“A person can locate underground water or minerals using the involuntary movement of a handheld forked stick or divining rod.”

"Water dowsing" refers in general to the practice of using a forked stick, rod, pendulum, or similar device to locate underground water, minerals, or other hidden or lost substances... To all inquirers the United States Geological Survey therefore gives the advice not to expend any money for the services of any “water witch” or for the use or purchase of any machine or instrument devised for locating underground water or other minerals.

The use of a forked twig, or so-called divining rod, in locating minerals, finding hidden treasure, or detecting criminals is a curious superstition... It is difficult to see how for practical purposes the entire matter could be more thoroughly discredited, and it should be obvious to everyone that further tests by the United States Geological Survey of this so-called ''witching'' for water, oil, or other minerals would be a misuse of public funds. To all inquirers the United States Geological Survey therefore gives the advice not to expend any money for the services of any "water witch"...

The natural explanation of "successful" water dowsing is that in many areas underground water is so prevalent close to the land surface that it would be hard to drill a well and not find water. In a region of adequate rainfall and favorable geology, it is difficult not to drill and find water! Some water exists under the Earth's surface almost everywhere. This explains why many dowsers appear to be successful.

Ten out of 12 water utilities in the United Kingdom admitted that their technicians use divining rods to find underground leaks or water pipes... There is no scientific evidence to support the use of divining rods for leak detection, she added. 'Every properly conducted scientific test of water dowsing has found it no better than chance.'

The entrenched skeptical conclusion is that there is no real dowsing effect. This presents a problem for the skeptics. Some dowsers are, presumably, frauds and swindlers. However, there are many who sincerely believe they have the ability and have had the profound experience of their twig or rod moving as if under the influence of powerful external forces.

There is evidence that dowsing can work but this is neither spooky nor supernatural. It comes down to the dowser, not their tools. Experiments show that this works only when the dowser has some unconscious knowledge of where the target is, for example, using clues from vegetation, geography or temperature.

Geophysical prospecting is the key to locating suitable places to drill successful groundwater wells... Surface magnetic resonance (SMR) imaging... is a cost-effective, non-invasive, and powerful ground-based geophysical technique used to detect and measure groundwater compared to traditional drilling.

There was a study that was done in 1990 over a 10-year period by the German government that sent experienced geologists and dowsers to dry regions like Sri Lanka, Kenya and Yemen. They drilled approximately 690 wells and found that the dowsers found water 96% of the time, which perplexed the scientific community. A quote from Albert Einstein: “I know very well that many scientists consider dowsing as they do astrology, as a type of ancient superstition. According to my conviction this is, however, unjustified. The dowsing rod is a simple instrument which shows the reaction of the human nervous system to certain factors which are unknown to us at this time.”

Regardless of which explanation you lean toward, most scientific studies find no real evidence that water divining rods work beyond chance. Scientists often chalk it up to the “ideomotor effect,” which is basically your own subconscious movements guiding the rods.

Dowsing has never actually passed any real scientific test... Vogt and Hyman argue at some length that anecdotal evidence does not constitute rigorous scientific proof of the effectiveness of dowsing. The authors examined many controlled studies of dowsing for water, and found that none of them showed better than chance results... When all of the tests were over and the location of the pipes was revealed, none of the dowsers had passed the test.

The ideomotor effect is a well-documented psychological phenomenon where a person makes unconscious, involuntary muscle movements in response to a thought, suggestion, or expectation. In the context of dowsing, this theory proposes that the dowser isn't detecting anything external. Instead, their own subconscious belief or expectation about where the target is causes tiny, imperceptible muscle movements in their hands and arms, which are then amplified by the dowsing tool.

The scientific evidence shows that dowsing is no more effective than random chance. It is therefore regarded as a pseudoscience. Critics often attribute dowsing movements to something called the ideomotor effect, where unconscious muscle movements influence the dowser’s tools.

No peer-reviewed evidence demonstrates that water witching detects anything beyond what chance allows. Psychological reinforcement of ...

A 2006 Cochrane systematic review of dowsing for water found no evidence beyond chance; all controlled trials showed dowsers performing at random levels. This aligns with broader scientific consensus from bodies like the National Research Council that dowsing lacks a plausible mechanism and fails rigorous testing.

This document provides background information on dowsing, which is a pseudoscientific practice of attempting to locate underground objects without scientific instruments. The document also notes that while dowsing remains popular among some, scientific studies have found no evidence that dowsing is more accurate than random chance.

Everybody has an uncle whose well driller found water where nobody else could this way. You don't hear so much about the ten thousand dry wells from when it did not work. I remain a believer in the scientific method. Non-reproducible methods that lack an explainable mechanism of action do not impress me. (Represents minority anecdotal support view, but acknowledges scientific skepticism)