Climatic Change

, Volume 149, Issue 3–4, pp 427–441 | Cite as

Sensitivity of streamflow to climate change in California

  • Theodore E. W. GranthamEmail author
  • Daren M. Carlisle
  • Gregory J. McCabe
  • Jeanette K. Howard


Climate change is rapidly altering the global water cycle, exposing vulnerabilities in both social and environmental systems. However, uncertainty in future climate predictions makes it difficult to design and evaluate strategies for building climate resilience. In regions such as California, characterized by stressed water-supply systems, high natural climate variability, and substantial uncertainty in future precipitation projections, alternative approaches to assessing climate risks may be useful. Here, we develop a hydrologic sensitivity approach to estimate regional streamflow responses to climate change in California. We use statistical models to predict monthly streamflow from physical catchment features and evaluate how flow changes with incremental changes in precipitation and temperature. The results indicate unique regional and monthly flow responses to climate change, with early summer flows (May–July) in interior mountain region having the greatest sensitivity to temperature and winter flows (December–March) in the xeric region having the greatest sensitivity to precipitation. When evaluated over the range of global climate model projections for mid-century (2040–2069), models generally suggest shifts in streamflow regimes towards higher wet season flows and lower dry season flows relative to historical conditions. The sensitivity analysis provides insight into catchment- and regional-scale hydrologic responses in California and complements other approaches for understanding the consequences of climatic change for water and risk management.

Supplementary material

10584_2018_2244_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (26 kb)
Figure S1 Model performance in predicting mean monthly streamflow in three regions of California (PDF 25.5 kb)
10584_2018_2244_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (24 kb)
Table S1 Description of predictor variables evaluated in development of monthly streamflow models (XLSX 23.8 kb)
10584_2018_2244_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx (40 kb)
Table S2 Final set of predictor variables used in each monthly flow model for each region (XLSX 40.1 kb)
10584_2018_2244_MOESM4_ESM.xlsx (36 kb)
Table S3 Hydrologic and catchment characteristics of reference gages and sampled stream segments within HUC8 watersheds of each model region (XLSX 36.3 kb)
10584_2018_2244_MOESM5_ESM.xlsx (41 kb)
Table S4 Range of GCM-predicted temperature and precipitation change in each study region for 2040–2069 (XLSX 41.4 kb)
10584_2018_2244_MOESM6_ESM.xlsx (133 kb)
Table S5 Sensitivity of flow to changes in temperature and precipitation in select streams from California HUC8 watersheds (XLSX 132 kb)


