Alan F. Hamlet JISAO Climate Impacts Group and the Department of Civil Engineering University of Washington February, 2002 Seeds of Crisis: Water Resources Policy and Development in the Columbia River Basin

Acknowledgements: This talk is a summary of results and conclusions from my own work and a large group of researchers in the Climate Impacts Group, including: Nate Mantua Dennis Lettenmaier Amy Snover Ed Miles Phil Mote Lara Whitely Binder Bob Francis Stewart Cohen

Hydroclimatology of the Pacific Northwest

Winter Summer PNW Precipitation mm

Hydrologic Characteristics of the Columbia Basin Elevation (m) Avg Naturalized Flow The Dalles Flows Originating in Canada

A history of the PDO warm cool warm A history of ENSO Pacific Decadal OscillationEl Niño Southern Oscillation

PDO/ENSO Effects PDO EffectsENSO Effects Natural Flow Columbia at The Dalles

Effects of the PDO and ENSO on Columbia River Summer Streamflows Cool Warm

Avg of Unusually Wet Years Avg of Unusually Dry Years Normal Years Naturalized Flow at The Dalles

Columbia Basin Water Resources System

Columbia River Basin and System of Dams and Reservoirs Included in ColSim Model Storage Reservoirs Run-of-River Dams

Major Operational Objectives for the Columbia River Dam System Flood Control Hydropower Production Irrigation Maintenance of Fish Flows Navigation Recreation

A Timeline for the Columbia’s Development Milestones

Completion of Major Dams Peak Regulated Flow at The Dalles

Natural Variability Compared to Effects of Regulation 1990 Level Regulated Flow

The Northwest Salmon Crisis: commercial landings in the Columbia River ’s 1870’s Millions of pounds landed **Instream habitat and flow are only one factor in the decline**

Some Important Aspects of the Columbia River Treaty Built about 50% of the Columbia’s present storage (effects to regulated flow as above) Intentional design linkage between flood control and winter hydropower (no attempt to make flood control efficient) Flood control guaranteed in perpetuity (protects US hydropower in winter) No explicit provisions for instream flows in summer (vulnerability to changing circumstances such as climate and endangered species) “Closed-door” adjudication in the US by a committee high-level of engineers. (Operations connected to the CRT have been very difficult to change) Conflicting goals between Canada and US regarding fish--(Canada lake fish/US anadromous fish) Revision of downstream power benefits to Canada (Duncan 1997, Keenleyside 1998, Mica 2003)

Effects of Climate and Water Policy on System Performance

Effects of Natural Variability for Status Quo

Why does the system behave like this: Storage allocation for fish flows = 4150 kAF Storage allocation for hydro = kAF

Effects of Natural Variability for Fish Flow Alternative

What Does the Hypothetical Fish Alternative Cost?

Overview of Columbia Basin Management Issues (Miles et al., 2000) 1) The Columbia River is essentially a fully developed resource, and no significant opportunities for increasing reservoir storage are likely to emerge, regardless of need. 2) The Columbia is affected by climate variability and operating system design, however it is impossible to isolate all system objectives from climate variability simultaneously. 3) The Columbia basin and its management system is adaptable to changing flood risks due to a relatively centralized management system, clear authority of the institutions involved (primarily the US Army Corps of Engineers) to take action to protect this objective, and a high priority for flood control within the existing management framework. Climate change will probably mandate changes, but the system is relatively adaptable.

4) The Columbia basin is most vulnerable to low flows, because the management system associated with this flow regime is fragmented and conflicted, and existing water resources are insufficient to meet the needs of all water users even in moderately low flow years. 5) attempts to change existing policy will attempt to reallocate resources without resolving the inherent conflicts, a situation that is likely to polarize potential winners and losers in the courts and political arena. 6)Lastly, increasing population and inflexible water laws in the west are likely to increase the region's vulnerability to drought irrespective of any changes in climate. 7) Climate change, with its potential to significantly reduce snow pack and the resulting summer streamflows, is likely to exacerbate the existing conflicts. The existing management system has shown limited ability to adapt to increasing stress.

Case Study: The 2001 Water/Energy Crisis Rattlesnake Lake Photo Credit: Gilbert W. Arias/Seattle Post-Intelligencer

What Happened in 2001? For a long time there has been insufficient energy capacity to meet PNW electrical load using local resources alone. The preferred strategy was to buy energy off the grid in low water years. Insufficient reserve capacity and botched energy deregulation in California created a ruinous energy market in the western US, and threatened to bankrupt utilities throughout the west was the second lowest water year in the Columbia’s history. PNW energy strategy was very vulnerable to unexpected changes in the regional energy markets that followed deregulation. BPA and other utilities faced financial ruin unless they could generate energy from local resources. First real test of ESA rules for fish. (Klamath basin)

How Did the PNW Respond to 2001? Hydro systems throughout the PNW were severely overdrafted to avoid financial impacts in the inflated energy market. Energy and water conservation and utilities paying users not to use electricity reduced demand. BPA declared a power emergency, which suspended normal operations for spill and fish flows in the lower Columbia. An attempt was made to refill the system as much as possible in the summer of 2001, to prevent possible blackouts in the PNW in winter Peak flows at The Dalles were lower than they have been in 140 years. To avoid the lethal river conditions in the Columbia and Snake, increased barging operations were used to transport migrating juveniles downstream.

Mossyrock Dam Photo Credit: Grant M. Haller/Seattle PI

What Needs Were Identified in the Aftermath of 2001? More reserve energy capacity is needed in the PNW (vulnerability to unpredictable market forces) More formalized drought contingency planning is needed, particularly in the context of the ESA (Klamath Basin) Some people impacted by the 2001 drought felt that the way the ESA is implemented needs to be overhauled completely. (Some successful efforts were made in the courts to get Oregon coastal Coho stocks off the ESA lists) From my own perspective, I would add: The fundamental need to properly address the salmon vs hydro problem in the Columbia basin is still glaringly apparent.

Climate Change

ColSim Reservoir Model VIC Hydrology Model Changes in Mean Temperature and Precipitation from GCMs

VIC Simulations of April 1 Average Snow Cover Extent MPI ECHAM4 Scenarios Base Case ~2025~2045

Regulated Flow Historic Naturalized Flow Estimated Range of Naturalized Flow With 2040’s Warming Naturalized Flow for Historic and Global Warming Scenarios Compared to Effects of Regulation at 1990 Level Development

VIC/ColSim 2020’s

VIC/ColSim 2040’s

Imbedded Transboundary Issues Affecting the Columbia Summer streamflows in the lower Columbia basin are strongly influenced in summer by streamflows originating in Canada. This is particularly true in late summer, a time when lower basin fish flows are significantly impacted by flows that are only moderately below average. The importance of streamflows originating in Canada is likely to increase with climate change because an increasing proportion of the snowpack will be in the Canadian snowfields in spring for warmer climate. Loss of glacial mass may also reduce flows in late summer in years with little new snow. Current treaties between the U.S. and Canada have no explicit provisions for the maintenance of lower basin instream flows. Because of conflicting summer water objectives in Canada and the United States, the Columbia River Treaty may have increased the US’s vulnerablity to climate change.

Where Do We Go From Here?