Results for “below water” — Page 35

DOE OSTI2022

EERC Final Topical Report – Findings on Subtask 3.2 – Produced Water Management Through Geologic Homogenization, Conditions, and Reuse

The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) was awarded a contract by the North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC) Oil and Gas Research Program (NDIC No. G-051-101) to conduct a study on the recycling of water used in oil and gas operations, also known as produced water, from oil- and gas-producing regions of North Dakota as directed by Section 19 of North Dakota House Bill 1014. This final report provides a compilation of results of the study, which include regulatory, scientific, technological, and feasibility methods and considerations associated with North Dakota produced water management. The report provides a synopsis of this project’s previously submitted produced water assessment report entitled “Produced Water Management and Recycling Options in North Dakota” (Energy & Environmental Research Center, 2020), with updated values provided as appropriate. The report provides the results from the investigation of a novel produced water management strategy, referred to as geologic homogenization, conditioning, and reuse (GHCR), which aims to use a subsurface geologic formation as a natural medium for managing produced water recycling and reuse. Water management is a significant technical and economic challenge for sustainable oil and gas production, and water volumes are intrinsically linked to oil production volumes. North Dakota oil production rose to over 1.5 million barrels (MMbbl)/day in 2019, and despite a downturn in oil price in early 2020, North Dakota oil production has recovered to 1.1 MMbbl/day as of August 2021. Bakken petroleum system development between 2008 and 2020 has resulted in a nearly fourfold increase in produced water volumes to 642 MMbbl/yr in 2020 after peaking at 740 MMbbl/yr in 2019 and a fivefold increase in saltwater disposal (SWD) volumes to 565 MMbbl/yr in 2020 after a peak of 682 MMbbl/yr in 2019. Produced water and SWD volumes are forecasted to double by 2030. SWD is the primary method of produced water management used in North Dakota, with approximately 95% of the SWD volume occurring through subsurface injection into sandstones of the Dakota Group (Dakota). Localized pressurization of the Dakota resulting from SWD and projected increases in produced water volumes could impact the economics of North Dakota oil production. As a result, there is an emerging need to pursue alternative produced water management approaches, including recycling and reuse. While produced water recycling is not yet widespread, commercial operators are making strides in overcoming the technical challenges of using high salinity produced water in completion operations (Marathon Oil, 2020). As water management continues to be a key focal point in companies’ environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives, focus on water management, including recycling, will likely continue to increase. Laboratory column testing, field sample collection, geologic modeling and numerical simulation, and techno-economic analysis all indicate that GHCR could feasibly be implemented as a potential water management option. Laboratory column testing and field sample collection indicate that the Inyan Kara sandstone and native formation fluid are capable of homogenizing with the Bakken produced water to a point where the fluid composition appears to stabilize. Extracting that stabilized fluid could be considered homogeneous and capable of providing individual batches of hydraulic fracturing fluid. Numerical simulation results indicate that extraction of fluids from the Inyan Kara in a GHCR implementation scenario is capable of reducing formation pressure, which would help ease localized pressurization of the Inyan Kara and extend the available capacity for nearby existing SWD wells. Economic analysis indicates that there are scenarios where GHCR implementation can be a competitive or even lower-cost option than a conventional water management approach. Site-specific conditions will dictate the economic potential of GHCR, but potentially attractive sites for GHCR implementation will be those that are located above a pressurized zone of the Inyan Kara, need six or more Bakken infill wells, and face high costs for conventional SWD and/or freshwater. Based on the regulatory review, drilling into the Inyan Kara for SWD and to harness as a source water for industrial use have precedent in North Dakota, and a workable regulatory solution for GHCR seems likely. However, restrictions in the state regarding surface storage and transport of produced fluids may limit some activities, which will affect how GHCR could ultimately be implemented. In summary, this study reveals pursuing GHCR can be a viable approach to water management in North Dakota. The GHCR concept addresses some of the challenges that hinder the more traditional approaches to recycling in the industry. Furthermore, an assessment of the current landscape of water management within the state reveals the ongoing trend of increasing volumes of produced water and SWD. Projections reveal that the volumes of produced water that need to be managed are expected to double over the next decade (Energy & Environmental Research Center, 2020). With the continued development of the Bakken and continuing driving factors related to ESG initiatives, implementing a practice such as GHCR is a feasible approach to adding recycling of produced water to industry within the state. This subtask was cofunded through the EERC–U.S. Department of Energy Joint Program on Research and Development for Fossil Energy-Related Resources Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FE0024233. Nonfederal funding was provided by the North Dakota Industrial Commission Oil and Gas Research Program. References Energy & Environmental Research Center, 2020, Produced water management and recycling options in North Dakota: Final Report for North Dakota Legislative Management Energy Development and Transmission Committee and North Dakota Industrial Commission. Marathon Oil, 2020, Sustainability report: https://cdn.sanity.io/files/ghcnw9z2/website/ 91744eb6ef8fbe59505a911c6b8d2e8dd9a537fa.pdf?dl (accessed November 2021).

