In 2024, West Virginia was the most expensive U.S. state regarding water rates, with an average monthly bill of almost *** U.S. dollars. On the contrary, the states with the lowest average water bill during the same period were Vermont and Wisconsin.

The price of tap water in the United States varied greatly from city to city in 2021. One of the most expensive cities for tap water in the U.S. is San Francisco, where one cubic meter costs an average of **** U.S. dollars per cubic meter. In comparison, citizens in the Arizona state capital of Phoenix paid, on average, **** U.S. dollars per cubic meter. This is roughly ** percent lower than the U.S. average. Rising water bills in the U.S. Over the past decade, water bills in the U.S. have increased considerably in a number of major cities. In Austin, Texas, water bills rose by *** U.S. dollars between 2010 and 2018, an increase of *** percent. The sharp rising costs has left many in the United States with unaffordable water bills, especially in low income areas in cities such as New Orleans, Cleveland, and Santa Fe. U.S. water crisis One of the reasons for the rising water bills in the U.S. is the aging and deteriorating water infrastructure. In addition to rising bills, outdated treatment plants with leaking pipes have resulted in harmful toxins and chemicals contaminating drinking water. A number of highly populated cities in the U.S. have been found to have high concentrations of PFAs in tap water, exposing millions of people to potentially unsafe drinking water.

Of the selected cities shown, many of the lowest drinking water prices are in Asia. Mumbai, India had the lowest average tap water price in 2021, at just **** U.S. dollars per 100 cubic meters. The capital city of the Indian state of Karnataka, Bangalore had the second lowest water price, where 100 cubic meters of drinking water cost **** U.S. dollars. The city of Miami in the US American state of Florida has one of the lowest tap water prices outside Asia at ***** U.S. dollars per 100 cubic meters. Most expensive water prices The price of water varies around the world, with some of the highest found in Europe. For example, in Oslo, Norway, citizens pay an average of *** U.S. dollars per 100 cubic meters. In the United States, cities with high levels of water stress – such as Los Angeles and San Diego – also pay high prices for tap water. The cost of water in many U.S. cities has been increasing in recent years, with water bills in San Diego having increased by *** U.S. dollars between 2010 and 2018. Water consumption Globally, per capita water withdrawals are highest in the U.S., with the average American withdrawing ***** cubic meters of water a year. This is roughly twice the per capita withdrawals in Japan, and four times more than in Germany.

The cost of providing safe, reliable water services in the United States is increasing for utilities and their customers, raising questions about the scale and scope of water affordability challenges. How we measure and understand water affordability is debated. Here, we developed an open and repeatable approach that calculates five affordability metrics, including a new metric that combines affordability prevalence and burden along a continuum. We calculated these metrics for multiple volumes of water usage (from 0 to 16,000 gallons per month) using rate data available in 2020 at the scale of census block groups and service areas. We applied this approach to 1,791 utilities in four states (California, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Texas), which cumulatively serve 72 million persons. We found 77% of utilities had more than 20% of their population below 200% of the federal poverty level, suggesting widespread poverty contributes to affordability challenges for many utilities. Minimum wage earners spend more than a day of labor per month to pay water bills for relatively low usage (4,000 gallons per month) in 67% of utilities, but upwards of 3 days of labor at higher volumes (12,000 gallons per month) in 29% of utilities. Depending on how much water a household uses, our results suggest a tenth to a third of households are working more than a day each month to afford their water bills. We developed an interactive data visualization tool to bring greater transparency to water affordability by allowing users to explore affordability at the block group and utility scale at different volumes of usage. The underlying data in the visualization tool can be expanded and updated over time, further increasing the transparency and understanding of water affordability in the U.S. ... [Read More]

In 2018, the share of low income residents in New Orleans, Louisiana living in areas with unaffordable water bills amounted to almost 80 percent. Water bills that exceed four percent of a households income are deemed unaffordable. This was followed by Cleveland, Ohio, where an estimated 74 percent of the cities low income population lived in areas with unaffordable bills.

Water bills increased dramatically in the United States between 2010 and 2018, with bills rising by 830 and 640 U.S. dollars in Cleveland and New Orleans respectively.

Percentage of systems with extreme water bills by state and ownership type.

In 2018, an estimated 44.84 percent of the population of Cleveland, Ohio lived in areas with unaffordable water bills. This was followed by New Orleans, Louisiana where some 36 percent of the cities population had unaffordable bills. Water bills that exceed four percent of a households income are deemed unaffordable.

Whilst New Orleans was ranked second in terms of total population, the population of low income residents living in areas with unaffordable water bills rose to 79 percent.

Since 2010, water bills across the United States have increased significantly, with some cities experiencing a growth of 154 percent.

A comprehensive dataset of average residential, commercial, and combined electricity rates in cents per kWh for all 50 U.S. states.

This dataset describes public-supply groundwater use by aquifer type within the glaciated conterminous United States between 2005 and 2014. All or part of 24 states within this glaciated region were included. The US Safe Drinking Water Act defines a "public water system" as an entity that provides water for human consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances to at least 15 service connections or serves an average of at least 25 people for at least 60 days out of the year (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1998). Water may be used for several purposes such as for commercial, industrial, and residential use, or may be used only for one specific purpose such as for residential use. This dataset includes public-supply water systems that furnish their own groundwater supply, purchase groundwater from a neighboring water system, or are mixed water systems that use both ground- and surface water. Groundwater sources include wells, springs, and cross-connections to another public groundwater system. Systems that use exclusively surface water are excluded from this dataset. The surface-water sources and withdrawals of mixed water systems are excluded; however, some population served values might include persons served surface water. Groundwater-use data that were collected from various agencies and resources spanned 2005-14, with a target year of 2010. Of the compiled withdrawal records, 95 percent were within the last five years, 2009-14, and 79 percent were from 2010. The year 2010 was chosen because it is the most recent year the USGS 5-year compilation report was published in United States Geological Survey (USGS) Circular 1405 (Maupin and others, 2014). The goal was to differentiate groundwater withdrawals from unconsolidated sediments of the Quaternary Period, glacial sand and gravel deposits and stream-valley alluvium, from other non-Quaternary aquifers, mostly bedrock aquifers. There are five aquifer types defined in this study, which are Quaternary, Cretaceous (unconsolidated deposits of the Cretaceous Period), Bedrock, Mixed, and Unknown. The water-use records include data from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and state agency databases. These records include 1) identifiers for the water system in the USEPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) database, 2) type of public water supply system, 3) location, 4) population served by the system, 5) withdrawal rates, 6) well construction information, and 7) aquifer used. Most water systems and water sources were identified and located from the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) (USEPA, 2013). Information on withdrawal rates, aquifer source, and well construction were compiled and cross-referenced from state and federal databases. Every water system and groundwater source had a withdrawal rate calculated or estimated. 90 percent (64,151 of 71,566 records) of the water system records had aquifer type assigned (either matched by associated records or estimated), and 41 percent (42,861 of 103,688 records) of the groundwater source records had well depth matched or inferred. The glacial aquifer system is an important source of water supply for the United States. Around 2010, total population served by groundwater from public water systems within the glaciated region is 42.9 million persons, and around 2010, total public-supply withdrawal is around 5,367 cubic hectometers per year (hm3/yr) or 3,884 million gallons per day (Mgal/d). Exactly half of the total public-supply withdrawal was from Quaternary sediments, more if some part of the withdrawals from mixed and unknown aquifer types is included.

Alaska, Hawaii, and Connecticut were the states with the highest average monthly utility costs in the United States in 2023. Residents paid about ****** U.S. dollars for their electricity bills in Hawaii, while the average monthly bill for natural gas came to *** U.S. dollars. This was significantly higher than in any other state. Bigger homes have higher utility costs Despite regional variations, single-family homes in the United States have grown bigger in size since 1975. This trend also means that, unless homeowners invest in energy savings measures, they will have to pay more for their utility costs. Which are the most affordable states to live in? According to the cost of living index, the three most affordable states to live in are Mississippi, Kansas, and Oklahoma. At the other end of the scale are Hawaii, District of Columbia, and New York. The index is based on housing, utilities, grocery items, transportation, health care, and miscellaneous goods and services. To buy a median priced home in Kansas City, a prospective home buyer will have to earn an annual salary of about ****** U.S. dollars.

