Does More Storage Give California More Water?

Increasing reservoir storage is commonly proposed to mitigate increasing water demand and provide drought reserves, especially in semiarid regions such as California. This paper examines the value of expanding surface reservoir capacity in California using hydroeconomic modeling for historical conditions, a future warm‐dry climate, and California's recently adopted policy to end groundwater overdraft. Results show expanding surface storage capacity rarely provides sizable economic value in most of California. On average, expanding facilities north of California's Delta provides some benefit in 92% of 82 years modeled under historical conditions and in 61% of years modeled in a warm‐dry climate. South of California's Delta, expanding storage capacity provides no benefits in 14% of years modeled under historical conditions and 99% of years modeled with a warm‐dry climate. Results vary across facilities between and within regions. The limited benefit of surface storage capacity expansion to statewide water supply should be considered in planning California's water infrastructure.     

Adaptation Bridges and Barriers in Water Planning and Management: Insight from Recent Extreme Droughts in Arizona and Georgia1

Abstract: It is critical to understand the ability of water management to prepare for and respond to the likely increasing duration, frequency, and intensity of droughts brought about by climate variability and change. This article evaluates this ability, or adaptive capacity, within large urban community water systems (CWSs) in Arizona and Georgia. It analyzes interview data on the bridges and barriers to adapting water management approaches in relation to extreme droughts over the past decade. This study not only finds levers for building adaptive capacity that are unique to each state but also identifies several unifying themes that cut across both cases. The interviews also show that a particular bridge or barrier, such as state regulation, is not universally beneficial or detrimental for building adaptive capacity within each state. Such knowledge is useful for improving water and drought management and for understanding how CWSs might prepare for future climate variability and change by removing the barriers and bolstering the bridges in efforts to build adaptive capacity.     

What Influences Innovation Adoption by Water Managers? Climate Information Use in Brazil and the United States1

Abstract: This paper examines the use of climate forecasting in water management in Brazil and the United States (U.S.). Specifically, it seeks to understand how different institutional arrangements shape the willingness and ability of water managers to incorporate technoscience, especially seasonal climate forecasting (SCF), in their decision‐making process. It argues that among the many factors shaping the willingness of water managers to use SCF, institutional design and change is critical to explain different patterns in Brazil and the U.S. Moreover, factors related to individual flexibility, discretion, and accountability also affect the ability of managers to use climate information in water management. This paper finds that while water managers in the U.S operate in a mostly fragmented and risk‐averse system – which constrains the adoption of innovation – decision makers in Brazil can afford more flexibility to introduce new decision tools as a result of widespread water management reforms initiated in the 1990s.     

Pragmatic Approaches for Water Management Under Climate Change Uncertainty1

Stakhiv, Eugene Z., 2011. Pragmatic Approaches for Water Management Under Climate Change Uncertainty. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 47(6):1183–1196. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752‐1688.2011.00589.x Abstract: Water resources management is in a difficult transition phase, trying to accommodate large uncertainties associated with climate change while struggling to implement a difficult set of principles and institutional changes associated with integrated water resources management. Water management is the principal medium through which projected impacts of global warming will be felt and ameliorated. Many standard hydrological practices, based on assumptions of a stationary climate, can be extended to accommodate numerous aspects of climate uncertainty. Classical engineering risk and reliability strategies developed by the water management profession to cope with contemporary climate uncertainties can also be effectively employed during this transition period, while a new family of hydrological tools and better climate change models are developed. An expansion of the concept of “robust decision making,” coupled with existing analytical tools and techniques, is the basis for a new approach advocated for planning and designing water resources infrastructure under climate uncertainty. Ultimately, it is not the tools and methods that need to be revamped as much as the suite of decision rules and evaluation principles used for project justification. They need to be aligned to be more compatible with the implications of a highly uncertain future climate trajectory, so that the hydrologic effects of that uncertainty are correctly reflected in the design of water infrastructure.     

Getting From Here to Where? Flood Frequency Analysis and Climate1

Stedinger, Jery R. and Veronica W. Griffis, 2011. Getting From Here to Where? Flood Frequency Analysis and Climate. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 47(3):506‐513. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752‐1688.2011.00545.x Abstract: Modeling variations in flood risk due to climate change and climate variability are a challenge to our profession. Flood‐risk computations by United States (U.S.) federal agencies follow guidelines in Bulletin 17 for which the latest update 17B was published in 1982. Efforts are underway to update that remarkable document. Additional guidance in the Bulletin as to how to address variation in flood risk over time would be welcome. Extensions of the log‐Pearson type 3 model to include changes in flood risk over time would be relatively easy mathematically. Here an example of the use of a sea surface temperature anomaly to anticipate changes in flood risk from year to year in the U.S. illustrates this opportunity. Efforts to project the trend in the Mississippi River flood series beg the question as to whether an observed trend will continue unabated, has reached its maximum, or is really nothing other than climate variability. We are challenged with the question raised by Milly and others: Is stationarity dead? Overall, we do not know the present flood risk at a site because of limited flood records. If we allow for historical climate variability and climate change, we know even less. But the issue is not whether stationarity is dead – the issue is how to use all the information available to reliably forecast flood risk in the future: “Where do we go from here?”     