02 PETROLEUM↗

DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al, 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. west. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. The first two characters of each file name is the abbreviation for the state the in which the file contains data for. After the abbreviation is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file type described in detail: XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, this file is the merging of XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv and XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv by state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state the data comes from. FIPS - The two-digit numeric state ID code. waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. origWaterUse - The original stated water use(s) from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. CFS - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). Arizona is unique among the states, as its surface and groundwater resources are managed with two different sets of boundaries. So, for Arizona, the basinNum column is missing and instead there are two columns: surBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the surface water WMA the record belongs to. grdBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the groundwater WMA the record belongs to. XXStatePOD.shp: A shapefile which identifies the location of the Points of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records in XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv have coordinates, and therefore may be missing from this file. XXStatePOU.shp: A shapefile which contains the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to include within this file. XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized groundwater rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized surface water rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. Additionally, one file, stateWMALabels.csv, is not stored within a sub-directory. While we have referred to the spatial boundaries that each state uses to manage its water resources as WMAs, this term is not shared across all states. This file lists the proper name for each boundary set, by state. For those whom may be interested in exploring our code more in depth, we are also making available an internal data file for convenience. The file is in .RData format and contains everything described above as well as some minor additional objects used within the code calculating the cumulative curves. For completeness, here is a detailed description of the various objects which can be found within the .RData file: states: A character vector containing the state names for those states in which data was collected for. More importantly, the index of the state name is also the index in which that state's data can be found in the various following list objects. For example, if California is the third index in this object, the data for California will also be in the third index for each accompanying list. rightsByState_ground: A list of data frames with the cleaned ground water rights collected from each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv files. rightsByState_surface: A list of data frames with the cleaned surface water rights collected from each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv files. fullRightsRecs: A list of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxFullHarmonizedRights.csv files. projProj: The spatial projection used for map creation in the beginning of the project. Specifically, the World Geodetic System (WGS84) as a coordinate reference system (CRS) string in PROJ.4 format. wmaStateLabel: The name and/or abbreviation for what each state legally calls their WMAs. h2oUseByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed area(s) of use in this object. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to be included in this object. h2oDivByState: A list of spatial points data frames which identifies the location of the Point of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed Point of Diversion in this object. spatialWMAByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the spatial WMA boundaries for each state. The only data contained within the table are identifiers for each polygon. It is worth reiterating that Arizona is the only state in which the surface and groundwater WMA boundaries are not the same. wmaIDByState: A list which contains the unique ID values of the WMAs for each state. plottingDim: A character vector used to inform mapping functions for internal map making. Each state is classified as either "tall" or "wide", to maximize space on a typical 8x11 page. The code related to the creation of this dataset can be viewed within HarDWR GitHub Repository/dataHarmonization.

Economics↗

DOE OSTI2023

HarDWR - Raw Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. In order to hold a water right in the western United States, an entity, (e.g., an individual, corporation, municipality, sovereign government, or non-profit) must register a physical document with the state's water regulatory agency. State water agencies each maintain their own database containing all registered water right documents within the state, along with relevant metadata such as the point of diversion and place of use of the water. All western U.S. states have digitized their individual water rights databases, along with the geospatial data describing the spatial units where water rights are managed. Each state maintains and provides their own water rights data in accordance with individual state regulations and standards. We collected water rights databases from 11 western United States states either by downloading them from publicly accessible web portals, or by contacting state water management representatives; detailed descriptions of where and when the data was collected is provided in the README.txt, as well as Lisk et al.(in review). This collection of data are those raw water rights. Each state formats their data differently, meaning that file types, field availability, and names vary from state to state. Note, the data provided here reflects the state of the water rights databases at the time we collected the data; updates have likely occurred in many states. Some pieces of information are common among all states. These are: priority date, volume or flow of water allowed by the right, stated water use of the right, and some means of identifying the geography and source of the water pertaining to the right - typically the coordinates of the Point of Diversion (PoD) of a waterbody or well. Arizona regulates water in a different way than the other 10 states. Outside of some relatively small critical agricultural areas called Active Management Areas (AMAs), Arizona does not maintain any water rights. However, the state does require registration of surface and groundwater pumping devices, which includes disclosing the mechanical specifics of the devices. We used these records as a proxy for water rights. Each state, and their respective water right authorities, have made their water right records available for non-commercial reference uses. In addition, the states make no guarantees as to the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of their respective databases, let alone the modifications which we, the authors of this paper, have made to the collected records. None of the states should be held liable for using this data outside of its intended use. In addition, the following states have requested specifically worded disclaimers to be included with their data. Colorado: "The data made available here has been modified for use from its original source, which is the State of Colorado. THE STATE OF COLORADO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTY AS TO THE COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, OR CONTENT OF ANY DATA MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS SITE. THE STATE OF COLORADO EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The data is subject to change as modifications and updates are complete. It is understood that the information contained in the Web feed is being used at one's own risk." Montana: "The Montana State Library provides this product/service for informational purposes only. The Library did not produce it for, nor is it suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Consumers of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the viability of the information for their purposes. The Library provides these data in good faith but does not represent or warrant its accuracy, adequacy, or completeness. In no event shall the Library be liable for any incorrect results or analysis; any direct, indirect, special, or consequential damages to any party; or any lost profits arising out of or in connection with the use or the inability to use the data or the services provided. The Library makes these data and services available as a convenience to the public, and for no other purpose. The Library reserves the right to change or revise published data and/or services at any time." Oregon: "This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information." The available data is provided as a series of compressed files, which each containing the full data collected from each state. Some of the files have been renamed, to more easily know which state the data belongs to. The file renaming was also required as some files from different states had the same name. In other cases, the data for a state has been placed in a folder indicating which state it belongs to - as the state organized its data by selected subregions. Below is a brief description of the format of the collected data from each state. ArizonaRights_StatementOfClaimants: A folder containing a database of interconnected CSV files. The soc_erd.pdf file contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with SOC_MAIN.csv in the center of the page. ArizonaRights_SurfaceWaterRightsData: A folder containing a database of a single Shapefile and 10 associated CSVs. SurfaceWater.pdf contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with ADWR_SW_APPL_REGRY.csv. ArizonaRights_Well55Registry: A folder containing a database of a single Shapefile and 59 associated CSVs. Wells55.pdf contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with WellRegistry.shp. CaliforniaRights_eWRIMS_directDatabase: A folder containing a collection of four "series" Microsoft Excel files, as either XLS or XLSX. The four "series": byCounty, byEntity (what type of legal entity holds the right), byUse (stated water use), and byWatershed, are various methods by which the California water rights are organized within the state's database. However, it was observed that by only collecting a single series, not all water rights were being provided. So, essentially, the majority of records within each "series" are copies of each other, with each "series" containing some unique records. ColoradoRights_NetAmounts: A folder containing 78 CSV files, with one file per Colorado Water District. IdahoRights_PointOfDiversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Idaho. IdahoRights_PlaceOfUse: A Shapefile containing the Place of Use polygons for the entire state of Idaho. MontanaRights_WaterRights: A Geodatabase file containing the Points of Diversion and Places of Use for the entire state of Montana. The name of the Points of Diversion Feature Layer within the Geodatabase is "WRDIV", and the name of the Places of Use Feature Layer is "WRPOU". NevadaRights_POD_Sites: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Nevada. NewMexicoRights_Points_of_Diversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of New Mexico. OregonRights_state_shp: A folder containing 36 Shapefiles and are split between "pod" (Point of Diversion) and "pou" (Place of Use) for each water management basin within Oregon. In other words, each basin has one "pod" file and one "pou" file. The "pod" files are point shapes, and the "pou" files are polygons. UtahRights_Points_of_Diversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Utah. WashingtonRights_WaterDiversions_ECY_NHD: A Geodatabase file containing both the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Washington. The name of the Feature Layer within the Geodatabase is "WaterDiversions_ECY_NHD". WyomingRights: A folder containing four subdirectories, one for each Wyoming Water Division. Each Division directory includes a varying number of subdirectories for each Wyoming Water District. Each District folder contains two copies of the Point of Diversion records for that area, with one copying being in CSV and one copy in Microsoft Excel XLS format.

Lisk, Matthew↗

NASA NTRS2016

Passive Water Assurance Delivery System

This report provides an analysis and evaluation of proposed design improvements to the internal water delivery system of NASA’s passive vegetable growing system. The VEGGIE system is designed to provide fresh vegetables and psychological benefits for astronauts aboard the International Space Station. Preliminary testing conducted by NASA for the VEGGIE system revealed flaws in the water delivery system. In these tests, the interface between the plants and the water reservoir failed to provide passive water delivery through the system both in microgravity experiments and experiments conducted on Earth. Our team’s goal was to fix this interface such that water can be passively delivered from the water reservoir to the plant rooting pillows to grow vegetative crops from seed to harvest. The system requirements outlined by NASA include: minimal total mass, on-demand passive water delivery, same dimensions as existing fixtures, minimal pressure on system to prevent leaking, zero mold growth, minimal swelling or clogging for non-flammable capillary materials, pressure stabilization between the water reservoir and plant pillow bags, even dispersal of water during initial priming, minimal bubble obstruction of capillary interface, maximum gas availability to plant roots, growth in a mixed artificial media (50:50 Arcillite:Fafard #2), and to avoid overwatering and drought conditions for plants. The major proposed design improvements are to use a single-interface capillary cord design to directly connect the water reservoir to the plant-rooting pillows, and to alter the water reservoir to model a propellant management device (PMD) in order to ensure consistent and long term watering for the VEGGIE system. The plant rooting pillow required minimal changes outside of replacing the capillary mat on the bottom of the pillow with O-ring insertion points the single-interface capillary system. - Research was conducted to determine which materials are able to uptake water through capillary action to grow Outredgeous Lettuce plants from seed to harvest. The primary requirements to be met by the team's design and evaluation of the capillary interface were: continuous passive watering for 90 days using non-flammable capillary materials and a peak water delivery rate of 30 mL/hr./0.15 m 2 . The results of the team's experimentation showed that the capillary material Nomex displayed the highest capillary water delivery potential with a maximum flow rate of 3.6 mL/hr. The Nomex capillary systems were the only capillary material to consistently grow Outredgeous Lettuce plants from seed to harvest, and displayed the highest average flow rate for multiple experiment sets. The Nomex material was previously incorporated into the VEGGIE system using a matted version of the capillary material, though the team recommends using a cord configuration in the single-interface capillary system for greater system stability. Nomex has proven to be a promising material, as it has passed both health and fire standards for use aboard the International Space Station. PMDs are made of materials that utilize surface tension and adhesive forces to overcome adverse accelerations to improve stability and ensure fluid delivery. PMDs are typically used in fuel tanks to ensure fuel delivery. The team recommends using a sponge PMD in order to mitigate bubble obstruction, decrease system weight, and ensure reliable water delivery to the capillary interface. The PMD water reservoir requires a rigid water reservoir and a vent tube for pressure stabilization. Since PMD’s cannot be tested in 1-G (Earth conditions), further theoretical modeling and testing is required for the proposed water reservoir design. The intent of this proposed system is to passively water plants in microgravity, though the technology is not limited to microgravity applications. The testing at The Ohio State University has proven that the design is highly effective on Earth, demonstrating that it could serve as a simple water delivery system in home and office applications. This would make vegetative crops more accessible in all indoor applications, thereby improving indoor air quality and occupant comfort. Additionally, this technology has great potential to be utilized in greenhouse plant production, cutting back on more sophisticated watering system energy and time requirements.

Alexandria Jensen↗

DOE OSTI2026

Water Observations of Flow/No-Flow for the East-Taylor Watershed, Colorado (June-July 2025 and 2026)

This dataset provides multi-year, ground-truth visual observations of surface water flow/no-flow conditions within the East-Taylor Watershed, Colorado, collected during June and July of 2025 and 2026. In June and July 2025, on-the-ground visual observations of flow/no-flow were collected as part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (SFA) and Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL) Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) campaign (further details are provided within the CHESS Project Description). We obtained 377 water observations of flow/no-flow within the East-Taylor Watershed, Colorado. These ground-truth observations were collected to validate classification maps from remote sensing data and model results within the East-Taylor Watershed. In 2025, flow/no-flow measurements were collected using a field-based app for the CHESS Campaign (Zerion iForm). Within the field app, a water observation form was created to collect coordinates and metadata about the observation. Information collected for the water observation points included information about visually-assessed streamflow presence/absence (standard question obtained from Colorado State University’s StreamTracker project), flow estimate, stream or ponded area width, canopy cover, manganese films, iron seeps, and beaver activity. For 2025 water observations, this dataset contains: (1) a data file with the water observations and coordinates (2025_Water_Observations.csv); (2) a Keyhole Markup Language Zipped (KMZ) with the water observation locations and metadata (2025_Water_Observations_Locations.kmz); (3) photos (.jpg and .jpeg) of the water observation points, organized by location, contained within 2025_Water_Observations_FieldPhotographs.zip file; and (4) water observation protocols and figures (2025_Water_Observation_Protocols.pdf). In June and July 2026, on-the-ground visual observations of flow/no-flow were collected as part of the Watershed Function SFA project. We obtained 365 water observations of flow/no-flow within the East-Taylor Watershed, Colorado. The 2026 observations focused on collecting repeat measurements at the 2025 flow/no-flow observation locations conducted as part of the CHESS campaign. These ground-truth observations were collected to understand differences in flow/no-flow in 2026, given the unprecedented 2026 drought in Colorado. In 2026, flow/no-flow measurements were collected using ArcGIS (Geographic Information System) Survey123. Within the field app, a water observation form was created to collect coordinates and metadata about the observation. Information collected for the water observation points included repeat information from the 2025 water observation effort, including visually-assessed streamflow presence/absence (standard question obtained from Colorado State University’s StreamTracker project), flow estimate, stream or ponded area width, canopy cover, manganese films, iron seeps, beaver activity, and a new metadata component of estimated stream depth (for select locations). For 2026 water observations, this dataset contains: (1) a data file with the water observations and coordinates (2026_Water_Observations.csv); (2) a Keyhole Markup Language Zipped (KMZ) with the water observation locations and metadata (2026_Water_Observations_Locations.kmz); (3) photos (.jpg) of the water observation points, organized by location, contained within 2026_Water_Observations_FieldPhotographs.zip file; and (4) water observation protocols and figures (2026_Water_Observation_Protocols.pdf). For 2025 and 2026 water observations, this dataset contains: (1) a location metadata file (locations.csv); (6) a file-level metadata (flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; and (7) a data dictionary (dd.csv) file that contains column/row headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type. CHESS Project Description: The Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) comprised a multi-week airborne remote sensing and field observation campaign in the Upper Gunnison Basin, Colorado, conducted in June and July of 2025. Airborne remote sensing was conducted by the National Ecological Observatory Network Airborne Observation Platform (NEON AOP), concurrent with a field campaign run by the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL), the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory Watershed Function Science Focus Area (SFA), and NASA-JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation (EMIT) program. Between June 10 and July 18, 2025, the NEON AOP flight team collected high-resolution aerial imaging spectroscopy and Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data over three domains: the Upper East River (CRBU), Almont Triangle (ALMO), and the Upper Taylor Basin (UPTA). In coordination with the flights, a field campaign acquired ground-truth observations, including observations of vegetation composition, foliar traits, forest demography, and subsurface properties in 18 core sampling areas within the domains. Additional surface water observations were taken at over 380 point locations. All CHESS campaign datasets can be found within the CHESS ESS-DIVE data portal: https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/chess. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. 2026-09-02: This dataset was updated to include 2026 water observation measurements. The 2025 observation files were also updated to ensure a consistent file naming convention across water observation years.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗

NASA NTRS2013

Analysis of Water Recovery Rate from the Heat Melt Compactor

Human space missions generate trash with a substantial amount of plastic (20% or greater by mass). The trash also contains water trapped in food residue and paper products and other trash items. The Heat Melt Compactor (HMC) under development by NASA Ames Research Center (ARC) compresses the waste, dries it to recover water and melts the plastic to encapsulate the compressed trash. The resulting waste disk or puck represents an approximately ten-fold reduction in the volume of the initial trash loaded into the HMC. In the current design concept being pursued, the trash is compressed by a piston after it is loaded into the trash chamber. The piston face, the side walls of the waste processing chamber and the end surface in contact with the waste can be heated to evaporate the water and to melt the plastic. Water is recovered by the HMC in two phases. The first is a pre-process compaction without heat or with the heaters initially turned on but before the waste heats up. Tests have shown that during this step some liquid water may be expelled from the chamber. This water is believed to be free water (i.e., not bound with or absorbed in other waste constituents) that is present in the trash. This phase is herein termed Phase A of the water recovery process. During HMC operations, it is desired that liquid water recovery in Phase A be eliminated or minimized so that water-vapor processing equipment (e.g., condensers) downstream of the HMC are not fouled by liquid water and its constituents (i.e., suspended or dissolved matter) exiting the HMC. The primary water recovery process takes place next where the trash is further compacted while the heated surfaces reach their set temperatures for this step. This step will be referred to herein as Phase B of the water recovery process. During this step the waste chamber may be exposed to different selected pressures such as ambient, low pressure (e.g., 0.2 atm), or vacuum. The objective for this step is to remove both bound and any remaining free water in the trash by evaporation. The temperature settings of the heated surfaces are usually kept above the saturation temperature of water but below the melting temperature of the plastic in the waste during this step to avoid any encapsulation of wet trash which would reduce the amount of recovered water by blocking the vapor escape. In this paper, we analyze the water recovery rate during Phase B where the trash is heated and water leaves the waste chamber as vapor, for operation of the HMC in reduced gravity. We pursue a quasi-one-dimensional model with and without sidewall heating to determine the water recovery rate and the trash drying time. The influences of the trash thermal properties, the amount of water loading, and the distribution of the water in the trash on the water recovery rates are determined.

Heat Melt Compactor↗

DOE OSTI2023

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al, 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. west. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a collection of objects stored within an RDate file, stateWaterRightsHarmonized.RData. Each object either describes how one should interact with the other objects, or contains the harmonized water rights data. Here is each object described in detail: states: A character vector containing the state names for those states in which data was collected for. More importantly, the index of the state name is also the index in which that state's data can be found in the various following list objects. For example, if California is the third index in this object, the data for California will also be in the third index for each accompanying list. rightsByState_ground: A list of data frames with the cleaned ground water rights collected from each state. The column headers for each data frame are: waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. allocatedFlow - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. origWaterUse - The original stated water use from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. rightsByState_surface: A list of the cleaned surface water rights collected from each state. See rightsByState_ground for more details on how the data is formatted. fullRightsRecs: A list of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, these lists are the merging of rightsByState_ground and rightsByState_surface by state. See rightsByState_ground for more details on how the data is formatted. projProj: The spatial projection used for map creation in the beginning of the project. Specifically, the World Geodetic System (WGS84) as a coordinate reference system (CRS) string in PROJ.4 format. wmaStateLabel: The name and/or abbreviation for what each state legally calls their WMAs. h2oUseByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed area(s) of use in this object. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to be included in this object. h2oDivByState: A list of spatial points data frames which identifies the location of the Point of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed Point of Diversion in this object. spatialWMAByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the spatial WMA boundaries for each state. The only data contained within the table are identifiers for each polygon. It is worth reiterating that Arizona is the only state in which the surface and groundwater WMA boundaries are not the same. wmaIDByState: A list which contains the unique ID values of the WMAs for each state. plottingDim: A character vector used to inform mapping functions for internal map making. Each state is classified as either "tall" or "wide", to maximize space on a typical 8x11 page.

Economics↗

DOE OSTI2026

Conus-Wide Mapping of Water Availability and Cost

Background: New demands for water can be satisfied through a variety of source options. In some basins surface and/or groundwater may be available through permitting with the state water management agency (termed unappropriated water), alternatively water might be purchased and transferred out of its current use to another (termed appropriated water), or non-traditional water sources can be captured and treated (e.g., wastewater). The relative availability and cost of each source are key factors in the development decision. Unfortunately, these measures are location dependent with no consistent or comparable set of data available for evaluating competing water sources. With the help of water managers, water availability was mapped for over 2500 watersheds throughout CONUS. These values are unique in that they account for institutional factors (i.e., water rights, compacts, treaties, instream flows) that locally limit water use. Five water sources were individually examined, including unappropriated surface water, unappropriated groundwater, appropriated water, municipal wastewater and brackish groundwater. Associated costs to acquire, convey and treat the water, as necessary, for each of the five sources were estimated. These metrics were developed to support regional water planning and policy analysis with initial application to electric transmission planning in the western US. Problem: These data were originally developed in 20141 and updated in 20182. New datasets on which these data depend have been published. As such, there is need to update the water availability and cost data. There is also need to map this same data to a county resolution and to publish the data in a more accessible place. Organization of the dataset: Data are organized according to five primary water sources: • Unappropriated fresh surface water • Unappropriated fresh groundwater • Appropriated water • Recycled wastewater, and • Brackish water

Tidwell, Vincent [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗

NASA NTRS2011

NASA Water Resources Program

With increasing population pressure and water usage coupled with climate variability and change, water issues are being reported by numerous groups as the most critical environmental problems facing us in the 21st century. Competitive uses and the prevalence of river basins and aquifers that extend across boundaries engender political tensions between communities, stakeholders and countries. In addition to the numerous water availability issues, water quality related problems are seriously affecting human health and our environment. The potential crises and conflicts especially arise when water is competed among multiple uses. For example, urban areas, environmental and recreational uses, agriculture, and energy production compete for scarce resources, not only in the Western U.S. but throughout much of the U.S. and also in numerous parts of the world. Mitigating these conflicts and meeting water demands and needs requires using existing water resources more efficiently. The NASA Water Resources Program Element works to use NASA products and technology to address these critical water issues. The primary goal of the Water Resources is to facilitate application of NASA Earth science products as a routine use in integrated water resources management for the sustainable use of water. This also includes the extreme events of drought and floods and the adaptation to the impacts from climate change. NASA satellite and Earth system observations of water and related data provide a huge volume of valuable data in both near-real-time and extended back nearly 50 years about the Earth's land surface conditions such as precipitation, snow, soil moisture, water levels, land cover type, vegetation type, and health. NASA Water Resources Program works closely to use NASA and Earth science data with other U.S. government agencies, universities, and non-profit and private sector organizations both domestically and internationally. The NASA Water Resources Program organizes its projects under five functional themes. I) Streamflow and Flood Forecasting 2) Water Supply and Irrigation (includes evapotranspiration) 3) Drought 4) Water Quality 5) Climate and Water Resources. To maximize this activity NASA Water Resources Program works closely with other government agencies (e.g., the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA); the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), USAID, the Air Force Weather Agency (AFWA)), universities, non-profit national and international organizations, and the private sector. The NASA Water Resources program currently is funding 21 active projects under the functional themes (http://wmp.gsfc.nasa.gov & http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/applied-sciences/).

Toll, David L.↗

DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al, 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. west. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. The first two characters of each file name is the abbreviation for the state the in which the file contains data for. After the abbreviation is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file type described in detail: XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, this file is the merging of XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv and XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv by state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state the data comes from. FIPS - The two digit numeric state ID code. waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. origWaterUse - The original stated water use from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. CFS - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). Arizona is unique among the states, as its surface and groundwater resources are managed with two different sets of boundaries. So, for Arizona, the basinNum column is missing and instead there are two columns: surBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the surface water WMA the record belongs to. grdBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the groundwater WMA the record belongs to. XXStatePOD.shp: A shapefile which identifies the location of the Points of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records in XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv have coordinates, and therefore may be missing from this file. XXStatePOU.shp: A shapefile which contains the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to included within this file. XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized groundwater rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized surface water rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. Additionally, one file, stateWMALabels.csv, is not stored within a sub-directory. While we have referred to the spatial boundaries that each state uses to manage its water resources as WMAs, this term is not shared across all states. This file lists the proper name for each boundary set, by state.

Economics↗

DOE OSTI2023

Non-Fouling, Low Cost Electrolytic Coagulation & Disinfection for Treating Flowback and Produced Water for Reuse

Executive Summary This Final Report is composed of two major sections. The first section presents experimental results obtained in the laboratory during Budget Period 1. The second section presents results from the field test conducted during Budget Period 2. Laboratory Results This research investigated a novel electrochemical process for producing a ferric iron coagulant for use in treating flowback and produced water from hydraulic fracturing and oil production operations. The treatment system improves the effectiveness and lowers the cost of coagulation processes using Fe3+ as the coagulant. The electrolytic coagulant generation (ECG) system uses an electrochemical cell to produce acid and base from oilfield brine solutions. The acid is used to dissolve scrap iron to provide a Fe3+ coagulating agent. The base is used to neutralize the treated water. Compared to conventional electrocoagulation (EC), the main advantage of the ECG system is an order of magnitude lower cost for the source of iron. The second advantage over conventional EC is that it can deliver Fe3+ doses greater than 1 mM, since it is not limited by the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water required to oxidize ferrous to ferric iron. The capital costs for conventional EC and the ECG system are similar, but the operational costs for the ECG system are an order of magnitude lower than conventional EC. The combined costs for iron and electrical energy for treating 1 m3 of FPW with 1 mM Fe3+ is estimated to be $0.87 for conventional EC, and $0.087 for the ECG system. The estimated all-in cost for treating FPW with a 2 mM Fe3+ dose is $0.73/m3 ($0.12/bbl). Field Test Results The field test was conducted at the Paul Foster Central Tank Battery (CTB) in Lea County, New Mexico from November 10, 2022 through December 15, 2022. The feed water to the system was produced water from the Tatanka 1H formation. After approximately two weeks of testing, the initial batch of produced water had been treated and no untreated produced water was available. Thus, after this time, the feed water to the system consisted of previously treated water (i.e., recycled water). The recycled water had nearly all colloidal particles removed, and had a much lower alkalinity due to precipitation of carbonate minerals during the first pass through the system. Although the recycled water was not an ideal test solution due to its low particulate concentrations, its lower alkalinity did allow us to identify the main problem with the treatment system. The main problem with the treatment system was caused by the high alkalinity of the initial feed water (5.4 meq/L) that consumed a significant fraction of the electrochemically generated acid. This resulted in pH values exiting the iron contact tank that were too high to dissolve enough iron to effectively treat the produced water. Tests performed with recycled water with lower alkalinity did not have this issue, and dissolved iron concentrations greater than 20 mM could be achieved. One consistent observation was that effluent water from the iron contact tank was always free of particulates, even when fed with circumneutral solutions. This suggests that there is no need to dissolve high concentrations of iron if all the water to be treated is passed through the scrap iron canister. In this case, dissolved O2 and hypochlorous acid can promote sufficient iron corrosion to provide an effective coagulating agent – even in neutral pH water. This solves the problem resulting from highly alkaline produced water. Modifications to the design of the treatment system were made based on the field test results. These modifications will add minimal additional cost, and were tested in bench-scale laboratory experiments. In short-term testing, the modified treatment process was able to remove colloidal FeS particulates to levels below detection. Long-term, steady state testing will be required to determine whether the modified process is suitable for commercial treatment systems.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2021

Improving Discovery, Sharing, and Use of Water Data: Initial Findings and Suggested Future Work

Collaborative management of water resources requires a broad suite of “water data” that extends beyond basic information about water quantity and quality to other related topics such as water infrastructure, aquatic ecosystem health, socioeconomic factors, and power generation. Water data are disparate in nature because they are collected and provided by many entities, and in some cases, remain challenging to access and use. The U.S. Department of Energy’s Water Power Technologies Office initiated a project to characterize relevant categories of water data; describe the current state of accessing, using, and visualizing water data; and outline investigatory pathways for future efforts aimed at improving the discovery, sharing, and use of water data. Input on these topics was solicited from a small but diverse cross section of members of the water resources community. Fourteen broad categories of water data were identified: dams; ecology; flood control; hydroclimatology; hydrography; hydrology; hydropower; management landscape; migratory barriers; recreation and aesthetic importance; socioeconomic; water quality; water availability and use; and weather. Stakeholder perspectives on the accessibility and usability of water data indicate these aspects are affected by a complex set of technical and social factors. However, stakeholders generally agreed that better access to water data can provide a range of benefits to water management, and they stressed the need to generate broad support from water data users and producers. Two investigatory pathways were outlined that, taken together, provide a logical progression toward the goals of the project. The first pathway emphasizes further investigation to better define target audiences and data needs, identify opportunities for collaboration between related efforts, and conduct value demonstration activities to generate further support for improving discovery and access of water data. The second pathway focuses on creating a comprehensive vision for potential solutions that improve the discovery of water data. Several activities that align with the first pathway are suggested for the next phase of the project.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

NASA NTRS2004

Winds, Water Budgets and Stable Isotopes in Tropical Cyclones using TRMM and QUICKSCAT

Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Changes in its concentration and distribution are controlled by the hydrologic cycle. Because of its capacity to absorb and emit long wave radiation, release latent heat during condensation in storms and reflect short wave radiation when clouds form it has a major impact on Global climate change. The stable isotope ratios of water are H20 H2l6O and H0 H2l6O. These ratios change whenever water undergoes a phase change. They also change in both rain and water vapor whenever an air parcel is exposed to rain. In addition the relative changes in the two ratios differ as a &nction of the relative humidity. In short, the stable isotope ratios in water vapor in the atmosphere contain an integrated history of the processes affecting the concentration and distribution of water vapor in the atmosphere. Therefore the measurement and interpretation of changes in these stable isotope ratios are a powerful tool matched by no other method in tracing the transport history of water in the atmosphere. Our initial studies under this grant focused on the changes of the stable isotope ratios of precipitation and water vapor in tropical cyclones. The changes in time and space were found to be very large and to trace the transport of water in the storms reflecting changes in basic structural features. Because the stable isotope ratios of rains from tropical cyclones are so low flooding associated with land falling tropical cyclones introduces a negative isotopic spike into the coastal surface waters. In addition the stable isotope ratios of water vapor in the vicinity of tropical cyclones is anomalously low. This suggests that carbonate shelled organisms such as ostracoda living in coastal waters have the potential to record the isotopic spike and thereby provide a long term record of tropical storm activity in sediment cores containing fossil shells. Likewise, tree rings in coastal environments offer a similar potential. We have analyzed the oxygen isotopic composition of ostrcoda shells formed in the floodwaters of Tropical Storm Allison (2001) and discovered the negative isotopic 1 16 spike. Because we had learned that storm activity has a major impact on the stable isotope ratios of water vapor in the tropics and sub-tropics we decided to analyze the isotopic compositions of water vapor in different locations in the tropics. We did this in Puerto Escondido, Mexico in July 1998, near Kwajalein Island in the Pacific in 1999 as part of a TRMM summer field program and in 2001 in Key West, Florida as part of the CAMEX 4 summer field program. Our isotopic studies along with our earlier tropical cyclone studies showed that the low isotopic ratios in water vapor induced by exposure to rains the storms persisted for 48 hours often far away from the original storm site. We also noted that positive isotopic spikes were introduced into atmospheric water vapor if winds were high and extensive sea spray was present. These findings have a significant impact on the interpretation of the stable isotope studies of tropical ice cores found in the high mountain regions of the tropics. The assumption made in interpreting the ice core record is that the source water vapor evaporated from the sea surface is in near isotopic equilibrium with the seawater and undergoes a decrease during its transport that reflects the change in temperature from the sea surface to the site of the ice core. Because an additional isotopic depletion occurs at the sea surface source area that depends on the intensity, duration and size of the tropical rain system the isotopic variations found in the ice cores must take into account changes in past storm activity in the tropics. These systems must be an important source of water vapor to the ice cores because they charge the troposphere with water vapor to a far greater vertical height than evaporation in quiescent regions. Finally, an interest in increased heat transfer in thnterior of tropical cyclones resulting from greater amounts of sea spray is a topic of considerable interest to the research community. Increases in sea spray may be related to rapid changes in the intensity of hurricanes, a feature of hurricanes that currently is very poorly forecast. Project CBLAST of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA is an active program that uses P3 research aircraft to evaluate this problem. An instrument has been designed and built at the University of Houston that will be placed on the P3 research aircraft during the 2004 hurricane season. It continuously measures the salt content of rain in hurricanes. Changes in the salt content of the rains should reflect the abundance of sea spray at the sea surface. In this way maps of sea spray intensity in hurricanes may be forthcoming. This should help computer modelers who simulate hurricanes to better understand the potential of changes in sea spray to change the intensity of hurricanes. The cost of designing, building and installing this instrument was borne largely by funding from this NASA grant. A list of presentations at national meetings and publications that were as the result of funding from this NASA grant are found in the report.

