Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 125, Issue 3–4, pp 429–444 | Cite as

Response surfaces of vulnerability to climate change: the Colorado River Basin, the High Plains, and California

  • Romano Foti
  • Jorge A. RamirezEmail author
  • Thomas C. Brown
Article

Abstract

We quantify the vulnerability of water supply to shortage for the Colorado River Basin and basins of the High Plains and California and assess the sensitivity of their water supply system to future changes in the statistical variability of supply and demand. We do so for current conditions and future socio-economic scenarios within a probabilistic framework that incorporates the inherent uncertainties in the drivers of vulnerability. Our analysis indicates that the most sensitive basins to both current and future variability of demand and supply are the Central California and the San Joaquin-Tulare basins. Large sensitivity is also found for the Kansas basin of the High Plains. Within the Colorado River Basin, the Lower Colorado and Gila were found to be the most vulnerable and sensitive sub-basins. By accounting for future uncertainty within the above probabilistic framework, this study unveils and isolates the individual responses of a given basin to changes in the statistical properties of demand and supply and offers a valuable tool for the identification of policy strategies and adaptation measures.

Keywords

Water Supply Response Surface Water Demand Projected Change Water Supply System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was performed in response to the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (public law 93–378). Funding was provided by the U.S. Forest Service with substantial contributions from Colorado State University. Partial funding was provided by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

Supplementary material

10584_2014_1178_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (407 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 407 kb)

References

  1. Barnett TP, Pierce DW (2008) When will Lake Mead go dry? Water Resour Res 44, W03201Google Scholar
  2. Barnett TP, Pierce DW (2009) Sustainable water deliveries from the Colorado River in a changing climate. PNAS. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106(18):7334–7338. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0812762106
  3. Barnett T, Malone R, Pennell W, Stammer D, Semtner B, Washington W (2004) The effects of climate change on water resources in the west: introduction and overview. Clim Chang 62:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brekke LD, Miller NL, Bashford KE, Quinn NWT, Dracup JA (2004) Climate chage impacts uncertainty for water resources in the San Joaquin river basin, California. J Am Water Resour Assoc 40:149–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown TC, Foti R, Ramirez JA (2013) Projected freshwater withdrawals in the United States under a changing climate. Water Resour Res 49:1259–1276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. California Department of Water Resources (1998) California water plan update. California Department of Water Resources, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 107:21271–21276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christensen N, Wood A, Voisin N, Lettenmaier D, Palmer R (2004) The effects of climate change on the hydrology and water resources of the Colorado River Basin. Clim Chang 62:337–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clow DW (2009) Changes in the timing of snowmelt and streamflow in Colorado: a response to recent warming. J Clim 23:2293–2306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Colorado Water Conservation Board (1998) River basin facts. Colorado Division of Water ResourcesGoogle Scholar
  11. Colorado Water Conservation Board (2010) CDSS memoranda. Colorado Division of Water ResourcesGoogle Scholar
  12. Dawadi S, Ahmad S (2012) Changing climatic conditions in the Colorado River Basin: implications for water resources management. J Hydrol 430–431:127–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dettinger M, Cayan D, Meyer M, Jeton A (2004) Simulated hydrologic responses to climate variations and change in the Merced, Carson, and American River Basins, Sierra Nevada, California, 1900–2099. Clim Chang 62:283–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eagleson PS (1978a) Climate, soil, and vegetation.1. Introduction to water-balance dynamics. Water Resour Res 14:705–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eagleson PS (1978b) Climate, soil, and vegetation. 2. Distribution of annual precipitation derived from observed storm sequences. Water Resour Res 14:713–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eagleson PS (1978c) Climate, soil, and vegetation. 3. Simplified model of soil-moisture movement in liquid-phase. Water Resour Res 14:722–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eagleson PS (1978d) Climate, soil, and vegetation. 4. Expected value of annual evapotranspiration. Water Resour Res 14:731–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eagleson PS (1978e) Climate, soil, and vegetation. 5. Derived distribution of storm surface runoff. Water Resour Res 14:741–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eagleson PS (1978f) Climate, soil, and vegetation. 6. Dynamics of annual water-balance. Water Resour Res 14:749–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eagleson PS (1978g) Climate, soil, and vegetation. 7. Derived distribution of annual water yield. Water Resour Res 14:765–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Foti R (2011) Part A: a probabilistic framework for assessing vulnerability to climate variability and change: the case of the US water supply system. Part B: dynamics of self-organized vegetation patterns. Colorado State University, Fort CollinsGoogle Scholar
  22. Foti R, Ramirez JA, Brown TC (2012) Vulnerability of U.S. water supply to shortage: a technical document supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO, p. 147Google Scholar
  23. Foti R, Ramirez JA, Brown TC (2014) A probabilistic framework for assessing vulnerability to climate variability and change: the case of the US water supply system. Clim Chang. doi: 10.1007/s10584-014-1111-6
  24. Gleick PH (2010) Roadmap for sustainable water resources in southwestern North America. PNAS. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(50):21300-21305. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1005473107
  25. Hutson SS, Barber NL, Kenny JF, Linsey KS, Lumia DS, Maupin MA (2004) Estimated use of water in the United States in 2000. U. S. Geological Survey, Reston, p 46Google Scholar
  26. Kenny JF, Barber NL, Hutson SS, Linsey KS, Lovelace JK, Maupin MA (2009) Estimated use of water in the United States in 2005. U. S. Geological Survey, Reston, p 52Google Scholar
  27. Korchendorfer JP, Ramirez JA (1996) Integrated hydrological, ecological, economic modeling for examining the vulnerability of water resources to climate change. In: North American Water and Environmental Congress ’96, New York, pp. 2157–2162Google Scholar
  28. Labadie JW, Larson R (2007) MODSIM 8.1: river basin management decision support system, user manual and documentation. Colorado State University, Fort CollinsGoogle Scholar
  29. Labadie JW, Pineda AM, Bode DA (1984) Network analysis of raw water supplies under complex water rights and exchanges: Documentation for Program MODSIM3. Colorado Water Resources Institute, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, p 94Google Scholar
  30. Lane M, Kirshen P, Vogel R (1999) Indicators of impacts of global climate change on U.S. Water Resources. J Water Resour Plan Manag 125:194–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Litke DW, Appel CL (1989) Estimated use of water in Colorado, 1985. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, p 157Google Scholar
  32. Matonse A, Pierson D, Frei A, Zion M, Anandhi A, Schneiderman E, Wright B (2013) Investigating the impact of climate change on New York City’s primary water supply. Clim Chang 116:437–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mooty WB, Jeffcoat HH (1986) Inventory of interbasin transfers of water in the eastern United States. U.S. Geological Survey, Tuscaloosa, p 47Google Scholar
  34. Oki T, Kanae S (2006) Global hydrological cycles and world water resources. Science 313:1068–1072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Petsch HE Jr (1985) Inventory of interbasin transfers of water in the western conterminous United States. U.S. Geological Survey, Lakewood, p 45Google Scholar
  36. Quinn NWT, Brekke LD, Miller NL, Heinzer T, Hidalgo H, Dracup JA (2004) Model integration for assessing future hydroclimate impacts on water resources, agricultural production and environmental quality in the San Joaquin Basin, California. Environ Model Softw 19:305–316Google Scholar
  37. Roy SB, Chen L, Girvetz E, Maurer EP, Mills WB, Grieb TM (2010) Evaluating sustainability of projected water demands under future climate change scenarios. In: Inc. TT (ed) Tetra Tech Inc., LafayetteGoogle Scholar
  38. Scanlon BR, Faunt CC, Longuevergne L, Reedy RC, Alley WM, McGuire VL, McMahon PB (2012) Groundwater depletion and sustainability of irrigation in the US High Plains and Central Valley. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:9320–9325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Solley WB, Merk CF, Pierce RR (1988) Estimated use of water in the United States in 1985. U. S. Geological Survey, DenverGoogle Scholar
  40. Solley WB, Pierce RR, Perlman HA (1993) Estimated use of water in the United States in 1990. U. S. Geological Survey, DenverGoogle Scholar
  41. Solley WB, Pierce RR, Perlman HA (1998) Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995. U. S. Geological Survey, DenverGoogle Scholar
  42. Tennant DL (1976) Instream flow regimens for fish, wildlife, recreation and related environmental resources. Fisheries 1:6–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. VanRheenen N, Wood A, Palmer R, Lettenmaier D (2004) Potential implications of PCM climate change scenarios for Sacramento–San Joaquin River basin hydrology and water resources. Clim Chang 62:257–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vörösmarty CJ, Green P, Salisbury J, Lammers RB (2000) Global water resources: vulnerability from climate change and population growth. Science 289:284–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wada Y, van Beek LPH, van Kempen CM, Reckman JWTM, Vasak S, Bierkens MFP (2010) Global depletion of groundwater resources. Geophys Res Lett 37, L20402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Weiβ M, Alcamo J (2011) A systematic approach to assessing the sensitivity and vulnerability of water availability to climate change in Europe. Water Resour Res 47, W02549. doi: 10.1029/2009WR008516 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Romano Foti
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jorge A. Ramirez
    • 1
    Email author
  • Thomas C. Brown
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringPrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA
  3. 3.Rocky Mountain Research StationU. S. Forest ServiceFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations