No abstract

One of the great challenges faced by the Nation's water-resources scientists is the need for reliable information that will guide the protection of our water resources. That challenge is being addressed by Federal, State, interstate, and local water-resource agencies, and by academic institutions. Many of these agencies are collecting water-quality data for a host of purposes, including compliance with permits and water-supply standards; development of remediation plans for specific contamination problems; operational decisions on industrial, wastewater, or watersupply facilities; and research on water quality. Prominent is the need for information of regional and national scope, and on the trends and causes of water-quality conditions. Without this information, policy decisions may be based on information from a few localized problems. Conversely, a lack of information may lead to a false sense that some problems do not exist. In the past two decades, billions of dollars have been spent on water-quality data-collection programs. However, only a small part of the data collected for these programs has been obtained specifically to assess the status, trends, and causes of water-quality conditions on regional and national scales. Also, in some instances, the utility of these data for present and future regional and national assessments is limited by such factors as the areal extent of the sampling network, frequency of sample collection, and the types of water-quality characteristics determined. Water-quality data collected for permits and for compliance and enforcement purposes constitute a sizable source of information that may be suitable for regional and national assessments. Such data must, however, be carefully screened before use. The needs, uses, and types of water-quality data vary widely, and data collected for one purpose are not necessarily suitable for other purposes. In fact, the use of unsuitable data in regional or national assessments can be much worse than a lack of information, because the use of such data can lead to incorrect conclusions having far-reaching consequences. Accordingly, the U.S. Geological Survey, with cooperation from other agencies and from universities, has undertaken a three-phase study in Colorado and Ohio to determine the characteristics of existing Federal and other public-agency waterquality data-collection programs and to evaluate the suitability of the data bases from these programs for use in water-quality assessments of regional and national scope. This report describes results of the second phase of the study. This study does not imply that past and present data-collection programs have failed or are inappropriate for their intended purposes. The data from those programs may fully meet individual agency needs and fulfill their mandated requirements, yet may have only limited relevance to water-quality questions of regional and national scope. This study has depended heavily on cooperation and information from many Federal, State, regional, and local agencies and academ...

Page Figure 1. Photographs showing different land uses that can affect water quality: (A) Crop irrigation in eastern Colorado, and (B) strip mining for coal in eastern Ohio 2. Charts showing distribution of water-quality samples reported during 1984 by organizational category: (A) Colorado and (B) Ohio 3. Charts showing percentages of samples reported during 1984 for the purposes of meeting permit requirements, undertaking compliance-and-enforcement activities, or characterizing ambient conditions: (A) Colorado and (B) Ohio 4-7 Graphs showing: 4 Comparison of the numbers of water-quality samples reported for the purposes of meeting permit requirements, undertaking compliance-and-enforcement activities, or characterizing ambient conditions in Colorado and Ohio, 1984 5. Number of surface-water samples reported during 1984 by major property and constituent groups: (A) Colorado and (B) Ohio 6. Number of groundwater samples reported during 1984 by major property and constituent groups: (A) Colorado and (B) Ohio 7. Number of surface-and groundwater samples by major property and constituent groups, Colorado and Ohio, 1984 8. Charts showing percentages of estimated laboratory costs for the purposes of meeting permit requirements, undertaking compliance-and-enforcement activities, or characterizing ambient conditions during 1984: (A) Colorado and (B) Ohio 9. Graph showing estimated costs for laboratory analysis of surface-and groundwater samples, by property and constituent group, 1984: (A) Colorado and (B) Ohio 32 10-13. Charts summarizing: 10. Screening results for Colorado and Ohio, 1984: (A) surface-water samples, and (B) their estimated laboratory costs 11. Screening results for surface-water samples for Federal, State, regional, and local agencies and academic institutions, 1984: (A) Colorado and (B) Ohio 12. Screening results for Colorado and Ohio, 1984: (A) groundwater samples, and (B) their estimated laboratory costs 40 13. Screening results for groundwater samples for Federal, State, regional, and local agencies and academic institutions, 1984: (A) Colorado and (B) Ohio vi Table 14. Estimated surface-water-quality laboratory costs for ambient and compliance-and-enforcement programs, after screening, for physical properties and major-constituent groups, Colorado, 1984 15. Estimated groundwater quality laboratory costs for ambient and compliance-and-enforcement programs, after screening, for physical properties and major-constituent groups, Colorado, 1984 16. Number of surface-water samples and estimated costs of: all measurements and analyses reported; those meeting either the ambient conditions or the data-availability criteria; and those meeting both screening criteria, by source of data, Ohio, 1984 17. Number of groundwater samples and estimated costs of: all measurements and analyses reported; those meeting either the ambient conditions or the data-availability criteria; and those meeting both screening criteria, by source of data, Ohio, 1984 18. Number of surface-water samples and estimated costs of: those m...

ForewordOne of the challenges faced by the Nation is the development of reliable information that will guide the protection of our water resources. That challenge is being addressed by Federal, State, interstate, and local waterresource agencies and by academic institutions. Many of these agencies are collecting water data for a host of purposes, including compliance with permits and water-supply standards; development of remediation plans for specific contamination problems; operational decisions on industrial, wastewater, or water-supply facilities; and research on water quality and quantity. Prominent is the need for information of regional and national scope on the status and causes of current water-quality conditions and trends. Without this information, policy decisions may be based on information from a few localized problems. Conversely, a lack of information may lead to a false sense that some problems do not exist. In the past two decades, billions of dollars have been spent on water-quality data-collection programs. However, only a small part of the data collected for these programs has been obtained specifically to assess the status, trends, and causes of ambient water-quality conditions at regional and national scales. In some instances, the utility of these data for present and future regional and national assessments is limited by such factors as the areal extent of the sampling network, frequency of sample collection, and the types of water-quality characteristics determined.Water-quality data collected for permits and for compliance and enforcement purposes constitute a sizable source of information that may be suitable for regional and national assessments. However, such data need to be carefully screened before use. The needs, uses, and types of water-quality data vary widely, and data collected for one purpose are not necessarily suitable for other purposes. In fact, the use of unsuitable data in regional or national assessments can be much worse than a lack of information because the use of such data can lead to incorrect conclusions having far-reaching consequences.Accordingly, the U.S. Geological Survey, with cooperation from other agencies and universities, has undertaken a three-phase study in Colorado and Ohio to determine the characteristics of existing Federal and other publicagency water-quality data-collection programs and to evaluate the suitability of the data bases from these programs for use in water-quality assessments of regional and national scope. This report describes results of the third and final phase of the study. This study does not imply that past and present data-collection programs have failed or are inappropriate for their intended purposes. The data from those programs may fully meet individual agency needs and fulfill their mandated requirements, yet may have only limited relevance to water-quality questions of regional and national scope.This study has depended considerably on cooperation and information from many Federal, State, regional, and local agencies and...

Two samples were collected from each of six wells in a small watershed in Jefferson County, Ohio, in 1984. The watershed was mined and reclamation begun in 1980. Data collected from 1976 through 1982 indicate that groundwater quality was still changing at that time. The purpose of this study was to determine to what extent groundwater quality continued to change 4 years after mining. The upper saturated zone was destroyed by mining and replaced by spoils material during reclamation. A new saturated zone then formed in the spoils material. The premining median concentratrations of sulfate, manganese, and dissolved solids in the upper saturated zone were 84 milligrams per liter (mg/L), 30 micrograms per liter (ug/L) , and 335 mg/L, respectively. The postmining median concentrations of these constituents in the upper-zone wells disturbed by mining were 360 mg/L, 595 ug/L, and 814 mg/L, respectively. Concentrations of these constituents were still increasing in 1984 in the upper saturated zone. In the area not disturbed by mining, concentrations have remained nearly at premining levels. The premining median concentrations of sulfate, manganese, and dissolved solids in the middle saturated zone were 47 mg/L, 10 ug/L, and 405 mg/L, respectively. The postmining median concentrations of these constituents were 390 mg/L, 490 jag/L, and 959 mg/L, respectively. In the middle saturated zone, concentrations of these constituents also were still increasing in 1984, probably due to mixing with water of the upper saturated zone.