Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 23
Integrated Decision Support: Reducing Water Resources Vulnerability to Climate Change through Adaptive Management
Integrated Decision Support: Reducing Water Resources Vulnerability to
Climate Change through Adaptive Management

Aris Georgakakos

Huaming Yao Martin Kistenmacher

Management Aris Georgakakos Huaming Yao Martin Kistenmacher Kosta Georgakakos Nick Graham Fang-Yi Cheng Cris Spencer

Kosta Georgakakos

Nick Graham Fang-Yi Cheng Cris Spencer

Kosta Georgakakos Nick Graham Fang-Yi Cheng Cris Spencer • Integrated Decision Support Framework GCM Scenarios,
• Integrated Decision Support Framework GCM Scenarios, Downscaling, Hydrology, Water Resources • Climate Change
• Integrated Decision Support Framework
GCM Scenarios, Downscaling, Hydrology, Water Resources
• Climate Change Assessments for Northern California
Current vs. Adaptive Policies; Historical vs. Future Scenarios; Vulnerability
• Conclusions/Further Assessments
Mitigation potential of adaptive, risk based management

Integrated Modeling Framework

GCM Scenarios Downscaling

GCM Scenarios Downscaling Generate consistent climat e forcing sequences of Rainfall and temperature. Watershed
GCM Scenarios Downscaling Generate consistent climat e forcing sequences of Rainfall and temperature. Watershed
GCM Scenarios Downscaling Generate consistent climat e forcing sequences of Rainfall and temperature. Watershed
GCM Scenarios Downscaling Generate consistent climat e forcing sequences of Rainfall and temperature. Watershed
GCM Scenarios Downscaling Generate consistent climat e forcing sequences of Rainfall and temperature. Watershed
GCM Scenarios Downscaling Generate consistent climat e forcing sequences of Rainfall and temperature. Watershed

Generate consistent climate forcing sequences of Rainfall and temperature.

climat e forcing sequences of Rainfall and temperature. Watershed Hydrology River/Reservoir Planning &
climat e forcing sequences of Rainfall and temperature. Watershed Hydrology River/Reservoir Planning &

Watershed Hydrology

sequences of Rainfall and temperature. Watershed Hydrology River/Reservoir Planning & Management Clair Engle Lake
sequences of Rainfall and temperature. Watershed Hydrology River/Reservoir Planning & Management Clair Engle Lake
sequences of Rainfall and temperature. Watershed Hydrology River/Reservoir Planning & Management Clair Engle Lake
sequences of Rainfall and temperature. Watershed Hydrology River/Reservoir Planning & Management Clair Engle Lake
sequences of Rainfall and temperature. Watershed Hydrology River/Reservoir Planning & Management Clair Engle Lake

River/Reservoir Planning & Management

Clair Engle Lake

Trinity Power Plant

Clear Creek Sacramento River reviRytinirT Lewiston JF Carr Shasta Lewiston Spring Shasta Cr Whiskeytown New
Clear Creek
Sacramento River
reviRytinirT
Lewiston
JF Carr
Shasta
Lewiston
Spring
Shasta
Cr
Whiskeytown
New Melones
Keswick
Oroville
Keswick
Oroville
Melones
New Bullards Bar
Thermalito
Tulloch
Folsom
Goodwin
Folsom
Black Butte
Natoma
Nimbus
IES,IMC,IYB,I TI
DSF
Tracy
To Mendota Pool
ISV
Delta-Mendota Canal
Pumping
DDM
IFT
DFDM
California Aqueduct
River Node
River Node
O’Neill
Forebay
DDLT,DBS,DCCWD,DNBA
Banks
DSB
Pumping
To Dos Amigos PP
Power Plant
Power Plant
Power Plant
Pumping Plant
Pumping Plant
Pumping Plant
Sacramento San Joaquin
River Delta
Reservoir/
Reservoir/
Reservoir/
Lake
Lake
Lake
Bear River
Yuba River
San Joaquin River
San Joaquin River
Feather River
American River

San Luis

DDA

Lake Bear River Yuba River San Joaquin River San Joaquin River Feather River American River San
Lake Bear River Yuba River San Joaquin River San Joaquin River Feather River American River San
River Feather River American River San Luis D DA Simulate soil moisture, evapotranspiration, runoff, and

Simulate soil moisture, evapotranspiration, runoff, and streamflow.

