Skip to main content
Log in

Potential Implications of PCM Climate Change Scenarios for Sacramento–San Joaquin River Basin Hydrology and Water Resources

  • Published:
Climatic Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The potential effects of climate change on the hydrology and water resources of the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Basin were evaluated using ensemble climate simulations generated by the U.S. Department of Energy and National Center for Atmospheric Research Parallel Climate Model (DOE/NCAR PCM). Five PCM scenarios were employed. The first three were ensemble runs from 1995–2099 with a `business as usual' global emissions scenario, eachwith different atmospheric initializations. The fourth was a `control climate'scenario with greenhouse gas emissions set at 1995 levels and run through 2099. The fifth was a historical climate simulation forced with evolving greenhouse gas concentrations from 1870–2000, from which a 50-yearportion is taken for use in bias-correction of the other runs. From these global simulations, transient monthly temperature and precipitation sequences were statistically downscaled to produce continuous daily hydrologic model forcings, which drove a macro-scale hydrology model of theSacramento–San Joaquin River Basins at a 1/8-degree spatial resolution, and produceddaily streamflow sequences for each climate scenario. Each streamflow scenario was used in a water resources system model that simulated current and predicted future performance of the system. The progressive warming of the PCM scenarios (approximately 1.2 °C at midcentury, and 2.2 °C by the 2090s), coupled with reductions in winter and spring precipitation (from 10 to 25%), markedly reduced late spring snowpack (by as much as half on average by the end of the century). Progressive reductions in winter, spring, and summer streamflow were less severe in the northern part of the study domain than in the south, where a seasonality shift was apparent. Results from the water resources system model indicate that achieving and maintaining status quo (control scenario climate) system performance in the future would be nearly impossible, given the altered climate scenario hydrologies. The most comprehensive of the mitigation alternatives examined satisfied only 87–96% of environmental targets in the Sacramento system, and less than 80% in the San Joaquin system. It is evident that demand modification and system infrastructure improvements will be required to account for the volumetric and temporal shifts in flows predicted to occur with future climates in the Sacramento–San JoaquinRiver basins.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Christensen, N. S., Wood, A.W., Lettenmaier, D. P., and Palmer, R. N.: 2004, ‘The Effects of Climate Change on the Hydrology and Water Resources of the Colorado River Basin’, Clim. Change 62, 337–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. J., Miller, K. A., Hamlet, A. F., and Avis, W.: 2000, ‘Climate Change and Resource Management in the Columbia River Basin’, Water Internat. 25, 253–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • CSWRCB (California State Water Resources Control Board): 2000, Water Right Decision 1641, Revised in Accordance with Order WR 2000–02, StateWater Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dai, A., Washington, W. M., Meehl, G. A., Bettge, T. W., and Strand, W. G.: 2004, ‘The ACPI Climate Change Simulations’, Clim. Change 62, 29–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • DWR (Department of Water Resources): 1998, California Water Plan Update, Bulletin 160-98, California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • DWR: 2000, CALSIM II Model Index, http://modeling.water.ca.gov/hydro/model/index.html.

  • DWR: 2001, CALSIM II Water Resources Planning Model Training Workshop, DWR/USBR, Sacramento, CA, February 14-16.

    Google Scholar 

  • DWR: 2002, California Water Plan–Update 2003, http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/b160/ indexb160.html.

  • Frederick, K. D. and Major, D. C.: 1997, ‘Climate Change and Water Resources’, Clim. Change 37, 7–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleick, P. H.: 2000, Water: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change for the Water Resources of the United States, National Water Assessment Group for the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

  • Hamlet, A. F. and Lettenmaier, D. P.: 1999, ‘Effects of Climate Change on Hydrology and Water Resources in the Columbia River Basin’, J. Amer. Water Resour. Assoc. 35, 1597–1623.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hashimoto, T., Stedinger, J. R., and Loucks, D. P.: 1982, ‘Reliabilty, Resiliency, and Vulnerability Criteria for Water Resource System Performance Evaluation’, Water Resour. Res. 18, 14–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): 2001, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Technical Summary of IPCC Working Group I for the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Shanghai, 20 January, http://www.ipcc.ch.