These data were collected to support a drought-vulnerability assessment and near real-time drought awareness web tool for public water systems (PWS) on surface water supply in West Virginia. PWS withdrawal rates were evaluated against USGS low-flow stream statistics, modeled streamflow from the National Water Model, and thresholds from state drought response guidelines and ecological-flow literature. Other PWS information relevant to water management, including flow regulation and water storage is included. Description of Data: These data are available in Excel (.xlsx) files and comma-separated text files (.csv) for access in nonproprietary formats. The "sites" file contains attribute information for each PWS intake, including flow regulation and reservoirs. The "wd" file contains the monthly withdrawal information used to generate summary statistics. Data Sources: These data were not collected by the USGS. Monthly water withdrawal data for public water systems (PWS) was provided by West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection's Large Quantity User (LQU) reporting program. These data were used to calculate monthly withdrawal rates for selected PWS using surface water supply. The LQU dataset is self-reported. Basic quality control checks, including summary statistics, box plots, and time series plots were performed and data-entry errors were corrected when identified. PWS with redundant intakes on the same waterbody (primary and secondary) had withdrawals from the secondary intake (ID007, ID073, ID084, ID098, and ID101) reassigned to the primary intake and the secondary intake was removed from further analysis. Streamflow regulation and minimum flows were determined by a GIS tool developed by the Technical Applications and GIS Unit of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP). The presence and storage capacity of reservoirs was determined by review of information from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' National Inventory of Dams. The presence of smaller dams and weirs was determined by aerial or satellite imagery and noted, but no further effort was made to estimate storage capacity or impact on streamflow. Note: Disclosing specific location information for PWS intakes conflicts with West Virginia state law and USGS policy. For this publicly-accessible USGS Data Release and the near real-time drought awareness web tool, PWS locations are aggregated to the county or 10-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC10) watershed. Further discussion of data, methods, analysis, and limitations are included in the associated USGS Open File Report 2023-XXXX.

As of January 2023, the average quarterly water bill for households in Australia was the highest in the state of Queensland, at a value of *** Australian dollars. Households in Victoria, Australia reported the lowest average water bill in the same period.

A table listing the average electricity rates (kWh) of all 50 U.S. states as of March 2025.

The map shows total municipal needs by province and territory. Domestic water consumption includes the quantity of water used for household purposes such as washing, food preparation, and bathing. Across Canada, nearly all of the water used by municipal water systems comes from lakes and rivers the remainder (12% of the total) comes from groundwater. Establishing and maintaining water systems is costly. There are three major costs: water supply, infrastructure maintenance, and administration. Water prices across Canada are generally low compared to other countries. Monthly bills range between $15 and $90, the lowest being in Quebec, Newfoundland, and British Columbia, and the highest in the Prairie Provinces and northern Canada. Although water usage rates vary across Canada, the overall per capita use is very high compared to that of other industrialized countries. Only the United States has higher rates of municipal water usage.

Soils vary widely in their ability to retain or drain water. The rate at which water drains into the soil has a direct effect on the amount and timing of runoff, what crops can be grown, and where wetlands form. In soils with low drainage rates water will pond on the soil"s surface. This layer summarizes soil drainage rates in eight classes:Excessively drained:Water is removed very rapidly. The occurrence of internal free water commonly is very rare or very deep. The soils are commonly coarse-textured and have very high hydraulic conductivity or are very shallow.Somewhat excessively drained:Water is removed from the soil rapidly. Internal free water occurrence commonly is very rare or very deep. The soils are commonly coarse-textured and have high saturated hydraulic conductivity or are very shallow.Well drained:Water is removed from the soil readily but not rapidly. Internal free water occurrence commonly is deep or very deep; annual duration is not specified. Water is available to plants throughout most of the growing season in humid regions. Wetness does not inhibit growth of roots for significant periods during most growing seasons. The soils are mainly free of the deep to redoximorphic features that are related to wetness.Moderately well drained:Water is removed from the soil somewhat slowly during some periods of the year. Internal free water occurrence commonly is moderately deep and transitory through permanent. The soils are wet for only a short time within the rooting depth during the growing season, but long enough that most mesophytic crops are affected. They commonly have a moderately low or lower saturated hydraulic conductivity in a layer within the upper 1 m, periodically receive high rainfall, or both.Somewhat poorly drained:Water is removed slowly so that the soil is wet at a shallow depth for significant periods during the growing season. The occurrence of internal free water commonly is shallow to moderately deep and transitory to permanent. Wetness markedly restricts the growth of mesophytic crops, unless artificial drainage is provided. The soils commonly have one or more of the following characteristics: low or very low saturated hydraulic conductivity, a high water table, additional water from seepage, or nearly continuous rainfall.Poorly drained:Water is removed so slowly that the soil is wet at shallow depths periodically during the growing season or remains wet for long periods. The occurrence of internal free water is shallow or very shallow and common or persistent. Free water is commonly at or near the surface long enough during the growing season so that most mesophytic crops cannot be grown, unless the soil is artificially drained. The soil, however, is not continuously wet directly below plow-depth. Free water at shallow depth is usually present. This water table is commonly the result of low or very low saturated hydraulic conductivity of nearly continuous rainfall, or of a combination of these.Very poorly drained:Water is removed from the soil so slowly that free water remains at or very near the ground surface during much of the growing season. The occurrence of internal free water is very shallow and persistent or permanent. Unless the soil is artificially drained, most mesophytic crops cannot be grown. The soils are commonly level or depressed and frequently ponded. If rainfall is high or nearly continuous, slope gradients may be greater.Subaqueous Soils:Free water is above the soil surface. Internal free water occurrence is permanent, and there is a positive water potential at the soil surface for more than 21 hours of each day. The soils have a peraquic soil moisture regime.For more information on the classifications see the Soil Survey Manual section on Soil Water. Dataset SummaryPhenomenon Mapped: Drainage Class of SoilsGeographic Extent: Contiguous United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, Republic of Palau, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and American Samoa.Projection: Web Mercator Auxiliary SphereData Coordinate System: WKID 5070 USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic USGS version (contiguous US, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands), WKID 3338 WGS 1984 Albers (Alaska), WKID 4326 WGS 1984 Decimal Degrees (Guam, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, Republic of Palau, Federated States of Micronesia, American Samoa, and Hawaii).Units: ClassesCell Size: 30 metersSource Type: DiscretePixel Type: Unsigned integerSource: Natural Resources Conservation ServiceUpdate Frequency: AnnualPublication Date: December 2024 Data from the gNATSGO database was used to create the layer. This layer is derived from the 30m rasters produced by the Natural Resources Conservation Service(NRCS). The value for drainage class is derived from the gSSURGO map unit aggregated attribute table field Drainage Class - Dominant Condition (drclassdcd). What can you do with this layer?This layer is suitable for both visualization and analysis acrossthe ArcGIS system. This layer can be combined with your data and other layers from the ArcGIS Living Atlas of the World in ArcGIS Online and ArcGIS Pro to create powerful web maps that can be used alone or in a story map or other application. Because this layer is part of the ArcGIS Living Atlas of the World it is easy to add to your map:In ArcGIS Online, you can add this layer to a map by selecting Add then Browse Living Atlas Layers. A window will open. Type "drainage class" in the search box and browse to the layer. Select the layer then click Add to Map. In ArcGIS Pro, open a map and select Add Data from the Map Tab. Select Data at the top of the drop down menu. The Add Data dialog box will open on the left side of the box, expandPortalif necessary, then select Living Atlas. Type "drainage class" in the search box, browse to the layer then click OK. In ArcGIS Pro you can use the built-in raster functions or create your own to create custom extracts of the data. Imagery layers provide fast, powerful inputs to geoprocessing tools, models, or Python scripts in Pro. The ArcGIS Living Atlas of the World provides an easy way to explore many other beautiful and authoritative maps on hundreds of topics like this one. Questions?Please leave a comment below if you have a question about this layer, and we will get back to you as soon as possible.

This data release contains ten data tables and a data dictionary for the Technical Assistance Agreement (TAA) between the U.S. Geological Survey and the San Francisco Estuary Institute titled "Lower San Francisco Bay Bivalve Grazing Rates”. The data are provided in comma-delimited value spreadsheets as well as Microsoft Excel Worksheet formats.

The Water and Air Quality Testing Services industry has weather volatility, navigating changes across downstream construction, business spending and government funding that the industry relies on. Most companies rely on long-term client contracts that create stable expenditures on testing laboratories, underpinned by required quality regulation. However, the economy was upended by the pandemic, resulting in a contraction in industrial production, slowing commercial construction and producing wild swings in commodity prices. While this slowed water and air quality testing spending, low interest rates spurred investment in new residential housing. At the same time, the federal government made unprecedented investments in modernizing the nation’s infrastructure, producing a surge in spending on industry testing services. The industry has weathered this volatility, with revenue forecast to rise at a CAGR of 1.9% to $8.8 billion over the five years to 2024, including growth of 1.0% in 2024 alone. COVID-19 created a singular opportunity for government spending. In 2021, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) allocated some $1.2 trillion in spending on roads, bridges, airports and broadband. In 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 made the single largest investment in climate and energy in US history, including a record $296.0 investment in air monitoring. These bills have raised federal spending on infrastructure to levels unseen in decades, with new projects translating into greater reliance on water and air quality testing. These spending packages come on the heels of a push for more stringent environmental regulation. The 2014 water quality crisis in Flint, MI has cast a long shadow, underscoring the need for greater oversight by regulatory bodies and fostering the conditions for investment in infrastructure modernization. Water and air quality testing services will continue on account of healthy construction markets and rising infrastructure spending on the part of the federal government. With funding from the BIL and IRA set to flow through at least 2026, municipal governments will continue to invest in water systems testing and infrastructure upgrades. Testing companies will be essential in feasibility studies and post-completion environmental analysis. The five years to 2029 are expected to see industry revenue rise at a CAGR of 2.4% to $9.9 billion. Likewise, profit margins will continue to expand amid favorable spending trends among the industry’s client base.

The city of Rapid City and other water users in the Rapid City area obtain water supplies from the Minnelusa and Madison aquifers, which are contained in the Minnelusa and Madison hydrogeologic units. A numerical groundwater-flow model of the Minnelusa and Madison hydrogeologic units in the Rapid City area was developed to synthesize estimates of water-budget components and hydraulic properties, and to provide a tool to analyze the effect of additional stress on water-level altitudes within the aquifers and on discharge to springs. This report, prepared in cooperation with the city of Rapid City, documents a numerical groundwater-flow model of the Minnelusa and Madison hydrogeologic units for the 1,000-square-mile study area that includes Rapid City and the surrounding area. Water-table conditions generally exist in outcrop areas of the Minnelusa and Madison hydrogeologic units, which form generally concentric rings that surround the Precambrian core of the uplifted Black Hills. Confined conditions exist east of the water-table areas in the study area. The Minnelusa hydrogeologic unit is 375 to 800 feet (ft) thick in the study area with the more permeable upper part containing predominantly sandstone and the less permeable lower part containing more shale and limestone than the upper part. Shale units in the lower part generally impede flow between the Minnelusa hydrogeologic unit and the underlying Madison hydrogeologic unit; however, fracturing and weathering may result in hydraulic connections in some areas. The Madison hydrogeologic unit is composed of limestone and dolomite that is about 250 to 610 ft thick in the study area, and the upper part contains substantial secondary permeability from solution openings and fractures. Recharge to the Minnelusa and Madison hydrogeologic units is from streamflow loss where streams cross the outcrop and from infiltration of precipitation on the outcrops (areal recharge). MODFLOW-2000, a finite-difference groundwater-flow model, was used to simulate flow in the Minnelusa and Madison hydrogeologic units with five layers. Layer 1 represented the fractured sandstone layers in the upper 250 ft of the Minnelusa hydrogeologic unit, and layer 2 represented the lower part of the Minnelusa hydrogeologic unit. Layer 3 represented the upper 150 ft of the Madison hydrogeologic unit, and layer 4 represented the less permeable lower part. Layer 5 represented an approximation of the underlying Deadwood aquifer to simulate upward flow to the Madison hydrogeologic unit. The finite-difference grid, oriented 23 degrees counterclockwise, included 221 rows and 169 columns with a square cell size of 492.1 ft in the detailed study area that surrounded Rapid City. The northern and southern boundaries for layers 1-4 were represented as no-flow boundaries, and the boundary on the east was represented with head-dependent flow cells. Streamflow recharge was represented with specified-flow cells, and areal recharge to layers 1-4 was represented with a specified-flux boundary. Calibration of the model was accomplished by two simulations: (1) steady-state simulation of average conditions for water years 1988-97 and (2) transient simulations of water years 1988-97 divided into twenty 6-month stress periods. Flow-system components represented in the model include recharge, discharge, and hydraulic properties. The steady-state streamflow recharge rate was 42.2 cubic feet per second (ft3/s), and transient streamflow recharge rates ranged from 14.1 to 102.2 ft3/s. The steady-state areal recharge rate was 20.9 ft3/s, and transient areal recharge rates ranged from 1.1 to 98.4 ft3/s. The upward flow rate from the Deadwood aquifer to the Madison hydrogeologic unit was 6.3 ft3/s. Discharge included springflow, water use, flow to overlying units, and regional outflow. The estimated steady-state springflow of 32.8 ft3/s from seven springs was similar to the simulated springflow of 31.6 ft3/s, which included 20.5 ft3

Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, the decennial census is the official source of population totals for April 1st of each decennial year. In between censuses, the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities, and towns and estimates of housing units and the group quarters population for states and counties..Information about the American Community Survey (ACS) can be found on the ACS website. Supporting documentation including code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing, and a full list of ACS tables and table shells (without estimates) can be found on the Technical Documentation section of the ACS website.Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section..Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.ACS data generally reflect the geographic boundaries of legal and statistical areas as of January 1 of the estimate year. For more information, see Geography Boundaries by Year..Users must consider potential differences in geographic boundaries, questionnaire content or coding, or other methodological issues when comparing ACS data from different years. Statistically significant differences shown in ACS Comparison Profiles, or in data users' own analysis, may be the result of these differences and thus might not necessarily reflect changes to the social, economic, housing, or demographic characteristics being compared. For more information, see Comparing ACS Data..Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see ACS Technical Documentation). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables..Estimates of urban and rural populations, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on 2020 Census data. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization..Explanation of Symbols:- The estimate could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of sample observations. For a ratio of medians estimate, one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or highest interval of an open-ended distribution. For a 5-year median estimate, the margin of error associated with a median was larger than the median itself.N The estimate or margin of error cannot be displayed because there were an insufficient number of sample cases in the selected geographic area. (X) The estimate or margin of error is not applicable or not available.median- The median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution (for example "2,500-")median+ The median falls in the highest interval of an open-ended distribution (for example "250,000+").** The margin of error could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of sample observations.*** The margin of error could not be computed because the median falls in the lowest interval or highest interval of an open-ended distribution.***** A margin of error is not appropriate because the corresponding estimate is controlled to an independent population or housing estimate. Effectively, the corresponding estimate has no sampling error and the margin of error may be treated as zero.

Access to a reliable water source plays an integral role in tree function and survival. Water is a critical component of tree physiological processes, with trees that experience water stress exhibiting lower stomatal conductance (Irvine et al. 1998, Panek and Goldstein 1999), reduced photosynthetic and growth rates (Grieu et al. 1988, DeLucia and Heckathorn 1989, Adams and Kolb 2005, Truettner et al. 2018), and increased risk of hydraulic failure (Brodribb and Cochrad 2009, Anderegg and Anderegg 2013). As droughts increase in frequency, severity, and duration globally (Allen et al. 2015), access to a reliable water source such as deep soil water or water stored in fractured bedrock (i.e, hydraulic refugia) may dictate how trees respond to periods of water stress (McDowell et al. 2019). For example, studies in the southwestern United States have indicated that trees with access to deeper, more reliable water sources experience lower rates of mortality during drought periods (Grossiord et...