Simulate current and adaptive mgt. policies and assess impacts on water uses.

current and adaptive mgt. policies and assess impacts on water uses. Vulnerability Assessment and Mitigation Potential

Vulnerability Assessment and Mitigation Potential

Climate Scenarios

CLIMATE MODEL: NCAR CCSM3.0 (COUPLED MODEL)

SCENARIO: A1B MIDDLE LEVEL SCENARIO DECLINING EMISSIONS AFTER 2050 MAX CO2 CONCENTRATON OF ~715 PPM AT 2100

RESOLUTION: ~120KM HORIZONTAL RESOLUTION 26 VERTICAL LAYERS 6HRS TEMPORAL RESOLUTION

VARIABLES USED: 3D ATMOSPHERIC VARIABLES

TWO INPUT SETS: 1970 2019 AND 2050 2099

TWO INPUT SETS: 1970 ‐ 2019 AND 2050 ‐ 2099 Good Large Scale Precipitation Correspondence of
TWO INPUT SETS: 1970 ‐ 2019 AND 2050 ‐ 2099 Good Large Scale Precipitation Correspondence of

Good Large Scale Precipitation Correspondence of Historical 19501999 run with NCEP Reanalysis 19481997 for West Coast

Dynamic Downscaling: Mean Areal Precipitation and Temperature

OROGRAPHIC PRECIPITATION GRIDDED MODEL WINDFLOW FROM QUASI STEADY STATE POTENTIAL THEORY FLOW WATER SUBSTANCE SOURCE/ADVECTION MODEL WITH KESSLER MICROPHYSICS 10X10 SQKM SPATIAL AND 6HOURLY TEMPORAL RESOLUTION

SURFACE TEMPERATURE GRIDDED MODEL INTERPOLATION/ADJUSTMENT OF CCSM3.0 LOW LEVEL TEMPERATURE OVER TERRAIN SURFACE ENERGY BALANCE MODEL (OROGRAPHIC AND SNOW/SOIL MODEL COUPLING) 10X10 SQKM SPATIAL AND 6HOURLY TEMPORAL RESOLUTION

GIS BASED SYSTEM FOR CATCHMENT DELINEATION AND PRODUCTION OF MAP AND MAT

CATCHMENT DELINEATION AND PRODUCTION OF MAP AND MAT Reference: HRC ‐ GWRI:

Reference: HRCGWRI: http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/project_reports/CEC5002006109.html

Watershed Hydrology: Snow, Soil, and Channel Modeling System

ADAPTATION OF NWS OPERATIONAL SNOW ACCUMULATION AND ABLATION MODEL

ADAPTATION OF NWS OPERATIONAL SOIL WATER ACCOUNTING MODEL

KINEMATIC ROUTING THROUGH RIVER NETWORK FOR ALL BASINS

ROUTING THROUGH RIVER NETWORK FOR ALL BASINS Hydrologic Model Domain Oroville Subcatchments Oroville

Hydrologic Model Domain

RIVER NETWORK FOR ALL BASINS Hydrologic Model Domain Oroville Subcatchments Oroville ‐ Historical ESP

Oroville Subcatchments

ALL BASINS Hydrologic Model Domain Oroville Subcatchments Oroville ‐ Historical ESP Reliability Diagrams

Oroville Historical ESP Reliability Diagrams

Reference: HRCGWRI: http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/project_reports/CEC5002006109.html

Selected Results: Temperature, Precipitation, Streamflow

Selected Results: Temperature, Precipitation, Streamflow Temperature Difference ( o C) – Feb 1800Z Precipitation

Temperature Difference ( o C) – Feb 1800Z

Streamflow Temperature Difference ( o C) – Feb 1800Z Precipitation Difference (mm/6hrs) – Feb Future winters

Precipitation Difference (mm/6hrs) – Feb

Future winters are warmer and wetter (at higher elevations) than the historical.
Future winters are warmer and wetter (at higher elevations) than the historical.
and wetter (at higher elevations) than the historical. Simulated Flows: Future Historical Future flows are
and wetter (at higher elevations) than the historical. Simulated Flows: Future Historical Future flows are

Simulated Flows:

Future

Historical

Future flows are somewhat higher and occur earlier (Shasta/Oroville)
Future flows are somewhat higher
and occur earlier (Shasta/Oroville)

River and Reservoir Modeling System

Northern California River and Reservoir System Schematic Clair Engle Lake Trinity Power Plant Lewiston JF
Northern California River and Reservoir
System Schematic
Clair Engle Lake
Trinity Power Plant
Lewiston
JF Carr
Shasta
Lewiston
Spring
Shasta
Cr
Whiskeytown
New Melones
Keswick
Oroville
Keswick
Oroville
Melones
New Bullards Bar
Thermalito
Tulloch
Folsom
Goodwin
Folsom
Black Butte
Natoma
Sacramento River
Nimbus
IES,IMC,IYB,ITI
DSF
Tracy
To Mendota Pool
ISV
Delta-Mendota Canal
Pumping
DDM
IFT
DFDM
San Luis
Bear River
California Aqueduct
DDA
River Node
River Node
O’Neill
Yuba River
Forebay
DDLT,DBS,DCCWD,DNBA
Banks
DSB
Pumping
To Dos Amigos PP
Power Plant
Power Plant
Power Plant
Pumping Plant
Pumping Plant
Pumping Plant
Clear Creek
Sacramento San Joaquin
River Delta
Reservoir/
Reservoir/
Reservoir/
Lake
Lake
Lake
San Joaquin River
San Joaquin River
reviRytinirT
Feather River
American River
Objectives: Water Supply Energy Generation Environment Ecology Recreation
Objectives:
Water Supply
Energy Generation
Environment
Ecology
Recreation

Trinity River System (Clair Engle Lake, Trinity Power Plant, Lewiston Lake, Lewiston Plant, JF Carr Plant, Whiskeytown, Clear Creek, and Spring Creek Plant);

Shasta Lake System (Shasta Lake, Shasta Power Plant, Keswick Lake, Keswick Plant, and the river reach from Keswick to Wilkins);

Feather River System (Oroville Lake, Oroville Power Plants, Thermalito Diversion Pond, Yuba River, and Bear River);

American River System (Folsom Lake, Folsom Plant, Natoma Lake, Nimbus Plant, Natoma Plant, and Natoma Diversions);

San Joaquin River System (New Melones Lake, New Melones Power Plant, Tulloch Lake, Demands from Goodwin, and Inflows from the main San Joaquin River); and

Bay Delta (Delta Inflows, Delta Exports, Coordinated Operation Agreement--COA, and Delta Environmental Requirements).

River and Reservoir Modeling System (2)

Reservoir

Reservoir

ID

ID

Reservoir Name

Reservoir Name

H

H

min

min

H

H

max

max

S

S

min

min

S

S

max

max

10

10

Clair Engle Lake

Clair Engle Lake

2145

2145

2380

2380

313

313

2617

2617

20

20

Whiskeytown

Whiskeytown

1000

1000

1223

1223

0.23

0.23

284

284

30

30

Shasta

Shasta

900

900

1068

1068

1167

1167

4347

4347

40

40

Oroville

Oroville

640

640

900

900

852.2

852.2

3537.8

3537.8

50

50

Folsom

Folsom

327

327

470

470

83

83

1022

1022

60

60

New Melones

New Melones

800

800

1100

1100

273

273

2571

2571

70

70

Tulloch

Tulloch

57

57

67

67

10

10

20

20

80

80

San Luis

San Luis

300

300

546

546

15.5

15.5

2026

2026

River Nodes Lewiston JF Carr Clear Creek Spring Creek Keswick Wilkins Feather American River Freeport Goodwin SJR above Stanislaus SJR at Vernalis Antioch Delta Exit

Tributary Inflows Trinity Whiskeytown Shasta Keswick-Wilkins Oroville Yuba River Bear River Folsom Sacramento Miscellaneous Eastside streams Delta Miscellaneous streams New Melones San Joaquin River

Water Supply

Thermalito Folsom Pumping Folsom South Canal OID/SSJID CVP Contractors CCWD Barker Slough Federal Tracy PP Federal Banks On-Peak Federal Banks Off-Peak Federal Banks PP – Total Federal Banks PP – CVC Federal Banks PP - Joint Point Federal Banks PP – Transfers North Bay Aqueduct

Power Plant

Power Plant

Units

Units

Capacity (MW)

Capacity (MW)

Trinity

Trinity

2

2

140

140

Lewiston

Lewiston

1 1

0.35

0.35

JF Carr

JF Carr

2

2

141.4

141.4

Spring Creek

Spring Creek

2

2

150

150

Shasta

Shasta

5

5

659

659

Keswick

Keswick

3

3

75

75

Oroville

Oroville

6

6

600

600

Folsom

Folsom

3

3

210

210

Nimbus

Nimbus

2

2

13.5

13.5

New Melones

New Melones

2

2

150

150

State Banks PP State Tracy PP Delta Mendota Canal Federal Dos Amigos Federal O'Neil to Dos Amigos San Felipe Cross Valley Canal Federal Exchange O'Neil Federal Exchange San Luis South Bay/San Jose State Dos Amigos Delta Consumptive Use Freeport Treatment Plant Yolo Bypass Transfer Inflow

AFRP (Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan) Clear Creek Below Whiskeytown Lake (Trinity) Below Keswick Dam (Sacramento) Below Nimbus Dam (American)

River and Reservoir Modeling System (3)

Base Demand Locations and Amounts (WS Deliveries)

Month

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Thermolito

35

0

11

67

189

178

200

178

78

95

104

71

Folsom Pumping

4

4

4

7

8

12

13

12

10

7

 

5

4

Folsom South Canal

           

111123443211

         

OID/SSJID

0

0

14

60

90

90

95

95

74

14

 

0

0

CVP Contractors

           

000000000000

         

CCWD

14

17

18

18

14

14

13

13

13

10

11

13

Barker Slough

           

221245776533

         

Federal Tracy PP

258

233

258

250

135

169

270

268

260

258

250

258

Federal Banks On-Peak

0

0

0

0

0

0

28

28

28

0

 

0

0

State Banks PP

390

355

241

68

108

125

271

278

238

175

193

390

State Tracy PP

           

000000000000

         

Delta Mendota Canal

30

60

100

120

190

220

270

240

180

110

40

30

Federal Dos Amigos

40

50

60

70

110

180

238

178

68

30

30

30

Federal O'Neil to Dos Amigos

           

011112210000

         

San Felipe

6

6

10

15

19

20

21

20

13

11

 

8

8

South Bay/San Jose

2

2

2

5

5

7

7

8

7

12

 

8

6

State Dos Amigos

105

127

158

105

348

348

423

388

269

229

196

61

Delta Consumptive Use

-56

-37

-10

63

121

191

268

252

174

118

55

2

Freeport Treatment Plant

14

13

14

12

12

12

12

13

12

12

12

13

   

Base Water Demand Target

   
 

1200

1000

1000

800

TAF

600

400

200

0

 

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Delta-related Model Variables (68)

GroupID

SeqID

 

SeqName

Delta Inflows

1

Sac Valley Acc/depl

Delta Inflows

2

Freeport Treatment Plant

Delta Inflows

3

Freeport Flow

Delta Inflows

4

SJR at Vernalis

Delta Inflows

5

Eastside Streams

Delta Inflows

6

Misc Creeks Inflow

Delta Inflows

7

Yolo Bypass

Delta Inflows

8

Transfer Inflow

Delta Inflows

9

Total Delta Inflow

Delta Exports

10

CCWD Diversion

Delta Exports

11

Barker Slough

Delta Exports

12

Federal Tracy PP

Delta Exports

13

F.

Banks On-Peak FBON

Delta Exports

14

F.

Banks Off-Peak FBOFF

Delta Exports

15

Federal Banks PP - Total

Delta Exports

16

Federal Banks PP - CVC

Delta Exports

17

Federal Banks PP - Joint Point

Delta Exports

18

Federal Banks PP - Transfers

Delta Exports

19

Total Fed Pumped Planned

Delta Exports

20

Total Fed Pumped Computed

Delta Exports

21

Total Federal Export Planned

Delta Exports

22

Total Federal Export Computed

Delta Exports

23

NBA Diversion

Delta Exports

24

State Banks PP

Delta Exports

25

State Tracy PP

Delta Exports

26

Total State Export Planned

Delta Exports

27

Total State Export Computed

Delta Exports

28

Total Exports Planned

Delta Exports

29

Total Exports Computed

Delta COA

30

Required Delta Outflow

Delta COA

31

Delta Consumptive Use

Delta COA

32

Req. Combined Res. Release

Delta COA

33

Computed Delta Outflow

Delta COA

34

Excess Outflow

Delta COA

35

Total Federal Storage Withdrawal

Delta COA

36

State Storage Withdrawal

Delta COA

37

Unstored Flow for Export

Delta COA

38

Est. In-Basin Use of Stor. With.

Delta COA

39

USBR Allowable Export

Delta COA

40

USBR Monthly COA Account

Delta COA

41

Accumulated COA

Delta COA

42

Rio Vista Flow

Delta Environment

43

X-channel Gates

Delta Environment

44

Cross Delta Flow

Delta Environment

45

Antioch Flow

Delta Environment

46

QWEST Calculated

Delta Environment

47

Inflow Diverted Std%

Delta Environment

48

Inflow Diverted % Computed

Delta Environment

49

X2 Location (km from GG)

Delta Environment

50

Supplemental Project Water (Term 91)

Delta South

51

Delta Mendota Canal

Delta South

52

Federal Dos Amigos

Delta South

53

 

ON to DA

Delta South

54

S.

Felipe Demands

Delta South

55

Cross Valley Demand

Delta South

56

Fed to S Ex. in ON

Delta South

57

Fed to S Ex. in SL

Delta South

58

Fed SL P/G.

Delta South

59

Federal Storage

Delta South

60

S.

Bay/ N S.J.

Delta South

61

State Dos Amigos

Delta South

62

State SL P/G.

Delta South

63

State Storage

Delta South

64

Total SL Storage

Delta South

65

SL Area

Delta South

66

SL Elevation

Delta South

67

SL Est. Evap.

Delta South

68

SL Evap Coefficients

Delta Inflows

Delta Exports

Delta COA

Delta Environment

Delta South

River and Reservoir Modeling System (4) Current and Adaptive Management Policies

Current Policy

Adaptive, Risk-based Policy

Generate inflow forecasts—median trace (HA).

• Determine water year type (DWR: C/D/N/AN/W). • Adjust base demands based on year type.
• Determine water year type (DWR: C/D/N/AN/W).
• Adjust base demands based on year type.
• Determine next month reservoir releases to
- meet water delivery targets and minimum
required flows at various river nodes,
assuming no extra releases are required to meet
Delta demands (X2) and pumping to South CA.
• If X2 requirements and south CA delivery targets
are not met, increase releases according to COA
(roughly 25/75 rule).
• If deficits persist, allocate water to meet X2 first,
then south CA water deliveries.

Repeat at the next month.

Generate inflow forecasts—full ensemble (HA).

• Determine reservoir releases for the next 9 months to - meet water delivery targets
• Determine reservoir releases for the next 9
months to
- meet water delivery targets and minimum
required flows at various river nodes,
- meet environmental and ecological Delta
requirements associated with the X2,
location and Delta outflow,
- generate as much energy as possible, and
- maintain high reservoir levels and
sufficient carry-over storage.
(System-wide, stochastic optimization;
Not according to the COA. )

Apply first month release and repeat.

Main Policy Differences

Current Policy • Focuses on current month.

Deterministic.

Adjusts demand targets twice a year.

Follows COA in extra water allocation.

Adaptive Policy Optimizes over the next 9 months. Risk based. Re-optimizes every month. Finds optimal allocation strategy each time.

Agencies/Decisions Management Agencies/DecisionsPlanning

Operational Planning and Management

Assessments

Off-line

Adaptive Management System (INFORM DSS)

INFORM DSS: Overview Multiple Objectives, Time Scales, & Decision Makers

System-wide, stochastic optimization

Actual Hydrologic Near Real Time Decision Support Conditions Actual Demands Hourly / 1 Day Benefit/Impact
Actual Hydrologic
Near Real Time Decision Support
Conditions
Actual Demands
Hourly / 1 Day
Benefit/Impact Functions
Water Distribution
Flow Regulation
Hydro Plant Operation
Emergency Response
Daily Decisions
• Water Supply
• Releases/Energy
• Energy
• Flood Damage
Target Conditions
• Env.-Ecosystem
Climate-Hydrologic
• State Variables
Operational Tradeoffs
Forecasts
Mid/Short Range Decision Support
Flood Management
Demand Forecasts
Daily, 6-Hourly, or Hourly / 1 Month
Water Distribution
• Water Supply
Energy Generation
• Power Load/Tariffs
• Flood Damage
Benefit/Impact Functions
Monthly Decisions
• Env.-Ecosystem Targets
• Water Supply
• Releases/Energy
• Energy
Target Conditions
• Flood Damage
• Env.-Ecosystem
• State Variables

Climate-Hydrologic

Forecasts

Demand Forecasts

• Water

• Food

• Energy

• Env.-Ecosystem

Inflow Scenarios

• Env.-Ecosystem Management
Env.-Ecosystem Management

Planning Tradeoffs

Scenarios • Env.-Ecosystem Management Planning Tradeoffs • Water Supply/Allocation • Energy Generation •

• Water Supply/Allocation

• Energy Generation

• Carry-over Storage

• Env.-Ecosystem Management
• Env.-Ecosystem Management

Development Tradeoffs

Long Range Decision Support

Weekly, 10-Day or Monthly / 1-2 Years

Management Policy Infrastructure Develpmnt. Water Sharing Compacts Sustainability Targets

Scenario/Policy Assessment

Monthly / Several Decades

Scenario/Policy Assessment Monthly / Several Decades Development/Demand Scenarios • Water/Energy •

Development/Demand

Scenarios

• Water/Energy

• Water/Benefit Sharing

• Environmental Sustainability

• Water/Benefit Sharing • Environmental Sustainability • Urban/Industrial • Agriculture • Power System •

• Urban/Industrial

• Agriculture

• Power System

• Socio-economic & Ecological Sustainability

System • Socio-economic & Ecological Sustainability Reference: HRC ‐ GWRI:

Reference: HRCGWRI: http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/project_reports/CEC5002006109.html

Assessment Process

Clair Engle Lake 9-month Forecast-Decision Horizon Trinity Power Plant Lewiston JF Carr Shasta Lewiston Spring
Clair Engle Lake
9-month Forecast-Decision Horizon
Trinity Power Plant
Lewiston
JF Carr
Shasta
Lewiston
Spring
Shasta
Cr
Whiskeytown
New Melones
Keswick
Oroville
Keswick
Oroville
Melones
New Bullards Bar
Thermalito
Inflow Forecasting
Tulloch
Assessment Criteria
Folsom
Goodwin
Folsom
Black Butte
Natoma
Nimbus
Lake Levels, Spillage
IES,IMC,IYB,ITI
DSF
Tracy
To Mendota Pool
ISV
Delta-Mendota Canal
Pumping
DDM
IFT
DFDM
River/Reservoir
San Luis
California Aqueduct
Water Supply Reliability
DDA
River Node
River Node
O’Neill
Forebay
DDLT,DBS,DCCWD,DNBA
Banks
DSB
Simulation
Pumping
To Dos Amigos PP
Bear River
Power Plant
Power Plant
Power Plant
Sacramento River
Pumping Plant
Pumping Plant
Pumping Plant
Sacramento San Joaquin
River Delta
Energy Generation
Yuba River
Reservoir/
Reservoir/
Reservoir/
Lake
Lake
Lake
Reservoir Mgt.
Basin wide
Bay Environment (X2)
others.
San Joaquin River
San Joaquin River
Inflow Scenario
Management Policy
Demand Scenario
(Monthly time steps)
Clear Creek
Regulation Policy
One Step System
Simulation
Feather River
reviRytinirT
American River

Simulation Horizon

1970

to 2019 (Historical)

2050

to 2099 (Future)

Inflow Comparison (Historical vs. Future Scenario)
Inflow Comparison (Historical vs. Future Scenario)

System Historical vs. Future Inflows

Total Reservoir Inflows 20000 18000 16000 Future 14000 Historical 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000
Total Reservoir Inflows
20000
18000
16000
Future
14000
Historical
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Exceedance of Probability (%)

Trinity Historical vs. Future Inflows

Trinity Monthly Mean 3000 Trinity His Trinity Fut 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Jan
Trinity Monthly Mean
3000
Trinity His
Trinity Fut
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
TAF/Year

Average future inflows are somewhat higher. (Trinity 6.3%; Oroville 10%; Shasta 4.3%; Folsom 5.6%.)

Minimum future inflows are considerably lower indicating more severe droughts (27% reduction).

Future inflows are more variable.

Wet season shifts earlier.

Lake Levels: Current vs. Adaptive Policies for Historical and Future Scenarios
Lake Levels: Current vs. Adaptive Policies for
Historical and Future Scenarios
Historical Future System Storage Sequences; Historical Period System Storage Sequences; Future Period 12000 12000
Historical
Future
System Storage Sequences; Historical Period
System Storage Sequences; Future Period
12000
12000
10000
10000
8000
8000
6000
6000
4000
4000
His/DSS
Future/DSS
His/CurrentPolicy
Future/CurrentPolicy
2000
2000
0
0
TAF
Jan-74
Jan-76
Jan-78
Jan-80
Jan-82
Jan-84
Jan-86
Jan-88
Jan-90
Jan-92
Jan-94
Jan-96
Jan-98
Jan-00
Jan-02
Jan-04
Jan-06
Jan-08
Jan-10
Jan-12
Jan-14
Jan-16
Jan-18
TAF
Jan-74
Jan-76
Jan-78
Jan-80
Jan-82
Jan-84
Jan-86
Jan-88
Jan-90
Jan-92
Jan-94
Jan-96
Jan-98
Jan-00
Jan-02
Jan-04
Jan-06
Jan-08
Jan-10
Jan-12
Jan-14
Jan-16
Jan-18

Lake levels exhibit considerably greater seasonal and annual variability in the future scenario.

