The new ‘normal’ water year in a changing California climate

xxxxx. Source: California Dept. of Water Resources

There really is no “normal” water year in California. Precipitation and streamflow are highly variable and hard to predict from year to year. Residents of Yuba County felt the full force of a “wet” year in 1996-1997, while the “critically dry” year of 2007-2008 left Folsom Lake marinas high and dry. Source: California Dept. of Water Resources

By Sarah Null and Joshua Viers

For at least 20 years now, water scientists have impressed upon us the unavoidable effects of climate change already underway in California. The forecasts repeatedly call for reduced Sierra snowpack, earlier spring snowmelt, prolonged hot spells and droughts, warmer rivers stressing cold-water fish, wilder storms and sea level rise that threaten Delta water supplies for thousands of farms and millions of Californians.

And, yet, we Californians continue to rely on a decades-old water allocations framework that assumes our climate will remain unchanged.

Water managers determine how much water gets allocated and who gets it depending on whether the year is expected to be “wet,” “above normal,” “below normal” “dry” or “critically dry.”

Of course, as with so much about California, there really is no “normal” when it comes to amounts of precipitation and streamflow in this state. Those metrics vary greatly from year to year, making them fairly unpredictable. For example, this water year (Oct. 1 – Sept. 30) began as one of the wettest on record, like 1983. But since January it has been drier than the driest year of record, 1976-77. For allocation purposes, this water year is classified “dry” for the Sacramento Valley and “critically dry” for the San Joaquin Valley.

This water allocation framework, however, is unrealistic in a changing climate. The water-year classifications that determine the allocations are indexed to historical climatic conditions. Each year, state water managers estimate streamflows and compare them with the historical average. Also, the index is weighted toward snowmelt, making it poorly suited in a future that has less snow and more rain.

A recent modeling study that we did as scientists with Utah State University and the UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences shows water-year classifications tied to historical data become less representative and meaningful in a changing climate. The classifications for the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys shift significantly with climate change over the next 100 years – the result of warming air temperatures reducing and changing the timing of streamflow.

By the end of the century, 34 percent to 38 percent of years for the Sacramento Valley would be dry and critically dry, compared with 30 percent today. For the San Joaquin Valley, modeling suggests that as many as two-thirds of the years would be classified as dry and critically dry, compared with 30 percent today.

a1_wyt

The relative frequency of water year types, from 1951 t0 2100, show more “dry” and “critically dry” years toward the end of this century. The figures use average modeled streamflow for the Sacramento Valley and San Joaquin Valley (below). The beige hue represents a more severe climate change scenario (A2), which assumes maximum carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of 850 parts per million (ppm), continuously increasing global population and slow economic growth. The blue (B1) scenario is more moderate, assuming maximum CO2 emissions of 550 ppm, global population that peaks mid-century and later declines, and globally sustainability solutions that introduce resource-efficient technology. Source: UC Davis

b1_wyt

Under the current water-year classification system, the brunt of this climate change-driven water scarcity would fall on the already imperiled aquatic ecosystems – the dwindling populations of salmon and other native aquatic species. That’s because relatively more water is allocated to urban and agricultural users in dry and critically dry years.

For example, in wet years Delta farmers receive about 3 percent of water from the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers while about 10 percent is exported south through the Delta pumps. The remaining 87 percent flows out of the Delta and on through the Golden Gate to the Pacific. The outflow includes floodwater that upstream reservoirs couldn’t capture, but this freshwater is allocated as “environmental flow” – to maintain salinity levels tolerable to Delta fish and to keep ocean-bound juvenile salmon and steelheads from getting drawn toward the powerful export pumps.

In dry and critically dry years, however, the allocations for Delta island farmers, exports south rise to 12 percent and 37 percent, respectively, while the share of freshwater flows for aquatic life dips to 51 percent.

In a warmer world with reduced streamflow and many more dry and critically dry water years, environmental water uses would repeatedly receive the short end of the water allocation stick.

California water managers can adapt the water allocation system to a changing climate. One way would be to redefine the water-year types. For example, a “dry” year of the last century might be a “below normal” or “above normal” year later in this century. This would share the burden of climate change-driven streamflow reductions more equitably between environmental water uses and urban and agricultural users.

Alternatively, managers could change the seasonal weighting used in calculating the water-year type. Or they could add more classifications, or change the percentage of water allocated to different users.

However managers choose to slice it, we recommend an adaptive approach with a formal periodic review of year-type thresholds to ensure water is allocated according to water rights, regulatory requirements and desired ecosystems.

Managers might also rethink the use of “normal” in the water-year classifications. For California, the term doesn’t hold water.

Sarah Null is an assistant professor in the Department of Watershed Sciences at the Utah State University. Joshua Viers is an associate director of the UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences and an associate research ecologist in the university’s Department of Environmental Science and Policy.

Further reading

Null, S. E., and J. H. Viers (2013), In bad waters: Water year classification in nonstationary climates,Water Resources Research, 49, doi:10.1002/wrcr.20097.

California Department of Water Resources (2009), California Water Indices. California Water Plan Update 2009. Vol. 4 Reference Guide.

Milly, P.C. et al., 2008. Stationarity is dead: whither water management? Science, 319, pp.573-574.

Cayan, D.R., E.P. Maurer, M.C. Dettinger, M. Tyree, K. Hayhoe. 2008. Climate change scenarios for the California region. Climate Change. DOI: 10.1007/s10584-007-9377-6.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to The new ‘normal’ water year in a changing California climate

  1. Tim says:

    California’s does not have a singular climate change. It features a number of climatic zones for which there is no comparison on a state by state basis. When my parents settled in southern California there was adequate water for all farming and domestic use. As development and additional settlers came to southern California, water demand exceeded availability on a regular basis which fostered the appropriations from the Colorado River the Owens River and so on. All the while northern and central California basked in an abundance of natural water sources but they failed to protect those interests from the robber barons of southern California. Meanwhile southern California with the help of the USACE turned the natural stream and drainage channels that facilitated groundwater recharge into concrete lined conveyances directly discharging precipitation into the ocean. What has evolved due to political controls are demands from southern California interests and the overselling of water rights. If no water is piped over the Tehachipis there is adequate water to fight salt water intrusion into the Delta, provide for adequate fishery protection and to provide for all northern California agricultural interests. The selling of fictional water rights to facilitate water transfers by California’s water managers is the elephant in the room that no one is acknowledging.

    Like

    • jaylund says:

      Total water deliveries from the Delta over the Tehachipis are less than 1 million acre-ft/year, less than 1/6 of all in-Delta water diversions and less than 1/18 of all diversions from the Delta. Eliminating this relatively small amount of total Delta diversions alone seems unlikely to provide all these benefits.

      Like

  2. Pingback: Blog round-up: Bloggers on BDCP costs and benefits, Delta dialogues, a revuelta, climate change and the new normal, and more! » MAVEN'S NOTEBOOK | MAVEN'S NOTEBOOK

  3. Mike Wade says:

    The authors compare water use between wet and dry years according to percentages. If one looks at the actual volume used then it becomes clearer that some uses of water remain close to the same volume regardless of year type and percentage. Unlike water users south of the Delta, including thousands of farmers, the volume drops in dry and critically dry years. History reveals that in 1990 farmers received zero percent of their supply from the State Water Project. In 2009 farmers received 10 percent of the promised supply from the Central Valley Project; that number is at 20 percent this year.

    Redefining water year definitions as suggested by the authors may be helpful for some but more importantly to California farmers is knowing how much water they can expect to receive while planning and preparing the soil for planting. As annual precipitation shifts seasonally and the extremes are more prevalent, it becomes even more important to balance our water supply needs with new storage. Bountiful supplies in wet years should be saved for use during dry years. And that can help meet the environmental needs that the authors say actually increase during dry years. Sites, Temperance Flat and Shasta all have potential to even out the uncertainty water users could see in the future.

    Mike Wade
    California Farm Water Coalition

    Like

  4. Pingback: Science news and reports: Bass in the Delta, life cycle monitoring, climate change, invasive species, dust, and homicidal fish on Prozac … ! » MAVEN'S NOTEBOOK | MAVEN'S NOTEBOOK

  5. Pingback: California Water Blog: Climate Change Requires Rethinking Classification System Used To Allocate Delta Water | California Central Valley Water Blog

  6. read more says:

    It’s nearly impossible to find experienced people about this subject, but you sound like you know what you’re talking about! Thanks

    Like

  7. Kris M. says:

    This is amazing to think about, you really know what you are talking about, Thanks for sharing!

    Like

  8. Pingback: Simultaneous Flooding and Drought in California: Human-Caused Climate Change? | GeoCurrents

  9. Pingback: In the News | acwalab

Leave a Comment (moderated)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s