Incorporating Climate Change Into Water Resources Planning in England and Wales1

Arnell, Nigel W., 2011. Incorporating Climate Change Into Water Resources Planning in England and Wales. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 47(3):541‐549. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752‐1688.2011.00548.x Abstract: Public water supplies in England and Wales are provided by around 25 private‐sector companies, regulated by an economic regulator (Ofwat) and environmental regulator (Environment Agency). As part of the regulatory process, companies are required periodically to review their investment needs to maintain safe and secure supplies, and this involves an assessment of the future balance between water supply and demand. The water industry and regulators have developed an agreed set of procedures for this assessment. Climate change has been incorporated into these procedures since the late 1990s, although has been included increasingly seriously over time and it has been an effective legal requirement to consider climate change since the 2003 Water Act. In the most recent assessment in 2009, companies were required explicitly to plan for a defined amount of climate change, taking into account climate change uncertainty. A “medium” climate change scenario was defined, together with “wet” and “dry” extremes, based on scenarios developed from a number of climate models. The water industry and its regulators are now gearing up to exploit the new UKCP09 probabilistic climate change projections – but these pose significant practical and conceptual challenges. This paper outlines how the procedures for incorporating climate change information into water resources planning have evolved, and explores the issues currently facing the industry in adapting to climate change.     

Modeling the Hydrology of Climate Change in California’s Sierra Nevada for Subwatershed Scale Adaptation1

Young, Charles A., Marisa I. Escobar‐Arias, Martha Fernandes, Brian Joyce, Michael Kiparsky, Jeffrey F. Mount, Vishal K. Mehta, David Purkey, Joshua H. Viers, and David Yates, 2009. Modeling the Hydrology of Climate Change in California’s Sierra Nevada for Subwatershed Scale Adaptation. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 45(6):1409‐1423. Abstract: The rainfall‐runoff model presented in this study represents the hydrology of 15 major watersheds of the Sierra Nevada in California as the backbone of a planning tool for water resources analysis including climate change studies. Our model implementation documents potential changes in hydrologic metrics such as snowpack and the initiation of snowmelt at a finer resolution than previous studies, in accordance with the needs of watershed‐level planning decisions. Calibration was performed with a sequence of steps focusing sequentially on parameters of land cover, snow accumulation and melt, and water capacity and hydraulic conductivity of soil horizons. An assessment of the calibrated streamflows using goodness of fit statistics indicate that the model robustly represents major features of weekly average flows of the historical 1980‐2001 time series. Runs of the model for climate warming scenarios with fixed increases of 2°C, 4°C, and 6°C for the spatial domain were used to analyze changes in snow accumulation and runoff timing. The results indicated a reduction in snowmelt volume that was largest in the 1,750‐2,750 m elevation range. In addition, the runoff center of mass shifted to earlier dates and this shift was non‐uniformly distributed throughout the Sierra Nevada. Because the hydrologic model presented here is nested within a water resources planning system, future research can focus on the management and adaptation of the water resources system in the context of climate change.     

If Stationarity is Dead,What Do We Do Now?1

Galloway, Gerald E., 2011. If Stationarity Is Dead, What Do We Do Now? Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 47(3):563‐570. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752‐1688.2011.00550.x Abstract: In January 2010, hydrologists, climatologists, engineers, and scientists met in Boulder, Colorado, to discuss the report of the death of hydrologic stationarity and the implications this might have on water resources planning and operations in the United States and abroad. For decades planners have relied on design guidance from the Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data Bulletin 17B that was based upon the concept of stationarity. After 2½ days of discussion it became clear that the assembled community had yet to reach an agreement on whether or not to replace the assumption of stationarity with an assumption of nonstationarity or something else. Hydrologists were skeptical that data gathered to this point in the 21st Century point to any significant change in river parameters. Climatologists, on the other hand, point to climate change and the predicted shift away from current conditions to a more turbulent flood and drought filled future. Both groups are challenged to provide immediate guidance to those individuals in and outside the water community who today must commit funds and efforts on projects that will require the best estimates of future conditions. The workshop surfaced many approaches to dealing with these challenges. While there is good reason to support additional study of the death of stationarity, its implications, and new approaches, there is also a great need to provide those in the field the information they require now to plan, design, and operate today’s projects.