Vulnerability and risk: climate change and water supply from California’s Central Valley water system

Abstract

Water allocation institutions globally must operate within legal and political contexts established by precedent and codified in operating rules, even as they flex and adjust to climate change. California’s Central Valley Water System (CVS) is a prime example. Recent global, national, regional, and local climate change assessments have highlighted climate-change-driven impacts on the CVS; however, these previous studies have not discussed the relative likelihood of performance decline, making it difficult to use the information for planning. In response, this paper presents a systematic climate change stress test that utilizes a physically based hydrologic model linked with a water resources system model representing the infrastructure, operations, and policy constraints of the interconnected system of natural river channels and man-made facilities that comprise the CVS. The results provide a summary of the sensitivity of the system to climate change, indicating the specific climate changes that cause performance of the system to decline below historical norms, and an estimation of the General Circulation Model (GCM) informed probability of those changes by 2050. Degraded performance is especially likely for State Water Project (SWP) deliveries (> 85%), and September carryover/drought storage in the Oroville Reservoir (the SWP’s largest reservoir, ~ 95% likely to degrade). A decline in Net Delta Outflow is likely in all seasons except summer and early fall (when regulations require supplemental releases to combat salinity from sea level rise). For most of these metrics, the modeled performance drop is more severe in dry years than in wet years.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

References

  1. Anderson J, Chung F, Anderson M, Brekke L, Easton D, Ejeta M, Peterson R, Snyder R (2008) Progress on incorporating climate change into management of California's water resources. Clim Chang 87:S108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bedsworth L, Cayan D, Franco G, Fisher L, Ziaja S (2018) (California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, California Energy Commission, California Public Utilities Commission). Statewide Summary Report. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Publication number: SUMCCCA4–2018-013

  3. Borgomeo E, Pflug G, Hall JW, Hochrainer-Stigler S (2015) Assessing water resource system vulnerability to unprecedented hydrological drought using copulas to characterize drought duration and deficit. Water Resour Res 51(11):8927–8948. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brown C, Wilby RL (2012) An alternate approach to assessing climate risks. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 92:401–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brown C, Ghile Y, Laverty M, Li K (2012) Decision scaling: linking bottom-up vulnerability analysis with climate projections in the water sector. Water Resour Res 48:W09537

    Google Scholar 

  6. California Climate Change Center (2009) Using future climate projections to support water resources decision making in California, California Department of Water Resources, 1-66

  7. California Climate Change Center (2012) Our changing climate 2012: vulnerability & adaptation to the increasing risks from climate change in California: a summary report on the third assessment from the California climate change Center, California Energy Commission; California Natural Resources Agency, 1-16

  8. California Department of Food and Agriculture (2018) California agricultural statistics review 2017-2018, California Department of Food and Agriculture, 1-121

  9. California Department of Water Resources (2000) CALSIM water resources simulation model: manual draft documentation, California Department of Water Resources, 1-18

  10. California Department of Water Resources (2008), Managing an uncertain future: climate change adaptation strategies for California's water, State of California: The Resources Agency, 1-34

  11. California Department of Water Resources and United States Bureau of Reclamation (2011) CalLite: Central Valley Water Management Screening Model (Version 2.0) Reference Manual, vol. October 2011, 161 pp., California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, California

  12. Cannon AJ, Sobie SR, Murdock TQ (2015) Bias correction of GCM precipitation by Quantile mapping: how well do methods preserve changes in quantiles and extremes? J Clim 28:6938–6959

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cayan DR, Das T, Pierce DW, Barnett TP, Tyree M, Gershunov A (2010) Future Dryness in the Southwest US and the Hydrology of the Early 21st Century Drought. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107:21271–21276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chen B, Chao WC, Liu X (2003) Enhanced climatic warming in the Tibetan plateau due to doubling CO2: a model study. Clim Dyn 20(4):401–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-002-0282-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Conn AR, Gould N, Toint P (1991) A globally convergent augmented Lagrangian algorithm for optimization with general constraints and simple bounds. SIAM J Numer Anal 28(2):545–572. https://doi.org/10.1137/0728030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Connell-Buck CR, Medellin-Azuara J, Lund JR, Madani K (2011) Adapting California's water system to warm vs. dry climates, Clim. Change 109:133–149

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dai A (2011) Drought under global warming: a review. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 2:45–65

  18. Dettinger MD, Ralph FM, Das T, Neiman PJ, Cayan DR (2011) Atmospheric Rivers, Floods and the Water Resources of California. Water 3:445–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Draper AJ, Munevar A, Arora SK, Reyes E, Parker NL, Chung FI, Peterson LE (2004) CalSim: generalized model for reservoir system analysis. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management-Asce 130:480–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fischer, E. M. and R. Knutti (2016), Observed heavy precipitation increase confirms theory and early models, Nat Clim Chang, 6(11), 98−+, doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE3110

  21. Garfin G, Franco G, Blanco H, Comrie A, Gonzalez P, Piechota T, Smyth R, Waskom R (2014) In: Melillo JM, Richmond T, Yohe GW (eds) Southwest, in Climate change impacts in the United States: the third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., pp 462–486

    Google Scholar 

  22. Garrick DE (2015) Water Allocation in Rivers Under Pressure. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, pp 1–245

    Google Scholar 

  23. Groves DG, Bloom E (2013) Robust water-management strategies for the California: water plan update 2013 proof-of-concept analysis, RAND Corporation, California Water Plan Update 2013, 1–72

  24. Guerreiro SB, Fowler HJ, Barbero R, Westra S, Lenderink G, Blenkinsop S, Lewis E, Li X (2018) Detection of continental-scale intensification of hourly rainfall extremes, Nat Clim Chang, 8(9), +, doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0245-3

  25. Hallegatte S, Shah A, Lempert C, Brown C, Gill S (2012) “Investment decision making under deep uncertainty: application to climate change.” Policy research working paper 6193, World Bank, Washington, DC

  26. Harou JJ, Medellin-Azuara J, Zhu T, Tanaka SK, Lund JR, Stine S, Olivares MA, Jenkins MW (2010) Economic consequences of optimized water management for a prolonged, severe drought in California. Water Resour Res 46:W05522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Heim RR (2002) A review of twentieth-century drought indices used in the United States. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 83:1149–1165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Huang G, Kadir T, Chung F (2012) Hydrological response to climate warming: the upper Feather River watershed. J Hydrol 426:138–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. IPCC (2013) Climate Change 2013 : The Physical Science Basis : Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1–1535 pp., Cambridge University Press, New York

  30. Islam N, Arora S, Chung F, Reyes E, Field R, Munévar A, Sumer D, Parker N, Chen RZQ (2011) CalLite: California Central Valley Water Management Screening Model. J Water Resour Plan Manag 137(1):123–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Joyce B, Purkey D, Yates D, Groves D, Draper A (2010) Integrated scenario analysis for the 2009 California water plan update, Vol. 4, , California Dept. of Water Resources, Vol. 4, 1–112

  32. Knutti R, Masson D, Gettelman A (2013) Climate model genealogy: generation CMIP5 and how we got there. Geophys Res Lett 40:1194–1199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Leblanc M, Tweed S, Van Dijk A, Timbal B (2012) A review of historic and future hydrological changes in the Murray-Darling basin. Glob Planet Chang 80-81:226–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2011.10.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lempert RJ, Groves DG, Popper SW, Bankes SC (2006) A general, analytic method for generating robust strategies and narrative scenarios. Manag Sci 52(4):514–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Livneh B, Rosenberg EA, Lin C, Nijssen B, Mishra V, Andreadis KM, Maurer EP, Lettenmaier DP (2013) A long-term Hydrologically based dataset of land surface fluxes and states for the conterminous United States: update and extensions. J Clim 26:9384–9392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lund JR, Hanak E, Fleenor WE, Bennett WA, Howitt RE, Mount JF, Moyle PB (2010) Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Freshwater Ecology Series, vol. 3, 232 pp., Univ California Press, Berkeley; 2120 Berkeley Way, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA

  37. Medellin-Azuara J, Harou JJ, Olivares MA, Madani K, Lund JR, Howitt RE, Tanaka SK, Jenkins MW, Zhu T (2008) Adaptability and adaptations of California's water supply system to dry climate warming. Clim Chang 87:S90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Meko DM, Woodhouse CA, Touchan R (2014) Klamath/San Joaquin/Sacramento Hydroclimatic reconstructions from tree rings. Draft Final Report to California Department of Water Resources, agreement 4600008850. Sacramento, CA

  39. Mount J, Twiss R (2005) Subsidence, sea level rise, and seismicity in the Sacramento-SanJoaquin Delta, San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, 3

  40. National Research Council (2012) Sea-level rise for the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: past, present, and Future, 1-217

  41. Null SE, Viers JH (2013) In bad waters: water year classification in nonstationary climates. Water Resour Res 49:1137–1148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Olivares MA, Haas J, Palma-Behnke R, Benavides C (2015) A framework to identify Pareto-efficient subdaily environmental flow constraints on hydropower reservoirs using a grid-wide power dispatch model. Water Resour Res 51:3664–3680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Pierce DW, Kalansky JF, Cayan DR (2018) Climate, Drought, and Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the Fourth California Climate Assessment. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, California Energy Commission. Publication Number: CNRA-CEC-2018-006

  44. Prudhomme C, Wilby RL, Crooks S, Kay AL, Reynard NS (2010) Scenario-neutral approach to climate change impact studies: application to flood risk. J Hydrol 390(3–4):198–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Quiring SM (2009) Developing objective operational definitions for monitoring drought. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 48:1217–1229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Rajagopalan B, Nowak K, Prairie J, Hoerling M, Harding B, Barsugli J, Ray A, Udall B (2009) Water supply risk on the Colorado River: can management mitigate? Water Resour Res 45:W08201. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Ray PA, Taner MÜ, Schlef KE, Wi S, Khan HF, Freeman SSG, Brown CM (2019) Growth of the decision tree: advances in bottom-up climate change risk management. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, Featured Collection on Climate Change Solutions 55(4):920–937

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Richter BD, Baumgartner JV, Wigington R, Braun DP (1997) How much water does a river need? Freshw Biol 37:231–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Rocheta E, Sugiyanto M, Johnson F, Evans J, Sharma A (2014) How well do general circulation models represent low-frequency rainfall variability? Water Resour Res 50:2108–2123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Stainforth DA, Allen MR, Tredger ER, Smith LA (2007) Confidence, uncertainty and decision-support relevance in climate predictions. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 365:2145–2161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Steinschneider S, Brown C (2013) A semiparametric multivariate, multisite weather generator with low-frequency variability for use in climate risk assessments. Water Resour Res 49:7205–7220

  52. Steinschneider S, McCrary R, Mearns LO, Brown C (2015) The effects of climate model similarity on probabilistic climate projections and the implications for local, risk-based adaptation planning. Geophys Res Lett 42:5014–5022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Stouffer RJ, Eyring V, Meehl GA, Bony S, Senior C, Stevens B, Taylor KE (2017) Cmip5 scientific gaps and recommendations for Cmip6. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 98

  54. Swain A (2011) Challenges for water sharing in the Nile basin: changing geo-politics and changing climate. Hydrol Sci J -J Sci Hydrol 56(4):687–702. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2011.577037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Tanaka SK, Zhu T, Lund JR, Howitt RE, Jenkins MW, Pulido MA, Tauber M, Ritzema RS, Ferreira IC (2006) Climate warming and water management adaptation for California. Clim Chang 76:361–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Tanaka SK, Buck C, Madani K, Medellin-Azuara J, Lund J, Hanak E (2011) Economic costs and adaptations for alternative regulations of California's Sacramento-san Joaquin Delta. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 9:28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Taylor KE, Stouffer RJ, Meehl GA (2012) An overview of Cmip5 and the experiment design. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 93:485–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Tebaldi C, Smith RL, Nychka D, Mearns LO (2005) Quantifying uncertainty in projections of regional climate change: a Bayesian approach to the analysis of multimodel ensembles. J Clim 18:1524–1540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. US Bureau of Reclamation (2014) Central Valley project integrated resource plan final report: west-wide climate risk assessment: Sacramento and San Joaquin basins climate, impact assessment, US Department of the Interior, 1-66

  60. US Bureau of Reclamation (2016) Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Basin Study: Basin Study Technical Report, US Department of the Interior, Prepared By CH2M Hill under Contract No. R12PD80946, 1–499

  61. USGCRP (2018) Impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States: fourth National Climate Assessment, volume II [Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. global change research program, Washington, DC, USA, 1515 pp. https://doi.org/10.7930/NCA4.2018

  62. Wang J, Yin H, Chung F (2011) Isolated and integrated effects of sea level rise, seasonal runoff shifts, and annual runoff volume on California's largest water supply. J Hydrol 405:83–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Whateley S, Steinschneider S, Brown C (2014) A climate change range-based method for estimating robustness for water resources supply. Water Resour Res 50(11):8944–8961. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR015956

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Wilby RL, Dessai S (2010) Robust adaptation to climate change. Weather 65(7):180–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Williams AP, Seager R, Abatzoglou JT, Cook BI, Smerdon JE, Cook ER (2015) Contribution of anthropogenic warming to California drought during 2012-2014. Geophys Res Lett 42:6819–6828

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial and technical support provided by the California Department of Water Resources, and the efforts of the anonymous reviewers in improving the quality of this manuscript. Water system data supporting this analysis are available upon request from the California Department of Water Resources.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrick Ray.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Key points

•A climate change stress test of the CVS required development of internally consistent scenarios, statistically linking hydrological and non-hydrological inputs.

•The GCM-informed likelihood of climate-change-induced degradation of CVS performance by 2050 is greater than 60% for 5 of the 7 evaluated metrics.

•Substantial (> 10%) increases in precipitation would be required to offset the performance losses that would occur with 1 or 2 °C of warming.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(PDF 839 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ray, P., Wi, S., Schwarz, A. et al. Vulnerability and risk: climate change and water supply from California’s Central Valley water system. Climatic Change 161, 177–199 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02655-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • California Central Valley
  • Climate change
  • Water year type
  • Hydrologic model
  • Decision scaling