Climatic Change

, Volume 62, Issue 1–3, pp 337–363 | Cite as

The Effects of Climate Change on the Hydrology and Water Resources of the Colorado River Basin

  • Niklas S. Christensen
  • Andrew W. Wood
  • Nathalie Voisin
  • Dennis P. Lettenmaier
  • Richard N. Palmer


The potential effects of climate change on the hydrology and water resources of the Colorado River basin are assessed by comparing simulated hydrologic and water resources scenarios derived from downscaled climate simulations of the U.S. Department of Energy/National Center for Atmospheric Research Parallel Climate Model (PCM) to scenarios driven by observed historical (1950–1999) climate. PCM climate scenarios include an ensemble of three 105-year future climate simulations based on projected `business-as-usual'(BAU) greenhouse gas emissions and a control climate simulation based on static 1995 greenhouse gas concentrations. Downscaled transient temperature and precipitation sequences were extracted from PCM simulations, and were used to drive the Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) macroscale hydrology model to produce corresponding streamflow sequences. Results for the BAU scenarios were summarized into Periods 1, 2, and 3 (2010–2039,2040–2069, 2070–2098). Average annual temperature changes for the Colorado Riverbasin were 0.5 °C warmer for control climate, and 1.0, 1.7, and 2.4 °C warmer for Periods 1–3, respectively, relative to the historicalclimate. Basin-average annual precipitation for the control climate was slightly(1%) less than for observed historical climate, and 3, 6, and 3%less for future Periods 1–3, respectively. Annual runoff in the controlrun was about 10% lower than for simulated historical conditions, and 14, 18, and 17% less for Periods 1–3, respectively. Analysis of watermanagement operations using a water management model driven by simulated streamflows showed that streamflows associated with control and future BAU climates would significantly degrade the performance of the water resourcessystem relative to historical conditions, with average total basin storage reduced by 7% for the control climate and 36, 32 and 40% for Periods 1–3, respectively. Releases from Glen Canyon Dam to the LowerBasin (mandated by the Colorado River Compact) were met in 80% of years for the control climate simulation (versus 92% in the historical climate simulation), and only in 59–75% of years for the future climate runs. Annual hydropower output was also significantly reduced for the control and future climate simulations. The high sensitivity of reservoir system performance for future climate is a reflection of the fragile equilibrium that now exists in operation of the system, with system demands only slightly less than long-term mean annual inflow.