  1. Ashfaq M, Ghosh S, Kao SC, Bowling LC, Mote P, Touma D, Rauscher SA, Diffenbaugh NS (2013) Near-term acceleration of hydroclimatic change in the western U.S. J Geophys Res Atmos 118:10676–10693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berg N, Hall A (2015) Increased interannual precipitation extremes over California under climate change. J Clim 28:6324–6334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45:5–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown C, Wilby RL (2012) An alternate approach to assessing climate risks. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 93:401–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burke WD, Ficklin DL (2017) Future projections of streamflow magnitude and timing differ across coastal watersheds of the western United States. Int J Climatol 37:4493–4508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. California Department of Water Resources (2015) Perspective and guidance for climate change analysis. California Department of Water Resources Climate Change Technical Advisory Group, Sacramento, CA, p 92 Google Scholar
  7. Cayan DR, Maurer EP, Dettinger MD, Tyree M, Hayhoe K (2008) Climate change scenarios for the California region. Clim Chang 87:21–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Commission for Environmental Cooperation (1997) Ecological regions of North America: toward a common perspective. Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, p 71Google Scholar
  9. Cutler DR, Edwards TC, Beard KH, Cutler A, Hess KT, Gibson J, Lawler JJ (2007) Random forests for classification in ecology. Ecology 88:2783–2792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Daly C, Halbleib M, Smith JI, Gibson WP, Doggett MK, Taylor GH, Curtis J, Pasteris PP (2008) Physiographically sensitive mapping of climatological temperature and precipitation across the conterminous United States. Int J Climatol 28:2031–2064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Das T, Maurer EP, Pierce DW, Dettinger MD, Cayan DR (2013) Increases in flood magnitudes in California under warming climates. J Hydrol 501:101–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dettinger MD, Cayan DR (1995) Large-scale atmospheric forcing of recent trends toward early snowmelt runoff in California. J Clim 8:606–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dettinger MD, Ralph FM, Das T, Neiman PJ, Cayan DR (2011) Atmospheric rivers, floods and the water resources of California. Water 3:445-478Google Scholar
  14. Dettinger M, Udall B, Georgakakos A (2015) Western water and climate change. Ecol Appl 25:2069–2093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Diffenbaugh NS, Swain DL, Touma D (2015) Anthropogenic warming has increased drought risk in California. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112:3931–3936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eng K, Wolock DM, Dettinger MD (2016) Sensitivity of intermittent streams to climate variations in the USA. River Research and Applications 32:885-895.Google Scholar
  17. Falcone JA (2011) GAGES-II: Geospatial Attributes of Gages for Evaluating Streamflow. U.S. Geological Survey, RestonGoogle Scholar
  18. Godsey SE, Kirchner JW, Tague CL (2014) Effects of changes in winter snowpacks on summer low flows: case studies in the Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Hydrol Process 28:5048–5064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Horizon Systems (2017) National hydrography dataset plus. Available at: Accessed 15 March 2017
  20. Howard JK, Fesenmyer KA, Grantham TE, Viers JH, Ode PR, Moyle PB, Kupferburg SJ, Furnish JL, Rehn A, Slusark J (2018) A freshwater conservation blueprint for California: prioritizing watersheds for freshwater biodiversity. Freshw Sci 37:417-431Google Scholar
  21. Lane BA, Dahlke HE, Pasternack GB, Sandoval-Solis S (2017) Revealing the diversity of natural hydrologic regimes in California with relevance for environmental flows applications. J Am Water Resour Assoc 53:411–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lettenmaier DP, Gan TY (1990) Hydrologic sensitivities of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin, California, to global warming. Water Resour Res 26:69–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Liaw A, Wiener M (2002) Classification and regression by randomForest. R News 2:18–22Google Scholar
  24. Lund JR (2016) California’s agricultural and urban water supply reliability and the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. San Fran Estuary and Watershed Sci 14. Available at Accessed 1 January 2017
  25. Maurer EP, Duffy PB (2005) Uncertainty in projections of streamflow changes due to climate change in California. Geophys Res Lett 32:L03704Google Scholar
  26. McCabe GJ, Wolock DM (2009) Recent declines in western US snowpack in the context of twentieth-century climate variability. Earth Interact 13:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miller NL, Bashford KE, Strem E (2003) Potential impacts of climate change on California hydrology. J Am Water Resour Assoc 39:771–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moriasi DN, Arnold JG, Van Liew MW, Bingner RL, Harmel RD, Veith TL (2007) Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Trans ASABE 50:885–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moyle PB, Kiernan JD, Crain PK, Quiñones RM (2013) Climate change vulnerability of native and alien freshwater fishes of California: a systematic assessment approach. PLoS One 8:e63883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Naz BS, Kao S-C, Ashfaq M, Rastogi D, Mei R, Bowling LC (2016) Regional hydrologic response to climate change in the conterminous United States using high-resolution hydroclimate simulations. Glob Planet Chang 143:100–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Null SE, Viers JH, Mount JF (2010) Hydrologic response and watershed sensitivity to climate warming in California’s Sierra Nevada. PLoS One 5:e9932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pagán BR, Ashfaq M, Rastogi D, Kendall DR, Kao S-C, Naz BS, Mei R, Pal JS (2016) Extreme hydrological changes in the southwestern US drive reductions in water supply to Southern California by mid century. Environ Res Lett 11:094026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pierce DW, Cayan DR, Thrasher BL (2014) Statistical downscaling using localized constructed analogs (LOCA). J Hydrometeorol 15:2558–2585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Polade SD, Gershunov A, Cayan DR, Dettinger MD, Pierce DW (2017) Precipitation in a warming world: assessing projected hydro-climate changes in California and other Mediterranean climate regions. Sci Rep 7:10783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: Accessed 1 September 2016
  36. Seager R, Ting M, Li C, Naik N, Cook B, Nakamura J, Liu H (2013) Projections of declining surface-water availability for the southwestern United States. Nat Clim Chang 3:482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Steinschneider S, Brown C (2013) A semiparametric multivariate, multisite weather generator with low-frequency variability for use in climate risk assessments. Water Resour Res 49:7205–7220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stewart IT, Cayan DR, Dettinger MD (2005) Changes toward earlier streamflow timing across western North America. J Clim 18:1136–1155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Swain DL, Langenbrunner B, Neelin JD, Hall A (2018) Increasing precipitation volatility in twenty-first century California. Nat Clim Chang 8:427Google Scholar
  40. Taylor KE, Stouffer RJ, Meehl GA (2012) An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 93:485–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. United States Geologal Survey (2016) USGS Water Data for the Nation. Available at: Accessed 15 January 2016
  42. Vano JA, Lettenmaier DP (2014) A sensitivity-based approach to evaluating future changes in Colorado River discharge. Clim Chang 122:621–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vano JA, Das T, Lettenmaier DP (2012) Hydrologic sensitivities of Colorado River runoff to changes in precipitation and temperature. J Hydrometeorol 13:932–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vicuna S, Dracup JA (2007) The evolution of climate change impact studies on hydrology and water resources in California. Clim Chang 82:327–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zimmerman JK, Carlisle DM, May JT, Klausmeyer KR, Grantham TE, Brown LR, Howard JK (2017) Patterns and magnitude of flow alteration in California, USA. Freshw Biol 00:1–15.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Theodore E. W. Grantham
    • 1
    Email author
  • Daren M. Carlisle
    • 2
  • Gregory J. McCabe
    • 3
  • Jeanette K. Howard
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and ManagementUniversity of California, BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.National Water-Quality ProgramU.S. Geological SurveyLawrenceUSA
  3. 3.U.S. Geological SurveyDenverUSA
  4. 4.The Nature ConservancySan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations