Markus Andrews

Goodrich, D. et al. The usda-ars experimental watershed network: Evolution, lessons learned, societal benefits, and moving forward. Water Resources Research 57, e2019WR026473 (2021).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Likens, G. E. The watershed-ecosystem approach. Hydrological Processes 35, e13977, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.13977 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Goodman, K. J., Parker, S. M., Edmonds, J. W. & Zeglin, L. H. Expanding the scale of aquatic sciences: the role of the national ecological observatory network (neon). Freshwater Science 34, 377–385 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kovács, G. Proposal to construct a coordinating matrix for comparative hydrology. Hydrological Sciences Journal 29, 435–443 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
Falkenmark, M. & Chapman, T. Comparative hydrology: An ecological approach to land and water resources (Unesco, 1989).Andreassian, V., Hall, A., Chahinian, N. & Schaake, J. Introduction and synthesis: Why should hydrologists work on a large number of basin data sets? In Andreassian, V., Hall, A., Chahinian, N. & Schaake, J. (eds.) Large sample basin experiments for hydrological model parameterization: results of the model parameter experiment–MOPEX, vol. IAHS Publ. 307, 1–5 (Wallingford: IAHS Press, 2006).Blöschl, G. et al. Twenty-three unsolved problems in hydrology (uph)–a community perspective. Hydrological sciences journal 64, 1141–1158 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gupta, H. V. et al. Large-sample hydrology: a need to balance depth with breadth. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 18, 463–477 (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Stahl, K. et al. Streamflow trends in europe: evidence from a dataset of near-natural catchments. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 14, 2367–2382, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-14-2367-2010 (2010).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Gudmundsson, L., Seneviratne, S. I. & Zhang, X. Anthropogenic climate change detected in european renewable freshwater resources. Nature Climate Change 7, 813–816 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Gudmundsson, L., Leonard, M., Do, H. X., Westra, S. & Seneviratne, S. I. Observed trends in global indicators of mean and extreme streamflow. Geophysical Research Letters 46, 756–766, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL079725 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Gudmundsson, L. et al. Globally observed trends in mean and extreme river flow attributed to climate change. Science 371, 1159–1162, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba3996 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kratzert, F. et al. Towards learning universal, regional, and local hydrological behaviors via machine learning applied to large-sample datasets. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 23, 5089–5110, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-5089-2019 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Kratzert, F. et al. Toward improved predictions in ungauged basins: Exploiting the power of machine learning. Water Resources Research 55, 11344–11354, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR026065 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Ghiggi, G., Humphrey, V., Seneviratne, S. I. & Gudmundsson, L. Grun: an observation-based global gridded runoff dataset from 1902 to 2014. Earth System Science Data 11, 1655–1674, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-1655-2019 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Ghiggi, G., Humphrey, V., Seneviratne, S. I. & Gudmundsson, L. G-run ensemble: A multi-forcing observation-based global runoff reanalysis. Water Resources Research 57, e2020WR028787, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR028787 (2021).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Addor, N. et al. Large-sample hydrology: recent progress, guidelines for new datasets and grand challenges. Hydrological Sciences Journal 65, 712–725 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Schaake, J., Cong, S. & Duan, Q. The US MOPEX data set. In Andreassian, V., Hall, A., Chahinian, N. & Schaake, J. (eds.) Large sample basin experiments for hydrological model parameterization: results of the model parameter experiment–MOPEX, vol. IAHS Publ. 307, 9–28 (Wallingford: IAHS Press, 2006).Fowler, K. J., Acharya, S. C., Addor, N., Chou, C. & Peel, M. C. CAMELS-AUS: hydrometeorological time series and landscape attributes for 222 catchments in australia. Earth System Science Data 13, 3847–3867 (2021).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Klingler, C., Schulz, K. & Herrnegger, M. LamaH-CE: Large-sample data for hydrology and environmental sciences for central europe. Earth System Science Data 13, 4529–4565 (2021).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Chagas, V. B. et al. CAMELS-BR: hydrometeorological time series and landscape attributes for 897 catchments in brazil. Earth System Science Data 12, 2075–2096 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Arsenault, R. et al. A comprehensive, multisource database for hydrometeorological modeling of 14,425 north american watersheds. Scientific Data 7, 1–12 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hao, Z. et al. CCAM: China catchment attributes and meteorology dataset. Earth System Science Data 13, 5591–5616 (2021).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Alvarez-Garreton, C. et al. The CAMELS-CL dataset: catchment attributes and meteorology for large sample studies–chile dataset. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 22, 5817–5846 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Kuentz, A., Arheimer, B., Hundecha, Y. & Wagener, T. Understanding hydrologic variability across europe through catchment classification. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 21, 2863–2879 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Coxon, G. et al. CAMELS-GB: Hydrometeorological time series and landscape attributes for 671 catchments in great britain. Earth System Science Data 12, 2459–2483 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Newman, A. et al. Development of a large-sample watershed-scale hydrometeorological data set for the contiguous usa: data set characteristics and assessment of regional variability in hydrologic model performance. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 19, 209–223 (2015).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Addor, N., Newman, A. J., Mizukami, N. & Clark, M. P. The CAMELS data set: catchment attributes and meteorology for large-sample studies. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 21, 5293–5313 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Do, H. X., Gudmundsson, L., Leonard, M. & Westra, S. The global streamflow indices and metadata archive (gsim)–part 1: The production of a daily streamflow archive and metadata. Earth System Science Data 10, 765–785 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Gudmundsson, L., Do, H. X., Leonard, M. & Westra, S. The global streamflow indices and metadata archive (GSIM)–part 2: Quality control, time-series indices and homogeneity assessment. Earth System Science Data 10, 787–804 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Linke, S. et al. Global hydro-environmental sub-basin and river reach characteristics at high spatial resolution. Scientific data 6, 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0300-6 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Beck, H. E. et al. Global-scale regionalization of hydrologic model parameters. Water Resources Research 52, 3599–3622 (2016).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Beck, H. E. et al. Global fully distributed parameter regionalization based on observed streamflow from 4,229 headwater catchments. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 125, e2019JD031485 (2020).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Blöschl, G. et al. Changing climate both increases and decreases european river floods. Nature 573, 108–111 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Wilkinson, M. D. et al. The fair guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific data 3, 1–9 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Metzger, M. J. et al. A high-resolution bioclimate map of the world: a unifying framework for global biodiversity research and monitoring. Global Ecology and Biogeography 22, 630–638 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Muñoz-Sabater, J. et al. Era5-land: A state-of-the-art global reanalysis dataset for land applications. Earth System Science Data 13, 4349–4383 (2021).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Lehner, B. Hydroatlas version 1.0 data download. Figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.9890531.v1 (2022).Gorelick, N. et al. Google earth engine: Planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote Sensing of Environment https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.031 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kratzert, F. et al. Caravan – A global community dataset for large-sample hydrology (Version 1.0), Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.7540792 (2022).Muñoz Sabater, J. et al. Era5-land hourly data from 1981 to present. ECMWF https://doi.org/10.24381/cds.e2161bac (2021).Lehner, B., Linke, S. & Thieme, M. Hydroatlas version 1.0. Figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.9890531.v1 (2019).Fowler, K., Acharya, S. C., Addor, N., Chou, C. & Peel, M. CAMELS-AUS v1: Hydrometeorological time series and landscape attributes for 222 catchments in australia. PANGAEA https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.921850 (2020).Chagas, V. B. P. et al. CAMELS-BR: Hydrometeorological time series and landscape attributes for 897 catchments in brazil. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3964745 (2020).Alvarez-Garreton, C. et al. The CAMELS-CL dataset: catchment attributes and meteorology for large sample studies – chile dataset. PANGAEA https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.894885 (2018).Coxon, G. et al. Catchment attributes and hydro-meteorological timeseries for 671 catchments across great britain (CAMELS-GB). NERC Environmental Information Data Centre https://doi.org/10.5285/8344e4f3-d2ea-44f5-8afa-86d2987543a9 (2020).Klingler, C., Kratzert, F., Schulz, K. & Herrnegger, M. LamaH-CE: Large-sample data for hydrology and environmental sciences for central europe. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5153305 (2021).Newman, A. et al. A large-sample watershed-scale hydrometeorological dataset for the contiguous usa. UCAR/NCAR – GDEX https://doi.org/10.5065/D6MW2F4D (2014).McMillan, H. K., Westerberg, I. K. & Krueger, T. Hydrological data uncertainty and its implications. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water 5, e1319 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Beven, K. Facets of uncertainty: epistemic uncertainty, non-stationarity, likelihood, hypothesis testing, and communication. Hydrological Sciences Journal 61, 1652–1665 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Colliander, A. et al. Validation of smap surface soil moisture products with core validation sites. Remote Sensing of Environment 191, 215–231 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Habib, E. & Krajewski, W. F. Uncertainty analysis of the trmm ground-validation radar-rainfall products: Application to the teflun-b field campaign. Journal of applied meteorology 41, 558–572 (2002).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Kumar, S. V., Dirmeyer, P. A., Peters-Lidard, C. D., Bindlish, R. & Bolten, J. Information theoretic evaluation of satellite soil moisture retrievals. Remote Sensing of Environment 204, 392–400 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Nearing, G. S. et al. Nonparametric triple collocation. Water Resources Research 53, 5516–5530 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Alemohammad, S. H., McColl, K. A., Konings, A. G., Entekhabi, D. & Stoffelen, A. Characterization of precipitation product errors across the united states using multiplicative triple collocation. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 19, 3489–3503 (2015).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
McMillan, H., Jackson, B., Clark, M., Kavetski, D. & Woods, R. Rainfall uncertainty in hydrological modelling: An evaluation of multiplicative error models. Journal of Hydrology 400, 83–94 (2011).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Domeneghetti, A., Castellarin, A. & Brath, A. Assessing rating-curve uncertainty and its effects on hydraulic model calibration. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 16, 1191–1202 (2012).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Koch, J. Caravan extension Denmark – Danish dataset for large-sample hydrology. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6762361 (2022).Knoben, W. J. M., Woods, R. A. & Freer, J. E. A quantitative hydrological climate classification evaluated with independent streamflow data. Water Resources Research 54, 5088–5109, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR022913 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar  More

Vorosmarty, C. J. et al. Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467, 555–561 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Doell, P., Mueller Schmied, H., Schuh, C., Portmann, F. T. & Eicker, A. Global-scale assessment of groundwater depletion and related groundwater abstractions: combining hydrological modeling with information from well observations and GRACE satellites. Water Resour. Res. 50, 5698–5720 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wada, Y. et al. Global depletion of groundwater resources. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, L20402 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Douville, H. et al. in Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) 1055–1210 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).Olivier, D. W. & Xu, Y. X. Making effective use of groundwater to avoid another water supply crisis in Cape Town, South Africa. Hydrogeol. J. 27, 823–826 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ozment, S. et al. Natural infrastructure in Sao Paulo’s water system. World Resources Institute Report 2013–2014: Interim Findings (2018).Pascale, S., Kapnick, S. B., Delworth, T. L. & Cooke, W. F. Increasing risk of another Cape Town ‘Day Zero’ drought in the 21st century. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 29495 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alley, W. M., Reilly, T. E. & Franke, O. L. Sustainability of ground-water resources. US Geological Survey Circular 1186 (1999).Wada, Y. & Bierkens, M. F. P. Sustainability of global water use: past reconstruction and future projections. Environ. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/10/104003 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Breslin, S. COP26 has 4 goals. Water is central to all of them. SIWI News https://siwi.org/latest/cop26-has-4-goals-water-is-central-to-all-of-them/ (2021).Global Risks 2021 16th edition (World Economic Forum, 2021); https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-risks-report-2021/The Water Challenge: The Roundtable on Water Financing (OECD, 2022); https://www.oecd.org/water/roundtable-on-financing-water.htmThe United Nations World Water Development Report 2018: Nature-Based Solutions for Water (United Nations World Water Assessment Program/UNESCO, 2018).Browder, G., Ozment, S., Rehberger-Bescos, I., Gartner, T. & Lange, G. M. Integrating Green and Gray: Creating Next Generation Infrastructure (World Bank and World Resources Institute, 2019); https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/31430Making Every Drop Count: Agenda for Water Action (High Level Panel on Water, United Nations and World Bank, 2018).Lederer, E. M. Next UN assembly president warns world in dangerous crisis. Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/next-un-assembly-president-warns-world-in-dangerous-crisis/2022/06/07/55075dce-e6b6-11ec-a422-11bbb91db30b_story.html (7 June 2022).Tapley, B. D. et al. Contributions of GRACE to understanding climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 358–369 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mekonnen, M. M. & Hoekstra, A. Y. Blue water footprint linked to national consumption and international trade is unsustainable. Nat. Food 1, 792–800 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rodell, M. et al. Emerging trends in global freshwater availability. Nature 557, 651–659 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Save, H., Bettadpur, S. & Tapley, B. D. High-resolution CSR GRACE RL05 mascons. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 121, 7547–7569 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tapley, B. D., Bettadpur, S., Watkins, M. & Reigber, C. The Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment: mission overview and early results. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004gl019920 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Richey, A. S. et al. Quantifying renewable groundwater stress with GRACE. Water Resour. Res. 51, 5217–5238 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shamsudduha, M. & Taylor, R. G. Groundwater storage dynamics in the world’s large aquifer systems from GRACE: uncertainty and role of extreme precipitation. Earth Syst. Dyn. 11, 755–774 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vishwakarma, B. D., Bates, P., Sneeuw, N., Westaway, R. M. & Bamber, J. L. Re-assessing global water storage trends from GRACE time series. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 034005 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pekel, J. F., Cottam, A., Gorelick, N. & Belward, A. S. High-resolution mapping of global surface water and its long-term changes. Nature 540, 418–436 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lehner, B. et al. High-resolution mapping of the world’s reservoirs and dams for sustainable river-flow management. Front. Ecol. Environ. 9, 494–502 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Scanlon, B. R. et al. Global models underestimate large decadal declining and rising water storage trends relative to GRACE satellite data. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E1080–E1089 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
MacDonald, A. M. et al. Mapping groundwater recharge in Africa from ground observations and implications for water security. Environ. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abd661 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Konikow, L. F. Overestimated water storage. Nat. Geosci. 6, 3 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Konikow, L. F. Contribution of global groundwater depletion since 1900 to sea-level rise. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011gl048604 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pokhrel, Y. N. et al. Model estimates of sea-level change due to anthropogenic impacts on terrestrial water storage. Nat. Geosci. 5, 389–392 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
de Graaf, I. E. M. et al. A global-scale two-layer transient groundwater model: development and application to groundwater depletion. Adv. Water Resour. 102, 53–67 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rateb, A. et al. Comparison of groundwater storage changes from GRACE satellites with monitoring and modeling of major U.S. aquifers. Water Resour. Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR027556 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
de Graaf, I. E. M., Gleeson, T., van Beek, L. P. H., Sutanudjaja, E. H. & Bierkens, M. F. P. Environmental flow limits to global groundwater pumping. Nature 574, 90–94 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sophocleous, M. From safe yield to sustainable development of water resources — the Kansas experience. J. Hydrol. 235, 27–43 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Konikow, L. F. & Bredehoeft, J. D. Groundwater Resource Development: Effects and Sustainability (USGS Groundwater Project, 2020).MacAllister, D. J., Krishan, G., Basharat, M., Cuba, D. & MacDonald, A. M. A century of groundwater accumulation in Pakistan and northwest India. Nat. Geosci. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-022-00926-1 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Scanlon, B. R. et al. Effects of climate and irrigation on GRACE-based estimates of water storage changes in major US aquifers. Environ. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac16ff (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
McGuire, V. L. Water-Level and Recoverable Water In Storage Changes, High Plains Aquifer, Predevelopment to 2015 and 2013–15. US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5040 (2017); https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20175040Faunt, C. C. Groundwater availability of the Central Valley Aquifer, California. US Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 1766 (2009).Vorosmarty, C. J., Green, P., Salisbury, J. & Lammers, R. B. Global water resources: vulnerability from climate change and population growth. Science 289, 284–288 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mekonnen, M. M. & Hoekstra, A. Y. Four billion people facing severe water scarcity. Sci. Adv. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1500323 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vorosmarty, C. J. & Sahagian, D. Anthropogenic disturbance of the terrestrial water cycle. Bioscience 50, 753–765 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gronwall, J. & Danert, K. Regarding groundwater and drinking water access through a human rights lens: self-supply as a norm. Water https://doi.org/10.3390/w12020419 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
van Vliet, M. T. H. et al. Global water scarcity including surface water quality and expansions of clean water technologies. Environ. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abbfc3 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Podgorski, J. & Berg, M. Global threat of arsenic in groundwater. Science 368, 845–850 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yapiyev, V., Sagintayev, Z., Inglezakis, V. J., Samarkhanov, K. & Verhoef, A. Essentials of endorheic basins and lakes: a review in the context of current and future water resource management and mitigation activities in Central Asia. Water https://doi.org/10.3390/w9100798 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pauloo, R. A., Fogg, G. E., Guo, Z. L. & Harter, T. Anthropogenic basin closure and groundwater salinization (ABCSAL). J. Hydrol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125787 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cao, T. Z., Han, D. M. & Song, X. F. Past, present, and future of global seawater intrusion research: a bibliometric analysis. J. Hydrol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126844 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Werner, A. D. et al. Seawater intrusion processes, investigation and management: recent advances and future challenges. Adv. Water Resour. 51, 3–26 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Scanlon, B. R. et al. Linkages between GRACE water storage, hydrologic extremes, and climate teleconnections in major African aquifers. Environ. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac3bfc (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Held, I. M. & Soden, B. J. Robust responses of the hydrological cycle to global warming. J. Clim. 19, 5686–5699 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fan, X., Duan, Q. Y., Shen, C. P., Wu, Y. & Xing, C. Global surface air temperatures in CMIP6: historical performance and future changes. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 104056 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tabari, H. Climate change impact on flood and extreme precipitation increases with water availability. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-70816-2 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Williams, A. P. et al. Large contribution from anthropogenic warming to an emerging North American megadrought. Science 368, 314 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Arias, P. A. et al. in Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) 33−144 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).van Dijk, A. et al. The Millennium Drought in southeast Australia (2001–2009): natural and human causes and implications for water resources, ecosystems, economy, and society. Water Resour. Res. 49, 1040–1057 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Scanlon, B. R. et al. Hydrologic implications of GRACE satellite data in the Colorado River Basin. Water Resour. Res. 51, 9891–9903 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rateb, A., Scanlon, B. R. & Kuo, C. Y. Multi-decadal assessment of water budget and hydrological extremes in the Tigris-Euphrates Basin using satellites, modeling, and in-situ data. Sci. Total Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144337 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anyamba, A., Glennie, E. & Small, J. Teleconnections and interannual transitions as observed in African vegetation: 2015–2017. Remote Sens. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10071038 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ul Hassan, W. & Nayak, M. A. Global teleconnections in droughts caused by oceanic and atmospheric circulation patterns. Environ. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abc9e2 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shen, Z. X. et al. Drying in the low-latitude Atlantic Ocean contributed to terrestrial water storage depletion across Eurasia. Nat. Commun. 13, 1849 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dettinger, M. D. Atmospheric rivers as drought busters on the US West Coast. J. Hydrometeorol. 14, 1721–1732 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Taylor, R. G. et al. Ground water and climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 322–329 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cuthbert, M. O. et al. Observed controls on resilience of groundwater to climate variability in sub-Saharan Africa. Nature 572, 230 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hugonnet, R. et al. Accelerated global glacier mass loss in the early twenty-first century. Nature 592, 726 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhao, F., Long, D., Li, X., Huang, Q. & Han, P. Rapid glacier mass loss in the Southeastern Tibetan Plateau since the year 2000 from satellite observations. Remote. Sens. Environ. 270, 112853 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, X. Y. et al. Climate change threatens terrestrial water storage over the Tibetan Plateau. Nat. Clim. Change https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01443-0 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yao, T. D. et al. The imbalance of the Asian water tower. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-022-00299-4 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Immerzeel, W. W., van Beek, L. P. H. & Bierkens, M. F. P. Climate change will affect the Asian water towers. Science 328, 1382–1385 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Immerzeel, W. W. et al. Importance and vulnerability of the world’s water towers. Nature 577, 364 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dery, S. J. et al. Detection of runoff timing changes in pluvial, nival, and glacial rivers of western Canada. Water Resour. Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008wr006975 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Siebert, S. et al. Groundwater use for irrigation – a global inventory. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 7, 3977–4021 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Scanlon, B. R. et al. Groundwater depletion and sustainability of irrigation in the US High Plains and Central Valley. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 9320–9325 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dahlke, H. E. et al. in Advanced Tools for Integrated Water Resources Management Vol. 3 (eds Friesen, J. & Rodriguez-Sinobas, L.) 215–275 (Elsevier, 2018).Reddy, V. R., Pavelic, P. & Hanjra, M. A. Underground taming of floods for irrigation (UTFI) in the river basins of South Asia: institutionalising approaches and policies for sustainable water management and livelihood enhancement. Water Policy 20, 369–387 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
McDonald, R. I., Weber, K. F., Padowski, J., Boucher, T. & Shemie, D. Estimating watershed degradation over the last century and its impact on water-treatment costs for the world’s large cities. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 9117–9122 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
The State of the World’s Forests 2020. Forests, Biodiversity, and People (FAO/UNEP, 2020).Convention on Wetlands. Global Wetland Outlook: Special Edition 2021 (Secretariat of the Convention on Wetlands, 2021).Scanlon, B. R., Jolly, I., Sophocleous, M. & Zhang, L. Global impacts of conversions from natural to agricultural ecosystems on water resources: quantity versus quality. Water Resour. Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005486 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nosetto, M. D., Paez, R. A., Ballesteros, S. I. & Jobbagy, E. G. Higher water-table levels and flooding risk under grain vs. livestock production systems in the subhumid plains of the Pampas. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 206, 60–70 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Favreau, G. et al. Land clearing, climate variability, and water resources increase in semiarid southwest Niger: a review. Water Resour. Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007wr006785 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Walker, C. D., Zhang, l, Ellis, T. W., Hatton, T. J. & Petheram, C. Estimating impacts of changed land use on recharge: review of modelling and other approaches appropriate for management of dryland salinity. Hydrogeol. J. 10, 68–90 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nosetto, M. D., Jobbagy, E. G., Jackson, R. B. & Sznaider, G. A. Reciprocal influence of crops and shallow ground water in sandy landscapes of the Inland Pampas. Field Crops Res. 113, 138–148 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gimenez, R., Mercau, J., Nosetto, M., Paez, R. & Jobbagy, E. The ecohydrological imprint of deforestation in the semiarid Chaco: insights from the last forest remnants of a highly cultivated landscape. Hydrol. Process. 30, 2603–2616 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Eilers, R. G., Eilers, W. D. & Fitzgerald, M. M. A salinity risk index for soils of the Canadian prairies. Hydrogeol. J. 5, 68–79 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Progress on Household Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene 2000–2020: Five Years into the SDGs (WHO/UNICEF, 2021).Cobbing, J. & Hiller, B. Waking a sleeping giant: realizing the potential of groundwater in sub-Saharan Africa. World Dev. 122, 597–613 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rockström, J. & Falkenmark, M. Agriculture: increase water harvesting in Africa. Nature 519, 283–285 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
MacAllister, D. J., MacDonald, A. M., Kebede, S., Godfrey, S. & Calow, R. Comparative performance of rural water supplies during drought. Nat. Commun. 11, 1099 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Aboah, M. & Miyittah, M. K. Estimating global water, sanitation, and hygiene levels and related risks on human health, using global indicators data from 1990 to 2020. J. Water Health 20, 1091–1101 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Abell, R. et al. Beyond the Source: The Environmental, Economic and Community Benefits of Source Water Protection (The Nature Conservancy, 2017).Herrera-Garcia, G. et al. Mapping the global threat of land subsidence. Science 371, 34–36 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Scanlon, B. R., Reedy, R. C., Faunt, C. C., Pool, D. & Uhlman, K. Can we mitigate climate extremes using managed aquifer recharge: case studies California Central Valley and South-Central Arizona, USA. AGU Fall Meeting Abstract H12G-02, Invited (2015).Qadir, M. et al. Global and regional potential of wastewater as a water, nutrient and energy source. Nat. Resour. Forum 44, 40–51 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Water Reuse within a Circular Economy Context. Global Water Security Issues Series 2 (UNESCO, 2020).Jones, E. R., van Vliet, M. T. H., Qadir, M. & Bierkens, M. F. P. Country-level and gridded estimates of wastewater production, collection, treatment and reuse. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 13, 237–254 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jeuland, M. Challenges to wastewater reuse in the Middle East and North Africa. Middle East. Dev. J. 7, 1–25 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, Y. & Shen, Y. Wastewater irrigation: past, present, and future. WIREs Water 6, e1234 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fito, J. & Van Hulle, S. W. H. Wastewater reclamation and reuse potentials in agriculture: towards environmental sustainability. Environ. Dev. Sust. 23, 2949–2972 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gao, L., Yoshikawa, S., Iseri, Y., Fujimori, S. & Kanae, S. An economic assessment of the global potential for seawater desalination to 2050. Water https://doi.org/10.3390/w9100763 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ahdab, Y. D., Thiel, G. P., Bohlke, J. K., Stanton, J. & Lienhard, J. H. Minimum energy requirements for desalination of brackish groundwater in the United States with comparison to international datasets. Water Res. 141, 387–404 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jones, E., Qadir, M., van Vliet, M. T. H., Smakhtin, V. & Kang, S. M. The state of desalination and brine production: a global outlook. Sci. Total Environ. 657, 1343–1356 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lin, S. S. et al. Seawater desalination technology and engineering in China: a review. Desalination https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2020.114728 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Martinez-Alvarez, V., Martin-Gorriz, B. & Soto-Garcia, M. Seawater desalination for crop irrigation — a review of current experiences and revealed key issues. Desalination 381, 58–70 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, K., Liu, S. M., Hu, H. Y., Dong, X. & Wen, X. H. Water and energy recovery: the future of wastewater in China. Sci. Total Environ. 637, 1466–1470 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pulido-Bosch, A. et al. Impacts of agricultural irrigation on groundwater salinity. Environ/ Earth Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-018-7386-6 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kurnik, J. The Next California: Phase 1: Investigating Potential in the Mid-Mississippi Delta River Region (The Markets Institute at WWF, 2020); https://www.worldwildlife.org/publications/the-next-california-phase-1-investigating-potential-in-the-mid-mississippi-delta-river-regionSenay, G. B., Schauer, M., Friedrichs, M., Velpuri, N. M. & Singh, R. K. Satellite-based water use dynamics using historical Landsat data (1984–2014) in the southwestern United States. Remote Sens. Environ. 202, 98–112 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gebremichael, M., Krishnamurthy, P. K., Ghebremichael, L. T. & Alam, S. What drives crop land use change during multi-year droughts in California’s Central Valley? Prices or concern for water? Remote Sens. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13040650 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brauman, K. A., Siebert, S. & Foley, J. A. Improvements in crop water productivity increase water sustainability and food security — a global analysis. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024030 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mekonnen, M. M., Hoekstra, A. Y., Neale, C. M. U., Ray, C. & Yang, H. S. Water productivity benchmarks: the case of maize and soybean in Nebraska. Agric. Water Manag. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106122 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Colaizzi, P. D., Gowda, P. H., Marek, T. H. & Porter, D. O. Irrigation in the Texas High Plains: a brief history and potential reductions in demand. Irrig. Drain. 58, 257–274 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Scanlon, B. R., Gates, J. B., Reedy, R. C., Jackson, A. & Bordovsky, J. Effects of irrigated agroecosystems: (2). Quality of soil water and groundwater in the southern High Plains, Texas. Water Resour. Res. 46, W09538 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Ward, F. A. & Pulido-Velazquez, M. Water conservation in irrigation can increase water use. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 18215–18220 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grafton, R. Q. et al. The paradox of irrigation efficiency. Science 361, 748–750 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alcott, B. in The Jevons Paradox and the Myth of Resource Efficiency Improvements (eds Polimeni, J. M., Mayumi, K., & Giampetro, M.) 7–78 (Earthscan, 2008).MacAllister, D. J., Krishan, G., Basharat, M., Cuba, D. & MacDonald, A. M. A century of groundwater accumulation in Pakistan and northwest India. Nat. Geosci. 15, 390–396 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Aarnoudse, E. & Bluemling, B. Controlling Groundwater Through Smart Card Machines: The Case of Water Quotas and Pricing Mechanisms in Gansu Province, China. Groundwater Solutions Initiative for Policy and Practice (GRIPP) Case Profile Series 02 (International Water Management Institute, 2017); https://doi.org/10.5337/2016.224Kinzelbach, W., Wang, H., Li, Y., Wang, L. & Li, N. Groundwater Overexploitation in the North China Plain: A Path to Sustainability (Springer, 2021).McDougall, R., Kristiansen, P. & Rader, R. Small-scale urban agriculture results in high yields but requires judicious management of inputs to achieve sustainability. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 129–134 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Langemeyer, J., Madrid-Lopez, C., Mendoza Beltran, A. & Villalba Mendez, G. Urban agriculture — a necessary pathway towards urban resilience and global sustainability? Landsc. Urban Plan. 210, 104055 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Palmer, L. Urban agriculture growth in US cities. Nat. Sust. 1, 5–7 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grafius, D. R. et al. Estimating food production in an urban landscape. Sci. Rep. 10, 5141 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2015 (FAO/IFAD/WFP, 2015).Kummu, M. et al. Lost food, wasted resources: global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Sci. Total Environ. 438, 477–489 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gleick, P. H. Global freshwater resources: soft-path solutions for the 21st century. Science 302, 1524–1528 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Miralles-Wilhelm, F. Nature-Based Solutions in Agriculture — Sustainable Management and Conservation of Land, Water, and Biodiversity (FAO/The Nature Conservancy, 2021).McDonald, R. I. & Shemie, D. Urban Water Blueprint: Mapping Conservation Solutions to the Global Water Challenge (The Nature Conservancy, 2014); http://water.nature.org/waterblueprintKane, M. & Erickson, J. D. Urban metabolism and payment for ecosystem services: history and policy analysis of the New York city water supply. Adv. Econ. Environ. Resour. 7, 307–328 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Greater Cape Town Water Fund: Business Case: Assessing the Return on Investment for Ecological Infrastructure Restoration (The Nature Conservancy, 2019).Hu, J., Lu, Y. H., Fu, B. J., Comber, A. J. & Harris, P. Quantifying the effect of ecological restoration on runoff and sediment yields: a meta-analysis for the Loess Plateau of China. Prog. Phys. Geogr. Earth Environ. 41, 753–774 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, W. W. et al. Improving wetland ecosystem health in China. Ecol. Indic. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106184 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cities100: Chennai Is Restoring Waterbodies to Protect Against Flooding and Drought. C40 Knowledge Hub: Nordic Sustainability, South and West Asia, Chennai, Case Studies and Best Practice Examples https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/Cities100-Chennai-is-restoring-waterbodies-to-protect-against-flooding-and-drought?language=en_US (2019).Chung, M. G., Frank, K. A., Pokhrel, Y., Dietz, T. & Liu, J. G. Natural infrastructure in sustaining global urban freshwater ecosystem services. Nat. Sust. 4, 1068 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Qi, Y. F. et al. Addressing challenges of urban water management in Chinese sponge cities via nature-based solutions. Water https://doi.org/10.3390/w12102788 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Acreman, M. et al. Evidence for the effectiveness of nature-based solutions to water issues in Africa. Environ. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac0210 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Livneh, B. & Badger, A. M. Drought less predictable under declining future snowpack. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 452–458 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mulligan, M., van Soesbergen, A. & Sáenz, L. GOODD, a global dataset of more than 38,000 georeferenced dams. Sci. Data 7, 31 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
International Commission on Large Dams https://www.icold-cigb.org/ (2022).Yang, G., Guo, S., Liu, P. & Block, P. Integration and evaluation of forecast-informed multiobjective reservoir operations. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 146, 04020038 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Delaney, C. J. et al. Forecast informed reservoir operations using ensemble streamflow predictions for a multipurpose reservoir in northern California. Water Resour. Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019wr026604 (2020).Amarasinghe, U. A., Muthuwatta, L., Surinaidu, L., Anand, S. & Jain, S. K. Reviving the Ganges water machine: potential. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 20, 1085–1101 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shamsudduha, M. et al. The Bengal water machine: quantified freshwater capture in Bangladesh. Science 377, 1315–1319 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chao, B. F., Wu, Y. H. & Li, Y. S. Impact of artificial reservoir water impoundment on global sea level. Science 320, 212–214 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zarfl, C., Lumsdon, A. E., Berlekamp, J., Tydecks, L. & Tockner, K. A global boom in hydropower dam construction. Aquat. Sci. 77, 161–170 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zarfl, C. et al. Future large hydropower dams impact global freshwater megafauna. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-54980-8 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wheeler, K. G., Jeuland, M., Hall, J. W., Zagona, E. & Whittington, D. Understanding and managing new risks on the Nile with the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. Nat. Commun. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19089-x (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Di Baldassarre, G. et al. Water shortages worsened by reservoir effects. Nat. Sust. 1, 617–622 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dahlke, H. E., Brown, A. G., Orloff, S., Putnam, D. & O’Geen, T. Managed winter flooding of alfalfa recharges groundwater with minimal crop damage. Calif. Agric. 72, 65–75 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yang, Q. & Scanlon, B. R. How much water can be captured from flood flows to store in depleted aquifers for mitigating floods and droughts? A case study from Texas, US. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 054011 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dillon, P. et al. Sixty years of global progress in managed aquifer recharge. Hydrogeol. J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-018-1841-z. (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Groundwater Replenishment System Technical Brochure, https://www.ocwd.com/media/10443/gwrs-technical-brochure-2021.pdf (2021).Konikow, L. F. Groundwater Depletion in the United States (1900–2008). US Geological Survey Scientific Investigation Report 2013–5079, http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2013/5079 (2013).Hartog, N. & Stuyfzand, P. J. Water quality donsiderations on the rise as the use of managed aquifer recharge systems widens. Water 9, 808 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shumilova, O., Tockner, K., Thieme, M., Koska, A. & Zarfl, C. Global water transfer megaprojects: a potential solution for the water–food–energy nexus? Front. Environ. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2018.00150 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Long, D. et al. South-to-north water diversion stabilizing Beijing’s groundwater levels. Nat. Commun. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17428-6 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhuang, W. Eco-environmental impact of inter-basin water transfer projects: a review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 23, 12867–12879 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hoekstra, A. Y. Virtual Water Trade: Proceedings of the International Expert Meeting on Virtual Water Trade (UNESCO-IHE, 2003).Oki, T. & Kanae, S. Virtual water trade and world water resources. Water Sci. Technol. 49, 203–209 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dolan, F. et al. Evaluating the economic impact of water scarcity in a changing world. Nat. Commun. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22194-0 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hoekstra, A. Y. & Mekonnen, M. M. The water footprint of humanity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 3232–3237 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dalin, C., Wada, Y., Kastner, T. & Puma, M. J. Groundwater depletion embedded in international food trade. Nature 543, 700–704 (2017).Hanasaki, N., Inuzuka, T., Kanae, S. & Oki, T. An estimation of global virtual water flow and sources of water withdrawal for major crops and livestock products using a global hydrological model. J. Hydrol. 384, 232–244 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mekonnen, M. M. & Gerbens-Leenes, W. The water footprint of global food production. Water https://doi.org/10.3390/w12102696 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Australian Water Markets Report: 2019-20 Review and 2020-21 Outlook (Aither, 2020); https://aither.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-Water-Markets-Report.pdfGrafton, R. Q. & Wheeler, S. A. Economics of water recovery in the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 10, 487–510 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moench, M. Water and the potential for social instability: livelihoods, migration and the building of society. Nat. Resour. Forum 26, 195–204 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Water Markets in Australia: A Short History (National Water Commission, 2011).Kundzewicz, Z. W. & Döll, P. Will groundwater ease freshwater stress under climate change? Hydrol. Sci. J. 54, 665–675 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
A Snapshot of the World’s Water Quality: Towards a Global Assessment (UNEP, 2016).Summary Progress Update 2021: SDG 6 — Water and Sanitation for All (UN-Water, 2021).GEMStat: Global Environmental Monitoring System, https://gemstat.org/ (UNEP, 2022).Akhmouch, A. & Correia, F. N. The 12 OECD principles on water governance — when science meets policy. Util. Policy 43, 14–20 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lankford, B., Bakker, K., Zeitoun, M. & Conway, B. D. Water Security: Principles, Perspectives, and Practices (Routledge, 2013).Potapov, P. et al. Global maps of cropland extent and change show accelerated cropland expansion in the twenty-first century. Nat. Food 3, 19 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fan, Y., Li, H. & Miguez-Macho, G. Global patterns of groundwater table depth. Science 339, 940–943 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Guha Roy, A. Detailing plastic pollution. Nat. Sustain. 2, 654 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lau, W. W. Y. et al. Evaluating scenarios toward zero plastic pollution. Science 369, 1455–1461 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Koelmans, A. A. et al. Risk assessment of microplastic particles. Nat. Rev. Mater. 7, 138–152 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rochman, C. M. Microplastics research—from sink to source. Science 360, 28–29 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, Y. et al. Atmospheric microplastics: a review on current status and perspectives. Earth Sci. Rev. 203, 103118 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nowack, B., Cai, Y., Mitrano, D. M. & Hufenus, R. Formation of fiber fragments during abrasion of polyester textiles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 55, 8001–8009 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Henry, B., Laitala, K. & Klepp, I. G. Microfibres from apparel and home textiles: prospects for including microplastics in environmental sustainability assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 652, 483–494 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Boucher, J. & Friot, D. Primary Microplastics in the Oceans: A Global Evaluation of Sources (IUCN, 2017).Evangeliou, N. et al. Atmospheric transport is a major pathway of microplastics to remote regions. Nat. Commun. 11, 3381 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bergmann, M. et al. White and wonderful? Microplastics prevail in snow from the Alps to the Arctic. Sci. Adv. 5, 1157 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brahney, J., Hallerud, M., Heim, E., Hahnenberger, M. & Sukumaran, S. Plastic rain in protected areas of the United States. Science 368, 1257–1260 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jenner, L. C. et al. Detection of microplastics in human lung tissue using μFTIR spectroscopy. Sci. Total Environ. 831, 154907 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Leslie, H. A. et al. Discovery and quantification of plastic particle pollution in human blood. Environ. Int. 163, 107199 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zabala, A. Ocean microfibre contamination. Nat. Sustain. 1, 213 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
De Falco, F. et al. Evaluation of microplastic release caused by textile washing processes of synthetic fabrics. Environ. Pollut. 236, 916–925 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
De Falco, F. et al. Novel finishing treatments of polyamide fabrics by electrofluidodynamic process to reduce microplastic release during washings. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 165, 110–116 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Suaria, G. et al. Microfibers in oceanic surface waters: a global characterization. Sci. Adv. 6, 8493 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Woodward, J., Li, J., Rothwell, J. & Hurley, R. Acute riverine microplastic contamination due to avoidable releases of untreated wastewater. Nat. Sustain. 4, 793–802 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
De Falco, F. et al. Pectin based finishing to mitigate the impact of microplastics released by polyamide fabrics. Carbohydr. Polym. 198, 175–180 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhao, X. et al. Macroscopic evidence of the liquidlike nature of nanoscale polydimethylsiloxane brushes. ACS Nano 15, 13559–13567 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Shabanian, S., Khatir, B., Nisar, A. & Golovin, K. Rational design of perfluorocarbon-free oleophobic textiles. Nat. Sustain. 3, 1059–1066 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Khatir, B., Shabanian, S. & Golovin, K. Design and high-resolution characterization of silicon wafer-like omniphobic liquid layers applicable to any substrate. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 12, 31933–31939 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Soltani, M. & Golovin, K. Lossless, passive transportation of low surface tension liquids induced by patterned omniphobic liquidlike polymer brushes. Adv. Funct. Mater. 32, 2107465 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wang, L. & McCarthy, T. J. Covalently attached liquids: instant omniphobic surfaces with unprecedented repellency. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 55, 244–248 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Liu, J. et al. One-step synthesis of a durable and liquid-repellent poly(dimethylsiloxane) coating. Adv. Mater. 33, 2100237 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Özek, H. Z. Silicone-based water repellents. in Waterproof and Water Repellent Textiles and Clothing (ed. Williams, J. T.) 153–189 (Woodhead Publishing, 2018).Cao, C. et al. Robust fluorine-free superhydrophobic PDMS-ormosil@fabrics for highly effective self-cleaning and efficient oil-water separation. J. Mater. Chem. A 4, 12179–12187 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dong, K. et al. Shape adaptable and highly resilient 3D braided triboelectric nanogenerators as e-textiles for power and sensing. Nat. Commun. 11, 2868 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jiang, L., Cheng, Y., Wang, S., Xu, Z. & Zhao, Y. Non-fluorine oil repellency: how low the intrinsic wetting threshold can be for roughness-induced contact angle amplification? Langmuir 38, 5857–5864 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ge, M. et al. A ‘PDMS-in-water’ emulsion enables mechanochemically robust superhydrophobic surfaces with self-healing nature. Nanoscale Horiz. 5, 65–73 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chauvin, J. P. R. & Pratt, D. A. On the reactions of thiols, sulfenic acids, and sulfinic acids with hydrogen peroxide. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 56, 6255–6259 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gunji, T., Shigematsu, Y., Kajiwara, T. & Abe, Y. Preparation of free-standing films with sulfonyl group from 3-mercaptopropyl(trimethoxy)silane/1,2-bis(triethoxysilyl)ethane copolymer. Polym. J. 42, 684–688 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Remington, W. R. & Gladding, E. K. Equilibria in the dyeing of nylon with acid dyes. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 72, 2553–2559 (1950).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Herzberg, W. J. & Erwin, W. R. Gas-chromatographic study of the reaction of glass surfaces with dichlorodimethylsilane and chlorotrimethylsilane. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 33, 172–177 (1970).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bielecki, R. M., Crobu, M. & Spencer, N. D. Polymer-brush lubrication in oil: sliding beyond the Stribeck curve. Tribol. Lett. 49, 263–272 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhou, S. M., Tashiro, K. & Ii, T. Moisture effect on structure and mechanical property of nylon 6 as studied by the time-resolved and simultaneous measurements of FT-IR and dynamic viscoelasticity under the controlled humidity at constant scanning rate. Polym. J. 33, 344–355 (2001).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Venoor, V., Park, J. H., Kazmer, D. O. & Sobkowicz, M. J. Understanding the effect of water in polyamides: a review. Polym. Rev. 61, 598–645 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Napper, I. E. & Thompson, R. C. Release of synthetic microplastic plastic fibres from domestic washing machines: effects of fabric type and washing conditions. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 112, 39–45 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Napper, I. E., Barrett, A. C. & Thompson, R. C. The efficiency of devices intended to reduce microfibre release during clothes washing. Sci. Total Environ. 738, 140412 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chiong, J. A., Tran, H., Lin, Y., Zheng, Y. & Bao, Z. Integrating emerging polymer chemistries for the advancement of recyclable, biodegradable, and biocompatible electronics. Adv. Sci. 8, 2101233 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ceseracciu, L., Heredia-Guerrero, J. A., Dante, S., Athanassiou, A. & Bayer, I. S. Robust and biodegradable elastomers based on corn starch and polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS). ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 7, 3742–3753 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
De Falco, F., Gentile, G., Di Pace, E., Avella, M. & Cocca, M. Quantification of microfibres released during washing of synthetic clothes in real conditions and at lab scale. Eur. Phys. J. 133, 257 (2018).
Google Scholar  More

Communities in Gansu province in China store snow in the winter months for use in the dry summers.Credit: Hai Ying/EPA/Shutterstock

Among the world’s ‘poly-crises’, the crisis of water is one of the most urgent. Worldwide, around 2 billion people lacked access to safe drinking water in 2020; and an estimated 1.7 billion did not have even basic sanitation. Every year, more than 800,000 people die from diarrhoea, because of unsafe drinking water and a lack of sanitation. Most of those are in low- and lower-middle income countries. This is a mind-boggling and unacceptable situation. Even more so in an age when huge investments are being made in instant video calling, personalized medicine and talk of inhabiting other planets.In 2015, the international community declared tackling the water crisis one of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The sixth SDG commits the world to “ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all”. But the UN acknowledges that SDG 6 is “alarmingly off track”.International diplomacy is finally starting to get its act together. In March, world leaders will assemble in New York City for the UN 2023 Water Conference. It will be the first such event in nearly half a century, a fact that by itself should shame us all.Last October, the UN published the results of a consultation with government representatives as well as specialist and stakeholder communities on their priorities for the conference. Around 12% of respondents were from education, science and technology fields. The consensus was that data and evidence, improved access to knowledge (including Indigenous and local knowledge) and open research will be essential to getting SDG 6 back on track. Delegates attending the March conference will be looking to harness the full spectrum of established water sources and technologies, including freshwater and rainwater sources, treated groundwater, desalinated seawater and hydropower.There’s a wealth of knowledge already out there, in the form of established technologies, innovative alternatives and research that captures centuries-old knowledge and the practices of communities themselves. In the past, such knowledge has been ignored, or what has been learnt has been forgotten. Twenty years ago, for example, the UN invested in a major piece of research that captured examples of how communities living in water-stressed regions have used research and innovation to access water. The research highlighted, for example, how people in arid regions of China store snow in cellars during the winter that can then be melted for use in the summer months.Prerequisites for tackling the water crisis include consolidating what is already known and building on that knowledge. That’s why on 19 January, the Nature Portfolio of journals launched Nature Water. This journal will provide a space for all researchers — including those in natural and social sciences, and in engineering — to collectively contribute their knowledge, insights and the results of their learning, so that the world is on a more equitable and sustainable track. The launch issue includes research in fundamental, applied and social science, as well as opinion and analysis. Our editorial teams are committed to facilitating open science1.Some paths forward are clear. Damir Brdjanovic at the IHE Delft Institute for Water Education in the Netherlands writes in Nature Water that there’s a vast body of research on alternatives to sewered sanitation — and how to use less or no water to safely dispose of faecal matter and inactivate pathogens2. There are alternatives to the flush toilet and underground, piped sewer networks. And Rongrong Xu at the Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, China, and colleagues report that there are ways to create hydropower, especially in Africa and Asia, without the same environmental and social impacts3.However, research does not exist in a vacuum. The representatives of low- and middle-income countries also want to prioritize funding. The South African government, in its response to the UN consultation, says that the annual cost to meet the SDG water and sanitation targets is between 2.3% and 2.7% of the country’s gross domestic product (between US$7 billion and $7.6 billion annually). A project called the Global Commission on the Economics of Water, co-chaired by economist Mariana Mazzucato and climate scientist Johan Rockström (among others), is promising “new thinking on economics and governance” in time for the conference.Conflict theoryThose who will be attending the conference in March also told the UN they want to see international cooperation be made a priority for water and sanitation, especially in an era of heightened geopolitical tensions. More than 25 years ago, former vice-president of the World Bank Ismail Serageldin famously wrote that twenty-first-century conflicts would be over water, rather than oil. We are fortunate that this has not yet happened, although Serageldin told Nature that relations between countries that share water sources are worsening. Egypt is formally in dispute with Ethiopia over dam-building projects on the Nile River; the same is true of India and Pakistan in the Indus River Basin.In its response to the UN, Egypt’s delegation observed that the majority of people rely on water sources that are shared between nations, most of which lack formal agreements, including all-important data sharing agreements. Rhea Verbeke, at the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium, writes in Nature Water of the “sobering experience” of seeing no external submissions to an open database on water purification that was created more than one year ago4.The delegates assembling in New York need to accept that their countries’ visions will not be realized until all nations can somehow carve out a path to cooperate amid tension and conflict. Research can help to provide at least some of the right language, which is why it needs to be taken on board when decisions are being made. We in the Nature Portfolio intend to play our fullest part to make that happen. More

Immerzeel, W. W. et al. Nature 577, 364–369 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Viviroli, D., Dürr, H. H., Messerli, B., Meybeck, M. & Weingartner, R. Water Resour. Res. 43, W07447 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Somers, L. D. & McKenzie, J. M. WIRESs Water 7, e1475 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schilling, O. S. et al. Nature Wat. 1, 60–73 (2023).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yasuhara, M., Hayashi, T., Asai, K., Uchiyama, M. & Nakamura, T. J. Geogr. 126, 25–27 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ono, M. et al. Hydrogeol. J. 27, 717–730 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Taberlet, P., Coissac, E., Hajibabaei, M. & Rieseberg, L. H. Mol. Ecol. 21, 1789–1793 (2012).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Miller, J. B., Frisbee, M. D., Hamilton, T. L. & Murugapiran, S. K. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 064012 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Döll, P. et al. Impact of water withdrawals from groundwater and surface water on continental water storage variations. J. Geodyn. 59–60, 143–156 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dieter, C. A. et al. Estimated Use Of Water in the United States in 2015 US Geological Survey Circular 1441 (USGS, 2018); https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1441Siebert, S., Ewert, F., Eyshi Rezaei, E., Kage, H. & Grass, R. Impact of heat stress on crop yield—on the importance of considering canopy temperature. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 044012 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stephan, M., Marshall, G. & McGinnis, M. in Governing Complexity: Analyzing and Applying Polycentricity (eds Thiel, A. et al.) 21–44 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2019); https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108325721.002Steward, D. R. et al. Tapping unsustainable groundwater stores for agricultural production in the High Plains Aquifer of Kansas, projections to 2110. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, E3477–E3486 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Haacker, E. M. K., Kendall, A. D. & Hyndman, D. W. Water level declines in the High Plains Aquifer: predevelopment to resource senescence. Groundwater 54, 231–242 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Russo, T. A. & Lall, U. Depletion and response of deep groundwater to climate-induced pumping variability. Nat. Geosci. 10, 105–108 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Scanlon, B. R. et al. Groundwater depletion and sustainability of irrigation in the US High Plains and Central Valley. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 9320–9325 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hrozencik, R. A., Manning, D. T., Suter, J. F., Goemans, C. & Bailey, R. T. The heterogeneous impacts of groundwater management policies in the Republican River Basin of Colorado. Water Resour. Res. 53, 10757–10778 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Colaizzi, P. D., Gowda, P. H., Marek, T. H. & Porter, D. O. Irrigation in the Texas High Plains: a brief history and potential reductions in demand. Irrig. Drain. 58, 257–274 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lyle, W. M. & Bordovsky, J. P. LEPA corn irrigation with limited water supplies. Trans. ASAE 38, 455–462 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chen, Y. et al. Assessment of alternative agricultural land use options for extending the availability of the Ogallala Aquifer in the Northern High Plains of Texas. Hydrology 5, 53 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rudnick, D. R. et al. Deficit irrigation management of maize in the High Plains Aquifer Region: a review. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 55, 38–55 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hao, B. et al. Grain yield, evapotranspiration, and water-use efficiency of maize hybrids differing in drought tolerance. Irrig. Sci. 37, 25–34 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chiara, C. & Marco, M. Irrigation efficiency optimization at multiple stakeholders’ levels based on remote sensing data and energy water balance modelling. Irrig. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-022-00780-4 (2022).Schwartz, R. C., Bell, J. M., Colaizzi, P. D., Baumhardt, R. L. & Hiltbrunner, B. A. Response of maize hybrids under limited irrigation capacities: crop water use. Agron. J. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.21011 (2022).Taghvaeian, S. et al. Irrigation scheduling for agriculture in the United States: the progress made and the path forward. Trans. ASABE 63, 1603–1618 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sears, L. et al. Jevons’ paradox and efficient irrigation technology. Sustainability 10, (2018).Mpanga, I. K. & Idowu, O. J. A decade of irrigation water use trends in Southwestern USA: the role of irrigation technology, best management practices, and outreach education programs. Agric. Water Manag. 243, 106438 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grafton, R. Q. et al. The paradox of irrigation efficiency. Science 361, 748–750 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cook, C. & Bakker, K. Water security: debating an emerging paradigm. Glob. Environ. Change 22, 94–102 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brewis, A. et al. Household water insecurity is strongly associated with food insecurity: evidence from 27 sites in low‐and middle‐income countries. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 32, e23309 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rosinger, A. Y. & Young, S. L. The toll of household water insecurity on health and human biology: current understandings and future directions. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 7, e1468 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
London, J. K. et al. Disadvantaged unincorporated communities and the struggle for water justice in California. Water Altern. 14, 520–545 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Hanak, E. et al. Water and the future of the San Joaquin Valley. Public Policy Inst. Calif. 100, (2019).Lauer, S. et al. Values and groundwater management in the Ogallala Aquifer region. J. Soil Water Conserv. 73, 593–600 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Edwards, E. C. & Guilfoos, T. The economics of groundwater governance institutions across the globe. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 43, 1571–1594 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
MacLeod, C. & Méndez-Barrientos, L. E. Groundwater management in California’s Central Valley: a focus on disadvantaged communities. Case Stud. Environ. 3, 1–13 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Méndez-Barrientos, L. E. et al. Farmer participation and institutional capture in common-pool resource governance reforms. The case of groundwater management in California. Soc. Nat. Resour. 33, 1486–1507 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Blythe, J. et al. The dark side of transformation: latent risks in contemporary sustainability discourse. Antipode 50, 1206–1223 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lubell, M. Governing institutional complexity: the ecology of games framework. Policy Stud. J. 41, 537–559 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Berardo, R. & Lubell, M. The ecology of games as a theory of polycentricity: recent advances and future challenges. Policy Stud. J. 47, 6–26 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ostrom, E. Understanding Institutional Diversity (Princeton Univ. Press, 2009).Ostrom, E. & Basurto, X. Crafting analytical tools to study institutional change. J. Inst. Econ. 7, 317–343 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Lubell, M. & Morrison, T. H. Institutional navigation for polycentric sustainability governance. Nat. Sustain. 4, 664–671 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lauer, S. & Sanderson, M. R. Producer attitudes toward groundwater conservation in the U.S. Ogallala-High Plains. Groundwater 58, 674–680 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Niles, M. T. & Wagner, C. R. H. The carrot or the stick? Drivers of California farmer support for varying groundwater management policies. Environ. Res. Commun. 1, 45001 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Evans, R. G. & King, B. A. Site-specific sprinkler irrigation in a water-limited future. Trans. ASABE 55, 493–504 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sanderson, M. R. & Hughes, V. Race to the bottom (of the well): groundwater in an agricultural production treadmill. Soc. Probl. 66, 392–410 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ostrom, E. The challenge of common-pool resources. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 50, 8–21 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Agriculture Innovation Agenda (USDA, 2021); https://www.usda.gov/aiaPartnerships for climate-smart commodities. USDA https://www.usda.gov/climate-solutions/climate-smart-commodities (2022).Closas, A. & Molle, F. Chronicle of a demise foretold: state vs. local groundwater management in Texas and the High Plains aquifer system. Water Altern. 11, 511–532 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Lubell, M., Blomquist, W. & Beutler, L. Sustainable groundwater management in California: a grand experiment in environmental governance. Soc. Nat. Resour. 33, 1447–1467 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Roberts, M., Milman, A. & Blomquist, W. in Water Resilience (eds Baird, J. & Plummer, R.) 41–63 (Springer, Cham., 2021).Megdal, S. B. The role of the public and private sectors in water provision in Arizona, USA. Water Int. 37, 156–168 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Desired future conditions. Texas Water Development Board https://www.twdb.texas.gov/groundwater/dfc/index.asp (2022).Schoengold, K. & Brozovic, N. The future of groundwater management in the High Plains: evolving institutions, aquifers and regulations. in. West. Econ. Forum 16, 47–53 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Factsheet H.B. 2056/S.B. 1368 (Arizona State Senate, 2021); https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/1R/summary/S.2056-1368NREW_ASENACTED.pdfLocal enhanced management areas; establishment procedures; duties of chief engineer; hearing; notice; orders; review. Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes http://www.ksrevisor.org/statutes/chapters/ch82a/082a_010_0041.html (2012).Deines, J. M., Kendall, A. D., Butler, J. J. & Hyndman, D. W. Quantifying irrigation adaptation strategies in response to stakeholder-driven groundwater management in the US High Plains Aquifer. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 044014 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
California Department of Water Resources. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) (State of California, 2022); https://water.ca.gov/programs/groundwater-management/sgma-groundwater-managementAyres, A. B., Edwards, E. C. & Libecap, G. D. How transaction costs obstruct collective action: the case of California’s groundwater. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 91, 46–65 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dobbin, K. B. & Lubell, M. Collaborative governance and environmental justice: disadvantaged community representation in California sustainable groundwater management. Policy Stud. J. 49, 562–590 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bruno, E. M., Hagerty, N. & Wardle, A. R. The Political Economy of Groundwater Management: Descriptive Evidence from California (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2022).Cody, K. C., Smith, S. M., Cox, M. & Andersson, K. Emergence of collective action in a groundwater commons: irrigators in the San Luis Valley of Colorado. Soc. Nat. Resour. 28, 405–422 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Perez-Quesada, G. & Hendricks, N. P. Lessons from local governance and collective action efforts to manage irrigation withdrawals in Kansas. Agric. Water Manag. 247, 106736 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bopp, C., Engler, A., Jara-Rojas, R., Hunecke, C. & Melo, O. Collective actions and leadership attributes: a cluster analysis of water user associations in Chile. Water Econ. Policy 8, 2250003 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Morrison, T. H. et al. The black box of power in polycentric environmental governance. Glob. Environ. Change 57, 101934 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bitterman, P., Bennett, D. A. & Secchi, S. Constraints on farmer adaptability in the Iowa-Cedar River Basin. Environ. Sci. Policy 92, 9–16 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Butler, J. J. Jr., Whittemore, D. O., Wilson, B. B. & Bohling, G. C. Sustainability of aquifers supporting irrigated agriculture: a case study of the High Plains aquifer in Kansas. Water Int. 43, 815–828 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zwart, S. J. & Bastiaanssen, W. G. M. Review of measured crop water productivity values for irrigated wheat, rice, cotton and maize. Agric. Water Manag. 69, 115–133 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Du, Y.-D. et al. Crop yield and water use efficiency under aerated irrigation: a meta-analysis. Agric. Water Manag. 210, 158–164 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zheng, H. et al. Water productivity of irrigated maize production systems in Northern China: a meta-analysis. Agric. Water Manag. 234, 106119 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Crouch, M., Guerrero, B., Amosson, S., Marek, T. & Almas, L. Analyzing potential water conservation strategies in the Texas Panhandle. Irrig. Sci. 38, 559–567 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar  More

While much focus in recent years has been put on Open Access publishing, this is only a small part of Open Science. According to the 2015 FOSTER taxonomy19, Open Science integrates Open Access, Open Data, Open Source, and Open Reproducible Research (all of which we will touch on here, see Fig. 1a), while UNESCO and others have extended this further (e.g.,6). Open Data is commonly associated with the ‘FAIR Principles’20, which describe how to make data findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. The FAIR principles were introduced in 2016 and provide vital guidance that can be applied irrespective of whether the data itself is strictly open or not21. Note that the FAIR principles do not enforce Open Access, i.e., FAIR data is not automatically Open Data. Conversely, Open Data that is neither FAIR nor managed (see Fig. 1b) can easily be useless data. Thus, the combination of Open and FAIR data is extremely important. However, even Open Access publishing combined with Open and FAIR data does not necessarily make the research reproducible and re-usable, as discussed further below.Fig. 1: The many elements of Open Science.a, Open Science (centre, blue) and the four elements of Open Science pointed out by UNESCO most pertinent to this article (orange-ish circles with text). The remaining elements of Open Science described by UNESCO were removed for space reasons. They are represented in the ‘…’ circle along with the smaller decorative bubbles to show that Open Science covers many facets, big and small6. b, FAIR data vs. Open Data vs. Managed Data. Image modified from ref. 36. Managed data means that the data has in some way been collected, stored, organized and maintained. There is a large proportion of managed data that is neither FAIR nor Open, along with a large proportion of unmanaged Open Data. Since both cases are difficult to include in reproducible workflows, scientists and journals alike should be working on expanding the intersection between FAIR and Open Data.Full size imageOpen Access is the subset of Open Science that includes principles and practices for distributing research outputs online, free of cost or other access barriers22,23. This includes for instance Open Access publications (e.g., the dissemination of research as so-called Green, Gold or Diamond Open Access) or the use of preprint servers to access earlier versions of research articles.Open Data refers to the availability of the data behind the published research, typically hosted in either institutional or domain-specific data repositories (e.g., HydroShare for hydrological data24), or generic repositories such as Zenodo or FigShare. For Open Access publications and Open Data, appropriate license conditions should be stipulated, so that the conditions of re-use are clear. Creative Commons (CC) licenses are commonly used, with CC0 (public domain) and CC-BY (re-use with attribution) being the most permissive. Other restrictions on CC licenses can cause problems for downstream use. For instance, the ‘ND’ (no derivatives) clause forbids re-use for derivative works, i.e., any actual re-use other than re-distribution of the original work, while ‘NC’ (non-commercial use only) can prevent commercial companies (e.g., instrument vendors) from integrating Open Data into vendor-provided instrument libraries that could be used by researchers. The ‘SA’ (share-alike) clause can enforce a license on downstream users that they may not be able to comply with, thus preventing integration of Open Data in other open projects (due to incompatible licenses). While Open Data is an important starting point, without the availability of appropriate metadata and sufficient FAIRness to make the data findable, accessible, re-useable and interoperable, Open Data alone is only of limited use. In the era of ‘big data’, it is now relatively easy to create a quick dump of data, but curation and FAIRification of data requires a concerted effort, which may necessitate either incentives (carrot) or mandates (stick). The Global Natural Products Social Molecular Networking (GNPS) ecosystem25 is a prime example for incentivising Open Data sharing. Starting primarily as a mass spectral data repository for metabolomics, the developers have consistently added features and functionality over the years to value-add the repository and increase motivation for deposition. For example, MASST26 has enabled discovery of the neurotoxin domoic acid and analogues within marine samples and food such as ocean-caught mackerel.Open Source software and code refer to the public availability of source code27, i.e., sets of computer instructions ranging from data processing scripts and algorithms to fully blown numerical models, desktop applications, or even operating systems. The purpose of open source is to provide transparency, and most importantly, re-usability and adaptability of the code, with a common aim of collaborative development. Licenses for Open Source works are generally designed to explicitly cover code sharing, thus Open Source licenses are generally preferred over CC, with common examples including GPL, Apache and MIT27. Suitable code repositories with version control and issue tracking are indispensable for collaborative open source developments, with common platforms including GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket and more. For all three above-mentioned aspects of Open Science, i.e., Open Access, Open Data and Open Source, the generation of permanent identifiers such as a Digital Object Identifier (DOI)28 is an integral aspect of FAIR and vital to preserve the discoverability and lifetime of such projects.Finally, open reproducible research is a culmination of all three aspects above. With systems such as RMarkdown and Jupyter Notebooks, it is now possible to have fully compliable research outputs and reproducible manuscripts. The Journal of Open Source Software even accepts submissions as GitHub pull requests and compiles the entire submission on their system; one example relevant to water research is patRoon 2.0 (ref. 29). The ‘open-source knowledge infrastructure for collaborative and reproducible data science’ Renku facilitates traceability and reproducibility of complex workflows involving networks of interconnected code, data and figure files. It does so by automatic provenance tracking of output files and the creation of a version-controlled git repository containing all information, including the computational environment. More

Interbasin water transfers have been defined many ways within the literature12,13,14 and by government agencies. For this study, we define an IBT as a human-mediated movement of surface water or groundwater from one sub-drainage area or subregion (HUC4) to another sub-drainage area or subregion through man-made or artificial pathways (e.g., canals, pipelines, aqueducts). Subregion15 and sub-drainage16 boundaries come from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and Natural Resources Canada, respectively. We further narrow our IBT definition to exclude the transfer of treated water and wastewater due to the lack of data describing complex municipal water and wastewater distribution systems across Canada and the US. The movement of untreated (or “raw”) water between the intake location of a water distribution system and the water treatment facility is deemed an IBT if it traverses a basin boundary (i.e., sub-drainage or subregion boundary; e.g., Fig. 3a); however, if water within the distribution system crosses a basin boundary after treatment, we do not include this instance within our IBT datasets (Fig. 3b). We have also removed inconsequential drainage ditches that drain less than 0.5 square kilometers. Such drainage ditches constituted a significant fraction of previous US IBT datasets7, even though they have a negligible hydrologic, ecological, or societal impact.Fig. 3Examples of potential interbasin transfers of raw water (a) and treated water (b). Raw water transfers are represented by yellow lines, while a treated water transfer is represented by a magenta line. If raw water crosses a subregion boundary (blue lines), it is included in our dataset, as is the case for the Schoharie and Delaware Aqueducts that bring raw water for New York City public water supply (a). If only treated water crosses a subregion boundary, as is the case for Gwinnett County’s public water supply system in Georgia (b), then it is not included within our IBT datasets.Full size imageThe creation of our IBT data products involved four steps: i) data collection, ii) data standardization, iii) data visualization, and iv) data validation. The first three steps are described in this section (Methods), while data validation is described within the ‘Technical Validation’ section.Data collectionTo create a national IBT dataset, we started with potential IBTs identified by Dickson and Dzombak7. Dickson and Dzombak extracted all artificial flow paths that crossed subregion boundaries from the USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). These IBTs were not verified and lacked descriptive details, such as water use purpose or transfer volume. Furthermore, the number of IBTs reported by Dickson and Dzombak is artificially large since it counts each instance a conveyance structure crosses a basin boundary as an individual IBT, even if it is part of one larger IBT project (e.g., Central Arizona Project). These records were paired with older IBT datasets produced by USGS8,9. Together, these datasets represent the most complete US IBT datasets to date. We filtered out records from the combined datasets that did not meet our IBT definition, were duplicates, or were verified as being either decommissioned or erroneous. We also connected flowlines that are part of the same IBT project.Next, we searched state and federal reports, data repositories, and websites for data describing the location, properties, and flow volumes of IBTs. Findings from these searches allowed us to remove erroneous records within our current dataset, as well as add new IBTs that were not captured by previous datasets. Mostly, though, our review of government records allowed us to confirm IBT records and to provide more complete documentation of already identified IBTs. Websites for federal agencies that have a role in building, administering, or maintaining records on IBTs, such as the USGS, US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), were searched for relevant records. Approval by USACE is required when building across a navigable waterway, which is sometimes required for IBTs. Much of the major federal water supply infrastructure in the Western US, including IBTs, were built and are currently operated by USBR. The EPA has records related to water distribution systems17, including water intake and treatment locations, which were used to identify IBT locations. The USGS gauge network reports time-series records for 79 IBTs. Relevant state websites for IBT data collection were identified through the survey of state-level water data platforms developed by Josset et al.18.After reviewing the scientific literature and publicly available government reports, data repositories, and websites, we contacted federal, state, and local representatives for additional data records and to verify our existing records. Federal employees at USGS and USBR reviewed and provided additional records for our initial IBT dataset. The USGS Water Use Science Project regularly collects water use and water infrastructure data from states. The USGS Water Use team helped us identify the state agency and contact person that would most likely maintain IBT data for each state.We sent IBT data requests to each state via email and phone calls. In cases where these attempts were unsuccessful, we filed an Open Records Act or Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to collect any remaining data we were missing. In cases where neither federal or state agencies maintained the data we sought, we contacted IBT operators directly. Direct contact with IBT operators was primarily done when collecting time-series flow data for irrigation districts and municipal water suppliers.Canadian IBT data were collected from an Access to Information Act records request. The Environment and Climate Change Canada (formerly, Environment Canada) had maintained records of IBTs throughout Canada until 2011. Several reports published by Environment Canada researchers10,11 document Canadian IBTs and their properties. These reports highlight select IBTs but do not provide complete IBT records. Our Access to Information Act request provided us an unpublished report and associated data from 2004 that described the full collection of IBTs in Canada.Data were collected between August 2019 and June 2022. Our data products reflect the most up-to-date data held by primary data collectors on the date of our request. The date each IBT entry was collected is reported in the IBT Inventory Dataset. We collected all time-series flow data available for each IBT, with some records going back as far as 1901.Data standardizationThe data we collected were in a variety of file formats and data types. We created a data standard, which we named the Interbasin Transfer Database Standard Version 1.0. (IBTDS 1.0), to provide a consistent way of representing and defining data for all IBTs. The standardized IBT Inventory Dataset follows a node-link structure. Nodes represent places of water diversion, water use, or change in flow (e.g., reservoir, channel junction). Links represent conveyance infrastructure or natural waterways that connect two or more nodes within an IBT project. Unique link identifiers (Link ID) connect two or more unique node identifiers (Node ID). One or more links constitute an IBT project. The owner/operator of each IBT project, as well as the year the IBT project was commissioned and decommissioned (if applicable), is reported within the IBT Inventory Dataset.Geospatial details are reported for each IBT project in the IBT Inventory Dataset and the IBT Geospatial Dataset. We obtained the precise latitude and longitude of each node using the various data sources noted previously, as well as visual inspection of high-resolution aerial imagery from Google Earth and Esri’s World Imagery layer. Precise geospatial information is reflected in the IBT Geospatial Dataset. The IBT Inventory Dataset lists the hydrologic and geopolitical boundaries that contain each node. For the US, the state and county name and the Federal Information Processing System (FIPS) Code is also provided for each node. Likewise, the province and Census Geographic Unit is given for each node in Canada. The IBT project name (e.g., Heron Bayou Drainage Ditch, Hennepin Canal) associated with each node and link segment is also reported.As is often the case with irrigation and drainage IBT projects, there are sometimes several relatively small, adjacent diversions/ditches along an IBT project. We focus on capturing the main components of the IBT, instead of representing dozens or even hundreds of connected small ditches that divert or collect water along the IBT project. Nonetheless, when the collective impact of these small water diversions or inputs may noticeably change IBT flows, we depict these small ditches together as a representative two-node pair connected by a link segment. One of the nodes represents approximately the middle of where these small ditches intersect with the main IBT channel. The other node is the approximate centroid of water users served by or areas drained by these small ditches. If one of the secondary channels is large relative to the main channel (i.e., ability to divert more than ~25% of the main channel flow based on channel top width or flow records), it is recorded with its own Node ID and Link ID (Fig. 4). Likewise, if a secondary channel has an official name granted by a government agency or its owner/operator, we also record this segment with its own Node IDs and Link ID(s).Fig. 4An example of an interbasin water transfer project in Arizona with major (yellow) and minor (orange) project components. The thick yellow lines represent primary components of the project that are recorded in our dataset and assigned a Link ID (white text label). The thin orange lines represent secondary or tertiary canals or ditches that are small relative to the main (yellow) project segments and are therefore not represented in our dataset. The blue lines represent HUC4 subregion boundaries.Full size imageWe record the primary, secondary, and tertiary purpose of each IBT project and these purposes are the same for all links within the IBT project. One of “water supply – public supply”, “water supply – irrigation”, “flood control”, “navigation”, “waste discharge”, “environmental flows”, “energy – hydroelectric”, “energy – thermoelectric”, “energy – mining”, “other”, or “unknown” is assigned to each IBT project based on online records, design documents, reports, and/or personal correspondence with local, state, or federal officials. Link infrastructural properties, such as whether the link is a lined canal, unlined canal, pipe/tunnel, or other structure, are recorded for each link segment.The average water transfer rate (m3/d) is reported for each link segment where this information is known. The average water transfer rate only represents flows for the identified link segment, not necessarily the entire IBT project since upstream/downstream diversions and inputs may mean flow rates are different in different portions of the project. The average water transfer rate is converted from the units provided to us but is otherwise left unchanged. The primary data records are often unclear or do not specify the time period used to estimate average water transfer rates. The IBT Inventory Dataset reports whether time-series data is available for each Link ID in the IBT Time-Series Flow Dataset.The IBTDS 1.0 data standard was also applied to the IBT Time-Series Flow Dataset. The unique Link ID identifying the location where the transferred flow rate was measured is recorded for each time-series entry, relating the time-series data records to the IBT Inventory Dataset. The recorded flow rate only represents water transfer rates for the given link segment where the measurement was made, not necessarily the entire IBT project. Time-series data describing IBT flow rates were recorded at various temporal resolutions, ranging from instantaneous gauge readings every 15 minutes to average annual records. The standardized time-series dataset converted all reported water transfers to a common measurement unit (m3) and temporal resolution (day). When available, a web link to the original data source is published with the standardized data. The original timestep which the data was collected is also reported for each entry.In a few instances, there is more than one flow measurement for a link segment. Measurements are typically reported by different agencies and the measurements do not always align perfectly, either in their quantity or frequency of their reporting. Unless one of the records is known to be erroneous or of inferior quality, both sets of records are standardized and reported. For example, USBR reports monthly water transfer volumes along the Central Arizona Project (Link ID: CAP.AZ.01), while USGS reports daily water transfer volumes for the same link segment.Data visualizationWe provide an online visualization of the IBT Geospatial Dataset using ArcGIS Online (https://virginiatech.maps.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?webmap=b2cfac9b70ea44e4938734da0b1a7c8e), which is also summarized in Fig. 1. Every IBT node and link segment in the IBT Inventory Dataset is included. An arrowhead at the end of a link segment depicts the flow direction of transferred water. Link segments imported into ArcGIS Online were initially represented as a straight path between connected nodes. When the IBT flowpath was visible from aerial imagery or the flowpath was available from existing sources (e.g., NHD or detailed engineering drawings), the exact path of transferred water was mapped; otherwise, the flowpath remained a straight line between connected nodes.State and federal agencies restricted some of the data we are able to share publicly. Specifically, we are not permitted to reveal the exact water intake and treatment locations of some public water suppliers. Instead of mapping the precise latitude and longitude of points of diversion, points of flow change, and points of use like with other IBTs, IBTs whose primary purpose is public water supply are depicted as a straight line connecting the centroids of subwatersheds (HUC12) where the IBT node is located. More