Climate Simulation Control Climate Variable Infiltration Capacity Simulated Streamflows Colorado River Basin 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Brown, R. D.: 2000, ‘Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Variability and Change, 1915-97’, J. Climate 13 (13), 2339–2355.Google Scholar
  2. Burges, S. J. and Linsley, R. K.: 1971, ‘Some Factors Influencing Required Reservoir Storage’, J. Hydraulics Division, ASCE, Vol. 97, No. HY7, 977–991.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Gleick, P. H.: 1985, ‘Regional Hydrologic Impacts of Global Climate Changes’, International Research and Development Conference; Arid Lands: Today and Tomorrow, Tucson, AZ, Office of Arid Land Studies, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  5. Gleick, P. H.: 1987, ‘Regional Hydrologic Consequences of increases in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and other Trace Gases’, Clim. Change 10 (2), 137–161.Google Scholar
  6. Hamlet, A. F. and Lettenmaier, D. P.: 1999, ‘Effects of Climate Change on Hydrology and Water Resources of the Columbia River Basin’, J. Amer. Water Resour. Assoc. 35, 1597–1623.Google Scholar
  7. Hundley, N. Jr.: 1975, Water in the West, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  8. IPCC: 2001: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Bias, in Houghton, J. T. and Ding, Y. (eds.), Cambridge, Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
  9. Lettenmaier, D. P., Brettman, K. L., Vail, L. W., Yabusaki, S. B., and Scott, M. J.: 1992, ‘Sensitivity of Pacific Northwest Water Resources to Global Warming’, Northwest Environmental Journal 8 (2), 265–283.Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Liang, X., Wood, E. F., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: 1996, ‘Surface Soil Moisture Parameterization of the VIC-2L Model: Evaluation and Modifications’, Glob. Plan. Change 13, 195–206.Google Scholar
  12. Loaiciga, H. A., Valdes, J. B., Vogel, R., Garvey, J., and Schwarz, H.: 1996, ‘Global Warming and the Hydrologic Cycle’, J. Hydrology 174, 83–127.Google Scholar
  13. Maurer, E. P., Lettenmaier, D. P., and Roads, J. O.: 1999, ‘Water Balance of the Mississippi River Basin from a Macroscale Hydrology Model and NCEP/NCAR reanalysis’, EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 80, F409–410.Google Scholar
  14. 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), 17841–17862.Google Scholar
  15. Maurer, E. P., Wood, A. W., Adam, J. C., Lettenmaier, D. P., and Nijssen, B.: 2002, ‘A Long-Term Hydrologically-Based Data Set of Land Surface Fluxes and States for the Conterminous United States’, J. Climate 15, 3237–3251.Google Scholar
  16. McCabe, G. J. and Hay, L. E.: 1995, ‘Hydrological Effects of Hypothetical Climate Change in the East River Basin, Colorado, U.S.A.’, Hydrological Sciences 40, 303–317.Google Scholar
  17. McCabe, G. J. and Wolock, D. M.: 1999, ‘General Circulation Model Simulations of Future Snowpack in the Western United States’, J. Amer. Water Resour. Assoc. 35, 1473–1484.Google Scholar
  18. Nash, L. L. and Gleick, P.: 1991, ‘The Sensitivity of Streamflow in the Colorado Basin to Climatic Changes’, J. Hydrology 125, 221–241.Google Scholar
  19. Nash, L. L. and Gleick, P.: 1993, The Colorado River Basin and Climate Change: The Sensitivity of Streamflow and Water Supply to Variations in Temperature and Precipitation, EPA, Policy, Planning and Evaluation. EPA 230-R-93-009 December 1993.Google Scholar
  20. Nijssen, B., O'Donnell, G. M., Hamlet, A. F., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: 2001, ‘Hydrologic Sensitivities of Global Rivers to Climate Change’, Clim. Change 50, 143–175.Google Scholar
  21. Nijssen, B., Lettenmaier, D. P., Liang, X., Wetzel, S. W., and Wood, E. F.: 1997, ‘Streamflow Simulations for Continental-Scale River Basins’, J. Amer. Water Resour. Assoc. 36, 399–420.Google Scholar
  22. Payne, J. T., Wood, A. W., 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
  23. Schuster, R. J.: 1987, Colorado River System: System Overview, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO.Google Scholar
  24. Shaake, J. C.: 1990, ‘From Climate to Flow, in Climate Change and U.S. Water Resources’, in Waggoner, P. E. (ed.), Chapter 8, John Wiley, New York, pp. 177–206.Google Scholar
  25. U.S. Department of Interior (USDOI), Bureau of Reclamation: 1985, Colorado River Simulation System: System Overview, USDOI Publication.Google Scholar
  26. U.S. Department of Interior (USDOI), Bureau of Reclamation: 2000, Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria; Final Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. 1, USDOI Publication.Google Scholar
  27. Sankarasubramanian, A. and Vogel, R. M.: 2001, ‘Climate Elasticity of Streamflow in the United States’, Water Resour. Res. 37, 1771–1781.Google Scholar
  28. VanRheenen, N. T., Wood, A.W., Palmer, R. N., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: 2004, ‘Potential Implications of PCM Climate Change Scenarios for Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin Hydrology and Water Resources’, Clim. Change 62, 257–281.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Wilby, R. L, Hay, L. E., and Leavesley, G. H.: 1999, ‘A Comparison Downscaled and Raw GCM Output: Implications for Climate Change Scenarios in the San Juan River Basin, Colorado’, J. Hydrology 225, 67–91.Google Scholar
  31. Wolock, D. M. and McCabe, G. J.: 1999, ‘Estimates of Runoff Using Water-Balance and Atmospheric General Circulation Models’, J. Amer. Water Resour. Assoc. 35, 1341–1350.Google Scholar
  32. Wood, A. W., Leung, L. R., Sridhar V., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: 2004, ‘Hydrologic Implications of Dynamical and Statistical Approaches to Downscaling Climate Outputs’, Clim. Change 62, 189–216.Google Scholar
  33. Wood, A. W., Maurer, E. P., Kumar, A., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: 2002, ‘Long Range Experimental Hydrologic Forecasting for the Eastern U.S.’, J. Geophys. Res. 107 (D20), 4429.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Niklas S. Christensen
    • 1
  • Andrew W. Wood
    • 1
  • Nathalie Voisin
    • 1
  • Dennis P. Lettenmaier
    • 1
  • Richard N. Palmer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of WashingtonSeattleU.S.A

Personalised recommendations