024 Shelby 1.419 1.348

Grimes 0.095 0.076 Sherman 0.002 0.001

Guadalupe 0.018 0.014 Smith 0.005 0.005

Hansford 0.011 0.005 Somervell 0.287 0.264

Hardeman 0.017 0.012 Starr 0.036 0.029

Harrison 0.893 0.849 Sterling 0.057 0.039

Hemphill 1.462 0.731 Stonewall 0.001 n/a

Henderson 0.012 0.012 Sutton 0.034 0.023

Hidalgo 0.059 0.047 Tarrant 8.805 8.101

Hill 0.131 0.120 Terrell 0.010 0.007

Hockley 0.005 0.003 Terry 0.003 0.002

Hood 0.645 0.593 Titus 0.003 0.003
58 

County 

HF Water Use 

(kAF) 

HF Water 

Consumption 

(kAF) County 

HF Water Use 

(kAF) 

HF Water 

Consumption 

(kAF) 

Houston 0.178 0.142 Tyler 0.076 0.072

Howard 0.552 0.376 Upshur 0.004 0.004

Hutchinson 0.005 0.002 Upton 1.761 1.198

Irion 0.875 0.595 Ward 0.568 0.114

Jack 0.048 0.044 Washington 0.036 0.029

Jasper 0.087 0.083 Webb 4.596 3.677

Johnson 4.192 3.857 Wheeler 3.792 1.896

Karnes 3.869 3.095 Wilson 0.417 0.334

Kenedy 0.006 0.005 Winkler 0.062 0.012

Kleberg 0.034 0.028 Wise 2.314 2.129

La Salle 2.901 2.321 Yoakum 0.018 0.013

Lavaca 0.118 0.094 Young 0.008 0.007

Lee 0.131 0.105 Zapata 0.032 0.026

Leon 0.273 0.218 Zavala 0.407 0.127

 SUM 81.50 kAF 64.63 kAF 

Note: filtered at 0.001 kAF 

Source: TCEQ, 2012 

Figure 44. Location of waste water treatment facilities that provide or have provided water to the 

industry for HF as of July 2012. 

FrackingWaterUse2008&2011_Bob-JPComp_2.xls
59 

III-3. Comparison to Earlier Findings 

Projections made in 2009 for 2011 in the 2011 report underestimated water use by about 30% 

(81.5 kAF compared to 62.1 kAF, Table 9). It is important to understand the underlying causes in 

order to develop better projections in this document. Comparing actual water use in 2008 and 

2011 (Figure 45) shows (1) extension of HF across the state, Barnett Shale stays relatively 

steady, fracturing in the Haynesville Shale and Anadarko Basin expands, and the Eagle Ford 

becomes much more prominent as does the Permian Basin. A bar plot illustrates the county-bycounty discrepancies between projections and actual numbers (Figure 46). A cross-plot is a 

different way of presenting the same information (Figure 47), and it is apparent that most 

counties with larger water use (dots in the upper right-hand side of the side) were correctly 

accounted (no dots on either the x- or y-axis), even if it was underestimated (dots mostly below 

the 1:1 line). Major discrepancies occurred because there was no Barnett extension outside of the 

core area (for example, Bosque, Comanche, Erath, and Palo Pinto counties in Figure 46), and 

because of more and faster development in the Eagle Ford Shale and Permian Basin. Both these 

factors are connected to the drop in gas price and increase in oil price in the past 2 or 3 years, 

parameters notoriously difficult to predict. 
60 

 ~36,000 AF ~81,500 AF 

 (Nicot el al., 2011) including ~17,000 AF 

and use of brackish wa

Figure 45. Spatial distribution of HF water use in 2008 and 2011. 
61 

Figure 46. Bar plot comparison of 2011 actual water use to projections from 2009. 
62 

Note: Note the log-log scale. 

Figure 47. County-level cross-plot comparison of 2011 actual water use to projections from 

2008. Values on x- and y- axis represent counties whose actual (y-axis) / projected (x-axis) water 

use is 0. A total of 168 counties are represented. 

 
63 

III-4. Drilling Water Use 

In the course of the study, we also collected information about drilling water use. Results are not 

sufficiently representative to change results presented in the 2011 report amounting to 8 kAF. 

The general observation, though, is that drilling requires water of better quality than HF although 

in smaller amounts (Table 11). The amount of water used depends on the length of the well and 

on operator preferences but also, more importantly, heavily on local factors. For example, in the 

Eagle Ford the drilling muds used in drilling through horizontal sections (for example, Fan et al., 

2011) are oil-based. 

Table 11. Drilling water use information 

Play / Region 

in 1000’s gal/well

Range provided 

by operators 

Comments 

Barnett Shale 250 

210-420 

168 

500 

N/A 

~Fresh 

~Fresh 

~Fresh 

Eagle Ford 

Shale 

125 

420 

160 

126 

252-420 

N/A 

N/A 

~Fresh 

~Fresh 

~Fresh 

East Texas 

Basin 

600 

840-1,100 

420 

N/A 

~Fresh 

~Fresh 

Anadarko Basin 200 

420 

N/A 

~Fresh 

Midland Basin 

(Permian Basin) 

84 

100 

210 

210-420 

~Fresh 

N/A 

~Fresh 

~Fresh 

Delaware Basin 

(Permian Basin) 

100 

210-420 

N/A 

Brackish 

Note: fresh is defined as TDS<3,000 mg/L 

65 

IV. Water Use Projections 

This section describes projections for HF water use and fresh-water consumption in Texas to 

year 2060. As described in the 2011 report, all projections entail many uncertainties and those 

caveats are still valid in this update. In general, the life of the plays was extended beyond 2060, 

less prospectivity was given to the gas window, and steeper development to the oil window 

section of plays or tight oil plays. The overall results is that the HF water use will have a broad 

plateau at ~125 kAF/yr around the 2020-2030 decade and then slowly decrease with time to 

2060 and beyond (Figure 48). However, the amount of fresh water consumed (that is, not 

recycled or reused or brackish water) will stay relatively constant at ~70 kAF despite the increase 

in water use and then slowly subside with the decrease in HF activities. Fresh-water use will 

decrease for two reasons: (1) the industry is getting better at reusing flow back (but sometimes 

limited by the small fraction coming back) and at finding alternate sources of recycling 

(treatment plants, produced water from conventional wells) and at using brackish water because 

of the technological advances in additives tolerating more saline water. And (2) the Permian 

Basin, which may become the focus of HF in Texas in the long run, offers great production 

potential. In the Permian Basin, fresh water is at a premium and brackish water is already used 

by the industry. 

Total oil and gas water use and consumption (combining HF, waterflooding, and drilling) is 

presented in Figure 49. Oil and gas water use, consistent with the definition of make-up fresh 

water used in this document, was computed by summing HF water use (Figure 48), drilling water 

use –with no change from the 2011 report, and waterflood water use –computed from the 2011 

report by adding fresh and brackish water use. Oil and gas water consumption was computed by 

summing HF water consumption (Figure 48), drilling water use –with no change from the 2011 

report and the additional note that water use and consumption are identical. Waterflood water 

consumption is the same as water use in the 2011 report that represented fresh water use. 

Projected oil and gas water use and consumption are dominated by HF. By design, in the 2011 

report, drilling technology was projected to move the industry away from the use of fresh water. 

Progress in waterflooding was also projected to decrease fresh water requirements but to increase 

brackish water use until the whole industry relies only on saline water (not showed). Under these 

assumptions, oil and gas industry water use is projected to peak with a broad plateau at 180 kAF 

in the 2020-2030 decade, slowly declining to ~60 kAF by 2060. Fresh water consumption in the 

oil and gas industry is projected to reach a maximum of ~100 kAF before the end of this decade 

and then to slowly decrease to a low level of a few tens of thousands AF by the middle of the 

century. 

We did not account for many unknowns that could possibly impact the results as they did in the 

Eagle Ford Shale when the industry switched from slick-water fracs to gel fracs in the oil 

window that use less water. The Eagle Ford was the only play in which we observed such a 

trend, everywhere else the trend (based on 2 to 5 years of data) shows an increase or a steady 

value in water intensity (Table 12). Data about recycling/reuse and brackish water use were 

derived from industry information of these uses as of today and in 2020 (Table 13). The most 

likely values from 2011 and 2020 are essentially estimated directly from the various responses in 

a given play. Extrapolation to 2060 and translation to high and low scenarios for all years 

starting in 2012 are speculative and are based on industry trends and on the general knowledge of 

the authors about fresh and brackish water aquifers and of their yields around the state. The 
66 

amount of reuse cannot be larger than the amount of flow back / produced water from recently 

fractured wells and at the play level reuse is likely less because of the operational issues of 

transporting water. Some plays, such as the Haynesville and Eagle Ford Shales, are at a 

disadvantage for this; they produce back less than 20% of the injected water (Table 14). They, 

and others, could however take advantage of produced water from other formations. 

We did not deviate much from the overall water use of the 2011 report because of constraints 

accounted for the 2011 report and related to drilling rig count, labor force availability/staff 

shortage, infrastructure development, and other factors. National rig count seems steady at 

~2,000 or slightly lower in the past year (~50% of them in Texas), but drillers are improving at 

operating them, which suggests that the projections presented in this update are consistent with 

the number of drilling rigs currently available. 

Cumulative water use is related to the eventual well density or lateral spacing. Ultimate average 

spacing between laterals, or vertical well density, is the parameter driving water use along with 

water intensity. Typical vertical well spacing is 1 well per 40 acres; that ratio can decrease to 1 

well per 20 or 10 acres in some instances. Typical lateral spacing can be computed from 1 

horizontal well per 160 acres. If lateral length is 5,000 ft, the resulting spacing between laterals is 

1,400 ft. If the horizontal well density declines to 1 well per 40 acres, lateral spacing is 350 ft. 

This update document assumes a lateral spacing of 1000 ft, perhaps smaller in oil windows 

(Figure 51). 

County-level projections for HF water use and water consumption are listed in Table 15. The 

county coverage is essentially the same as in the 2011 report with the addition of four counties in 

East Texas (Polk, Tyler, Jasper, and Newton counties, Figure 50). Total oil and gas (combining 

HF, waterflooding, and drilling) county-level projections are presented in Table 16. 

The following paragraphs address HF projection issues specific to each play and region. Each 

play is represented by two plots. One plot compares projections from the 2011 report to 

projections from this update. The second plot displays water use and fresh water consumption in 

the high, low, and most likely scenarios. Only the latter is displayed in the first plot and is 

retained as the preferred set of projections to be used by the TWDB. As explained in the 

Methodology Section (Section II), low and high scenarios were derived by varying two factors: 

(1) the prospectivity factor, which assesses the ultimate amount of HF in a play, varies on a 

county and play basis from 1 to 0, with 1 meaning the county is within the core area and highly 

prospective (for example, Tarrant County in the Barnett Shale) and near- zero values suggesting 

that little of the county will be developed (for example ,Shackelford County in the Barnett 

Shale); and (2) coefficients for recycling/reuse and brackish water use (Table 13). The 

prospectivity factor was changed according to a sliding linear scale: a value of 1 stays at 1 but a 

value of 0.2 either goes to zero (low water use scenario) or 0.4 (high water use scenario). The 

change was made systematically with no tentative exercise to tailor it to each county/play couple. 

In the case of tight oil/ tight gas plays, a third factor was varied. This factor varies from 0 to 1 

and addresses the spatial coverage of the county that could ultimately undergo HF. In the case of 

resource plays such as shale plays, the factor is constant and close to one because the whole 

footprint of the play is potentially a target for drilling. The only unknown is the well density 

which is accounted for through the prospectivity factor. In tight oil/gas plays, it cannot be 

assumed that the whole footprint of the formation will experience HF because some parts of it 

can be properly produced through conventional wells. This third factor was used in the East 
67 

Texas (Cotton Valley), Anadarko (Granite Wash), Gulf Coast (Austin Chalk), and Permian 

basins. 

Barnett Shale: In this play with the longest history, we considerably decreased the prospectivity 

factors outside of the core area in the most likely scenario. That is, instead of increasing water 

use because of the expansion of the productive Barnett Shale footprint, we assumed that most of 

the HF will stay confined to the core area and stay relatively stable for a few years before slowly 

decreasing (Figure 52a). The peak from earlier projections has disappeared and water use should 

stay below 30 kAF and decrease more slowly than projected in the 2011 report. The high water 

use scenario projection (Figure 52b) displays a small increase in water use (but not in water 

consumption) in the 2020 decade because the prospectivity factors are closer to those used in the 

2011 report. 

Eagle Ford Shale: Projections for this play display a decrease in water use compared to those 

projected values of the 2011 report (Figure 53a) because of the observed decrease in water 

intensity that we assumed will hold in the future. The projections suggest a slow increase in 

water for the next 10 years with a broad peak at ~35kAF and a slow decrease beyond 2060. 

Unlike the Barnett with a clearly delimited core, we assumed that most counties in the Eagle 

Ford are highly prospective and thus there is not much variation between high and low scenario 

projections except when recycling/reuse and use of brackish water are included (Figure 53b). 

Pearsall Shale: This gas play was briefly hydraulically fractured in the mid-2000’s and has not 

received a lot of attention since then. However, initial production estimates suggest that the play 

will be produced in the future. We used the same water use parameters in the Pearsall as those in 

the Eagle Ford Shale because these plays are geographically close. Projections from the 2011 

report were only slightly modified displacing the peak water use at ~10 kAF by about 5 years 

into the future (Figure 54a). As was the case for the Eagle Ford, the high and low scenarios are 

mostly impacted by the amount of recycling/reuse and brackish water use (Figure 54b). 

TX-Haynesville and Bossier Shales: The Haynesville and Bossier Shales have declined in 

operator interest because of their relatively high operational cost and low gas prices. They are, 

however, still likely to produce significant amounts of gas in the future, albeit at a lower rate 

than anticipated in the 2011 report. Projections of this update document show a decreased and 

broader peak (Figure 55a), with annual water use slated to be no higher than ~12kAF. A minor 

player, the Haynesville-West play will possibly undergo some development on the western flank 

of the East Texas Basin and its water use projections stay similar to that of the 2011 report 

(Figure 56a), with a decrease peak as well. Low and high scenario projections stay relatively 

close together (Figure 55b), because there is little variability in terms of projected non-fresh 

water use (almost none). 

Other East Texas Formations: This category includes all formations except the Haynesville and 

Bossier Shales, such as the Cotton Valley, James Lime, Bossier Sands, and others. The same 

water consumption data used in the Haynesville were used for this group of formations. Relative 

to the 2011 report projections, the projections derived in this update assumed a broader peak 

displaced toward the future by ~10 years (Figure 57a). Projected maximum water use is 

estimated at <5 kAF/yr. The small variance between water use and water consumption is 

explained by the location of the plays in East Texas where fresh water is relatively abundant and 

the large differences between the different scenario projections is due to the spread of the third 

factor, addressing spatial coverage of the formation of interest (Figure 57b). 
68 

Gulf Coast Formations: Amount of water use and consumption in the Gulf Coast Basin outside 

of the shale plays is very uncertain. The Gulf Coast Basin is the area in Texas that has 

experienced the least HF (Nicot et al., 2011) and explained the large range of projections 

between the different scenarios (Figure 58b). This category include formations such as the 

Olmos Sands and the Austin Chalk, and these projections assumed that water use will peak at 

~8kAF in the 2020’s (Figure 58a). Water consumption is assumed to be much lower because 

most of the plays are in South Texas, where there are some brackish water resources. 

Anadarko Basin: Anadarko Basin consists mostly of the Granite Wash in Hemphill and Wheeler 

counties and the Marmaton/Cleveland in Ochiltree and Lipscomb counties. Current water use in 

this basin is much higher than anticipated in the 2011 report projections. We revisited 

prospectivity factors and the projected water use reaches a broad peak of ~9kAF in the 2020’s 

(Figure 59a) with a smaller projected water consumption because of anticipated recycling/reuse 

and brackish water use. However, the uncertainty in final coverage put this basin in the same 

category as the Gulf Coast Basin and East Basin category, resulting in a large spread of potential 

outcomes (Figure 59b). 

Permian Basin: As has the Anadarko Basin, the Permian Basin has grown much faster than 

anticipated and water use projections call for a plateau at ~40 kAF during the 2020-2040 period 

(Figure 60a) concomitant with a fairly stable fresh water consumption at 10-15 kAF. The large 

gap between water use and water consumption, much larger than presented in the 2011 report 

(Figure 60a), is due to the expectation of availability of significant amounts of brackish water 

and of their extensive use by the industry (as currently documented by anecdotal evidence). The 

large range in outcome from the different scenarios is related to the unknowns in spatial 

coverage of the non-shale plays (Figure 60b). We now turn to the description of the major 

components making up water use in the Permian Basin. Although the Barnett-Woodford system 

in the Permian Basin has received limited interest, we assume it will produce gas in the future 

(Figure 61a). The most likely scenario calls for a peak at ~5 kAF in 2035 but with the possibility 

of a high scenario with a much higher water use and a low scenario with no development. 

Development centered on the Wolfcamp is more certain and differences between high and low 

scenario projections were derived mostly from assumptions on the level of use of non-fresh 

water(Figure 61b). The other formations in the Permian Basin also display the same uncertainty 

related to the amount of spatial coverage (“third factor” as described above). The most likely 

scenario projection is estimated to have a broad peak in the 15-20 kAF range for many years 

with considerably less water consumption (Figure 61c). 

 
69 

Table 12. Recent trends in well completion and water use in hydraulic-fractured plays. 

Play 

Well 

Type 

~# of 

Recent 

Wells/yr 

Recent Trend 

(well/yr) 

Water Use 

/ well 

(Mgal) 

Water Use 

Intensity 

(gal/ft) 

Recent 

Trend 

(water use) 

Barnett H 1500 down / steady n/a 1200 steady 

Eagle Ford H 1000 strongly up n/a 850 down 

TX-Haynesville H 250 up n/a 1400 steady 

Granite Wash H 250 strongly up n/a 1200 steady / up 

V 60 strongly down 1500 800 steady 

 

Cleveland H 100 steady n/a 250 steady 

V 20 down 1.7 2000 steady 

 

Marmaton H 30 strongly up n/a 250 steady 

V 10 steady 1.0 2500 up 

 

Cotton Valley H 100 up n/a 1000 steady 

V 300 strongly down 0.8 1200 steady 

 

Olmos H 50 up n/a 1000 up 

V 100 strongly down 0.15 2500 steady 

 

Wolfcamp H 150 strongly up n/a 900 strongly up 

Wolfberry V 2000 up 1.0 350 up 

Canyon V 300 down 0.4 500 up 

Clear Fork V 800 up 0.8 350 up 

San Andres H 50 strongly down n/a 350 strongly up 

V 800 steady / up 0.15 500 steady 

Table 13. Coefficients (%) to compute water consumption to be applied to total water use. 

Play / Region 

High 

Water Use 

Most 

Likely 

Low 

Water Use 

Far West Permian Basin 

Recycling 

2011 0 0 0

2020 0 50 40

2060 0 40 40

Brackish 

2011 80 80 80

2020 80 30 50

2060 80 40 50 

Permian Midland Basin 

Recycling 

2011 2 2 2

2020 2 25 30

2060 2 30 40

Brackish 

2011 30 30 30

2020 30 40 40

2060 30 40 50 

Anadarko Basin 

Recycling 

2011 20 20 20

2020 20 30 40

2060 20 40 40

Brackish 
70 

Play / Region 

High 

Water Use 

Most 

Likely 

Low 

Water Use 

2011 30 30 30

2020 30 30 30

2060 30 30 40 

Barnett Shale 

Recycling 

2011 5 5 5

2020 5 10 25

2060 5 20 20

Brackish 

2011 3 3 3

2020 3 15 20

2060 3 25 25 

Eagle Ford Shale 

Recycling 

2011 0 0 0

2020 0 10 10

2060 0 10 10

Brackish 

2011 20 20 20

2020 20 40 50

2060 20 50 50 

South Texas 

Recycling 

2011 0 0 0

2020 0 10 10

2060 0 10 10

Brackish 

2011 20 20 20

2020 20 40 50

2060 20 50 50 

East Texas 

Recycling 

2011 5 5 5

2020 5 10 10

2060 5 10 10

Brackish 

2011 0 0 0

2020 0 0 10

2060 0 10 10

Table 14. Estimated flow back/produced water volume relative to HF injected volume. 

Play / Region Comment 

Delaware Basin (Permian Basin) Close to 100% in year 1, 150% well life 

>200% well life 

Midland Basin (Permian Basin) 50%-100% in year 1 

Anadarko Basin ~50% in month 1, 90% at month 6 

Barnett Shale 10-20% month 1, 20-60% well life 

70% year1; 150% in 5 years 

Eagle Ford Shale 20% over life; 

20% over life 

Haynesville Shale 20% over life; 

15% over life 

Cotton Valley Fm. 60% month 1, >100% well life; 

40% or 100% over life 
71 

Table 15. County-level estimate of 2012-2060 projections for HF water use and water consumption (AF). 

County

Water Use (AF) Water Consum

2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 

Anderson 0 31 58 89 119 131 139 124 105 85 66 0 23 41 64 86 97 

Andrews 1,391 1,617 2,140 2,053 1,965 1,878 1,654 1,431 1,207 983 806 946 862 749 690 634 580 Angelina 7 60 160 260 360 379 345 310 276 241 207 6 56 144 231 315 327 

Aransas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Archer 17 81 183 284 385 354 321 289 257 225 193 16 68 137 206 270 239 

Armstrong 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Atascosa 1,009 2,902 2,638 2,589 2,594 2,598 2,602 2,314 1,953 1,591 1,230 807 2,064 1,583 1,500 1,443 1,386 

Austin 0 0 98 195 293 264 234 205 176 146 117 0 0 59 115 169 148 

Bailey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Bandera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Bastrop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Baylor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Bee 66 80 101 108 94 81 67 54 40 27 13 53 60 64 67 57 48 

Bell 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Bexar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Blanco 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Borden 33 228 638 892 899 906 764 622 480 338 230 23 122 223 307 303 300 

Bosque 0 192 329 466 603 553 502 452 402 352 301 0 162 247 338 422 373 

Bowie 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Brazoria 0 41 60 79 97 91 79 67 55 43 31 0 31 38 49 59 54 

Brazos 238 322 696 931 1,166 1,036 905 775 644 514 384 191 243 431 559 681 592 

Brewster 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Briscoe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Brooks 8 37 49 62 62 54 46 38 30 22 14 6 28 31 38 38 32 

Brown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Burleson 247 331 943 1,409 1,877 1,676 1,474 1,273 1,071 867 665 197 250 580 840 1,090 952 

Burnet 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Caldwell 75 90 116 103 90 77 64 52 39 26 13 60 68 73 64 55 46 

Calhoun 0 25 33 42 42 37 31 26 21 15 10 0 19 21 26 26 22 

Callahan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Cameron 0 37 50 62 62 54 46 38 30 22 14 0 28 31 38 38 32 

Camp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Carson 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 

Cass 0 10 25 41 56 68 60 52 45 37 30 0 9 24 38 52 60 

Castro 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Chambers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Cherokee 10 70 128 186 244 284 253 221 190 158 126 9 66 122 173 223 254 

Childress 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Clay 58 194 355 516 678 621 565 508 452 395 339 53 164 266 374 474 419 

Cochran 31 94 121 149 176 203 180 158 135 113 90 21 50 42 51 59 67 

Coke 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Coleman 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Collin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Collingsworth 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Colorado 0 38 517 996 1,462 1,314 1,166 1,018 870 722 574 0 29 312 587 843 741 

Comal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Comanche 0 125 228 332 436 392 349 305 261 218 174 0 105 171 241 305 265 

Concho 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Cooke 1,480 1,653 1,294 934 575 215 0 0 0 0 0 1,362 1,396 970 677 402 145 

Coryell 0 289 1,012 947 684 421 158 0 0 0 0 0 244 759 686 479 284 
72 

County

Water Use (AF) Water Consum

2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 

Cottle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Crane 159 339 438 559 681 802 729 656 583 510 438 108 181 153 189 223 257 

Crockett 475 996 1,636 1,946 1,760 1,475 1,190 905 620 335 149 323 531 573 669 594 489 

Crosby 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 

Culberson 166 141 188 576 963 1,280 1,163 1,047 931 814 698 33 75 66 149 231 290 

Dallam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Dallas 79 654 1,018 848 679 509 339 170 0 0 0 73 553 763 615 475 343 

Dawson 89 476 724 918 954 990 844 699 553 408 294 61 254 253 308 308 308 

Deaf Smith 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Delta 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Denton 3,249 3,159 2,106 1,053 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,989 2,667 1,579 763 0 0 

DeWitt 2,151 1,977 1,773 1,569 1,354 1,130 907 684 460 237 14 1,721 1,407 1,065 924 780 638 

Dickens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Dimmit 3,706 4,777 4,765 4,857 4,871 4,834 4,232 3,489 2,746 2,002 1,259 2,965 3,407 2,828 2,774 2,669 2,534 Donley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Duval 0 70 94 117 118 103 87 72 57 42 27 0 53 59 73 72 61 

Eastland 0 0 424 642 550 458 367 275 184 92 0 0 0 318 465 385 309 

Ector 756 983 1,340 1,434 1,529 1,484 1,309 1,134 959 784 644 514 524 469 478 488 451 

Edwards 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Ellis 38 87 126 166 206 185 164 144 123 103 82 35 74 95 120 144 125 

El Paso 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Erath 12 163 253 343 433 397 361 325 289 253 217 11 137 190 249 303 268 

Falls 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Fannin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Fayette 132 1,081 2,329 2,093 1,822 1,526 1,229 932 636 340 43 106 773 1,402 1,236 1,054 864 

Fisher 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Floyd 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Foard 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Fort Bend 0 35 46 58 58 51 43 36 28 21 14 0 26 29 36 35 30 

Franklin 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 

Freestone 424 750 975 1,229 1,424 1,404 1,241 1,076 912 748 584 339 678 846 1,042 1,196 1,164 

Frio 729 1,119 1,146 1,176 1,189 1,159 1,127 1,097 947 769 589 583 809 701 708 692 647 

Gaines 142 830 1,273 1,709 1,881 1,841 1,582 1,323 1,064 805 599 96 443 445 563 588 542 

Galveston 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Garza 1 237 315 394 473 426 379 331 284 237 189 0 126 110 136 160 141 

Gillespie 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Glasscock 1,434 1,938 2,621 2,466 2,311 1,978 1,646 1,313 980 648 427 975 1,033 917 848 780 655 

Goliad 0 34 45 56 56 49 42 35 27 20 13 0 25 28 35 34 29 

Gonzales 2,224 1,746 1,552 1,358 1,164 970 776 582 388 194 0 1,779 1,241 931 798 669 545 

Gray 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Grayson 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 

Gregg 25 134 224 313 402 449 405 362 318 274 230 24 127 208 284 357 391 

Grimes 95 125 287 448 569 506 443 380 317 254 191 76 94 178 270 334 291 

Guadalupe 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 

Hale 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Hall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Hamilton 0 251 304 253 203 152 101 51 0 0 0 0 212 228 184 142 103 

Hansford 11 0 513 1,025 879 732 586 439 293 146 0 5 0 205 397 329 265 

Hardeman 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 

Hardin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Harris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Harrison 893 1,578 2,223 2,012 1,851 1,689 1,527 1,365 1,203 1,041 880 849 1,479 2,030 1,808 1,636 1,469 
73 

County

Water Use (AF) Water Consum

2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 

Hartley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Haskell 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Hays 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Hemphill 1,462 2,484 2,231 1,978 1,724 1,470 1,217 963 710 456 203 731 1,132 892 766 646 533 

Henderson 12 46 124 201 278 333 296 259 222 185 148 12 44 117 187 254 297 

Hidalgo 59 63 83 104 105 91 78 64 51 37 24 47 47 53 65 64 54 

Hill 131 1,429 1,225 1,021 816 612 408 204 0 0 0 120 1,207 919 740 571 413 

Hockley 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 

Hood 645 409 580 751 921 829 737 645 553 461 369 593 346 435 544 645 560 

Hopkins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Houston 178 237 305 271 237 203 170 135 102 68 34 142 179 193 168 144 121 

Howard 552 1,471 2,360 2,822 2,642 2,250 1,859 1,468 1,076 685 422 376 784 826 970 892 745 

Hudspeth 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Hunt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Hutchinson 5 0 90 180 154 128 103 77 51 26 0 2 0 36 70 58 47 

Irion 875 1,478 2,429 2,889 2,613 2,190 1,766 1,343 920 497 221 595 788 850 993 882 725 

Jack 48 242 363 485 605 545 485 424 363 303 242 44 204 273 351 424 368 

Jackson 0 34 45 56 56 49 42 35 28 20 13 0 25 29 35 34 29 

Jasper 87 105 135 120 105 90 75 60 45 30 15 83 79 86 75 64 54 

Jeff Davis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Jefferson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Jim Hogg 0 45 60 75 75 65 56 46 37 27 17 0 34 38 46 46 39 

Jim Wells 0 34 45 57 57 50 42 35 28 21 13 0 26 29 35 35 30 

Johnson 4,192 4,038 3,365 2,692 2,019 1,346 673 0 0 0 0 3,857 3,410 2,524 1,952 1,413 909 

Jones 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Karnes 3,869 2,749 2,457 2,165 1,863 1,554 1,245 937 629 320 11 3,095 1,956 1,475 1,273 1,073 876 

Kaufman 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Kendall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Kenedy 6 57 76 95 95 83 71 58 46 34 22 5 43 48 59 58 49 

Kent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Kerr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Kimble 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

King 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Kinney 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Kleberg 34 37 49 62 62 54 46 38 30 22 14 28 28 31 38 38 32 

Knox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Lamar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Lamb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Lampasas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

La Salle 2,901 4,432 4,425 4,532 4,621 4,698 4,147 3,440 2,732 2,025 1,318 2,321 3,154 2,612 2,563 2,499 2,427 

Lavaca 118 913 1,522 1,388 1,241 1,086 930 775 620 464 309 94 651 915 818 716 613 

Lee 131 203 392 508 624 553 484 414 345 274 204 105 152 243 305 365 316 

Leon 273 663 1,289 1,800 2,309 2,192 1,934 1,674 1,416 1,155 898 218 487 831 1,166 1,487 1,415 

Liberty 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Limestone 268 307 347 388 410 376 332 287 242 197 153 214 281 307 333 346 312 

Lipscomb 382 560 1,026 876 725 574 423 272 121 0 0 191 255 410 339 272 208 

Live Oak 972 783 729 676 692 720 748 776 689 575 461 777 558 439 399 392 388 

Llano 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Loving 189 313 418 561 704 690 627 565 502 439 376 38 167 146 187 227 213 

Lubbock 0 0 0 51 103 154 140 126 112 98 84 0 0 0 10 21 31 

Lynn 0 0 246 336 427 517 460 402 345 287 230 0 0 86 116 144 171 

McCulloch 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
74 

County

Water Use (AF) Water Consum

2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 

McLennan 0 53 120 187 253 228 203 177 152 127 101 0 45 90 135 177 154 

McMullen 1,752 2,545 2,762 3,067 3,329 3,562 3,306 2,930 2,553 2,177 1,801 1,401 1,815 1,627 1,729 1,797 1,840 

Madison 204 261 561 750 940 832 727 622 518 413 308 163 197 348 451 549 475 

Marion 10 121 270 420 569 579 522 466 408 351 295 10 114 249 380 506 506 

Martin 2,035 2,446 3,071 2,824 2,577 2,267 1,892 1,516 1,141 765 512 1,384 1,305 1,075 963 855 731 

Mason 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Matagorda 0 46 61 77 77 67 57 47 37 28 18 0 35 39 48 47 40 

Maverick 192 1,574 1,857 2,241 2,626 3,010 2,843 2,538 2,234 1,928 1,623 154 1,119 1,074 1,226 1,368 1,501 

Medina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Menard 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Midland 1,573 2,640 3,265 3,034 2,803 2,465 2,045 1,625 1,205 785 488 1,070 1,408 1,143 1,034 928 791 

Milam 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 

Mills 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Mitchell 18 238 317 397 476 428 381 333 286 238 190 12 127 111 136 161 142 

Montague 3,221 3,496 2,997 2,497 1,998 1,498 999 499 0 0 0 2,963 2,952 2,248 1,810 1,398 1,011 

Montgomery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Moore 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 

Morris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Motley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Nacogdoches 1,128 1,424 2,066 1,937 1,809 1,659 1,503 1,347 1,191 1,036 880 1,072 1,327 1,873 1,731 1,593 1,438 

Navarro 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Newton 98 125 161 143 125 108 89 71 54 36 18 93 94 102 89 76 64 

Nolan 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 

Nueces 16 34 45 56 56 49 42 35 28 20 13 13 25 29 35 34 29 

Ochiltree 273 408 748 985 815 646 476 306 136 0 0 136 186 299 382 306 234 

Oldham 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Orange 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Palo Pinto 41 194 356 518 680 612 544 476 408 340 272 38 164 267 376 476 413 

Panola 966 1,412 1,988 1,801 1,655 1,511 1,366 1,221 1,077 932 787 917 1,323 1,816 1,618 1,464 1,314 

Parker 1,086 925 1,255 1,585 1,916 1,724 1,533 1,341 1,149 958 766 1,000 781 941 1,149 1,341 1,164 

Parmer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Pecos 110 130 173 387 601 746 674 601 528 456 383 22 69 60 108 156 180 

Polk 133 180 232 206 180 155 129 103 77 52 26 126 136 147 128 110 92 

Potter 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 

Presidio 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Rains 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Randall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Reagan 1,240 3,207 4,019 3,627 3,236 2,844 2,332 1,820 1,308 796 444 843 1,710 1,407 1,247 1,092 942 

Real 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Red River 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Reeves 522 866 1,155 1,744 2,333 2,509 2,304 2,098 1,893 1,687 1,481 104 462 404 556 705 713 

Refugio 0 32 42 53 53 46 39 33 26 19 12 0 24 27 33 32 27 

Roberts 393 1,628 1,419 1,210 1,002 793 584 376 167 0 0 197 742 568 469 376 287 

Robertson 306 587 741 773 806 734 639 544 449 354 259 245 501 587 619 648 584 

Rockwall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Runnels 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 

Rusk 158 477 930 1,384 1,838 1,707 1,542 1,378 1,213 1,048 884 150 446 850 1,245 1,627 1,487 

Sabine 147 235 470 705 940 861 783 705 627 548 470 139 218 423 625 823 743 

San 

Augustine 1,622 2,092 1,953 1,814 1,674 1,534 1,395 1,256 1,116 977 837 1,541 1,941 1,758 1,610 1,465 1,323 

San Jacinto 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

San Patricio 0 28 37 46 46 40 34 28 22 17 11 0 21 23 28 28 24 
75 

County

Water Use (AF) Water Consum

2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 

San Saba 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Schleicher 90 312 468 568 584 507 430 354 277 200 140 61 166 164 195 197 168 

Scurry 10 0 249 341 432 524 466 408 349 291 233 7 0 87 117 146 174 

Shackelford 2 0 156 311 467 421 374 327 280 234 187 2 0 117 226 327 284 

Shelby 1,419 1,658 3,073 2,929 2,785 2,621 2,377 2,133 1,889 1,645 1,400 1,348 1,539 2,771 2,607 2,446 2,270 

Sherman 2 0 0 92 184 158 132 105 79 53 26 1 0 0 36 69 57 

Smith 5 18 49 80 111 133 118 103 88 74 59 5 17 47 75 101 118 

Somervell 287 184 260 336 413 372 330 289 248 207 165 264 155 195 244 289 251 

Starr 36 48 64 79 79 69 59 49 39 29 18 29 36 40 49 48 41 

Stephens 0 52 184 315 447 402 357 312 268 223 179 0 44 138 229 313 271 

Sterling 57 265 707 881 893 905 765 625 484 344 236 39 141 248 303 302 300 

Stonewall 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Sutton 34 0 390 534 677 821 730 639 547 456 365 23 0 137 183 229 272 

Swisher 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Tarrant 8,805 6,836 5,469 4,101 2,734 1,367 0 0 0 0 0 8,101 5,773 4,102 2,974 1,914 923 

Taylor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Terrell 10 0 162 221 281 341 303 265 227 189 151 7 0 57 76 95 113 

Terry 3 0 243 332 422 511 454 397 341 284 227 2 0 85 114 142 169 

Throckmorton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Titus 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 

Tom Green 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Travis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trinity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Tyler 76 110 147 184 185 161 137 114 90 66 42 72 83 93 114 113 96 

Upshur 4 57 247 437 627 764 690 617 543 469 396 4 54 226 393 555 665 

Upton 1,761 2,955 3,728 3,442 3,156 2,870 2,398 1,927 1,455 983 664 1,198 1,576 1,305 1,171 1,041 916 

Uvalde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Val Verde 0 0 80 110 139 168 150 131 112 94 75 0 0 28 38 47 56 

Van Zandt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Victoria 0 35 46 58 58 51 43 36 28 21 14 0 26 29 36 35 30 

Walker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Waller 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Ward 568 568 683 888 871 855 764 672 581 489 398 114 568 239 297 278 260 

Washington 36 0 497 878 798 718 638 559 479 399 319 29 0 298 516 459 404 

Webb 4,596 3,661 3,476 3,052 2,626 2,244 1,872 1,501 1,128 699 255 3,677 2,627 2,109 1,814 1,529 1,274 

Wharton 0 43 57 71 72 62 53 44 35 26 17 0 32 36 44 43 37 

Wheeler 3,792 3,524 3,072 2,620 2,168 1,717 1,265 813 362 0 0 1,896 1,605 1,229 1,015 813 622 

Wichita 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Wilbarger 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Willacy 0 23 31 39 39 34 29 24 19 14 9 0 18 20 24 24 20 

Williamson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Wilson 417 1,612 1,865 1,679 1,492 1,306 1,119 932 746 560 373 334 1,146 1,119 986 858 734 

Winkler 62 464 618 821 1,024 979 873 767 661 556 450 12 247 216 275 332 305 

Wise 2,314 2,757 2,450 2,144 1,838 1,531 1,225 919 613 306 0 2,129 2,328 1,838 1,555 1,287 1,034 

Wood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Yoakum 18 238 330 423 384 346 308 269 230 192 154 13 127 116 145 130 115 

Young 8 0 78 157 235 211 188 164 141 118 94 7 0 59 113 164 143 

Zapata 32 41 55 68 68 60 51 42 33 25 16 26 31 35 42 42 35 

Zavala 407 2,065 2,427 2,280 2,167 2,035 1,904 1,773 1,502 1,197 891 326 1,477 1,465 1,351 1,247 1,132 

SUM (kAF) 81.5 110 132 135 134 122 104 87 70 53 39 64.8 78.2 76.9 76.0 72.8 64.2 

Mining
76 

Table 16. County-level estimate of 2012-2060 projections for oil and gas water use and water consumption (AF)County Water Use (AF) Water Consum

2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 

Anderson 39 129 140 157 177 181 185 169 147 126 105 67 87 88 98 109 115 Andrews 3,212 3,481 3,959 3,833 3,710 3,511 3,177 2,842 2,509 2,192 1,929 1,868 1,231 1,029 921 819 742 Angelina 0 116 220 316 412 427 389 351 312 274 237 32 112 203 286 366 374 Aransas 0 12 10 8 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 10 11 10 8 6 5 Archer 30 351 405 444 483 389 344 311 279 246 213 239 326 337 343 344 252 Armstrong 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Atascosa 1,012 2,993 2,770 2,713 2,706 2,700 2,693 2,393 2,021 1,649 1,279 867 2,155 1,711 1,618 1,551 1,484 Austin 0 28 127 224 320 288 257 226 194 163 132 20 29 88 143 195 173 Bailey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bandera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bastrop 0 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Baylor 1 14 14 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 12 12 12 12 12 12 Bee 66 111 127 129 112 95 80 67 53 40 26 92 90 89 87 74 62 Bell 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bexar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Blanco 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Borden 27 272 679 926 927 929 784 639 494 352 244 72 165 263 339 331 323 Bosque 0 470 557 627 696 579 516 466 416 365 315 238 439 462 485 502 387 Bowie 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Brazoria 0 91 102 113 125 114 100 88 76 64 52 42 80 78 82 86 76 Brazos 238 364 741 975 1,207 1,072 938 804 670 536 402 266 286 477 602 721 628 Brewster 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Briscoe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Brooks 27 70 77 84 80 69 60 52 44 36 28 50 60 58 60 55 4Brown 23 35 34 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 17 16 14 14 14 14 Burleson 247 380 995 1,459 1,923 1,717 1,512 1,306 1,100 892 686 279 299 632 890 1,135 993 Burnet 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Caldwell 75 98 123 111 98 85 72 59 46 33 20 82 75 81 71 62 54 Calhoun 18 48 52 57 55 47 41 35 30 25 19 34 41 39 41 38 32 Callahan 84 93 88 88 87 83 79 74 70 66 62 29 24 18 17 16 15 Cameron 27 58 65 72 68 57 47 39 31 23 15 38 47 45 48 43 34 Camp 13 12 12 11 11 11 10 9 9 8 8 2 2 1 1 1 Carson 2 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 13 Cass 1 30 39 48 58 68 60 52 45 37 30 26 28 36 44 52 60 Castro 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chambers 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 9 9 9 9 Cherokee 10 129 172 216 263 299 267 236 204 173 141 80 123 163 201 239 269 Childress 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Clay 63 508 613 699 786 655 584 527 471 414 357 318 472 506 538 563 435 Cochran 56 128 154 181 208 234 210 187 163 139 115 46 64 54 63 71 79 Coke 520 511 484 480 477 451 425 397 370 346 322 114 84 46 40 33 32 Coleman 100 113 108 107 107 102 97 91 86 82 77 37 31 24 23 22 2Collin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Collingsworth 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Colorado 28 129 608 1,078 1,534 1,376 1,221 1,067 913 759 605 86 120 402 667 913 802 Comal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Comanche 2 388 444 485 525 419 363 319 276 232 188 224 366 374 379 380 278 Concho 515 507 480 477 474 448 422 394 367 343 320 114 84 46 40 34 33 Cooke 1,493 1,708 1,343 978 612 246 28 27 26 25 24 1,391 1,434 1,001 702 421 158 Coryell 0 569 1,238 1,102 767 434 158 0 0 0 0 236 522 972 827 548 284 
77 

County Water Use (AF) Water Consum

2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 

Cottle 32 43 41 41 41 39 38 36 34 33 31 18 16 14 14 13 13 Crane 280 508 617 728 840 947 861 776 692 610 531 227 246 225 249 273 29Crockett 507 1,097 1,732 2,035 1,843 1,552 1,261 971 682 394 207 553 606 641 730 650 539 Crosby 1,083 1,050 994 987 980 926 871 814 757 706 656 224 161 82 69 55 53 Culberson 279 293 506 873 1,240 1,535 1,393 1,250 1,110 972 843 151 97 249 308 371 415 Dallam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dallas 79 726 1,076 888 700 512 339 170 0 0 0 134 624 818 651 493 343 Dawson 268 695 954 1,137 1,164 1,184 1,023 862 703 546 423 165 323 328 371 360 353 Deaf Smith 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Delta 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Denton 3,249 3,297 2,220 1,136 51 19 13 13 13 13 13 3,108 2,805 1,688 840 44 13 DeWitt 2,177 2,061 1,858 1,646 1,421 1,188 958 729 500 271 42 1,801 1,493 1,149 999 846 694 Dickens 0 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Dimmit 3,708 4,874 4,919 5,001 5,001 4,952 4,337 3,580 2,824 2,068 1,315 3,068 3,506 2,980 2,913 2,795 2,64Donley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Duval 52 133 147 160 153 131 114 99 84 69 54 96 114 110 114 105 8Eastland 333 578 937 1,091 934 764 644 535 425 318 211 286 303 539 619 472 335 Ector 845 1,144 1,537 1,612 1,690 1,628 1,435 1,245 1,056 870 725 850 612 588 577 570 520 Edwards 0 28 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 28 28 29 29 29 2Ellis 38 112 147 180 213 186 164 144 123 103 82 56 99 114 133 150 125 El Paso 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Erath 12 470 505 521 536 426 376 340 304 268 232 274 443 427 411 391 283 Falls 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fannin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fayette 132 1,149 2,403 2,164 1,887 1,585 1,282 979 677 375 72 166 844 1,476 1,306 1,118 922 Fisher 432 426 403 401 398 376 355 332 309 289 269 97 71 40 35 30 28 Floyd 148 156 148 147 146 139 131 123 116 109 102 42 34 23 21 19 1Foard 3 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 10 10 10 10 10 1Fort Bend 25 66 72 79 75 65 56 49 41 34 27 47 56 54 56 52 44 Franklin 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 Freestone 429 929 1,117 1,331 1,494 1,458 1,291 1,121 954 785 618 600 844 975 1,133 1,254 1,21Frio 729 1,167 1,217 1,243 1,250 1,215 1,178 1,142 986 804 620 666 858 772 774 752 702 Gaines 124 914 1,429 1,846 2,000 1,945 1,671 1,398 1,127 859 651 190 517 590 686 694 635 Galveston 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Garza 53 321 395 469 544 491 438 386 334 284 234 44 166 144 164 184 162 Gillespie 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Glasscock 1,838 2,402 3,057 2,887 2,718 2,355 1,994 1,634 1,275 921 681 1,590 1,165 1,010 923 839 704 Goliad 25 64 70 77 73 63 54 47 40 33 26 46 55 53 55 50 42 Gonzales 2,164 1,791 1,600 1,405 1,207 1,010 813 616 418 221 24 1,764 1,288 980 844 712 585 Gray 68 78 75 74 74 70 67 63 60 57 53 26 22 17 16 15 15 Grayson 6 19 18 18 18 18 18 18 17 17 17 14 14 14 14 14 14 Gregg 25 191 274 353 433 476 429 383 337 292 246 71 182 256 322 387 418 Grimes 95 159 323 483 602 537 471 405 340 275 209 120 129 214 305 367 32Guadalupe 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Hale 1,289 1,235 1,168 1,160 1,152 1,087 1,022 954 886 826 766 252 177 82 67 51 48 Hall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hamilton 0 361 393 314 236 157 101 51 0 0 0 93 321 312 239 169 103 Hansford 13 88 577 1,068 904 749 602 456 309 162 16 68 79 261 432 348 278 Hardeman 0 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 9 1Hardin 0 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Harris 0 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 Harrison 868 1,763 2,388 2,145 1,956 1,778 1,608 1,438 1,268 1,098 930 1,021 1,658 2,189 1,935 1,735 1,55
78 

County Water Use (AF) Water Consum

2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 

Hartley 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 1 1 0 0 0 Haskell 90 98 93 93 92 88 83 79 74 70 66 30 25 18 17 16 16 Hays 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hemphill 1,441 2,567 2,314 2,037 1,763 1,499 1,244 988 732 476 223 1,498 1,209 971 821 683 562 Henderson 3 120 176 235 296 346 308 272 235 198 161 91 113 166 218 269 310 Hidalgo 46 119 130 143 136 117 101 88 74 61 48 85 101 98 102 94 7Hill 131 1,572 1,343 1,106 869 632 422 218 13 14 14 244 1,349 1,031 819 617 427 Hockley 6 18 18 18 18 17 17 17 17 16 16 13 13 13 13 13 13 Hood 645 529 678 820 961 841 743 651 559 467 375 695 465 528 608 679 56Hopkins 42 41 38 38 38 36 34 31 29 27 25 8 6 3 2 2 2 Houston 178 254 322 287 254 220 187 152 119 85 51 195 196 210 185 161 138 Howard 619 1,611 2,491 2,939 2,747 2,343 1,940 1,538 1,138 742 476 643 870 898 1,028 938 782 Hudspeth 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hunt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hutchinson 21 51 156 237 204 173 144 115 86 58 30 32 34 85 110 90 75 Irion 1,677 2,286 3,192 3,643 3,357 2,890 2,423 1,955 1,487 1,026 713 1,070 937 937 1,065 940 778 Jack 17 501 575 635 693 572 499 438 378 317 256 232 459 470 487 497 38Jackson 25 64 70 77 73 63 55 47 40 33 26 46 55 53 55 51 43 Jasper 87 118 148 133 118 103 88 73 58 43 28 100 92 98 88 77 67 Jeff Davis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jefferson 0 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 14 Jim Hogg 33 85 93 102 97 83 72 63 53 44 34 61 73 70 73 67 56 Jim Wells 25 65 71 78 74 64 55 48 40 33 26 46 55 53 55 51 43 Johnson 4,192 4,240 3,530 2,809 2,086 1,365 683 10 10 10 10 4,029 3,611 2,680 2,059 1,471 918 Jones 117 125 119 118 117 111 106 99 93 88 82 35 29 20 19 17 17 Karnes 3,882 2,820 2,528 2,229 1,919 1,603 1,288 975 662 349 35 3,155 2,028 1,545 1,336 1,127 923 Kaufman 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kendall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kenedy 42 108 118 130 123 106 92 80 68 55 43 78 92 89 92 85 72 Kent 29 39 38 38 38 36 35 33 32 31 29 18 16 14 14 13 1Kerr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kimble 0 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 1King 8,635 8,287 7,836 7,783 7,730 7,293 6,857 6,402 5,946 5,545 5,144 1,704 1,198 565 461 357 334 Kinney 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kleberg 27 70 77 84 80 69 60 52 44 36 28 51 60 58 60 55 47 Knox 3 15 15 15 15 14 14 14 14 14 14 12 12 12 12 12 12 Lamar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lamb 647 620 586 582 579 546 513 479 445 415 385 127 89 41 34 26 24 Lampasas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Salle 2,889 4,569 4,617 4,705 4,772 4,830 4,263 3,541 2,819 2,098 1,380 2,408 3,293 2,801 2,731 2,647 2,55Lavaca 145 1,003 1,613 1,470 1,313 1,148 985 824 662 501 340 179 742 1,005 898 786 673 Lee 132 230 421 536 650 577 506 435 363 290 218 151 179 272 333 390 340 Leon 327 847 1,482 1,983 2,481 2,349 2,077 1,802 1,530 1,256 985 361 629 977 1,301 1,611 1,52Liberty 0 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 1Limestone 271 383 402 424 431 391 347 302 257 212 167 356 350 355 363 361 325 Lipscomb 387 656 1,098 926 758 597 446 294 142 21 21 434 335 467 375 290 22Live Oak 1,002 851 814 751 757 776 798 820 729 610 492 853 627 523 473 455 443 Llano 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Loving 542 691 792 925 1,058 1,020 934 848 762 681 601 300 256 223 251 279 259 Lubbock 6,211 5,963 5,663 5,673 5,684 5,419 5,089 4,745 4,401 4,097 3,794 1,228 865 433 365 298 290 Lynn 981 974 1,166 1,246 1,327 1,365 1,255 1,144 1,033 929 826 226 168 179 192 205 227 McCulloch 42 40 38 38 38 35 33 31 29 27 25 8 6 3 2 2 2 
79 

County Water Use (AF) Water Consum

2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 

McLennan 0 194 234 265 296 235 203 177 152 127 101 119 185 197 206 212 154 McMullen 1,720 2,653 2,912 3,203 3,448 3,666 3,398 3,010 2,622 2,235 1,850 1,465 1,924 1,775 1,860 1,911 1,94Madison 204 295 597 785 972 861 754 646 538 430 323 227 231 384 485 581 504 Marion 5 208 348 483 619 622 561 501 440 379 319 73 196 322 438 552 54Martin 2,435 2,906 3,527 3,262 2,998 2,657 2,251 1,845 1,441 1,043 771 2,190 1,435 1,191 1,059 933 796 Mason 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Matagorda 34 87 96 105 100 86 75 64 55 45 35 63 75 72 75 69 58 Maverick 174 1,652 1,988 2,364 2,737 3,111 2,933 2,617 2,302 1,986 1,674 188 1,196 1,201 1,342 1,474 1,59Medina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Menard 1,185 1,148 1,086 1,079 1,071 1,012 952 889 827 772 717 244 175 88 74 59 56 Midland 1,719 2,876 3,522 3,272 3,025 2,666 2,227 1,788 1,350 918 612 1,661 1,506 1,256 1,127 1,005 855 Milam 0 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 Mills 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mitchell 27 284 361 435 511 460 409 358 309 259 211 50 162 142 163 184 162 Montague 3,233 3,776 3,228 2,665 2,102 1,538 1,026 525 25 24 24 3,186 3,216 2,452 1,950 1,474 1,025 Montgomery 0 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 Moore 4 16 16 16 16 16 16 15 15 15 15 13 13 13 12 12 12 Morris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Motley 130 138 132 131 130 123 117 110 103 97 91 39 31 22 20 19 1Nacogdoches 1,073 1,642 2,299 2,141 1,986 1,815 1,643 1,471 1,299 1,128 958 1,220 1,550 2,101 1,930 1,764 1,59Navarro 11 25 24 24 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 17 16 15 15 15 15 Newton 98 138 173 156 138 120 102 84 67 49 31 111 107 115 102 89 7Nolan 214 218 207 205 204 193 182 171 160 150 140 54 42 26 24 21 2Nueces 25 64 70 77 73 63 55 47 40 33 26 46 55 53 55 51 43 Ochiltree 286 508 824 1,040 853 674 503 332 161 24 23 329 266 355 418 325 247 Oldham 15 14 13 13 13 12 12 11 10 9 9 3 2 1 1 1 Orange 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Palo Pinto 120 547 656 752 847 709 625 552 480 408 336 281 446 483 524 557 43Panola 958 1,578 2,136 1,919 1,749 1,590 1,438 1,286 1,134 983 832 1,095 1,484 1,959 1,731 1,552 1,392 Parker 1,083 1,180 1,464 1,733 2,001 1,748 1,545 1,353 1,162 970 779 1,215 1,035 1,139 1,284 1,414 1,17Parmer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pecos 409 543 690 878 1,068 1,180 1,072 966 861 762 672 274 227 313 331 353 359 Polk 133 195 247 221 195 170 144 118 92 67 41 148 151 162 143 125 10Potter 2 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 13 Presidio 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rains 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Randall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reagan 1,350 3,414 4,211 3,802 3,395 2,985 2,457 1,931 1,406 886 529 1,361 1,825 1,501 1,323 1,153 99Real 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Red River 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 Reeves 611 1,111 1,520 2,067 2,619 2,761 2,522 2,285 2,052 1,827 1,614 701 632 688 796 908 888 Refugio 23 60 66 72 69 59 51 44 38 31 24 43 51 49 51 47 40 Roberts 365 1,711 1,502 1,270 1,041 822 611 400 189 20 20 423 819 647 524 412 316 Robertson 305 691 813 817 826 746 651 556 461 366 271 431 599 654 657 664 595 Rockwall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Runnels 285 287 272 271 269 255 240 225 210 197 184 70 53 32 29 26 25 Rusk 210 719 1,149 1,569 1,994 1,844 1,668 1,492 1,316 1,141 967 323 637 1,017 1,377 1,730 1,57Sabine 147 331 584 809 1,035 946 858 770 682 595 508 196 319 536 728 915 826 San Augustine 1,584 2,198 2,077 1,928 1,779 1,628 1,479 1,330 1,180 1,032 884 1,642 2,052 1,880 1,722 1,567 1,41San Jacinto 0 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 San Patricio 20 52 57 63 60 51 44 39 33 27 21 38 45 43 45 41 35 
80 

County Water Use (AF) Water Consum

2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 

San Saba 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Schleicher 230 473 621 718 732 647 562 477 392 308 241 144 213 199 226 225 194 Scurry 3 34 280 368 456 544 483 423 363 304 246 37 33 118 143 169 193 Shackelford 219 464 562 655 747 628 558 500 442 385 328 264 285 329 373 409 305 Shelby 1,388 1,861 3,283 3,109 2,938 2,754 2,496 2,238 1,980 1,723 1,467 1,536 1,745 2,976 2,781 2,593 2,40Sherman 9 42 35 121 207 178 151 124 98 71 44 28 33 26 55 84 7Smith 20 91 107 125 145 163 147 131 115 100 84 67 71 85 100 117 132 Somervell 287 237 304 367 431 377 333 292 250 209 168 309 208 236 272 304 253 Starr 35 90 99 108 103 89 77 67 57 46 36 65 77 75 77 71 60 Stephens 5,158 5,248 5,064 5,103 5,141 4,775 4,458 4,141 3,825 3,541 3,257 1,226 1,004 663 630 591 476 Sterling 89 343 780 947 953 958 812 667 522 380 270 107 191 290 338 331 325 Stonewall 629 615 583 579 575 543 511 478 445 416 387 136 99 53 45 38 36 Sutton 33 59 446 582 720 858 763 668 573 481 389 81 53 185 225 264 303 Swisher 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tarrant 8,805 7,084 5,672 4,245 2,817 1,391 12 12 12 12 12 8,313 6,020 4,294 3,105 1,985 935 Taylor 71 81 77 77 76 73 69 65 62 58 55 26 22 17 16 15 15 Terrell 502 540 673 724 776 806 740 672 606 544 483 158 128 145 152 160 173 Terry 90 119 355 439 525 606 543 479 416 354 293 51 45 121 144 168 192 Throckmorton 200 204 194 193 191 181 171 161 150 141 132 52 40 25 23 20 20 Titus 8 8 7 7 7 7 6 6 5 5 5 2 1 1 0 0 Tom Green 53 72 69 69 68 66 63 60 58 55 53 31 28 24 24 23 23 Travis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trinity 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Tyler 78 123 160 197 198 174 150 127 103 79 55 91 96 106 127 125 109 Upshur 39 199 379 551 726 851 771 690 609 529 450 95 164 325 474 620 723 Upton 1,744 3,075 3,887 3,575 3,265 2,960 2,470 1,984 1,499 1,020 699 1,863 1,694 1,458 1,296 1,144 1,00Uvalde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Val Verde 0 66 144 169 195 221 199 179 158 139 120 67 66 91 97 102 108 Van Zandt 56 65 62 62 61 59 56 53 50 47 45 22 19 15 15 14 14 Victoria 25 66 72 79 75 65 56 49 41 34 27 47 56 54 56 52 44 Walker 0 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 1Waller 0 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Ward 582 632 775 968 941 915 815 716 617 521 429 622 620 317 362 333 307 Washington 0 44 545 924 840 757 673 589 506 422 338 30 46 346 561 500 442 Webb 4,599 3,878 3,708 3,257 2,804 2,397 2,007 1,623 1,238 796 341 3,948 2,844 2,337 2,014 1,701 1,422 Wharton 31 81 89 97 93 80 69 60 51 42 33 58 69 67 69 64 54 Wheeler 3,794 3,609 3,157 2,682 2,210 1,748 1,293 839 385 22 21 3,850 1,683 1,308 1,071 850 65Wichita 59 65 62 62 61 58 55 52 49 46 44 20 17 12 12 11 1Wilbarger 7 20 20 20 20 20 19 19 19 18 18 15 14 14 14 14 14 Willacy 17 44 49 53 51 44 38 33 28 23 18 32 38 37 38 35 2Williamson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wilson 418 1,671 1,929 1,740 1,548 1,357 1,165 973 782 590 399 373 1,206 1,182 1,045 912 783 Winkler 152 621 787 977 1,169 1,110 991 873 756 642 531 125 318 295 341 387 35Wise 2,313 3,014 2,661 2,293 1,924 1,556 1,238 932 625 319 13 2,348 2,584 2,037 1,691 1,360 1,04Wood 17 26 25 25 25 24 23 22 21 21 20 13 12 11 10 10 1Yoakum 1,052 1,264 1,300 1,382 1,334 1,240 1,147 1,052 957 870 783 246 299 209 222 191 17Young 15 142 197 244 291 236 206 183 159 135 111 125 136 165 188 208 156 Zapata 30 78 85 93 89 76 66 57 49 40 31 56 66 64 66 61 5Zavala 407 2,140 2,531 2,379 2,257 2,118 1,977 1,838 1,559 1,245 932 409 1,555 1,570 1,448 1,336 1,212 

SUM (kAF) 118.4 159.3 178.4 179.6 175.1 159.9 139.0 119.1 99.6 81.4 65.4 92.7 96.4 91.8 88.0 82.0 71.3 
81 

Figure 48. State-level projections to 2060 of HF water use and fresh-water consumption and 

comparison to earlier water projections. 

Figure 49. State-level projections to 2060 of oil and gas industry water use and fresh-water 

consumption. 

0

50

100

150

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Calendar Year

HF Water Use/Consumption (thousand AF)

Water Use; 2011 report Water Use; this report Water Consumption; this report

0

50

100

150

200

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Calendar Year

O&G Water Use/Consumption (thousand AF)

O&G Fresh and Brackish Water Use O&G Fresh Water Consumption

O&G WaterUse&Consumption_2.xls 
82 

Figure 50. Counties with non-zero projected water use. Same coverage as in the 2011 report 

(thick blue lines) with the addition of Polk, Tyler, Jasper, and Newton counties in East Texas 

(red circle). 

 Source: Montgomery et al. (2005) Source: McMahon and Vaden (2011) 

Figure 51. Spatial location of the oil and gas windows in the (a) Barnett Shale and (b) Eagle Ford 

Shale. 
83 

(a) 

(b) 

Figure 52. Barnett Shale water use and consumption projections: (a) comparison with earlier 

projections; (b) water use and consumption projections under the three scenarios. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Water Use and Consumption (kAF)

Bar - 2011 report - water use

Bar - 2011 report - fresh water use

Bar - this report - water use

Bar - this report - fresh water use

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Water Use and Consumption (kAF)

Bar - Most likely - water use

Bar - most likely - fresh water use

Bar - High - water use

Bar - High - fresh water use

Bar - Low - water use

Bar - Low - fresh water use

TrackChanges 1.xls
84 

(a) 

(b) 

Figure 53. Eagle Ford Shale water use and consumption projections: (a) comparison with earlier 

projections; (b) water use and consumption projections under the three scenarios. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Water Use and Consumption (kAF)

EF - 2011 report - water use

EF - 2011 report - fresh water use

EF - this report - water use

EF - this report - fresh water use

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Water Use and Consumption (kAF)

EF - Most likely - water use

EF - most likely - fresh water use

EF - High - water use

EF - High - fresh water use

EF - Low - water use

EF - Low - fresh water use

TrackChanges 1.xls
85 

(a) 

(b) 

Figure 54. Pearsall Shale water use and consumption projections: (a) comparison with earlier 

projections; (b) water use and consumption projections under the three scenarios. 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Water Use and Consumption (kAF)

Prsl - 2011 report - water use

Prsl - 2011 report - fresh water use

Prsl - this report - water use

Prsl - this report - fresh water use"

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Water Use and Consumption (kAF)

Prsl - Most likely - water use

Prsl - most likely - fresh water use

Prsl - High - water use

Prsl - High - fresh water use

Prsl - Low - water use

Prsl - Low - fresh water use

TrackChanges 1.xls
86 

(a) 

(b) 

Figure 55. Haynesville and Bossier Shales water use and consumption projections: (a) 

comparison with earlier projections; (b) water use and consumption projections under the three 

scenarios. 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Water Use and Consumption (kAF)

Hay - 2011 report - water use

Hay - 2011 report - fresh water use

Hay - this report - water use

Hay - this report - fresh water use"

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Water Use and Consumption (kAF)

Hay - Most likely - water use

Hay - most likely - fresh water use

Hay - High - water use

Hay - High - fresh water use

Hay - Low - water use

Hay - Low - fresh water use

TrackChanges 1.xls
87 

(a) 

(b) 

Figure 56. Haynesville-West Shale water use and consumption projections: (a) comparison with 

earlier projections; (b) water use and consumption projections under the three scenarios. 