System conservation storage is used up in the future scenario. Drought vulnerability increases.

Adaptive DSS policy exhibits higher lake levels and less spillage than current policy.

Water Deliveries: Current vs. Adaptive Policies for Historical and Future Scenarios
Water Deliveries: Current vs. Adaptive Policies for
Historical and Future Scenarios
Historical Future System Water Deliveries, Historical Inflows System Water Deliveries, Future Inflows 9000 9000
Historical
Future
System Water Deliveries, Historical Inflows
System Water Deliveries, Future Inflows
9000
9000
His/DSS
Future/DSS
8000
8000
His/CurrentPolicy
Future/CurrentPolicy
7000
7000
6000
6000
5000
5000
4000
4000
3000
3000
2000
2000
1000
1000
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Exceedance of Probability(%)
Exceedance of Probability(%)
TAF/Year
TAF/Year

Current policy provides higher amounts during wet years and lower during dry years. Adaptive DSS policy is more balanced and reliable—reduces vulnerability.

Current policy WS during most severe drought (TAF): 4,798 (Historical); 2,545 (Future)

4,923 (Historical); 4,949 (Future)

Adaptive DSS WS during most severe drought (TAF):

Energy Generation: Current vs. Adaptive Policies for Historical and Future Scenarios
Energy Generation: Current vs. Adaptive Policies for
Historical and Future Scenarios
Historical Future Annual System Energy, Historical Period Annual System Energy, Future Period 7000 7000 His/DSS
Historical
Future
Annual System Energy, Historical Period
Annual System Energy, Future Period
7000
7000
His/DSS
Future/DSS
6000
6000
His/CurrentPolicy
Future/CurrentPolicy
5000
5000
4000
4000
3000
3000
2000
2000
1000
1000
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Exceedance of Probability (%)
Exceedance of Probability (%)
GWH/Year
GWH/Year

Average energy generation increases by 5% in the future scenario under both policies.

Firm energy generation decreases by 10% under the Adaptive Policy and 29% under the Current Policy.

Delta Outflow and X2 Location: Current vs. Adaptive Policies for Historical and Future Scenarios
Delta Outflow and X2 Location: Current vs. Adaptive Policies for
Historical and Future Scenarios

Current Policy

Adaptive DSS Policy

and Future Scenarios Current Policy Adaptive DSS Policy Delta Outflow X2 Location Adaptive DSS policy meets
and Future Scenarios Current Policy Adaptive DSS Policy Delta Outflow X2 Location Adaptive DSS policy meets

Delta Outflow

X2 Location

Adaptive DSS policy meets Delta outflow and X2 requirement in both scenarios. Current Policy violates Delta outflow and X2 requirement (by 28 kilometers) in future droughts.

Performance Differences (%) of Future relative to Historical Scenario
Performance Differences (%) of Future relative to Historical Scenario

Future vs. Historical Period

Future vs. Historical Period

Current Policy

Current PolicyCurrent Policy DSS DSS

DSS

DSSCurrent Policy Current Policy DSS

40 40 35.0 35.0 27.9 27.9 30 30 20 20 14.5 14.5 7.7 7.7 10
40
40
35.0
35.0
27.9
27.9
30
30
20
20
14.5
14.5
7.7
7.7
10
10
3.0
3.0
3.5
3.5
3.9
3.9
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0 0
Avg. Spillage
Avg. Spillage
Avg. WS
Avg. WS
Avg. Energy
Avg. Energy
X2 Violation
X2 Violation
-10
-10
-9.2
-9.2
-20
-20
-21.4
-21.4
-30
-30
Firm Energy
Firm Energy
-40
-40
-50
-50
-47.0
-47.0
Min. WS
Min. WS
-60
-60
Precent (%)
Precent (%)

Current policy worsens in the future scenario:

More spillage (27.9%), less minimum water deliveries (47%), less firm energy (21.4%), and significant X2 and delta outflow violations (35%).

+ Increased average water deliveries (3%) and energy generation (3.5%).

Adaptive DSS policy more robust between historical and future scenarios:

+ Increased average water deliveries (7.7%), increased minimum water deliveries (0.5%), increased average energy (3.9%), and no X2 and delta outflow violations.

Increased spillage (14.5%), less firm energy (9.2%).

Performance Differences (%) of DSS relative to Current Policy
Performance Differences (%) of DSS relative to Current Policy

DSS vs. Current Policy

DSS vs. Current Policy

HistoricalFuture Future Historical

Future

FutureHistorical Future Historical

Historical

110 110 94.4 94.4 90 90 70 70 50 50 30 30 18.8 18.8 10
110
110
94.4
94.4
90
90
70
70
50
50
30
30
18.8
18.8
10
10
2.6
2.6
2.8
2.8
0.9
0.9
-0.1
-0.1
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
-2.1
-2.1
-10
-10
-3.5
-3.5
-12.3
-12.3
Avg. Spillage
Avg. Spillage
Avg. WS
Avg. WS
Min. WS
Min. WS
Avg. Energy
Avg. Energy
Firm Energy
Firm Energy
-30
-30
-35.0
-35.0
-50
-50
X2 Violation
X2 Violation
Precent (%)
Precent (%)

Adaptive DSS vs. Current Policy differences are minor in the historical scenario.

Adaptive DSS policy is notably more robust in the future scenario with respect to all criteria, especially minimum water supply, firm energy, Delta requirements, and spillage.

There are nonlinear interactions and tradeoffs underlying system response and performance against the different criteria. Such assessments serve to quantify and communicate these interdependencies.

Conclusions
Conclusions

Future A1B scenario portents intensifying water stresses (due to seasonal inflow shifts and higher inflow variability) and higher vulnerability to extreme droughts.

Adaptive, risk based, reservoir regulation strategies are self tuning to the changing climate, deliver more robust performance than current management practices, and can considerably mitigate the negative impacts of increased water stresses.

Effective implementation of adaptive, risk based, reservoir regulation strategies require

more flexible laws and policy statutes (COA, heuristic rules, etc.),

a new level of institutional cooperation for water resources management, and

capacity building of agency personnel in modern decision support methods.

Uncertainty Management: Climate Hydrology Management

Climate Forecasts
Climate
Forecasts
{ (P, ˆ P ) , (T, ˆ T ) } ε ε ˆ {Q,
{
(P, ˆ P )
,
(T, ˆ T ) }
ε
ε
ˆ
{Q, Q
}
=
f
[S
,
(P, ˆ P ),
(T, ˆ T ),
α
, k]
ε
HH
ε
ε
H
ˆ
{ I, I
ε } =
ˆ
= f [S,
(Q,Q ),(
) ,
α
,
u(S
)
,
k]
S
S
ε
S
S
Hydrologic
Forecasts
u: Dynamic/Adaptive
p
Decision
u: Static/Fixed
Rules
Impact Forecasts
Impacts
Adaptive decision rules can manage forecast uncertainty. Heuristic regulation rules cannot.
Adaptive decision rules can manage forecast
uncertainty.
Heuristic regulation rules cannot.

Flood Damage, Water Supply, Energy Generation, Agriculture Public Health, etc.

Further Work
Further Work

Bracket cloud influence in climate downscaling component.

Incorporate impacts of sea-level rise.

Assessments of other GCM scenarios (A2, B1, etc.) to investigate the sensitivity of the findings presented herein.

Assessments with daily and sub-daily temporal resolution to quantify climate change impacts on other system functions and outputs (flooding, energy generation markets, ecosystem response, etc.).

Multi-stressor assessments including demand and land use change.

Conjunctive, statewide surface water – groundwater assessments.

Acknowledgements

The INFORM project was sponsored by the NOAA Climate Program Office, the California Energy Commission PIER Program, and the CALFED Program.

Contributors included several scientists and managers from the California Department of Water Resources, the Bureau of Reclamation, the US Army Corps of Engineers, NOAA/NWS/CNRFC, NOAA CPO, and others.

The Climate Change INFORM application was funded by the Energy Commission Pier Climate Change Program. We thank Guido Franco for his support and guidance, and Rob Hartman of CNRFC for making available operational historical data.