Lawrence, James R.↗

NASA NTRS2005

Toward an Improved Understanding of the Global Fresh Water Budget

The major components of the global fresh water cycle include the evaporation from the land and ocean surfaces, precipitation onto the Ocean and land surfaces, the net atmospheric transport of water from oceanic areas over land, and the return flow of water from the land back into the ocean. The additional components of oceanic water transport are few, principally, the mixing of fresh water through the oceanic boundary layer, transport by ocean currents, and sea ice processes. On land the situation is considerably more complex, and includes the deposition of rain and snow on land; water flow in runoff; infiltration of water into the soil and groundwater; storage of water in soil, lakes and streams, and groundwater; polar and glacial ice; and use of water in vegetation and human activities. Knowledge of the key terms in the fresh water flux budget is poor. Some components of the budget, e.g. precipitation, runoff, storage, are measured with variable accuracy across the globe. We are just now obtaining precise measurements of the major components of global fresh water storage in global ice and ground water. The easily accessible fresh water sources in rivers, lakes and snow runoff are only adequately measured in the more affluent portions of the world. presents proposals are suggesting methods of making global measurements of these quantities from space. At the same time, knowledge of the global fresh water resources under the effects of climate change is of increasing importance and the human population grows. This paper provides an overview of the state of knowledge of the global fresh water budget, evaluating the accuracy of various global water budget measuring and modeling techniques. We review the measurement capabilities of satellite instruments as compared with field validation studies and modeling approaches. Based on these analyses, and on the goal of improved knowledge of the global fresh water budget under the effects of climate change, we suggest priorities for future improvements in global fresh water budget monitoring. The priorities are based on the potential of new approaches to provide improved measurement and modeling systems, and on the need to measure and understand the potential for a speed-up of the global water cycle under the effects of climate change.

Hildebrand, Peter H.↗

NASA NTRS2013

Sheet Membrane Spacesuit Water Membrane Evaporator

A document describes a sheet membrane spacesuit water membrane evaporator (SWME), which allows for the use of one common water tank that can supply cooling water to the astronaut and to the evaporator. Test data showed that heat rejection performance dropped only 6 percent after being subjected to highly contaminated water. It also exhibited robustness with respect to freezing and Martian atmospheric simulation testing. Water was allowed to freeze in the water channels during testing that simulated a water loop failure and vapor backpressure valve failure. Upon closing the backpressure valve and energizing the pump, the ice eventually thawed and water began to flow with no apparent damage to the sheet membrane. The membrane evaporator also serves to de-gas the water loop from entrained gases, thereby eliminating the need for special degassing equipment such as is needed by the current spacesuit system. As water flows through the three annular water channels, water evaporates with the vapor flowing across the hydrophobic, porous sheet membrane to the vacuum side of the membrane. The rate at which water evaporates, and therefore, the rate at which the flowing water is cooled, is a function of the difference between the water saturation pressure on the water side of the membrane, and the pressure on the vacuum side of the membrane. The primary theory is that the hydrophobic sheet membrane retains water, but permits vapor pass-through when the vapor side pressure is less than the water saturation pressure. This results in evaporative cooling of the remaining water.

Bue, Grant↗

NASA NTRS2013

Water Contents of the Mantle Beneath the Rio Grande Rift: FTIR Analysis of Kilbourne Hole Peridotite Xenoliths

Although nominally anhydrous mantle minerals contain only trace amounts of water, they are the main reservoir of water in the mantle. Added up at the scale of the Earth's mantle, these trace amounts of water represent oceans worth in mass]. Mantle xenoliths from Kilbourne Hole in southern New Mexico are ideal to study mantle water distribution in a rift tectonic setting as they come from a recently‐erupted maar in the middle of the Rio Grande Rift. Eleven lherzolites, one harzburgite, and one dunite are being analyzed for water contents by FTIR. The xenoliths will also be analyzed for major and trace element composition, Fe3+/Summation (Fe) ratios, and characterized petrologically. Olivines exhibit variable water contents with less water at the rims compared to the cores. This is probably due to H loss during decompression and xenolith transport by the host magma. Mantle water contents appear to have been primarily preserved in the core of the olivines, based on diffusion modeling of the typically plateau-shaped water content profiles across these grains. Water concentrations are in equilibrium between clino- and orthopyroxene, but olivine concentrations are typically not in equilibrium with those of either pyroxene. Lherzolites analyzed so far have water contents of 2‐12 ppm H2O in olivines, 125‐165 ppm H2O in orthopyroxenes, and 328‐447 ppm H2O in clinopyroxenes. These water contents are similar to, but with a narrower range, than those for the respective minerals in other continental peridotite xenoliths. The lherzolites have bulk-rock (BR) Al2O3 contents that range between 3.17 and 3.78 wt%, indicating similar degrees of partial melting, which could explain the narrow range of their pyroxene water contents. Primitive mantle normalized rare earth element (REE) profiles of the bulk lherzolites vary from light REE depleted to flat, with no significant differences between, nor relation to, their mineral water contents. Consequently, the metasomatic agents that enriched LREEs in these lherzolites were most likely water-poor. The harzburgite and the dunite have lower weight percent Al2O3 compared to the lherzolites (2.11% and 0.34% respectively) indicating higher degrees of melting. Their olivine water contents, however, are similar to those of the lherzolites. Moreover, no correlations are observed between pyroxene water contents and indices of melting or metasomatism between the lherzolite group, the harzburgite, and the dunite, although the latter has the lowest pyroxene water contents. More samples will be analyzed to determine if the water contents are controlled by melting, metasomatism, or a combination of the two in the Kilbourne Hole mantle.

Schaffer, Lillian A.↗

NASA NTRS2014

Determining the Source of Water Vapor in a Cerium Oxide Electrochemical Oxygen Separator to Achieve Aviator Grade Oxygen

More than a metric ton of water is transported to the International Space Station (ISS) each year to provide breathing oxygen for the astronauts. Water is a safe and compact form of stored oxygen. The water is electrolyzed on ISS and ambient pressure oxygen is delivered to the cabin. A much smaller amount of oxygen is used each year in spacesuits to conduct Extra Vehicular Activities (EVAs). Space suits need high pressure (>1000 psia) high purity oxygen (must meet Aviator Breathing Oxygen "ABO" specifications, >99.5% O2). The water / water electrolysis system cannot directly provide high pressure, high purity oxygen, so oxygen for EVAs is transported to ISS in high pressure gas tanks. The tanks are relatively large and heavy, and the majority of the system launch weight is for the tanks and not the oxygen. Extracting high purity oxygen from cabin air and mechanically compressing the oxygen might enable on-board production of EVA grade oxygen using the existing water / water electrolysis system. This capability might also benefit human spaceflight missions, where oxygen for EVAs could be stored in the form of water, and converted into high pressure oxygen on-demand. Cerium oxide solid electrolyte-based ion transport membranes have been shown to separate oxygen from air, and a supported monolithic wafer form of the CeO2 electrolyte membrane has been shown to deliver oxygen at pressures greater than 300 psia. These supported monolithic wafers can withstand high pressure differentials even though the membrane is very thin, because the ion transport membrane is supported on both sides (Fig 1). The monolithic supported wafers have six distinct layers, each with matched coefficients of thermal expansion. The wafers are assembled into a cell stack which allows easy air flow across the wafers, uniform current distribution, and uniform current density (Fig 2). The oxygen separation is reported to be "infinitely selective" to oxygen [1] with reported purity of 99.99% [2]. Combined with a mechanical compressor, a Solid Electrolyte Oxygen Separator (SEOS) should be capable of producing ABO grade oxygen at pressures >2400 psia, on the space station. Feasibility tests using a SEOS integrated with a mechanical compressor identified an unexpected contaminant in the oxygen: water vapour was found in the oxygen product, sometimes at concentrations higher than 40 ppm (the ABO limit for water vapour is 7 ppm). If solid electrolyte membranes are really "infinitely selective" to oxygen as they are reported to be, where did the water come from? If water is getting into the oxygen, what other contaminants might get into the oxygen? Microscopic analyses of wafers, welds, and oxygen delivery tubes were performed in an attempt to find the source of the water vapour contamination. Hot and cold pressure decay tests were performed. Measurements of water vapour as a function of O2 delivery rate, O2 delivery pressure, and process air humidity levels were the most instructive in finding the source of water contamination (Fig 3). Water contamination was directly affected by oxygen delivery rate (doubling the oxygen production rate cut the water level in half). Water was affected by process air humidity levels and delivery pressure in a way that indicates the water was diffusing into the oxygen delivery system.

Graf, John↗

DOE OSTI2020

Evaluating cross-sectoral impacts of climate change and adaptations on the energy-water nexus: a framework and California case study

Abstract Electricity and water systems are inextricably linked through water demands for energy generation, and through energy demands for using, moving, and treating water and wastewater. Climate change may stress these interdependencies, together referred to as the energy-water nexus, by reducing water availability for hydropower generation and by increasing irrigation and electricity demand for groundwater pumping, among other feedbacks. Further, many climate adaptation measures to augment water supplies—such as water recycling and desalination—are energy-intensive. However, water and electricity system climate vulnerabilities and adaptations are often studied in isolation, without considering how multiple interactive risks may compound. This paper reviews the fragmented literature and develops a generalized framework for understanding these implications of climate change on the energy-water nexus. We apply this framework in a case study to quantify end-century direct climate impacts on California’s water and electricity resources and estimate the magnitude of the indirect cross-sectoral feedback of electricity demand from various water adaptation strategies. Our results show that increased space cooling demand and decreased hydropower generation are the most significant direct climate change impacts on California’s electricity sector by end-century. In California’s water sector, climate change impacts directly on surface water availability exceed demand changes, but have considerable uncertainty, both in direction and magnitude. Additionally, we find that the energy demands of water sector climate adaptations could significantly affect California’s future electricity system needs. If the worst-case water shortage occurs under climate change, water-conserving adaptation measures can provide large energy savings co-benefits, but other energy-intensive water adaptations may double the direct impacts of climate change on the state’s electricity resource requirement. These results highlight the value of coordinated adaptation planning between the energy and water sectors to achieve mutually beneficial solutions for climate resilience.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