  • Lettenmaier, D. P., Wood, A. W., Palmer, R. N., Wood, E. F., and Stakhiv, E. Z.: 1999, ‘Water Resources Implications of Global Warming: A U.S. Regional Perspective’, Clim. Change 43, 537–579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leung, L. R. and Ghan, S. J.: 1998: ‘Parameterizing Subgrid Orographic Precipitation and Surface Cover in Climate Models’, Mon. Wea. Rev. 126, 3271–3291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leung, L. R., Qian, Y., and Bian, X.: 2003, ‘Hydroclimate of the Western United States Based on Observations and Regional Climate Simulation of 1981-2000, Part I: Seasonal Statistics’, J. Climate 16, 1892–1911.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leung, L. R., Qian, Y., Bian, X., Washington, W. M., Han, J., and Roads, J. O.: 2004, ‘Mid-Century Ensemble Regional Climate Change Scenarios for the Western United States’, Clim. Change 62, 75–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liang, X., Lettenmaier, D. P., Wood, E. F., and Burges, S. J.: 1994, ‘A Simple Hydrologically Based Model of Land Surface Water and Energy Fluxes for General Circulation Models’, J. Geophys. Res. 99 (D7), 14415–14428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liang, X., Wood, E. F., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: 1996, ‘Surface Soil Moisture Parameterization of the VIC-2L Model: Evaluation and Modifications’, J. Global and Planetary Change 13, 195–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maurer, E. P., O'Donnell, G. M., Lettenmaier, D. P., and Roads, J. O.: 2001, ‘Evaluation of the Land Surface Water Budget in NCEP/NCAR and NCEP/DOE Reanalyses using an Off-Line Hydrologic Model’, J. Geophys. Res. 106(D16), 17, 841–717, 862.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, N. L., Kim, J., Hartman, R. K., and Farrara, J.: 1999, ‘Downscaled Climate and Streamflow Study of the Southwestern United States’, J. Amer. Water Resour. Assoc. 35, 1525–1537.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nijssen, B., Lettenmaier, D. P., Liang, X., Wetzel, S. W., and Wood, E. F.: 1997, ‘Streamflow Simulation for Continental-Scale River Basins’, Water Resour. Res. 33, 711–724.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, J. T., Wood, A.W., Hamlet, A. F., Palmer, R. N., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: 2004, ‘Mitigating the Effects of Climate Change on the Water Resources of the Columbia River Basin’, Clim. Change 62, 233–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piechota, T. and Dracup, J. A.: 1996, ‘Drought and Regional Hydrologic Variation in the United States: Associations with El Nino/Southern Oscillation’, Water Resour. Res. 32, 1359–1373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piechota, T. and Dracup, J. A.: 1997, ‘Western U.S. Streamflow and Atmospheric Circulation Patterns during El Nino/Southern Oscillation’, J. Hydrology 201, 249–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, D.W., Barnett, T. P., Tokmakian, R., Semtner, A., Maltrud, M., Lysnc, J., and Craig, A.: 2004, ‘The ACPI Project, Element 1: Initializing a Coupled ClimateModel from Observed Conditions’, Clim. Change 62, 13–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. B. and Tirpak, D. A. (eds.): 1989, The Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on the United States: Appendix A-Water Resources, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

  • U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR): 1999a, Central Valley Project Improvement Act: Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Sacramento, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • USBR: 1999b, Decision on Implementation of Section 3406 (b)(2) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Sacramento, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Washington, W. M., Weatherly, J. W., Meehl, G. A., Semtner, A. J., Bettge, T.W., Craig, A. P., Strand, W. G., Arblaster, J., Wayland, V. B., James, R., and Zhang, Y.: 2000, ‘Parallel Climate Model (PCM) Control and Transient Simulations’, Clim. Dyn. 16, 755–774.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, A. W., Leung, L.R, Sridhar, V., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: 2004, ‘Downscaling Climate Model Surface Precipitation and Temperature: A Comparison of Methods’, Clim. Change 62, 189–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, A. W., Maurer, E. P., Kumar, A., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: 2001, ‘Long Range Experimental Hydrologic Forecasting for the Eastern U.S.’, J. Geophys. Res. 107 (D20).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dennis P. Lettenmaier.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

VanRheenen, N.T., Wood, A.W., Palmer, R.N. et al. Potential Implications of PCM Climate Change Scenarios for Sacramento–San Joaquin River Basin Hydrology and Water Resources. Climatic Change 62, 257–281 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CLIM.0000013686.97342.55

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CLIM.0000013686.97342.55

Keywords

Navigation