is the national bureau of economic research peer reviewed

• April 1, 2024 | The Latest Fact Checks curated by Media Bias Fact Check 04/01/2024
• April 1, 2024 | Daily Source Bias Check: HigherEd Dive
• March 31, 2024 | The Latest Fact Checks curated by Media Bias Fact Check 03/31/2024 (Weekend Edition)
• March 31, 2024 | Daily Source Bias Check: Sunrise Movement
• March 30, 2024 | MBFC’s Weekly Media Literacy Quiz Covering the Week of Mar 24th – Mar 30th

National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) – Bias and Credibility

Least biased.

These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes).  The reporting is factual and usually sourced.  These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased Sources.

• Overall, we rate NBER least biased based on reasonably balanced editorial positions. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record.

Detailed Report

Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED Factual Reporting: HIGH Country: USA (45/180 Press Freedom) Media Type: Organization/Foundation Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

Founded in 1920, the NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, and business professionals. The NBER is the nation’s leading nonprofit economic research organization. Twenty-six Nobel Prize winners in Economics and thirteen past chairs of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers have held NBER affiliations. The current president and CEO is James M. Poterba .

Read our profile on United States government and media.

Funded by / Ownership

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) is a nonprofit funded through donations and grants.

Analysis / Bias

In review, NBER reports news on economic research that is geared toward policymakers. The research includes original working papers such as The Political Economy of Responses to COVID-19 in the U.S.A. and this Industrialization and Urbanization in Nineteenth-Century America .

Editorially, they tend to favor left-leaning policies, but they cover both objectives and attempt to be as least biased as possible.

Failed Fact Checks

• None in the Last 5 years

Overall, we rate NBER least biased based on reasonably balanced editorial positions. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record. (D. Van Zandt 3/23/2017) Updated (3/26/2021)

Source:  http://www.nber.org/

Last Updated on June 27, 2023 by Media Bias Fact Check

Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.

MBFC Ad-Free 

MBFC Donation

Left vs. Right Bias: How we rate the bias of media sources

Explore Similar Sources:

• American Institute for Economic Research – Bias and Credibility
• The Center for Economic and Policy Research – Bias and Credibility
• The Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) – Bias and Credibility
• Bureau County Republican – Bias and Credibility
• Gray DC Bureau – Bias and Credibility

Support our mission - ad-free browsing & exclusive content. If you value our work, consider becoming a member.

New membership plans available.

Every contribution counts

Never see this message again

The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics pp 9292–9295 Cite as

• National Bureau of Economic Research
• Malcolm Rutherford 1  
• Reference work entry
• First Online: 01 January 2018

18 Accesses

The National Bureau of Economic Research was founded in 1920 and has been regarded as one of the leading research organizations in economics ever since. This entry deals briefly with the founding of the NBER, its early research on national income and business cycles, its later research directions and contributions, and some of the more important changes in organization and direction that have occurred up to 2007.

• Burns, A. F.
• Business cycle measurement
• Commons, J. R.
• Cowles Commission
• Fabricant, S.
• Feldstein, M.
• Friedman, M.
• Kuznets, S.
• Mitchell, W. C.
• National income
• National income accounting
• Schwartz, A.
• Stigler, G.
• Stone, N. I.

JEL Classifications

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Bibliography

Burns, A.F. 1946. Economic research and the Keynesian thinking of our times. Twenty sixth annual report of the National Bureau of Economic Research. New York: NBER.

Google Scholar  

Burns, A.F., and W.C. Mitchell. 1946. Measuring business cycles . New York: NBER.

Committee of the President’s Conference on Unemployment. 1923. Business cycles and unemployment . New York: McGraw Hill.

Committee on Recent Economic Changes of the President’s Conference on Unemployment. 1929. Recent economic changes in the United States . New York: McGraw Hill.

Fabricant, S. 1984. Toward a firmer basis of economic policy: The founding of the National Bureau of Economic Research. www.nber.org/nberhistory/sfabricantrev.pdf

Friedman, M., and A.J. Schwartz. 1963. A monetary history of the United States, 1867–1960 . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Koopmans, T.C. 1947. Measurement without theory. Review of Economic Statistics 29: 161–172.

Article   Google Scholar  

Kuznets, S. 1934. National income, 1929–1932 . New York: NBER.

Kuznets, S., and M. Friedman. 1939. Incomes from independent professional practice, 1919–1936 . New York: NBER.

Mitchell, W.C. 1927. Business cycles: The problem and its setting . New York: NBER.

Mitchell, W.C., W.I. King, F.R. Macaulay, and O.W. Knauth. 1921. Income in the United States: Its amount and distribution, 1909–1919, part 1, summary . New York: NBER.

Mitchell, W.C., W.I. King, F.R. Macaulay, and O.W. Knauth. 1922. Income in the United States: Its amount and distribution, 1909–1919, part 2, detailed report . New York: NBER.

National Bureau of Economic Research. Online. Available at: http://www.nber.org . Accessed 4 May 2007.

Rutherford, M. 2005. ‘Who’s afraid of Arthur Burns?’ The NBER and the foundations. Journal of the History of Economic Thought 27: 109–139.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

http://link.springer.com/referencework/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5

Malcolm Rutherford

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Copyright information.

© 2018 Macmillan Publishers Ltd.

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Rutherford, M. (2018). National Bureau of Economic Research. In: The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_2073

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_2073

Published : 15 February 2018

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, London

Print ISBN : 978-1-349-95188-8

Online ISBN : 978-1-349-95189-5

eBook Packages : Economics and Finance Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Search Search Please fill out this field.

National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER): Meaning, Role

Katrina Ávila Munichiello is an experienced editor, writer, fact-checker, and proofreader with more than fourteen years of experience working with print and online publications.

What Is the National Bureau of Economic Research?

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) is a private, non-profit, non-partisan research organization with an aim is to promote a greater understanding of how the economy works. It disseminates economic research among public policymakers, business professionals, and the academic community.

Key Takeaways

• The NBER is a private, non-profit research organization.
• The focus areas for its research are: new statistical measurements, estimating quantitative models of economic behavior, assessing the effects of public policy on the U.S. economy, and projecting the effect of alternative policy proposals.
• NBER's research papers are produced quickly and released as "working papers." They function as talking points among economists interested in new developments within their field.

Understanding National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)

Hundreds of the nation's leading scholars in economics and business are also NBER researchers who focus on four types of empirical research: developing new statistical measurements, estimating quantitative models of economic behavior, assessing the effects of public policies on the U.S. economy, and projecting the effects of alternative policy proposals. As of 2021, thirty-eight current or past NBER board members and research affiliates have been awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics .

According to the organization, "The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) is a private, nonpartisan organization that facilitates cutting-edge investigation and analysis of major economic issues. It disseminates research findings to academics, public and private-sector decision-makers, and the public by posting more than 1,200 working papers and convening more than 120 scholarly conferences each year."

The NBER officially declared an end to the economic expansion in February of 2020 as the U.S. fell into a recession during that year's economic crisis.

Role of NBER In Modern Economics

The more than 1,600 economists who are NBER researchers are the leading scholars in their fields. Most NBER-affiliated researchers are either Faculty Research Fellows (FRFs) or Research Associates (RAs). Faculty Research Fellows are typically junior scholars. Research Associates, whose appointments are approved by the NBER Board of Directors, hold tenured positions at their home institutions.

The NBER is supported by research grants from government agencies and private foundations, by investment income, and by contributions from individuals and corporations.

The group took in $32 million for the year ended June 30, 2020, according to its financial statement.

The economist Paul Krugman, writing in the New York Times, said NBER is "best described, I’d say, as the old-boy network of economics made flesh. There are a couple of NBER offices, but they’re small; what the organization mainly consists of is its associates and what they do. In many sub-fields of economics, just about anyone well-known in the profession is an NBER research associate; it’s normal for these associates to release new research as NBER working papers.

The function of these papers, in turn, is to get research out quickly so other economists can discuss it (which includes criticizing it). For working economists, the NBER WP series provides what amounts to one-stop shopping for new developments in their field."

National Bureau of Economic Research. " About the NBER ." Accessed Oct. 22, 2021.

The Statesman's Yearbook. " National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) ." Accessed Oct. 22, 2021.

National Bureau of Economic Research. " Nobel Laureates ." Accessed Oct. 22, 2021.

National Bureau of Economic Research. " Business Cycle Dating Committee Announcement June 8, 2020 ." Accessed Oct. 22, 2021.

National Bureau of Economic Research. " Summary Statements for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30th, 2020 ." Accessed Oct. 22, 2021.

The New York Times. " Understanding the NBER ." Accessed Oct. 22, 2021.

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Your Privacy Choices

Please sign in

You need to log in to use the bookmarking feature.

• Baker Library
• Special Collections
• Fast Answers
• All Services
• Plan Your Visit
• Working Knowledge
• Academic Programs
• Faculty & Research
• Harvard Business Review
• Initiatives
• Map / Directions

National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Working Papers

Full-text of NBER Working Papers from November 1994 to the present.

About this Database

Full-text of NBER Working Papers from November 1994 to the present. Approximately 500 papers are published annually. The NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, and business professionals. Key focus areas include developing new statistical measurements, estimating quantitative models of economic behavior, and analyzing the effects of public policies.

Go To Database

Access method

Authorized Baker Visitors HarvardKey

Get Email Updates from Ballotpedia

First Name *

Please complete the Captcha above

Ballotpedia on Facebook

  Share this page

  Follow Ballotpedia

Ballotpedia on Twitter

National bureau of economic research.

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) is a think tank that supports, publishes, and distributes scholarly research on economics and economic policy. More than 1,400 professors and scholars work on NBER research projects. Founded in 1920, it is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization located in Cambridge, Mass., with a branch office in New York City . [1]

• 3.1 Research programs
• 3.2 Working groups
• 3.3 Business Cycle Dating Committee
• 4.1 Board of Directors
• 6 Recent news
• 8 External links
• 9 Footnotes

On its website, NBER gives the following mission statement: [1]

NBER was founded in 1920. According to its website, "twenty-five Nobel Prize winners in Economics and thirteen past chairs of the President's Council of Economic Advisers have held NBER affiliations." [1]

The primary activity of the National Bureau of Economic Research is to support and publish scholarly research in various fields of economics. The think tank operates twenty research programs and fifteen working groups, each led by a director or two co-directors. [3] It also sponsors a Business Cycle Dating Committee. [4]

NBER works with more than 1,400 researchers, most of whom are professors and scholars of economics or business at North American colleges and universities. The organization also employs a support staff of 45 people. Its main office is located in Cambridge, Mass., and there is a branch office in New York City . [1]

Economist, author, and former NBER research fellow Steven Levitt wrote that the organization is important as an "information clearinghouse" because it "serves the critical function of letting economists know what other economists are working on now, as opposed to two or three years from now, when the research actually appears in academic, peer-reviewed journals." [5]

Research programs

NBER researchers are usually affiliated with at least one research program. According to the organization's website, these programs "correspond loosely to traditional fields of study within the field of economics, and they encompass a wide range of research within such fields." Most programs hold biannual meetings and participate in the NBER Summer Institute. Below is a list of the research programs supported by NBER: [3]

• Asset Pricing (AP)
• Children (CH)
• Corporate Finance (CF)
• Development Economics (DEV)
• Development of the American Economy (DAE)
• Economics of Education (ED)
• Economic Fluctuations and Growth (EFG)
• Environmental and Energy Economics (EEE)
• Health Care (HC)
• Health Economics (HE)
• Industrial Organization (IO)
• International Finance and Macroeconomics (IFM)
• International Trade and Investment (ITI)
• Labor Studies (LS)
• Law and Economics (LE)
• Monetary Economics (ME)
• Political Economy (POL)
• Productivity, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship Program (PR)
• Public Economics (PE)

More complete descriptions of these programs can be accessed here , on the NBER website.