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Water Use and Consumption (kAF)

HayW - 2011 report - water use

HayW - 2011 report - fresh water use

HayW - this report - water use

HayW - this report - fresh water use"

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Water Use and Consumption (kAF)

HayW - Most likely - water use

HayW - most likely - fresh water use

HayW - High - water use

HayW - High - fresh water use

HayW - Low - water use

HayW - Low - fresh water use

TrackChanges 1.xls
88 

(a) 

(b) 

Figure 57. East Texas (not including Haynesville and Bossier Shales) water use and consumption 

projections: (a) comparison with earlier projections; (b) water use and consumption projections 

under the three scenarios. 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Water Use and Consumption (kAF)

ETX - 2011 report - water use

ETX - 2011 report - fresh water use

ETX - this report - water use

ETX - this report - fresh water use

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Water Use and Consumption (kAF)

ETX - Most likely - water use

ETX - most likely - fresh water use

ETX - High - water use

ETX - High - fresh water use

ETX - Low - water use

ETX - Low - fresh water use

TrackChanges 1.xls
89 

(a) 

(b) 

Figure 58. Gulf Coast (not including shales) water use and consumption projections: (a) 

comparison with earlier projections; (b) water use and consumption projections under the three 

scenarios. 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Water Use and Consumption (kAF)

GC - 2011 report - water use

GC- 2011 report - fresh water use

GC - this report - water use

GC - this report - fresh water use"

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Water Use and Consumption (kAF)

GC - Most likely - water use

GC - most likely - fresh water use

GC - High - water use

GC - High - fresh water use

GC - Low - water use

GC - Low - fresh water use

TrackChanges 1.xls
90 

(a) 

(b) 

Figure 59. Anadarko Basin water use and consumption projections: (a) comparison with earlier 

projections; (b) water use and consumption projections under the three scenarios. 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Water Use and Consumption (kAF)

Andk - 2011 report - water use

Andk- 2011 report - fresh water use

Andk - this report - water use

Andk - this report - fresh water use"

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Water Use and Consumption (kAF)

Andk - Most likely - water use

Andk - most likely - fresh water use

Andk - High - water use

Andk - High - fresh water use

Andk - Low - water use

Andk - Low - fresh water use

TrackChanges 1.xls
91 

(a) 

(b) 

Figure 60. Permian Basin water use and consumption projections: (a) comparison with earlier 

projections; (b) water use and consumption projections under the three scenarios. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Water Use and Consumption (kAF)

PB - 2011 report - water use

PB - 2011 report - fresh water use

PB - this report - water use

PB - this report - fresh water use

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Water Use and Consumption (kAF)

PB - Most likely - water use

PB - most likely - fresh water use

PB - High - water use

PB - High - fresh water use

PB - Low - water use

PB - Low - fresh water use

TrackChanges 1.xls
92 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

Figure 61. Permian Basin water use and consumption projections under the three scenarios: (a) 

Barnett and Woodford Shales; (b) Wolfcamp Shale and Wolfberry play; and (c) other Permian 

Basin formations. 

0

4

8

12

16

20

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Water Use and Consumption (kAF)

B-W PB - Most likely - water use

B-W PB - most likely - fresh water use

B-W PB - High - water use

B-W PB - High - fresh water use

B-W PB - Low - water use

B-W PB - Low - fresh water use

0

5

10

15

20

25

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Water Use and Consumption (kAF)

Wolfberry/camp - Most likely - water use

Wolfberry/camp - most likely - fresh water use

Wolfberry/camp - High - water use

Wolfberry/camp - High - fresh water use

Wolfberry/camp - Low - water use

Wolfberry/camp - Low - fresh water use

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Water Use and Consumption (kAF)

PB Tight O&G - Most likely - water use

PB Tight O&G - most likely - fresh water use

PB Tight O&G - High - water use

PB Tight O&G - High - fresh water use

PB Tight O&G - Low - water use

PB Tight O&G - Low - fresh water use

TrackChanges 1.xls 
93 

V. Conclusions 

This update to the 2011 report (whose conclusions were partly summarized in Nicot and 

Scanlon, 2012) does not fundamentally change the water use projections put forward 

originally. Both documents outline a water use that is likely to stay in the vicinity of 100±50 

kAF/yr for many years. The new projections lower and broaden the expected peak water use 

and displace the center of gravity of HF water use toward West Texas, an area of the state 

that has less fresh water. This mechanically translates into a higher brackish water use which 

when allied with improvement in reuse technologies results in a much lower fresh water 

consumption than was projected in the 2011 report. The eventual solution in West Texas, 

after the initial step of using slightly brackish groundwater, is to use more saline brackish 

water or the abundant produced water from conventional wells to avoid competition with 

other users who will also rely more and more on brackish water as their water needs increase. 

In addition to this expected recycling from other uses, the industry itself is making rapidly 

maturing technological advances that will improve reuse. Fortunately flow back is abundant 

in most places where fresh water is not (such as in West Texas). However, as in all predictive 

work, unexpected events can generate large deviations from the projections (as the shale gas 

revolution did for domestic oil production). The simple discovery of an additional major play 

(deeper play?) beyond those described in this document could change the state-level water 

projections. They, however, are unlikely to deviate much in order of magnitude from those 

outlined here. 

It follows that oil and gas water use projections remain a reasonable fraction of mining water 

use projections, no more than 54% (Figure 62) and a smaller fraction still of the total amount 

on water use in Texas every year: <0.1 million AF (81.5 kAF in 2011) compared to 15+ 

million AF (Figure 63). 

 
94 

MiningWaterUse2010-2060_4_TWDB_just.xls 

Note: modified from the 2011 report (Nicot et al., 2011, Fig. 135) 

Figure 62. Summary of projected water use by mining industry in Texas (2012-2060). 

BarPlots_WaterUse_6.xls 

Source: TWDB historical water use surveys, 

http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/waterplanning/waterusesurvey/estimates/ 

Note: value displayed for mining water use is the 230 kAF from Nicot et al. (2011) 

rather than the projected 296 kAF listed in TWDB (2012, p.137) or the 2001-2010 

average of 184.4 kAF computed with limited information. 

Figure 63. Average state level water use (all categories) in 2001-2010. 

0

100

200

300

400

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Calendar Year

Mining Water Use (thousand AF)

ALL O&G Aggregate Coal Others
95 

VI. References 

Bené, P. G., Harden, Bob, Griffin, S. W., and Nicot, J. -P., 2007, Northern Trinity/Woodbine 

aquifer groundwater availability model: assessment of groundwater use in the northern Trinity 

aquifer due to urban growth and Barnett Shale development: Texas Water Development Board, 

TWDB Contract Number 0604830613, 50 p. + apps.. 

Fan, L., R. Martin, J. Thompson, K. Atwood, J. Robinson, and G. Lindsay, 2011, An Integrated 

Approach for Understanding Oil and Gas Reserves Potential in Eagle Ford Shale Formation: 

SPE 148751. 

McMahon, C., and Vaden, H., 2011, Eagle Ford Shale liquids volumes exceed early 

expectations. Powell Shale Digest, October 10, 2011, v.1, p. 26-29. 

Montgomery, S. L., Jarvie, D. M., Bowker, K. A., and Pollastro, R. M., 2005, Mississippian 

Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin, north-central Texas: gas-shale play with multi-trillion cubic 

foot potential. AAPG Bulletin, v. 89, no. 2, p. 155-175. 

Nicot, J. -P., and Potter, E., 2007, Historical and 2006–2025 estimation of ground water use for 

gas production in the Barnett Shale, North Texas: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of 

Economic Geology, letter report prepared for R. W. Harden & Associates and Texas Water 

Development Board, 66 p. 

Nicot, J.-P., and Scanlon, B. R., 2012, Water use for shale-gas production in Texas, U.S.: 

Environmental Science and Technology, v. 46, p. 3580‒3586. 

Nicot, J. -P., Hebel, A. K., Ritter, S. M., Walden, S., Baier, R., Galusky, P., Beach, J. A., Kyle, 

R., Symank, L., and Breton, C., 2011, Current and projected water use in the Texas mining and 

oil and gas industry: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, Contract 

Report No. 090480939 prepared for Texas Water Development Board, 357 p. Accessed on 2012: 

https://www.twdb.state.tx.us/rwpg/rpgm_rpts/0904830939_MiningWaterUse.pdf 

Sinha, S., and Ramakrishnan, H., 2011, A novel screening method for selection of horizontal 

refracturing candidates in shale gas reservoirs: Society of Petroleum Engineers Paper #144032. 

Texas Water Development Board, 2012, Water for Texas, Vol. II, TWDB Document GP-9-1, 

January, 392 p. 

97 

Appendix 1: Revision to 2011 Report 

Although the material below is now obsolete (Table 17), we thought it was important to correct 

Table 52 of the 2011 report (“Projected water use in the Barnett Shale (Fort Worth Basin)”). 

Although correct values were used in tables of higher order (state level or cumulative across 

water uses) in the 2011 report, its table 52 was not updated between the draft version and the 

final version. 

Table 17. Update to Table 52 of 2011 report (now obsolete and superseded by this report) 

County 

2010* 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

AF 

Archer 0 1,618 1,292 369 0 0

Bosque 913 2,547 1,065 0 0 0

Clay 634 

951 

3,731

5,596

1,663

2,495 0 0 0

Comanche 429 2,524 1,125 0 0 0

Cooke 101 282 118 0 0 0

Coryell 0 1,793 1,140 263 0 0

Dallas 620 769 271 0 0 0

Denton 1,674 587 0 0 0 0

Eastland 0 1,127 1,157 386 0 0

Ellis 325 235 63 0 0 0

Erath 2,017 2,500 882 0 0 0

Hamilton 190 1,118 498 0 0 0

Hill 1,008 1,249 441 0 0 0

Hood 1,720 990 215 0 0 0

Jack 1,835 

2,386 

1,706

2,218

535

696 0 0 0

Johnson 3,308 1,537 241 0 0 0

McLennan 0 1,380 680 62 0 0

Montague 539 

809 

3,174

4.760

1,415

2,122 0 0 0

Palo Pinto 446 2,627 1,171 0 0 0

Parker 4,003 1,787 153 0 0 0

Shackelford 0 1,121 1,151 384 0 0

Somervell 771 443 96 0 0 0

Stephens 0 1,854 1,178 272 0 0

Tarrant 3,147 1,104 0 0 0 0

Wise 4,220 

4.642 

1,961

2,157

308

338 0 0 0

Young 0 563 578 193 0 0

Total (Th. AF) 27.9 

29.5 

40.3

44.5

17.4

19.2 1.9 0.0 0.0

Note: double strikethrough on the incorrect values replaced by the correct but obsolete values.