Water Resources Management

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 315–329

Integrating a Climate Change Assessment Tool into Stakeholder-Driven Water Management Decision-Making Processes in California

  • David R. Purkey
  • Annette Huber-Lee
  • David N. Yates
  • Michael Hanemann
  • Susan Herrod-Julius
Original Article

Abstract

There is an emerging consensus in the scientific community that climate change has the potential to significantly alter prevailing hydrologic patterns in California over the course of the 21st Century. This is of profound importance for a system where large investments have been made in hydraulic infrastructure that has been designed and is operated to harmonize dramatic temporal and spatial water supply and water demand variability. Recent work by the authors led to the creation of an integrated hydrology/water management climate change impact assessment framework that can be used to identify tradeoffs between important ecosystem services provided by the California water system associated with future climate change and to evaluate possible adaptation strategies. In spite of the potential impact of climate change, and the availability of a tool for investigating its dimensions, actual water management decision-making processes in California have yet to fully integrate climate change analysis into their planning dialogues. This paper presents an overview of decision-making processes ranked based on the application of a 3S: Sensitivity, Significance, and Stakeholder support, standard, which demonstrates that while climate change is a crucial factor in virtually all water-related decision making in California, it has not typically been considered, at least in any analytical sense. The three highest ranked processes are described in more detail, in particular the role that the new analytical framework could play in arriving at more resilient water management decisions. The authors will engage with stakeholders in these three processes, in hope of moving climate change research from the academic to the policy making arena.

Keywords

Climate change Hydrologic models Stakeholders Water planning Water resource planning models 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brekke LD, Miller NL, Bashford KE, et al. (2004) Climate change impacts uncertainty for water resources in the San Joaquin River Basin, California. J Am Water Resour Assoc 40(1):149–164Google Scholar
  2. Burness S, Chermak J, Brookshire D (2004) Water management in a mountain front recharge aquifer. Water Resour Res 40:2160Google Scholar
  3. Dettinger MD, Cayan DR (1995) Large-scale atmospheric forcing of recent trends toward early Snowmelt runoff in California. J Clim 8(3):606–623Google Scholar
  4. Dettinger MD, Cayan DR, Meyer M, et al. (2004) Simulated hydrologic responses to climate variations and change in the Merced, Carson, and American River basins, Sierra Nevada, California, 1900–2099. Clim Change 62(1–3):283–317Google Scholar
  5. Eckhardt K, Ulbrich U (2003) Potential impacts of climate change on groundwater recharge and streamflow in a central European low mountain range. J Hydrol 284(1–4):244–252Google Scholar
  6. Falkenmark M, Rockström J (2004) Balancing water for humans and nature: the new approach in ecohydrology. Earthscan PressGoogle Scholar
  7. Gleick PH (1987) The development of a water-balance model for climate impact assessment: modeling the Sacramento basin. Water Resour Res 23(6):1049–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gleick PH, Chalecki EL (1999) The impacts of climatic change for water resources of the Colorado and Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basins. J Am Water Resour Assoc 35(6):1429–1441Google Scholar
  9. Hayhoe K, Cayan D, Field CB, Frumhoff PC, Maurer EP, Miller NL, Moser SC, Schneider SH, Nicholas Cahill K, Cleland EE, Dale L, Drapek R, Hanemann RM, Kalkstein LS, Lenihan J, Lunch CK, Neilson RP, Sheridan SC, Verville JH (2004) Emissions pathways, climate change, and impacts on California. Proc Nat Acad Sci 101(34):12422–12427Google Scholar
  10. Lettenmaier DP, Sheer DP (1991) Climatic sensitivity of California water resources. J Water Resour Plann Manage January/February 117(1):108–125Google Scholar
  11. Lund JR, et al. (2003) Climate Warming & California's Water Future. A report for the California Energy Commission. Center for Environmental and Water Resource Engineering, University of California, Davis. Sacramento, California. Available in Internet at http://cee.engr.ucdavis.edu/faculty/lund/CALVIN/Google Scholar
  12. Mahmood R, Hubbard K (2002) Anthropogenic land-use change in the North American tall grass-short grass transition and modification of near-surface hydrologic cycle. Clim Res 21(1):83–90Google Scholar
  13. Miller NL, Bashford KE, Strem E (2003) Potential impacts of climate change on California hydrology. J Am Water Resour Assoc 39(4):771–784Google Scholar
  14. Raskin P, Hansen E, Zhu Z (1992) Simulation of water supply and demand in the Aral Sea Region. Water Int 17:55–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Stewart IT, Cayan DR, Dettinger MD (2004) Changes in snowmelt runoff timing in western North America under a `business as usual' climate change scenario. Clim Change 62(1–3):217–232Google Scholar
  16. VanRheenen NT, Wood AW, Palmer RN, et al. (2004) Potential implications of PCM climate change scenarios for Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin hydrology and water resources. Clim Change 62(1–3):257–281Google Scholar
  17. Winter T (2001) Ground water and surface water: the linkage tightens, but challenges remain. Hydrol Process 15(18):3605–3606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Winter T, Harvey J, Franke OL, Alley W (1998) Groundwater and Surface Water, A single resource. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1139, Denver, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  19. Yates D, Purkey D, Galbraith H, Huber-Lee A, Sieber J (2005b) WEAP21 a demand, priority, and preference driven water planning model: part 2, Aiding freshwater ecosystem service evaluation. Water International. (in press) (http://weap21.org/)Google Scholar
  20. Yates D, Sieber J, Purkey D, Huber-Lee A (2005a) WEAP21 a demand, priority, and preference driven water planning model: Part 1, Model Characteristics. Water International. (in press) (http://weap21.org/)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • David R. Purkey
    • 1
  • Annette Huber-Lee
    • 2
  • David N. Yates
    • 3
  • Michael Hanemann
    • 4
  • Susan Herrod-Julius
    • 5
  1. 1.Stockholm Environment InstituteBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.International Food Policy Research InstituteBerkeleyUSA
  3. 3.National Center for Atmospheric ResearchBoulderUSA
  4. 4.University of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  5. 5.U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations