ASSESSING POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON WATER RESOURCES: THREE WESTERN U.S. CASE STUDIES Dennis P. Lettenmaier Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Washington CIG/CSES Seminar January 28, 2003
Outline of this talk 1)Climate variability and change context 2)Prediction and assessment approach 3)Accelerated Climate Prediction Initiative (ACPI) 4)Hydrology and water management implications for Columbia, Sacramento- San Joaquin, and Colorado River basins 5)Conclusions and comparative analysis
1) Climate variability and change context
Humans are altering atmospheric composition
The earth is warming -- abruptly
Natural Climate InfluenceHuman Climate Influence All Climate Influences
Temperature trends in the PNW over the instrumental record Almost every station shows warming (filled circles) Urbanization not a major source of warming
Trends in timing of spring snowmelt ( ) Courtesy of Mike Dettinger, Iris Stewart, Dan Cayan +20d later –20d earlier
Trends in snowpack
2) Prediction and assessment approach
Climate Scenarios Global climate simulations, next ~100 yrs Downscaling Delta Precip, Temp Hydrologic Model (VIC) Natural Streamflow Reservoir Model DamReleases, Regulated Streamflow Performance Measures Reliability of System Objectives
Reservoir Model Hydrology Model Coupled Land- Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Model
Accelerated Climate Prediction Initiative (ACPI) – NCAR/DOE Parallel Climate Model (PCM) grid over western U.S.
Bias Correction and Downscaling Approach climate model scenario meteorological outputs hydrologic model inputs snowpack runoff streamflow 1/8-1/4 degree resolution daily P, Tmin, Tmax 2.8 (T42)/0.5 degree resolution monthly total P, avg. T
Bias Correction from NCDC observations from PCM historical runraw climate scenario bias-corrected climate scenario month m Note: future scenario temperature trend (relative to control run) removed before, and replaced after, bias-correction step.
Downscaling observed mean fields (1/8-1/4 degree) monthly PCM anomaly (T42) VIC-scale monthly simulation interpolated to VIC scale
Overview of ColSim Reservoir Model Physical System of Dams and Reservoirs Reservoir Operating Policies Reservoir Storage Regulated Streamflow Flood Control Energy Production Irrigation Consumption Streamflow Augmentation Streamflow Time Series
Dam Operations in ColSim Storage Dams Run-of-River Dams VirginRegulated Flow In=Flow out + Energy H
Inflow Run of River Reservoirs (inflow=outflow + energy) Inflow Storage Reservoirs Releases Depend on: Storage and Inflow Rule Curves (streamflow forecasts) Flood Control Requirements Energy Requirements Minimum Flow Requirements System Flow Requirements System Checkpoint Consumptive use Inflow + C ol S im
3) Accelerated Climate Prediction Initiative (ACPI)
GCM grid mesh over western U.S. (NCAR/DOE Parallel Climate Model at ~ 2.8 degrees lat-long)
Climate Change Scenarios Historical B06.22 (greenhouse CO 2 +aerosols forcing) Climate Control B06.45 (CO 2 +aerosols at 1995 levels) Climate Change B06.44 (BAU6, future scenario forcing) Climate Change B06.46 (BAU6, future scenario forcing) Climate Change B06.47 (BAU6, future scenario forcing) Climate Control B06.45 derived-subset Climate Change B06.44 derived-subset PCM Simulations (~ 3 degrees lat-long) PNNL Regional Climate Model (RCM) Simulations (~ ¾ degree lat-long)
Future streamflows 3 ensembles averaged summarized into 3 periods; »Period »Period »Period
Regional Climate Model (RCM) grid and hydrologic model domains
ACPI: PCM- climate change scenarios, historic simulation v air temperature observations
ACPI: PCM- climate change scenarios, historic simulation v precipitation observations
4a) Hydrology and water management implications: Columbia River Basin
PCM Business-as-Usual scenarios Columbia River Basin (Basin Averages) control ( ) historical ( ) BAU 3-run average
RCM Business-as-Usual scenarios Columbia River Basin (Basin Averages) control ( ) historical ( ) PCM BAU B06.44 RCM BAU B06.44
PCM Business-As- Usual Mean Monthly Hydrographs Columbia River The Dalles, OR 1 month 12
CRB Operation Alternative 1 (early refill)
CRB Operation Alternative 2 (reduce flood storage by 20%) 15,000,000 20,000,000 25,000,000 30,000,000 35,000,000 40,000,000 45,000,000 50,000,000 55,000,000 ONDJFMAMJJAS End of Month Total System Storage (acre-feet) Max Storage Control Base Climate Change Change (Alt. 2) Dead Pool
4a) Hydrology and water management implications: Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin
PCM Business-as-Usual scenarios California (Basin Average) control ( ) historical ( ) BAU 3-run average
PCM Business-as-Usual Scenarios Snowpack Changes California April 1 SWE
PCM Business-As- Usual Mean Monthly Hydrographs Shasta Reservoir Inflows 1 month 12
Trinity Lake Storage: 2448 taf Lake Shasta Storage: 4552 taf Lake Oroville Storage: 3538 taf Folsom Lake Storage: 977 taf Whiskeytown Storage: 241 taf Sacramento River Basin Trinity Whiskeytown Shasta Oroville (SWP) Folsom Clear Creek American River Feather River Trinity River Sacramento River Dam Power Plant River Transfer Delta
Delta & San Joaquin R Basin Dam Power Plant River/Canal Transfer Eastman, Hensley, & Millerton New Don Pedro & McClure Delta New Hogan Pardee & Camanche Stanislaus River Tuolumne & Merced Rivers Delta Outflow Mokelumne River Calaveras River San Joaquin River Pardee/Camanche Reservoir Storage: 615 taf New Melones Res Storage: 2420 taf Don Pedro/McClure Storage: 3055 taf Millerton Lake Storage: 761 taf Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Area: 1200 mi 2 Delta San Luis Reservoir CVP: 971 taf SWP: 1070 taf New Melones San Luis
Storage Decreases Sacramento Range: % Mean: 8 % San Joaquin Range: % Mean: 11 % Current Climate vs. Projected Climate
Hydropower Losses Central Valley Range: % Mean: 9 % Sacramento System Range: 3 – 19 % Mean: 9% San Joaquin System Range: 16 – 63 % Mean: 28%
4a) Hydrology and water management implications: Colorado River basin
Timeseries Annual Average Period Period Period hist. avg. ctrl. avg. PCM Projected Colorado R. Temperature
hist. avg. ctrl. avg. PCM Projected Colorado R. Precipitation Timeseries Annual Average Period Period Period
Annual Average Hydrograph Simulated Historic ( )Period 1 ( ) Control (static 1995 climate)Period 2 ( ) Period 3 ( )
Projected Spatial Change in Runoff 90 % 86 % 82 % 83 %
April 1 Snow Water Equivalent
Natural Flow at Lee Ferry, AZ Currently used 16.3 BCM allocated 20.3 BCM
Storage Reservoirs Run of River Reservoirs CRRM Basin storage aggregated into 4 storage reservoirs –Lake Powell and Lake Mead have 85% of basin storage Reservoir evaporation = f(reservoir surface area, mean monthly temperature) Hydropower = f(release, reservoir elevation) Monthly timestep Historic Streamflows to Validate Projected Inflows to assess future performance of system
Water Management Model (CRRM) Multi Species Conservation Program year 2000 demands – upper basin 5.4 BCM – lower basin 9.3 BCM – Mexico 1.8 BCM Minimum Annual Release from Glen Canyon Dam of 10.8 BCM Minimum Annual Release from Imperial Dam of 1.8 BCM
Total Basin Storage
Annual Releases to the Lower Basin target release
Annual Releases to Mexico target release
Annual Hydropower Production
Uncontrolled Spills
Deliveries to CAP & MWD
Precipitation Annual Average Change (mm/yr) in: Evapo-transpiration Runoff mm / yr.
Colorado River Basin Annual Average Precipitation (mm/yr) (mm/yr) NE cell XX X SW cell NW cell
5) Conclusions and Comparative analysis 1) Columbia River reservoir system primarily provides within-year storage (total storage/mean flow ~ 0.3). California is intermediate (~ 0.3), Colorado is an over-year system (~4) 2) Climate sensitivities in Columbia basin are dominated by seasonality shifts in streamflow, and may even be beneficial for hydropower. However, fish flow targets would be difficult to meet under altered climate, and mitigation by altered operation is essentially impossible. 3) California system operation is dominated by water supply (mostly ag), reliability of which would be reduced significantly by a combination of seaonality shifts and reduced (annual) volumes. Partial mitigation by altered operations is possible, but complicated by flood issues. 4) Colorado system is sensitive primarily to annual streamflow volumes. Low runoff ratio makes the system highly sensitive to modest changes in precipitation (in winter, esp, in headwaters). Sensitivity to altered operations is modest, and mitigation possibilities by increased storage are nil (even if otherwise feasible).