Working groups

Scholars that belong to NBER working groups usually convene once per year to share research findings and draft publications, known as working papers. These groups work on specific topics and sub-fields of economics, usually more directed than programs. Below is a list of the working groups supported by NBER: [6] [7]

• Behavioral Finance (BF)
• Chinese Economy (CE)
• Cohort Studies (CS)
• Economics of Crime (CRI)
• Economics of National Security (ENS)
• Entrepreneurship (ENT)
• Household Finance (HF)
• Innovation Policy (IPE)
• Insurance (INS)
• Market Design (MD)
• Market Microstructure (MM)
• Organizational Economics (OE)
• Personnel Economics (PER)
• Risks of Financial Institutions (FR)
• Urban Economics (UE)

A list of NBER working papers, organized by topic area, can be accessed here . Former NBER research fellow Steven Levitt estimated that by 2008, the organization had collected more than 13,000 working papers. [5]

Business Cycle Dating Committee

In 1978, the think tank created a committee intended to identify the start and end dates of economic recessions in the United States: [4] [5]

As of July 2016, the president of the National Bureau of Economic Research was Dr. James Poterba. He took on this position in 2008. Poterba is also the Mitsui Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Econometric Society. He studied economics at Harvard University and then as a Marshall Scholar at Oxford University, where he received his Doctor of Philosophy degree. [8] [5]

Board of Directors

As of September 2015, the Board of Directors of NBER included the following individuals: [9]

• Martin B. Zimmerman , Chairman
• Karen N. Horn , Vice Chairman
• James Poterba , President and Chief Executive Officer
• Robert Mednick , Treasurer
• Alterra Milone , Corporate Secretary
• Kelly Horak , Controller and Assistant Corporate Secretary
• Denis Healy , Assistant Corporate Secretary

Directors by University Appointment

• Timothy Bresnahan , Stanford University
• Pierre-André Chiappori , Columbia University
• Alan V. Deardorff , University of Michigan
• Ray C. Fair , Yale University
• Edward Foster , University of Minnesota
• John P. Gould , University of Chicago
• Mark Grinblatt , University of California at Los Angeles
• Bruce Hansen , University of Wisconsin-Madison
• Benjamin Hermalin , University of California at Berkeley
• Marjorie B. McElroy , Duke University
• Joel Mokyr , Northwestern University
• Andrew Postlewaite , University of Pennsylvania
• Cecilia Rouse , Princeton University
• Richard Schmalensee , Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• David B. Yoffie , Harvard University

Directors by Appointment of Other Organizations

• Jean-Paul Chavas , Agricultural and Applied Economics Association
• Martin J. Gruber , American Finance Association
• Arthur Kennickell , American Statistical Association
• Jack Kleinhenz , National Association for Business Economics
• William W. Lewis , Committee for Economic Development
• Robert Mednick , American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
• Alan L. Olmstead , Economic History Association
• Peter L. Rousseau , American Economic Association
• Gregor W. Smith , Canadian Economics Association
• William Spriggs , American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations
• Bart van Ark , Conference Board

Directors at Large

• Peter C. Aldrich
• Elizabeth E. Bailey
• John H. Biggs
• John S. Clarkeson
• Don R. Conlan
• Kathleen B. Cooper
• Charles H. Dallara
• George C. Eads
• Jessica P. Einhorn
• Mohamed El-Erian
• Linda Ewing
• Jacob Frenkel
• Judith M. Gueron
• Robert S. Hamada
• Peter Blair Henry
• John Lipsky
• Laurence Meyer
• Michael H. Moskow
• Alicia H. Munnell
• Robert T. Parry
• John S. Reed
• Marina v. N. Whitman

Directors Emeriti

• George Akerlof
• Jagdish Bhagwati
• Carl F. Christ
• Franklin Fisher
• George Hatsopoulos
• Saul H. Hymans
• Rudolph A. Oswald
• Peter G. Peterson
• John J. Siegfried

Based on IRS tax records published on GuideStar , the following is a breakdown of the organization's finances for fiscal years 2011-2015: [10] [11]

NBER's website says that it is funded "by research grants from government agencies and private foundations, by investment income, and by contributions from individuals and corporations." [1] Corporate and individual sponsors of NBER for fiscal year 2016 included: [12]

Corporations and Corporate Foundations

Contributing $10,000 - $25,000:

• Bank for International Settlements
• Bracebridge Capital
• Brevan Howard
• Capital Group Companies
• Credit Suisse
• Fuller & Thaler Asset Management
• General Electric
• General Motors Foundation
• Goldman Sachs
• Insurance Information Institute
• JP Morgan Chase Institute
• Pfizer, Inc.

Contributing $5,000 or Less:

• Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System
• Haver Analytics, Inc.
• Macroeconomic Advisers
• U. S. Regional Federal Reserve Banks (12)

Individual Supporters

• Allen Sinai
• Francis Schott

Central Banks Contributing to Support NBER Summer Institute

Contributing $10,000 - $15,000:

• Bank of France
• Bank of Italy
• Bank of Japan
• Bank of Netherlands
• Monetary Authority of Singapore
• Reserve Bank of India

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms ' National Bureau of Economic Research' NBER. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

National Bureau of Economic Research - Google News

• Brookings Institution
• Nonprofit organization

External links

• NBER website
• Profile on EDIRC, a project of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
• NBER working papers, by topic
• NBER monographs published by the University of Chicago Press
• NBER RSS feeds
• News about NBER from The Economist
• News about NBER from The New York Times
• ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 National Bureau of Economic Research , "About the NBER," accessed July 7, 2016
• ↑ 2.0 2.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
• ↑ 3.0 3.1 National Bureau of Economic Research , "Major Programs at the NBER," accessed July 7, 2016
• ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 National Bureau of Economic Research , "The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee," accessed July 15, 2016
• ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Freakonomics Blog , "A Changing of the Guard at the National Bureau of Economic Research," February 20, 2008
• ↑ National Bureau of Economic Research , "Working Groups," accessed July 7, 2016
• ↑ National Bureau of Economic Research , "NBER Working Papers Listed by Working Group," accessed July 14, 2016
• ↑ National Bureau of Economic Research , "James Poterba," accessed July 7, 2016
• ↑ National Bureau of Economic Research , "Board of Directors," accessed July 7, 2016
• ↑ GuideStar , "National Bureau of Economic Research," accessed July 11, 2016
• ↑ National Bureau of Economic Research , "National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., Summary Statements for the Fiscal Year ended June 30th, 2015," accessed July 15, 2016
• ↑ National Bureau of Economic Research , "NBER Corporate, Corporate Foundations and Individual Supporters: Fiscal Year 2016 (ended 6/30/2016)," accessed July 14, 2016
• Pages using DynamicPageList3 dplreplace parser function
• National influencers
• Organizations
• Economic policy influencers

Ballotpedia features 452,359 encyclopedic articles written and curated by our professional staff of editors, writers, and researchers. Click here to contact our editorial staff or report an error . For media inquiries, contact us here . Please donate here to support our continued expansion.

Information about voting

• What's on my ballot?
• Where do I vote?
• How do I register to vote?
• How do I request a ballot?
• When do I vote?
• When are polls open?
• Who represents me?

2024 Elections

• Presidential election
• Presidential candidates
• Congressional elections
• Ballot measures
• State executive elections
• State legislative elections
• State judge elections
• Local elections
• School board elections

2025 Elections

• State executives
• State legislatures
• State judges
• Municipal officials
• School boards
• Election legislation tracking
• State trifectas
• State triplexes
• Redistricting
• Pivot counties
• State supreme court partisanship
• Polling indexes

Public Policy

• Administrative state
• Criminal justice policy
• Education policy
• Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG)
• Unemployment insurance
• Work requirements
• Policy in the states

Information for candidates

• Ballotpedia's Candidate Survey
• How do I run for office?
• How do I update a page?
• Election results
• Send us candidate contact info

Get Engaged

• Donate to Ballotpedia
• Report an error
• Newsletters
• Ballotpedia podcast
• Ballotpedia Boutique
• Media inquiries
• Premium research services
• 2024 Elections calendar
• 2024 Presidential election
• Biden Administration
• Recall elections
• Ballotpedia News

SITE NAVIGATION

• Ballotpedia's Sample Ballot
• 2024 Congressional elections
• 2024 State executive elections
• 2024 State legislative elections
• 2024 State judge elections
• 2024 Local elections
• 2024 Ballot measures
• Upcoming elections
• 2025 Statewide primary dates
• 2025 State executive elections
• 2025 State legislative elections
• 2025 Local elections
• 2025 Ballot measures
• Party committee fundraising, 2023-2024
• State Executive Competitiveness Report, 2023
• State government trifectas in 2023
• State Legislative Competitiveness Report, 2023
• Endorsements in school board elections, 2023
• Partisanship in 2023 United States local elections
• Trends in 2023 ballot measures
• Cabinet officials
• Executive orders and actions
• Key legislation
• Judicial nominations
• White House senior staff
• U.S. President
• U.S. Congress
• U.S. Supreme Court
• Federal courts
• State government
• Municipal government
• Election policy
• Running for office
• Ballotpedia's weekly podcast
• About Ballotpedia
• Editorial independence
• Job opportunities
• News and events
• Privacy policy
• Disclaimers

• My Library Account
• Articles, Books & More
• Course Reserves
• Site Search
• Advanced Search
• Sac State Library
• Research Guides
• Business & Economics

Working Papers

• Classic Texts
• Databases and Journal Articles
• Government Agencies, Organizations, and Central Banks
• Global Statistics and Data Sets
• National, California, and Sacramento Statistics
• Writing and Citation Resources

What are Working Papers?

Working Papers in economics are pre-publication versions of technical papers, academic articles, book chapters, or reviews. Authors may release working papers to share ideas or to receive feedback on their work. This is done before the author submits the final version of the paper to a peer reviewed journal or conference for publication. Working paper can be cited by other peer-reviewed work.

National Bureau of Economic Research Database

The National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER, is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization dedicated to promoting a greater understanding of how the economy works. Research is conducted by more than 500 university professors around the country, the leading scholars in their fields.

Click on the database link below and then click on the Working Papers & Publications tab to the left of the page. Full text of all working papers are available to CSUS students and faculty.

• National Bureau of Economic Research Use to find working papers...

Collections of Working Papers

• SSRN -Economics Research Network Research Paper Series SSRN hosts research paper series (RPS) for academic and other research organizations.
• EconPapers EconPapers use the RePEc bibliographic and author data, providing access to the largest collection of online Economics working papers and journal articles. The majority of the full text files are freely available, but some (typically journal articles) require that you or your organization subscribe to the service providing the full text file.
• Bureau of Labor Statistics - Working Papers
• Center for Economic Studies/Ifo Group - Working Papers
• Duke University Economics- Working Papers
• European Central Bank - Working Papers
• Federal Reserve - Working Papers
• Harvard Business School - Working Papers
• Institute for New Economic Thinking - Working Papers
• International Monetary Fund -Working Papers
• Levy Economics Institute -Working Papers
• National Bureau of Economic Research - Working Papers
• OECD - Working Papers
• Penn Institute for Economic Research (PIER)-Working Papers
• Peterson Institute for International Economics - Working Papers
• UCDavis Depart. of Econ. - Working Papers
• UCSB Dept. of Econ. - Working Papers
• The World Bank - Working Papers
• World Trade Organization
• Yale University Dept of Economics - Working Papers
• << Previous: Databases and Journal Articles
• Next: Government Agencies, Organizations, and Central Banks >>
• Last Updated: Jan 4, 2024 1:43 PM
• URL: https://csus.libguides.com/economics

A 'Harvard Study' Doesn't Disprove Racial Bias in Officer-Involved Shootings

The new york times inaccurately reported an unvetted working paper as a harvard study that disproved the claim black people are shot by police at a higher rate than whites., kim lacapria, published july 15, 2016.

During a wide-ranging national debate on race and officer-involved police shootings following the deaths of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling , the New York Times ' " Upshot " published an article reporting "surprising new evidence" indicating that police demonstrated bias in nearly every respect except use of lethal force and shooting.

The article pertained to research published by Harvard University professor of Economics Roland G. Fryer, Jr. and was described by the Times as a "study." However, the Times linked to a " working paper " issued by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), which is not a peer-reviewed journal but rather an economy-based research collective:

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization dedicated to promoting a greater understanding of how the economy works. The NBER is committed to undertaking and disseminating unbiased economic research among public policymakers, business professionals, and the academic community. The NBER's greatest asset is its reputation for scholarly integrity. We expect our affiliated researchers to conduct their affairs in ways that will not compromise their reputations, nor reflect adversely on the integrity of the NBER.

That paper [ PDF ] began with disclosures that it was funded anonymously and (more important, had not yet been subject to peer review due to its status as a "working paper":

Financial support from EdLabs Advisory Group and an anonymous donor is gratefully acknowledged. Correspondence can be addressed to the author by email at [redacted]. The usual caveat applies. The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications.

Off the bat, it appeared the Times simply inaccurately described a research-in-progress paper penned by an individual as a "study from Harvard ," lending a gravitas that was not yet present. The newspaper again referred to Fryer's research as "a study" in a followup titled titled "Roland Fryer Answers Reader Questions About His Police Force Study." Fryer didn't correct the paper's fluid terminology, but in one portion he responded to a reader query asking if people "have to trust police reports to believe your study":

As we state in the paper , there are certainly high-profile cases in which the facts stated by officers differed substantially from the videos. So let’s take a minute and think about how this sort of misreporting might bias our findings.

Although the difference might have seemed semantic in nature, the imprecise wording of the Times ' original piece led a great many readers and news outlets to believe the research was peer-reviewed and published rather than being a work-in-progress unpublished by any scientific journal. It isn't clear whether, absent the rigor applied to actual studies, Fryer's findings will ultimately pass a review by peers or achieve published status. There is yet no indication Fryer's work was necessarily sloppy, but neither has the typical oversight of a genuine study been applied to his working paper. In short, aside from the pedigree of an author who is also a Harvard economics professor, Fryer's paper as it stands now isn't much different in stature than any other article published online.

The status of the "study" was evident in sixth paragraph of the Times ' 11 July 2016 article, which summed up the paper and noted it was "posted" to the Internet (not published in a journal):

A new study confirms that black men and women are treated differently in the hands of law enforcement. They are more likely to be touched, handcuffed, pushed to the ground or pepper-sprayed by a police officer, even after accounting for how, where and when they encounter the police. But when it comes to the most lethal form of force — police shootings — the study finds no racial bias. “It is the most surprising result of my career,” said Roland G. Fryer Jr., the author of the study and a professor of economics at Harvard. The study examined more than 1,000 shootings in 10 major police departments, in Texas, Florida and California. The result contradicts the image of police shootings that many Americans hold after the killings (some captured on video) of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo.; Tamir Rice in Cleveland; Walter Scott in South Carolina; Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, La.; and Philando Castile in Minnesota. The study did not say whether the most egregious examples — those at the heart of the nation’s debate on police shootings — are free of racial bias. Instead, it examined a larger pool of shootings, including nonfatal ones. The counterintuitive results provoked debate after the study was posted on Monday, mostly about the volume of police encounters and the scope of the data.

Subsequent paragraphs included conflicting language about the status of the paper, as well as its methodology:

The study, a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, relied on reports filled out by police officers and on police departments willing to share those reports. Recent videos of police shootings have led to questions about the reliability of such accounts. But the results were largely the same whether or not Mr. Fryer used information from narratives by officers.

Methodology was a matter of dispute when it came to the paper and its findings: investigative journalist and law enforcement expert Radley Balko published a critical editorial in the Washington Post about the working paper, noting that core data may have been weighted to favor officer perspectives. Balko highlighted cues he spotted in the paper that suggested its findings may have been rooted in shaky reports:

There’s been much talk this week about a new study from Harvard economics professor Roland G. Fryer Jr. on racial bias in police shootings. Much of the coverage has focused on the study’s surprising-to-some conclusion that racial bias doesn’t factor into police use of lethal force, at least in the city of Houston and at least once the officer has stopped a civilian ... But the most pertinent flaw in the study (which Fryer has tried to explain, I think unsatisfactorily) is the same flaw in any study that relies on police reports: It relies on police reports. We want to reform policing. But we want those reforms to be informed, based on good data. The problem is that nearly all the data we have on incidents involving police officers using lethal force comes from reports written by police officers, and nearly all of those reports were written by the officers who were actually involved in those incidents. For the purpose of the discussion, let’s break shootings and killings by police into three categories: incidents that were illegal and unnecessary, incidents that were legal and necessary, and incidents that were legal but unnecessary. If you’re asking whether current laws and policies allow for too many police shootings, looking at how many shootings are justified under current law and policy is just question begging. It’s that last category — legal but unnecessary — that we want to explore. Unfortunately, it’s also a category that is plagued by subjectivity and the simple fact noted above: Most of the data we have comes from police reports themselves. If we were to compile statistics on, say, medical mistakes in an effort to make policies that would improve the state of medicine, we wouldn’t get all of our data from written statements by the accused doctors or hospitals. If we wanted to compile data on conflicts of interest in politics, we wouldn’t rely on politicians to self-report and adjudicate when their vote may have been influenced by a campaign donation. But this is essentially what we do with shootings by police officers ... The argument here is not that there’s something uniquely untrustworthy about cops. The argument is that almost every police officer who has just shot and killed someone will defend his or her decision to kill. It’s human nature. It could be because the killing was entirely justifiable. It could be because the officer wants to believe it was justifiable. It could be because the officer knows it wasn’t justified, but fears the consequences. Personally, I suspect that a high percentage — well more than half — of shootings by police are both legal and justified. I also suspect that nearly all cops who have just shot and killed someone truly believe that their actions were justified. That is, I suspect that the percentage of cases in which cops knowingly covered up a bad shoot is pretty small. But I also think it’s safe to say that the percentage of shootings by police that most of the public would find troubling, unnecessary or unjustifiable is far below the 99 percent or higher of cops that are cleared in these cases.

To underscore his point, Balko rattled off a number of officer-involved shootings that technically would have fallen under uncounted justifiable uses of force but fell apart under scrutiny. The last example he provided illustrated his distrust of the data used by Fryer:

I think of the Kathryn Johnston case, in which the police invented an informant and lied on a search warrant affidavit before breaking down the 92-year-old woman’s door. She was innocent. When she met them with the broken old revolver she used to scare off intruders, they shot and killed her. In the police report, she was an armed suspect who threatened them with a gun. Again, none of this is to say this data is completely useless. We just need to be really cautious about how we use it, and realize that the numbers alone don’t always tell the story.

Vox published a critical counter-piece that didn't take an approach as granular as Balko's, noting that Fryer's expertise was not in criminology and his cited motivations were rooted in a mistaken belief no such research had yet been done:

As a general rule, when somebody claims that a new academic study finally looks into the data behind a controversial news issue, you should be skeptical. So when the Times article summarily dismisses existing data as “poor,” and doesn’t explain what that data actually is, that should be a red flag — a clue that the article’s author isn’t going to provide you with an explanation of why this new data is so much better than the old data, and you’re going to have to do that yourself. When Fryer (an economist by training) tells the Times that he got interested in police shootings because of “his anger after the deaths of Michael Brown and Freddie Gray,” and (in Fryer’s words) “decided I was going to collect a bunch of data and try to understand what really is going on,” that should be another humongous red flag. It implies that Fryer assumed he was doing something pioneering, rather than asking first what work was already being done and what he could add to the existing conversation. This is something that often happens when people in “quantitative” social sciences, like economics, develop an interest in topics covered in other social sciences — in this case, criminology: They assume that no rigorous empirical work is being done.

Vox also objected to data collection methods that may have inadvertently distorted Fryer's findings based on the exclusion of potentially relevant incidents:

The most revealing passage in the Times article is probably the one explaining what Fryer and his team didn’t include in their study: It focused on what happens when police encounters occur, not how often they happen. Racial differences in how often police-civilian interactions occur reflect greater structural problems in society. In other words, Fryer and company found that there weren’t big racial disparities in how often black and white suspects who’d already been stopped by police were killed. But they deliberately avoided the question of whether black citizens are more likely to be stopped to begin with (they are) and whether they’re more likely to be stopped without cause (yup).

As both outlets noted, Fryer's findings weren't necessarily misleading, incorrect, or wrong, but there were numerous obvious problems with the bombastic manner in which the New York Times framed his paper (for starters). Fryer's paper was neither published nor peer-reviewed, and it was certainly not a "Harvard study." (A similar controversy erupted over a " Harvard study " on of gun rights was found to be a paper penned by supporters of that issue.)

Critics noted that Fryer's sample size was exceedingly small (possibly skewing the results) and relied on the narratives of policemen and women party to officer-involved shootings. Moreover, Fryer's background in economics was certainly useful for crunching data, but it lacked the scope and working knowledge present in criminologists and researchers in related fields. The paper is still a work in progress and hasn't been fully vetted, but even in its "working" state it has been the target of multiple assessments indicating that its findings are far from complete.

Since this article was published, the study in question was published in the peer-reviewed 'Journal of Political Economy,' October 2018.

By Kim LaCapria

Kim LaCapria is a former writer for Snopes.

Article Tags

• Welcome! Start here
• Prepare for research

Introduction: Find peer-reviewed articles and working papers

Literature databases, key journals in economics, working papers, thesis & dissertations, open resources for economics research.

• Books and e-books
• News and periodicals
• Data and statistics
• Write your research with literature review and citation

Searching targeted subject-specific article databases is vital for effective research. Here are some tips identifying relevant, high-impact journals and articles.

• EconLit This link opens in a new window Provides access to literature on economics compiled by the American Economic Association from more than 300 major economics journals, 1969-present more... less... 1969-present; a comprehensive index to the worldwide literature on economics compiled by the American Economic Association from over 300 major economics journals.

• ProQuest Business Collection This link opens in a new window Provides access to articles, trade publications, market research reports, as well as major news publications for business, marketing and entrepreneurship research and practice more... less... Current; a comprehensive business offering, comprising all content from ABI/INFORM Complete, Accounting & Tax, Asian Business & Reference, Banking Information Source, Entrepreneurship, and the International Bibliography of the Social Sciences. Featuring thousands of full text journals, dissertations, conference proceedings, and working papers as well as trade publications, industry reports, and key periodicals such as the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, and Economist. Strong U.S. and international coverage in business and the social sciences.

Access the current issue(s) for each journal using direct links below. Use BruKnow to search for journals by name to locate historical editions.

• American Economic Review
• Quarterly Journal of Economics
• Journal of Political Economy
• Econometrica
• Journal of Economic Perspectives
• Games and Economic Behavior
• Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization
• Review of Economic Studies
• Journal of Economic Theory
• Journal of Finance
• Brown Department of Economics Working Papers
• IDEAS/RePEc Archive IDEAS is the largest bibliographic database dedicated to Economics and available freely on the Internet. Based on RePEc, it indexes over 2,800,000 items of research, including over 2,600,000 that can be downloaded in full text.
• EconPapers EconPapers use the RePEc bibliographic and author data, providing access to the largest collection of online Economics working papers and journal articles. The majority of the full text files are freely available, but some (typically journal articles) may require you to gain access via the library website.
• NBER Working Papers The NBER working paper series includes over 1000 papers each year, authored by leading research economists, on a wide variety of topics. These papers are circulated prior to publication for comment and discussion. The working paper series began in 1973, and now includes more than 24,000 papers.
• Brown Theses and Dissertations This link opens in a new window Search or deposit Brown dissertations and theses. more... less... The Brown University Theses and Dissertations database includes over 15,000 records for dissertations written and submitted in fulfillment of Brown University degree requirements from 1893 to 2000. Included are undergraduate honors theses, master's theses, and doctoral dissertations. Records include the author's name, thesis title, degree awarded, year, granting department, and when available, thesis advisor. [This resource is publicly available.]

The American Economics Association has compiled a fairly comprehensive guide to resources that can be found online that are open and accessible for all. The table of contents provides a list of all resources one one page but here are some direct call outs to frequently requested categories of materials.

• American Economics Association Resources
• << Previous: Prepare for research
• Next: Books and e-books >>
• Last Updated: Sep 18, 2023 10:05 AM
• URL: https://libguides.brown.edu/economics

Brown University Library  |  Providence, RI 02912  |  (401) 863-2165  |  Contact  |  Comments  |  Library Feedback  |  Site Map

Library Intranet

• News & Articles

Economics Working Papers

• Finding Data
• Citing Sources: APA
• Associations

Working papers are a way of finding the most current research in your field. Academics often release these drafts to share their research and elicit feedback before submitting the work to a peer-reviewed journal. 

• EconLit This database contains a number of working papers, including some from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER - www.nber.org). Under Search Options, change Publication Type to "Working Paper."
• Bureau of Labor Statistics Economic Working Papers
• Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis: Working Papers
• International Monetary Fund Go to the "Documents and Publications" section of the page and change "All Series" to "Working Papers."
• Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
• Research Papers in Economics (RePEc)
• University of California eScholarship
• Working Papers & Technical Reports in Business, Economics & Law
• << Previous: News & Articles
• Next: Finding Data >>
• Last Updated: Sep 15, 2023 2:51 PM
• URL: https://libguides.uww.edu/economics

Mark your calendar!

The bpea spring conference will be held march 28-29, 2024..

The Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (BPEA) is a semi-annual academic conference and journal that pairs rigorous research with real-time policy analysis to address the most urgent economic challenges of the day. Working drafts of the papers are presented and discussed at conferences typically held twice each year, and the final versions of the papers and comments along with summaries of the general discussions are published in the journal several months later. The views expressed by the authors, discussants and conference participants in BPEA are strictly those of the authors, discussants and conference participants, and not of the Brookings Institution. As an independent think tank, the Brookings Institution does not take institutional positions on any issue. Please contact Haowen Chen ( [email protected] ) if you have any questions.

Spring 2024

For authors

Search all bpea papers, subscribe to the journal.

Interested in writing a BPEA paper?

Subscribe to the Brookings Podcast on Economic Activity

New and Noteworthy

Accounting for the widening mortality gap between American adults with and without a BA

Anne Case and Angus Deaton

The power of substitution: The Great German Gas debate in retrospect

Benjamin Moll, Moritz Schularick, and Georg Zachmann

Where are the missing workers?

Katharine Abraham and Lea Rendell

Economic implications of the climate provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act

John Bistline, Neil R. Mehrotra, and Catherine Wolfram

Understanding US inflation during the COVID era

Laurence Ball, Daniel Leigh, and Prachi Mishra

Working from home around the world

Cevat Giray Aksoy, Jose Maria Barrero, Nicholas Bloom, Steven J. Davis, Mathias Dolls, and Pablo Zarate

Losing the inflation anchor

Ricardo Reis

The economic gains from equity

Shelby R. Buckman, Laura Y. Choi, Mary C. Daly, and Lily M. Seitelman

Understanding the economic impact of COVID-19 on women

Claudia Goldin

Monetary policy and racial inequality

Alina Kristin Bartscher, Moritz Kuhn, Moritz Schularick, and Paul Wachtel

The sustainability of state and local government pensions: A public finance approach

Jamie Lenney, Byron Lutz, Finn Schüle, and Louise Sheiner

The economic costs of pretrial detention

Will Dobbie and Crystal S. Yang

Has the Paycheck Protection Program succeeded?

Glenn Hubbard and Michael R. Strain

Fiscal effects of COVID-19

Alan J. Auerbach, William G. Gale, Byron Lutz, and Louise Sheiner

Policies for a second wave

David Baqaee, Emmanuel Farhi, Michael J. Mina, and James Stock

Corporate debt overhang and credit policy

Markus Brunnermeier and Arvind Krishnamurthy

What's up with the Phillips Curve?

Marco Del Negro, Michele Lenza, Giorgio E. Primiceri, and Andrea Tambalotti

Declining worker power and American economic performance

Anna Stansbury and Lawrence H. Summers

Progressive wealth taxation

Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman

The real effects of the financial crisis

Ben S. Bernanke

Saving the heartland: Place-based policies in 21st Century America

Benjamin Austin, Edward Glaeser, and Lawrence Summers

Mortality and Morbidity in the 21st Century

Anne Case and Sir Angus Deaton

BPEA in the News

Nothing Defines America’s Social Divide Like a College Education

The Atlantic - October 4, 2023

U.S. labor force gap mostly due to pre-pandemic trends, study finds

Reuters - March 30, 2023

Reducing inequality, hiking minimum wage could boost U.S. economy -White House

Reuters - April 14, 2022

Fed's inclusive recovery put to the test

Axios - March 30, 2022

The Most Important Number You’ve Never Heard Of

The New York Times - September 17, 2021

The Cost of American Inequality

Bloomberg - September 9, 2021

A roller coaster six months leaves U.S. recovery still uncertain

Reuters - September 24, 2020

Biden Faces Challenge as Congress Drops State Aid to Secure Stimulus

The New York Times - December 17, 2020

Covid-19 Is Dividing the American Worker

The Wall Street Journal - August 22, 2020

Pandemic wage cuts are roughly double what they were in the Great Recession, study shows

Business Insider - June 26, 2020

How ECB purchases of corporate bonds helped reduce firms’ borrowing costs

European Central Bank - January 28, 2020

The College Wealth Divide Continues to Grow

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - January 17, 2020

There are consequences to making college free

The Washington Post - October 26, 2019

The French Economist Who Helped Invent Elizabeth Warren’s Wealth Tax

The New Yorker - October 19, 2019

BPEA Editors

Janice C. Eberly Nonresident Senior Fellow - Economic Studies

Jón Steinsson Nonresident Senior Fellow - Economic Studies

BPEA Leadership

Available today at 9 a.m.

Additional Options

• smartphone Call / Text
• voice_chat Consultation Appointment
• place Visit
• email Email

Chat with a Specific library

• Business Library Offline
• College Library (Undergraduate) Offline
• Ebling Library (Health Sciences) Offline
• Gender and Women's Studies Librarian Offline
• Information School Library (Information Studies) Offline
• Law Library (Law) Offline
• Memorial Library (Humanities & Social Sciences) Offline
• MERIT Library (Education) Offline
• Steenbock Library (Agricultural & Life Sciences, Engineering) Offline
• Ask a Librarian Hours & Policy
• Library Research Tutorials

Search the for Website expand_more Articles Find articles in journals, magazines, newspapers, and more Catalog Explore books, music, movies, and more Databases Locate databases by title and description Journals Find journal titles UWDC Discover digital collections, images, sound recordings, and more Website Find information on spaces, staff, services, and more

Language website search.

Find information on spaces, staff, and services.

• ASK a Librarian
• Library by Appointment
• Locations & Hours
• Resources by Subject

book Catalog Search

Search the physical and online collections at UW-Madison, UW System libraries, and the Wisconsin Historical Society.

• Available Online
• Print/Physical Items
• Limit to UW-Madison
• Advanced Search
• Browse by...

collections_bookmark Database Search

Find databases subscribed to by UW-Madison Libraries, searchable by title and description.

• Browse by Subject/Type
• Introductory Databases
• Top 10 Databases

article Journal Search

Find journal titles available online and in print.

• Browse by Subject / Title
• Citation Search

description Article Search

Find articles in journals, magazines, newspapers, and more.

• Scholarly (peer-reviewed)
• Open Access
• Library Databases

collections UW Digital Collections Search

Discover digital objects and collections curated by the UW Digital Collections Center .

• Browse Collections
• Browse UWDC Items
• University of Wisconsin–Madison
• Email/Calendar
• Google Apps
• Loans & Requests
• Poster Printing
• Account Details
• Archives and Special Collections Requests
• Library Room Reservations

Search the UW-Madison Libraries

Citation data.

warning Note: These citations are software generated and may contain errors. To verify accuracy, check the appropriate style guide. Close close

Export to Citation Manager (RIS)

Back to item

Keyboard Shortcuts

Available anywhere, available in search results.

Mobile Menu Overlay

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500

The 2024 Economic Report of the   President

Today, the Council of Economic Advisers under the leadership of Chair Jared Bernstein released the 2024 Economic Report of the President , the 78 th report since the establishment of CEA in 1946. The 2024 Report brings economic evidence and data to bear on many of today’s most significant issues and questions in domestic and international economic policy:

Chapter 1, The Benefits of Full Employment , which is dedicated to the late Dr. William Spriggs, examines the labor market, distributional, and macroeconomic impacts of full employment, with a particular focus on the benefits for economically vulnerable groups of workers who are much more likely to be left behind in periods of weak labor markets.

Chapter 2, The Year in Review and the Years Ahead , describes macroeconomic and financial market trends in 2023 and presents the Federal government’s FY 2024 macroeconomic forecast.

Chapter 3, Population, Aging, and the Economy , explains how long-run trends in fertility and mortality are shaping the U.S. population and labor force.

Chapter 4, Increasing the Supply of Affordable Housing, explores the causes and consequences of the nation’s longstanding housing shortage and how the Biden-Harris administration’s policy agenda can significantly increase the production of more affordable housing.

Chapter 5, International Trade and Investment Flows, presents key facts about long-term trends in U.S. international trade and investment flows, including the role of global supply chains, and highlights the benefits and costs of global integration for American workers.

Chapter 6, Accelerating the Clean Energy Transition , applies a structural change framework to explain the factors that can accelerate the transition towards a clean energy economy.

Chapter 7, An Economic Framework for Understanding Artificial Intelligence , uses an economic framework to explore when, how, and why AI may be adopted, adapting standard economic models to explore AI’s potential effects on labor markets, while examining policy decisions that will affect social and macroeconomic outcomes.

Stay Connected

We'll be in touch with the latest information on how President Biden and his administration are working for the American people, as well as ways you can get involved and help our country build back better.

Opt in to send and receive text messages from President Biden.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 28 March 2024

New water accounting reveals why the Colorado River no longer reaches the sea

• Brian D. Richter   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7216-1397 1 , 2 ,
• Gambhir Lamsal   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2593-8949 3 ,
• Landon Marston   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9116-1691 3 ,
• Sameer Dhakal   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4941-1559 3 ,
• Laljeet Singh Sangha   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0986-1785 4 ,
• Richard R. Rushforth 4 ,
• Dongyang Wei   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0384-4340 5 ,
• Benjamin L. Ruddell 4 ,
• Kyle Frankel Davis   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4504-1407 5 , 6 ,
• Astrid Hernandez-Cruz   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0776-5105 7 ,
• Samuel Sandoval-Solis 8 &
• John C. Schmidt 9  

Communications Earth & Environment volume  5 , Article number:  134 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

4638 Accesses

622 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Water resources

Persistent overuse of water supplies from the Colorado River during recent decades has substantially depleted large storage reservoirs and triggered mandatory cutbacks in water use. The river holds critical importance to more than 40 million people and more than two million hectares of cropland. Therefore, a full accounting of where the river’s water goes en route to its delta is necessary. Detailed knowledge of how and where the river’s water is used can aid design of strategies and plans for bringing water use into balance with available supplies. Here we apply authoritative primary data sources and modeled crop and riparian/wetland evapotranspiration estimates to compile a water budget based on average consumptive water use during 2000–2019. Overall water consumption includes both direct human uses in the municipal, commercial, industrial, and agricultural sectors, as well as indirect water losses to reservoir evaporation and water consumed through riparian/wetland evapotranspiration. Irrigated agriculture is responsible for 74% of direct human uses and 52% of overall water consumption. Water consumed for agriculture amounts to three times all other direct uses combined. Cattle feed crops including alfalfa and other grass hays account for 46% of all direct water consumption.

Similar content being viewed by others

Disappearing cities on US coasts

Leonard O. Ohenhen, Manoochehr Shirzaei, … Robert J. Nicholls

Meta-analysis shows the impacts of ecological restoration on greenhouse gas emissions

Tiehu He, Weixin Ding, … Quanfa Zhang

Historical impacts of grazing on carbon stocks and climate mitigation opportunities

Shuai Ren, César Terrer, … Dan Liu

Introduction

Barely a trickle of water is left of the iconic Colorado River of the American Southwest as it approaches its outlet in the Gulf of California in Mexico after watering many cities and farms along its 2330-kilometer course. There were a few years in the 1980s in which enormous snowfall in the Rocky Mountains produced a deluge of spring snowmelt runoff capable of escaping full capture for human uses, but for most of the past 60 years the river’s water has been fully consumed before reaching its delta 1 , 2 . In fact, the river was overconsumed (i.e., total annual water consumption exceeding runoff supplies) in 16 of 21 years during 2000–2020 3 , requiring large withdrawals of water stored in Lake Mead and Lake Powell to accommodate the deficits. An average annual overdraft of 10% during this period 2 caused these reservoirs– the two largest in the US – to drop to three-quarters empty by the end of 2022 4 , triggering urgent policy decisions on where to cut consumption.

Despite the river’s importance to more than 40 million people and more than two million hectares (>5 million acres) of cropland—producing most of the vegetable produce for American and Canadian plates in wintertime and also feeding many additional people worldwide via exports—a full sectoral and crop-specific accounting of where all that water goes en route to its delta has never been attempted, until now. Detailed knowledge of how and where the river’s water is used can aid design of strategies and plans for bringing water use into balance with available supplies.

There are interesting historical reasons to explain why this full water budget accounting has not been accomplished previously, beginning a full century ago when the apportionment of rights to use the river’s water within the United States was inscribed into the Colorado River Compact of 1922 5 . That Compact was ambiguous and confusing in its allocation of water inflowing to the Colorado River from the Gila River basin in New Mexico and Arizona 6 , even though it accounts for 24% of the drainage area of the Colorado River Basin (Fig.  1 ). Because of intense disagreements over the rights to the Gila and other tributaries entering the Colorado River downstream of the Grand Canyon, the Compact negotiators decided to leave the allocation of those waters rights to a later time so that the Compact could proceed 6 . Arizona’s formal rights to the Gila and other Arizona tributaries were finally affirmed in a US Supreme Court decision in 1963 that also specified the volumes of Colorado River water allocated to California, Arizona, and Nevada 7 . Because the rights to the Gila’s waters lie outside of the Compact allocations, the Gila has not been included in formal accounting of the Colorado River Basin water budget to date 8 . Additionally, the Compact did not specify how much water Mexico—at the river’s downstream end—should receive. Mexico’s share of the river was not formalized until 22 years later, in the 1944 international treaty on “Utilization of the Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande” (1944 Water Treaty) 9 . As a result of these political circumstances, full accounting for direct water consumption at the sectoral level—in which water use is accounted according to categories such as municipal, industrial, commercial, or agricultural uses—has not previously been compiled for the Gila River basin’s water, and sectoral accounting for Mexico was not published until 2023 10 .

The physical boundary of the Colorado River Basin is outlined in black. Hatched areas outside of the basin boundary receive Colorado River water via inter-basin transfers (also known as ‘exports’). The Gila River basin is situated in the far southern portion of the CRB in Arizona, New Mexico, and Mexico. Map courtesy of Center for Colorado River Studies, Utah State University.

The US Bureau of Reclamation (“Reclamation”)—which owns and operates massive water infrastructure in the Colorado River Basin—has served as the primary accountant of Colorado River water. In 2012, the agency produced a “Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study” 8 that accounted for both the sectoral uses of water within the basin’s physical boundaries within the US as well as river water exported outside of the basin (Fig.  1 ). But Reclamation did not attempt to account for water generated from the Gila River basin because of that sub-basin’s exclusion from the Colorado River Compact, and it did not attempt to explain how water crossing the border into Mexico is used. The agency estimated riparian vegetation evapotranspiration for the lower Colorado River but not the remainder of the extensive river system. Richter et al. 11 published a water budget for the Colorado River that included sectoral and crop-specific water consumption but it too did not include water used in Mexico, nor reservoir evaporation or riparian evapotranspiration, and it did not account for water exported outside of the Colorado River Basin’s physical boundary as illustrated in Fig.  1 . Given that nearly one-fifth (19%) of the river’s water is exported from the basin or used in Mexico, and that the Gila is a major tributary to the Colorado, this incomplete accounting has led to inaccuracies and misinterpretations of “where the Colorado River’s water goes” and has created uncertainty in discussions based on the numbers. This paper provides fuller accounting of the fate of all river water during 2000–2019, including averaged annual consumption in each of the sub-basins including exports, consumption in major sectors of the economy, consumption in the production of specific types of crops, and water consumed by reservoir evaporation and riparian/wetland evapotranspiration.

Rising awareness of water overuse and prolonged drought has driven intensifying dialog among the seven US states sharing the basin’s waters as well as between the United States, Mexico, and 30 tribal nations within the US. Since 2000, six legal agreements affecting the US states and two international agreements with Mexico have had the effect of reducing water use from the Colorado River 7 :

In 2001, the US Secretary of the Interior issued a set of “Interim Surplus Guidelines” to reduce California’s water use by 14% to bring the state within its allocation as determined in the 1963 US Supreme Court case mentioned previously. A subsequent “Quantification Settlement Agreement” executed in 2003 spelled out details about how California was going to achieve the targeted reduction.

In 2007, the US Secretary of the Interior adopted a set of “Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and the Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead” that reduced water deliveries to Arizona and Nevada when Lake Mead drops to specified levels, with increasing cutbacks as levels decline.

In 2012, the US and Mexican federal governments signed an addendum to the 1944 Water Treaty known as Minute 319 that reduced deliveries to Mexico as Lake Mead elevations fall.

In 2017, the US and Mexican federal governments established a “Binational Water Scarcity Contingency Plan” as part of Minute 323 that provides for deeper cuts in deliveries to Mexico under specified low reservoir elevations in Lake Mead.i

In 2019, the three Lower Basin states and the US Secretary of the Interior agreed to commitments under the “Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan” that further reduced water deliveries beyond the levels set in 2007 and added specifications for deeper cuts as Lake Mead drops to levels lower than anticipated in the 2007 Guidelines.

In 2023, the states of California, Arizona and Nevada committed to further reductions in water use through the year 2026 12 .

With each of the above agreements, overall water consumption has been reduced but many scientists assert that these reductions still fall substantially short of balancing consumptive use with 21st century water supplies 2 , 13 . With all of these agreements—excepting the Interim Surplus Guidelines of 2001—set to expire in 2026, management of the Colorado River’s binational water supply is now at a crucial point, emphasizing the need for comprehensive water budget accounting.

Our tabulation of the Colorado River’s full water consumption budget (Table  1 ) provides accounting for all direct human uses of water as either agricultural or MCI (municipal, commercial, industrial), as well as indirect losses of water to reservoir evaporation and evapotranspiration from riparian or wetland vegetation including in the Salton Sea and in a wetland in Mexico (Cienega de Santa Clara) that receives agricultural return flows from irrigated areas in Arizona. We explicitly note that all estimates represent consumptive use , resulting from the subtraction of return flows from total water withdrawals. Table  2 provides a summary based only on direct human uses and does not include indirect consumption of water. We have provided Tables  1 and 2 in English units in our Supplementary Information as Tables SI-1 and SI-2 . We have lumped municipal, commercial, and industrial (MCI) uses together because these sub-categories of consumption are not consistently differentiated within official water delivery data for cities utilizing Colorado River water. More detail on urban water use by cities dependent on the river is available in Richter 14 , among other studies.

We differentiated water consumption geographically using the ‘accounting units’ mapped in Fig.  2 , which are based on the Colorado River Basin map as revised by Schmidt 15 ; importantly, these accounting units align spatially with Reclamation’s accounting systems for the Upper Basin and Lower Basin as described in our Methods, thereby enabling readers accustomed to Reclamation’s water-use reports to easily comprehend our accounting. We have also accounted for all water consumed within the Colorado River Basin boundaries as well as water exported via inter-basin transfers. Water exported outside of the basin includes 47 individual inter-basin transfer systems (i.e., canals, pipelines, pumps) that in aggregate export ~12% of the river’s water. We note that the Imperial Irrigation District of southern California is often counted as a recipient of exported water, but we have followed the rationale of Schmidt 15 by including it as an interior part of the Lower Basin even though it receives its Colorado River water via the All American Canal (Fig.  2 ).

The water budget estimates presented in Tables  1 and 2 are summarized for each of the seven “accounting units” displayed here.

These results confirm previous findings that irrigated agriculture is the dominant consumer of Colorado River water. Irrigated agriculture accounts for 52% of overall consumption (Table  1 ; Figs.  3 and 4 ) and 74% of direct human consumption (Table  2 ) of water from the Colorado River Basin. As highlighted in Richter et al. 11 , cattle-feed crops (alfalfa and other hay) are the dominant water-consuming crops dependent upon irrigation water from the basin (Tables  1 and 2 ; Figs.  3 and 4 ). Those crops account for 32% of all water consumed from the basin, 46% of all direct water consumption, and 62% of all agricultural water consumed (Table  1 ; Fig.  3 ). The percentage of water consumed by irrigated crops is greatest in Mexico, where they account for 86% of all direct human uses (Table  2 ) and 80% of total water consumed (Table  1 ). Cattle-feed crops consume 90% of all water used by irrigated agriculture within the Upper Basin, where the consumed volume associated with these cattle-feed crops amounts to more than three times what is consumed for municipal, commercial, or industrial uses combined.

All estimates based on 2000–2019 averages. Both agriculture and MCI (municipal, commercial, and industrial) uses are herein referred to as “direct human uses.” “Indirect uses” include both reservoir evaporation as well as evapotranspiration by riparian/wetland vegetation.

Water consumed by each sector in the Colorado River Basin and sub-basins (including exports), based on 2000–2019 averages.

Another important finding is that a substantial volume of water (19%) is consumed in supporting the natural environment through riparian and wetland vegetation evapotranspiration along river courses. This analysis—made possible because of recent mapping of riparian vegetation in the Colorado River Basin 16 —is an important addition to the water budget of the Colorado River Basin, given that the only previous accounting for riparian vegetation consumption has limited to the mainstem of the Colorado River below Hoover Dam and does not include vegetation upstream of Hoover Dam nor vegetation along tributary rivers 17 . Given that many of these habitats and associated species have been lost or became imperiled due to river flow depletion 18 —including the river’s vast delta ecosystem in Mexico—an ecologically sustainable approach to water management would need to allow more water to remain in the river system to support riparian and aquatic ecosystems. Additionally, 11% of all water consumed in the Colorado River Basin is lost through evaporation from reservoirs.

It is also important to note a fairly high degree of inter-annual variability in each sector of water use; for example, the range of values portrayed for the four water budget sectors shown in Fig.  5 equates to 24–47% of their 20-year averages. Also notable is a decrease in water consumed in the Lower Basin between the years 2000 and 2019 for both the MCI (−38%) and agricultural sectors (−15%), which can in part be attributed to the policy agreements summarized previously that have mandated water-use reductions.

Inter-annual variability of water consumption within the Lower and Upper Basins, including water exported from these basins. The average (AVG) values shown are used in the water budgets detailed in Tables  1 and 2 .

The water accounting in Richter et al. 11 received a great deal of media attention including a front-page story in the New York Times 19 . These stories focused primarily on our conclusion that more than half (53%) of water consumed in the Colorado River Basin was attributable to cattle-feed crops (alfalfa and other hays) supporting beef and dairy production. However, that tabulation of the river’s water budget had notable shortcomings, as discussed previously. In this more complete accounting that includes Colorado River water exported outside of the basin’s physical boundary as well as indirect water consumption, we find that irrigated agriculture consumes half (52%) of all Colorado River Basin water, and the portion of direct consumption going to cattle-feed crops dropped from 53% as reported in Richter et al. 11 to 46% in this revised analysis.

These differences are explained by the fact that we now account for all exported water and also include indirect losses of water to reservoir evaporation and riparian/wetland evapotranspiration in our revised accounting, as well as improvements in our estimation of crop-water consumption. However, the punch line of our 2020 paper does not change fundamentally. Irrigated agriculture is the dominant consumer of water from the Colorado River, and 62% of agricultural water consumption goes to alfalfa and grass hay production.

Richter et al. 20 found that alfalfa and grass hay were the largest water consumers in 57% of all sub-basins across the western US, and their production is increasing in many western regions. Alfalfa is favored for its ability to tolerate variable climate conditions, especially its ability to persist under greatly reduced irrigation during droughts and its ability to recover production quickly after full irrigation is resumed, acting as a “shock absorber” for agricultural production under unpredictable drought conditions. The plant is also valued for fixing nitrogen in soils, reducing fertilizer costs. Perhaps most importantly, labor costs are comparatively low because alfalfa is mechanically harvested. Alfalfa is increasing in demand and price as a feed crop in the growing dairy industry of the region 21 . Any efforts to reduce water consumed by alfalfa—either through shifting to alternative lower-water crops or through compensated fallowing 20 —will need to compete with these attributes.

This new accounting provides a more comprehensive and complete understanding of how the Colorado River Basin’s water is consumed. During our study period of 2000–2019, an estimated average of 23.7 billion cubic meters (19.3 million acre-feet) of water was consumed each year before reaching its now-dry delta in Mexico. Schmidt et al. 2 have estimated that a reduction in consumptive use in the Upper and Lower Basins of 3–4 billion cubic meters (2.4–3.2 million acre-feet) per year—equivalent to 22–29% of direct use in those basins—will be necessary to stabilize reservoir levels, and an additional reduction of 1–3 billion cubic meters (~811,000–2.4 million acre-feet) per year will likely be needed by 2050 as climate warming continues to reduce runoff in the Colorado River Basin.

We hope that this new accounting will add clarity and a useful informational foundation to the public dialog and political negotiations over Colorado River Basin water allocations and cutbacks that are presently underway 2 . Because a persistent drought and intensifying aridification in the region has placed both people and river ecosystems in danger of water shortages in recent decades, knowledge of where the water goes will be essential in the design of policies for bringing the basin into a sustainable water supply-demand balance.

The data sources and analytical approaches used in this study are summarized below. Unless otherwise noted, all data were assembled for each year from 2000–2019 and then averaged. We acknowledge some inconsistency in the manner in which water consumption is measured or estimated across the various data sources and sectors used in this study, as discussed below, and each of these different approaches entail some degree of inaccuracy or uncertainty. We also note that technical measurement or estimation approaches change over time, and new approaches can yield differing results. For instance, the Upper Colorado River Commission is exploring new approaches for estimating crop evapotranspiration in the Upper Basin 22 . When new estimates become available we will update our water budget accordingly.

MCI and agricultural water consumption

The primary source of data on aggregate MCI (municipal, commercial, and industrial) and agricultural water consumption from the Upper and Lower Basins was the US Bureau of Reclamation. Water consumed from the Upper Basin is published in Reclamation’s five-year reports entitled “Colorado River—Upper Basin Consumptive Uses and Losses.” 23 These annual data have been compiled into a single spreadsheet used for this study 24 . Because measurements of agricultural diversions and return flows in the Upper Basin are not sufficiently complete to allow direct calculation of consumptive use, theoretical and indirect methods are used as described in the Consumptive Uses and Losses reports 25 . Reclamation performs these estimates for Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah, but the State of New Mexico provides its own estimates that are collaboratively reviewed with Reclamation staff. The consumptive use of water in thermoelectric power generation in the Upper Basin is provided to Reclamation by the power companies managing each generation facility. Reclamation derives estimates of consumptive use for municipal and industrial purposes from the US Geological Survey’s reporting series (published every 5 years) titled “Estimated Use of Water in the United States” at an 8-digit watershed scale 26 .

Use of shallow alluvial groundwater is included in the water accounting compiled by Reclamation but use of deeper groundwater sources—such as in Mexico and the Gila River Basin—is explicitly excluded in their accounting, and in ours. Reclamation staff involved with water accounting for the Upper and Lower Basins assume that groundwater use counted in their data reports is sourced from aquifers that are hydraulically connected to rivers and streams in the CRB (James Prairie, US Bureau of Reclamation, personal communication, 2023); because of this high connectivity, much of the groundwater being consumed is likely being sourced from river capture as discussed in Jasechko et al. 27 and Wiele et al. 28 and is soon recharged during higher river flows.

Water consumed from the Lower Basin (excluding water supplied by the Gila River Basin) is published in Reclamation’s annual reports entitled “Colorado River Accounting and Water Use Report: Arizona, California, and Nevada.” 3 These consumptive use data are based on measured deliveries and return flows for each individual water user. These data are either measured by Reclamation or provided to the agency by individual water users, tribes, states, and federal agencies 29 . When not explicitly stated in Reclamation reports, attribution of water volumes to MCI or agricultural uses was based on information obtained from each water user’s website, information provided directly by the water user, or information on export water use provided in Siddik et al. 30 . Water use by entities using less than 1.23 million cubic meters (1000 acre-feet) per year on average was allocated to MCI and agricultural uses according to the overall MCI-agricultural percentages calculated within each sub-basin indicated in Tables  1 and 2 for users of greater than 1.23 million cubic meters/year.

Disaggregation of water consumption by sector was particularly important and challenging for the Central Arizona Project given that this canal accounts for 21% of all direct water consumption in the Lower Basin. Reclamation accounts for the volumes of annual diversions into the Central Arizona Project canal but the structure serves 1071 water delivery subcontracts. We classified every unique Central Arizona Project subcontract delivery between 2000–2019 by its final water use to derive an estimated split between agricultural and MCI uses. Central Arizona Project subcontract delivery data were obtained from the current and archived versions of the project’s website summaries in addition to being directly obtained from the agency through a public information request. Subcontract deliveries were classified based on the final end use, including long-term and temporary leases of project water. This accounting also includes the storage of water in groundwater basins for later MCI or agricultural use. Additionally, water allocated to Native American agricultural uses that was subsequently leased to cities was classified as an MCI use.

Data for the Gila River basin was obtained from two sources. The Arizona Department of Water Resources has published data for surface water use in five “Active Management Areas” (AMAs) located in the Gila River basin: Prescott AMA, Phoenix AMA, Pinal AMA, Tucson AMA, and Santa Cruz AMA 31 . The water-use data for these AMAs is compiled from annual reports submitted by each water user (contractor) and then reviewed by the Arizona Department of Water Resources. The AMA water-use data are categorized by purpose of use, facilitating our separation into MCI and agricultural uses. These data are additionally categorized by water source; only surface water sourced from the Gila River hydrologic system was counted (deep groundwater use was not). The AMA data were supplemented with data for the upper Gila River basin provided by the University of Arizona 32 . We have assumed that all water supplied by the Gila River Basin is fully consumed, as the river is almost always completely dry in its lower reaches (less than 1% flows out of the basin into the Colorado River, on average 33 ).

Data for Mexico were obtained from Hernandez-Cruz et al. 10 based on estimates for 2008–2015. Agricultural demands were estimated from annual reports of irrigated area and water use published by the Ministry of Agriculture and the evapotranspiration estimates of the principal crops published by the National Institute for Forestry, Animal Husbandry, and Agricultural Research of Mexico 10 . The average annual volume of Colorado River water consumption in Mexico estimated by these researchers is within 1% of the cross-border delivery volume estimated by the Bureau of Reclamation for 2000–2019 in its Colorado River Accounting and Water Use Reports 3 .

Exported water consumption

Annual average inter-basin transfer volumes for each of 46 canals and pipelines exporting water outside of the Upper Basin were obtained from Reclamation’s Consumptive Uses and Losses spreadsheet 34 . Data for the Colorado River Aqueduct in the Lower Basin were obtained from Siddik et al. 30 Data for exported water in Mexico was available from Hernandez-Cruz et al. 10 . We assigned any seepage or evaporation losses from inter-basin transfers to their proportional end uses. All uses of exported water are considered to be consumptive uses with respect to the Colorado River, because none of the water exported out of the basin is returned to the Colorado River Basin.

We relied on data from Siddik et al. (2023) to identify whether the water exported out of the Colorado River Basin was for only MCI or agricultural use. When more than one water use purpose was identified, as well as for all major inter-basin transfers, we used government and inter-basin transfer project websites or information obtained directly from the project operator or water manager to determine the volume of water transferred and the end uses. Major recipients of exported water include the Coachella Valley Water District (California); Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (particularly for San Diego County, California); Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District; City of Denver (Colorado); the Central Utah Project; City of Albuquerque (New Mexico); and the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District (New Mexico). We did not pursue sectoral water-use information for 17 of the 46 Upper Basin inter-basin transfers due to their relatively low volumes of water transferred by each system (<247,000 cubic meters or 2000 acre-feet), and instead assigned the average MCI or agricultural percentage (72% MCI, 28% agricultural) from all other inter-basin transfers in the Upper Basin. The export volume of these 17 inter-basin transfers sums to 9.76 million cubic meters (7910 acre-feet) per year, equivalent to 1% of the total volume exported from the Upper Basin.

Reservoir evaporation

Evaporation estimates for the Upper Basin and Lower Basin are based upon Reclamation’s HydroData repository 35 . Reclamation’s evaporation estimates are based on the standardized Penman-Monteith equation as described in the “Lower Colorado River Annual Summaries of Evapotranspiration and Evaporation” reports 17 . The Penman-Monteith estimates are based on pan evaporation measurements. Evaporation estimates for the Salt River Project reservoirs in the Gila River basin were provided by the Salt River Project in Arizona (Charlie Ester, personal communication, 2023).

Another consideration with reservoirs is the volume of water that seeps into the banks or sediments surrounding the reservoir when reservoir levels are high, but then drains back into the reservoir as water levels decline 36 . This has the effect of either exacerbating reservoir losses (consumptive use) or offsetting evaporation when bank seepage flows back into a reservoir. The flow of water into and out of reservoir banks is non-trivial; during 1999–2008, an estimated 247 million cubic meters (200,000 acre-feet) of water drained from the canyon walls surrounding Lake Powell into the reservoir each year, providing additional water supply 36 . However, the annual rate of alternating gains or losses has not been sufficiently measured at any of the basin’s reservoirs and therefore is not included in Tables  1 and 2 .

Riparian and wetland vegetation evapotranspiration

We exported the total annual evapotranspiration depth at a 30 meter resolution from OpenET 37 using Google Earth Engine from 2016 to 2019 to align with OpenET’s data availability starting in 2016. Total annual precipitation depths, sourced from gridMET 38 , were resampled to align with the evapotranspiration raster resolution. Subsequently, a conservative estimate of the annual water depth utilized by riparian vegetation from the river was derived by subtracting the annual precipitation raster from the evapotranspiration raster for each year. Positive differentials, indicative of river-derived evapotranspiration, were then multiplied by the riparian vegetation area as identified in the CO-RIP 16 dataset to estimate the total annual volumetric water consumption by riparian vegetation across the Upper, Lower, and Gila River Basins. The annual volumetric water consumption calculated over four years were finally averaged to get riparian vegetation evapotranspiration in the three basins. Because the entire flow of the Colorado River is diverted into the Canal Alimentador Central near the international border, very little riparian evapotranspiration occurs along the river south of the international border in the Mexico basin.

In addition to water consumed by riparian evapotranspiration within the Lower Basin, the Salton Sea receives agricultural drain water from both the Imperial Irrigation District and the Coachella Valley Irrigation District, stormwater drainage from the Coachella Valley, and inflows from the New and Alamo Rivers 39 . Combined inflows to the Sea during 2015–2019 were added to our estimates of riparian/wetland evapotranspiration in the Lower Basin.

Similarly, Mexico receives drainage water from the Wellton–Mohawk bypass drain originating in southern Arizona that empties into the Cienega de Santa Clara (a wetland); this drainage water is included as riparian/wetland evapotranspiration in the Mexico basin.

Crop-specific water consumption

The volumes of total agricultural consumption reported for each sub-basin in Tables  1 and 2 were obtained from the same data sources described above for MCI consumption and exported water. The portion (%) of those agricultural consumption volumes going to each individual crop was then allocated according to percentage estimates of each crop’s water consumption in each accounting unit using methods described in Richter et al. 20 and detailed here.

Monthly crop water requirements during 1981–2019 for 13 individual crops, representing 68.8% of total irrigated area in the US in 2019, were estimated using the AquaCrop-OS model (Table SI- 3 ) 40 . For 17 additional crops representing about 25.4% of the total irrigated area, we used a simple crop growth model following Marston et al. 41 as crop parameters needed to run AquaCrop-OS were not available. A list of the crops included in this study is shown in Table SI- 3 . The crop water requirements used in Richter et al. 11 were based on a simplistic crop growth model, often using seasonal crop coefficients whereas we use AquaCrop-OS 40 , a robust crop growth model, to produce more realistic crop growth and crop water estimates for major crops. AquaCrop-OS is an open-source version of the AquaCrop model 42 , a crop growth model capable of simulating herbaceous crops. Additionally, we leverage detailed local data unique to the US, including planting dates and subcounty irrigated crop areas, to produce estimates at a finer spatial resolution than the previous study. We obtained crop-specific planting dates from USDA 43 progress data at the state level. For crops that did not have USDA crop progress data, we used data from FAO 44 and CUP+ model 45 for planting dates. We used climate data (precipitation, minimum and maximum air temperature, reference ET) from gridMET 38 , soil texture data from ISRIC 46 database and crop parameters from AquaCrop-OS to run the model. The modeled crop water requirement was partitioned into blue and green components following the framework from Hoekestra et al. 47 , assuming that blue and green water consumed on a given day is proportional to the amount of green and blue water soil moisture available on that day. When applying a simple crop growth model, daily gridded (2.5 arc minutes) crop-specific evapotranspiration (ETc) was computed by taking the product of reference evapotranspiration (ETo) and crop coefficient (Kc), where ETo was obtained from gridMET. Crop coefficients were calculated using planting dates and crop coefficient curves from FAO and CUP+ model. Kc was set to zero outside of the growing season. We partitioned the daily ETc into blue and green components by following the methods from ref. 41 It is assumed that the crop water demands are met by irrigation whenever it exceeds effective precipitation (the latter calculated using the USDA Soil Conservation Service method (USDA, 1968 48 ). We obtained county level harvested area from USDA 43 and disaggregated to sub-county level using Cropland Data Layer (CDL) 49 and Landsat-based National Irrigation Dataset (LANID) 50 . The CDL is an annual raster layer that provides crop-specific land cover data, while the LANID provides irrigation status information. The CDL and LANID raster were multiplied and aggregated to 2.5 arc minutes to match the AquaCrop-OS output. We produced a gridded crop area map by using this resulting product as weights to disaggregate county level area. CDL is unavailable before 2008. Therefore, we used land use data from ref. 51 in combination with average CDL map and county level harvested area to produce gridded crop harvested area. We computed volumetric water consumption by multiplying the crop water requirement depth by the corresponding crop harvested area.

Data availability

All data compiled and analyzed in this study are publicly available as cited and linked in our Methods section. Our compilation of these data is also available from Hydroshare at: http://www.hydroshare.org/resource/2098ae29ae704d9aacfd08e030690392 .

Code availability

All model code and software used in this study have been accessed from sources cited in our Methods section. We used AquaCrop-OS (v5.0a), an open source version of AquaCrop crop growth model, to run crop simulations. This model is publicly available at http://www.aquacropos.com/ . For estimating riparian evapotranspiration, we used ArcGIS Pro 3.1.3 on the Google Earth Engine. Riparian vegetation distribution maps were sourced from Dryad at https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.3g55sv8 .

Stromberg, J. C., Andersen, D. C. & Scott, M. L. Riparian floodplain wetlands of the arid and semiarid southwest In Wetland Habitats of North America: Ecology and Conservation Concern s , Chapter 24, pp. 343–356. (University of California Press, 2012). https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520271647/wetland-habitats-of-north-america .

Schmidt, J. C., Yackulic, C. B. & Kuhn, E. The Colorado River water crisis: Its origin and the future. WIREs Water https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1672 (2023).

Article   Google Scholar  

Colorado River Accounting and Water Use Report: Arizona, California, and Nevada. Interior Region 8: Lower Colorado Basin (US Bureau of Reclamation, 2023). Annual reports available under “Water Accounting Reports” at https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/wtracct.html .

Water Operations: Historic Data (US Bureau of Reclamation, 2023). https://www.usbr.gov/rsvrWater/HistoricalApp.html .

Colorado River Compact , 1922 . US Bureau of Reclamation. https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/pdfiles/crcompct.pdf .

Kuhn, E. & Fleck, J. Science Be Dammed:How Ignoring Inconvenient Science Drained the Colorado River (The University of Arizona Press, 2019) https://uapress.arizona.edu/book/science-be-dammed .

Castle, A. & Fleck, J. The Risk of Curtailment under the Colorado River Compact ( https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3483654 (2019).

US Bureau of Reclamation. Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study: Technical Report C – Water Demand Assessment https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/finalreport/Technical%20Report%20C%20-%20Water%20Demand%20Assessment/TR-C-Water_Demand_Assessmemt_FINAL.pdf (2012).

Utilization of the Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande . International Treaty between the United States and Mexico, February 3, 1944. (International Boundary and Waters Commission, 1944). https://www.ibwc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/1944Treaty.pdf .

Hernández-Cruz, A. et al. Assessing water management strategies under water scarcity in the Mexican portion of the Colorado River Basin. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 149 , 04023042 (2023).

Richter, B. D. et al. Water scarcity and fish imperilment driven by beef production. Nat. Sustain. 3 , 319–328 (2020).

Biden-Harris Administration announces historic Consensus System Conservation Proposal to protect the Colorado River Basin . US Department of the Interior, May 22, 2023. https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-harris-administration-announces-historic-consensus-system-conservation-proposal .

Wheeler, K. G. et al. What will it take to stabilize the Colorado River? Science 377 , 373–375 (2022).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Richter, B. D. Decoupling urban water use from population growth in the Colorado River Basin. J. Water Plan. Manag. 149 , 2 (2023).

Google Scholar  

Schmidt, J. C. Maps Matter: A few suggested changes to the Colorado River basin base map . Center for Colorado River Studies. (Utah State University, 2022).

Woodward, B. D. et al. Co-Rip: A riparian vegetation and corridor extent dataset for Colorado river basin streams and rivers. ISPRS Int. J. Geo Inform. 7 , 397 (2018).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Lower Colorado River Annual Summaries of Evapotranspiration and Evaporation . (US Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region, 2023). https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/wtracct.html .

Richter, B. D., Powell, E. M., Lystash, T. & Faggert, M. Protection and restoration of freshwater ecosystems. Chapter 5 in Miller, Kathleen A., Alan F. Hamlet, Douglas S. Kenney, and Kelly T. Redmond (Eds.) Water Policy and Planning in a Variable and Changing Climate . (CRC Press - Taylor & Francis Group, 2016).

Shao, Elena. “The Colorado River is shrinking. See what’s using all the water.” New York Times , May 22, 2023. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/05/22/climate/colorado-river-water.html .

Richter, B. D., et al. Alleviating water scarcity by optimizing crop mixes. Nat. Water . https://doi.org/10.1038/s44221-023-00155-9 .

Njuki, E. U.S. dairy productivity increased faster in large farms and across southwestern states . U.S. Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, March 22, 2022. https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2022/march/u-s-dairy-productivity-increased-faster-in-large-farms-and-across-southwestern-states/ .

Mefford, B. & Prairie J., eds. Assessing Agricultural Consumptive Use in the Upper Colorado River Basin - Phase III Report U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Upper Colorado River Commission. http://www.ucrcommission.com/reports-studies/ (2022).

Upper Basin Consumptive Uses and Losses (Bureau of Reclamation). Annual reports available at https://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/plans.html .

Bureau of Reclamation. “Consumptive Uses and Losses spreadsheet 1971–2020” Colorado River Basin Natural Flow and Salt Data, Supporting data for consumptive uses and losses computation. https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/NaturalFlow/documentation.html .

Upper Colorado River Basin Consumptive Uses and Losses Report 2016–2020 . US Department of Interior: Bureau of Reclamation. Five year reports available under “Colorado River-Consumptive Uses and Losses Reports” at https://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/plans.html .

Estimated Use of Water in the United States . US Department of Interior: US Geological Survey. Reports available every five years at https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/water-use-united-states .

Jasechko, S. et al. Widespread potential loss of streamflow into underlying aquifers across the USA. Nature 591 , 391–395 (2021).

Wiele, S. M., Leake, S. A., Owen-Joyce, S. J. & and McGuire, E. H. Update of the Accounting Surface Along the Lower Colorado River US Department of the Interior: US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5113 (2008).

Bruce, B. W., et al. Comparison of U.S. Geological Survey and Bureau of Reclamation water-use reporting in the Colorado River Basin U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2018–5021 . https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20185021 (2018).

Siddik, M. A. B., Dickson, K. E., Rising, J., Ruddell, B. L. & Marston, L. T. Interbasin water transfers in the United States and Canada. Sci. Data 10 , 27 (2023). Data spreadsheet provided by M.A.B. Siddik.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Active Management Areas : AMA Annual Supply and Demand Dashboard (Arizona Department of Water Resources, 2023). https://azwater.gov/ama/ama-data .

Lacroix, K. M. et al. Wet water and paper water in the Upper Gila River Watershed https://extension.arizona.edu/sites/extension.arizona.edu/files/pubs/az1708-2016_0.pdf The University of Arizona Cooperative Extension, AZ1708. Data spreadsheet provided by A. Hullinger (2016).

Surface-Water Annual Statistics for the Nation: Gila River at Dome, Arizona . US Geological Survey. Available at https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/annual/?referred_module=sw&site_no=09520500&por_09520500_5810=19975,00060,5810,1905,2024&year_type=C&format=html_table&date_format=YYYY-MM-DD&rdb_compression=file&submitted_form=parameter_selection_list .

Consumptive Uses and Losses spreadsheet 1971–2020 . Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado River Basin Natural Flow and Salt Data, Supporting data for consumptive uses and losses computation. https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/NaturalFlow/documentation.html .

HydroData: Reservoir Data . US Bureau of Reclamation. https://www.usbr.gov/uc/water/ .

Myers, T. Loss rates from Lake Powell and their impact on management of the Colorado River. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 49 , 1213–1224 (2013).

Melton, F. S. et al. OpenET: filling a critical data gap in water management for the western United States. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 58 , 971–994 (2022).

Abatzoglou, J. T. Development of gridded surface meteorological data for ecological applications and modelling. Int. J. Climatol. 33 , 121–131 (2013).

Salton Sea Management Program: Long-Range Plan Public Draft (2022). California Natural Resources Agency. https://saltonsea.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Salton-Sea-Long-Range-Plan-Public-Draft-Dec-2022.pdf .

Foster, T. et al. AquaCrop-OS: an open source version of FAO’s crop water productivity model. Agricul. Water Manag. 181 , 18–22 (2017).

Marston, L. T., et al. Reducing water scarcity by improving water productivity in the United States. Environ. Res. Lett. 15 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9d39 (2020).

Steduto, P., Hsiao, T. C., Fereres, E. & Raes, D. Crop yield response to water (2012). 1028. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service. “Quick Stats.” http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov .

Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D. & Smith, M. FAO Irrigation and drainage paper No. 56 56, (e156. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 1998).

Orange, M. N., Scott Matyac, J. & Snyder, R. L. Consumptive use program (CUP) model. IV Int. Symp. Irrig. Horticult. Crops 664 , 461–468 (2003).

Hengl, T. et al. SoilGrids250m: Global gridded soil information based on machine learning. PLoS One 12 , e0169748 (2017).

Hoekstra, A. Y. Green-blue water accounting in a soil water balance. Adv. Water Resour. 129 , 112–117 (2019).

USDA (US Department of Agriculture). A Method for Estimating Volume and Rate of Runoff in Small Watersheds . SCS-TP-149. Washington DC: Soil Conservation Service (1968).

Johnson, D. M., & Mueller, R. 2010. “Cropland Data Layer.” https://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/ .

Xie, Y., Gibbs, H. K. & Lark, T. J. Landsat-based Irrigation Dataset (LANID): 30m resolution maps of irrigation distribution, frequency, and change for the US, 1997–2017. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 13 , 5689–5710 (2021).

Sohl, T. et al. Modeled historical land use and land cover for the conterminous United States. J. Land Use Sci. 11 , 476–499 (2016).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is dedicated to our colleague Jack Schmidt in recognition of his retirement and enormous contributions to the science and management of the Colorado River. The authors thank James Prairie of the US Bureau of Reclamation, Luke Shawcross of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Charlie Ester of the Salt River Project, and Brian Woodward of the University of California Cooperative Extension for their assistance in accessing data used in this study. The authors also thank Rhett Larson at the Sandra Day O’Connor School of Law at Arizona State University for their review of Arizona water budget data, and the Central Arizona Project for providing delivery data by each subcontract. G.L., L.M., and K.F.D. acknowledge support by the United States Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture grant 2022-67019-37180. L.T.M. acknowledges the support the National Science Foundation grant CBET-2144169 and the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research Grant No. FF-NIA19-0000000084. R.R.R. acknowledges the support the National Science Foundation grant CBET-2115169.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

World Wildlife Fund, 1250 24th St NW, Washington, DC, 20037, USA

Brian D. Richter

Sustainable Waters, Crozet, Virginia, 22932, USA

The Charles E.Via, Jr, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA

Gambhir Lamsal, Landon Marston & Sameer Dhakal

Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011, USA

Laljeet Singh Sangha, Richard R. Rushforth & Benjamin L. Ruddell

Department of Geography and Spatial Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, 19716, USA

Dongyang Wei & Kyle Frankel Davis

Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, 19716, USA

Kyle Frankel Davis

Instituto de Investigaciones Oceanologicas, Universidad Autonoma de Baja California, Ensenada, Baja California, México

Astrid Hernandez-Cruz

Department of Land, Air and Water Resources, Univeristy of California at Davis, Davis, CA, 95616, USA

Samuel Sandoval-Solis

Center for Colorado River Studies, Utah State University, Logan, UT, 84322, USA

John C. Schmidt

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

B.D.R. designed the study, compiled and analyzed data, wrote the manuscript and supervised co-author contributions. G.L. compiled all crop data, estimated crop evapotranspiration, and prepared figures. S.D. compiled all riparian vegetation data and estimated riparian evapotranspiration. L.S.S. and R.R.R. accessed, compiled, and analyzed data from the Central Arizona Project. D.W. compiled data and prepared figures. A.H.-C. and S.S.-S. compiled and analyzed data for Mexico. J.C.S. compiled and analyzed reservoir evaporation data and edited the manuscript. L.M., B.L.R., and K.F.D. supervised data compilation and analysis and edited the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian D. Richter .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Communications Earth & Environment thanks James Booker and Becky Bolinger for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editors: Aliénor Lavergne and Carolina Ortiz Guerrero. A peer review file is available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Peer review file, supplementary information, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Richter, B.D., Lamsal, G., Marston, L. et al. New water accounting reveals why the Colorado River no longer reaches the sea. Commun Earth Environ 5 , 134 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01291-0

Download citation

Received : 03 October 2023

Accepted : 27 February 2024

Published : 28 March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01291-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Market Power in Artificial Intelligence

This paper surveys the relevant existing literature that can help researchers and policy makers understand the drivers of competition in markets that constitute the provision of artificial intelligence products. The focus is on three broad markets: training data, input data, and AI predictions. It is shown that a key factor in determining the emergence and persistence of market power will be the operation of markets for data that would allow for trading data across firm boundaries.

Joshua Gans has drawn on the findings of his research for both compensated speaking engagements and consulting engagements. He has written the books Prediction Machines, Power & Prediction, and Innovation + Equality on the economics of AI for which he receives royalties. He is also chief economist of the Creative Destruction Lab, a University of Toronto-based program that helps seed stage companies, from which he receives compensation. He conducts consulting on anti-trust and intellectual property matters with an association with Charles River Associates and his ownership of Core Economic Research Ltd. He also has equity and advisory relationships with a number of startup firms. Thanks to Andrei Haigu, Chad Jones and the participants at the Rochester Antitrust Workshop for their helpful comments. All errors remain my own. The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

MARC RIS BibTeΧ

Download Citation Data

More from NBER

In addition to working papers , the NBER disseminates affiliates’ latest findings through a range of free periodicals — the NBER Reporter , the NBER Digest , the Bulletin on Retirement and Disability , the Bulletin on Health , and the Bulletin on Entrepreneurship  — as well as online conference reports , video lectures , and interviews .