WaterWired

From 'The Water Report': Lisa Beutler's Interview of California DWR Director Karla Nemeth

David Light of The Water Report grated me permission to publish this interview from Issue #188. The interview of Karla Nemeth was conducted by my friend, colleague and AWRA President Lisa Beutler, Principal and Executive Facilitator extraordinaire at Stantec.

The entire interview is five pages long; I have reproduced several items that caught my eye. There is more, though, such as a section on the Bay-Delta but I could not go there - still recovering from my term on the NRC Bay-Delta Committee.

Click on the text to enlarge it.

Download Nemeth_10.14.19

Time to cut to the chase...

Very good! Karla has her work cut out fur her but she sure sounds that she is up for the challenge.

Thanks again to David Light! And to Lisa Beutler for her interviewing skill.

Enjoy!

"They always say time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself." - Andy Warhol (in @theipaper via @TheWeek)

Paper: 'Adaptation to Future Water Shortages in the United States Caused by Population Growth and Climate Change'

Ethan (Tim) Smith, retired USGS hydrologist, sent around this paper, published last January in Earth's Future:

Brown, T. C., Mahat, V., & Ramirez, J. A. (2019). Adaptation to Future Water Shortages in the United States caused by Population Growth and Climate Change. Earth's Future, 7.

I have reproduced all the figures below. Click on them to expand them.

Download RMRS_2019_Brown

Key Points:

• Climate change and population growth will combine to increase the likelihood of water shortages in many areas of the United States

• Expected improvements in water use efficiency will be insufficient to avoid impending water shortages

• Reductions in agricultural irrigation will be essential to contain shortages in other water use sectors and avoid excess groundwater drawdown or environmental flow losses

Abstract
Population growth and climate change will combine to pose substantial challenges for water management in the United States. Projections of water supply and demand over the 21st century show that in the absence of further adaptation efforts, serious water shortages are likely in some regions. Continued improvements in water use efficiency are likely but will be insufficient to avoid future shortages. Some adaptation measures that have been effective in the past, most importantly large additions to reservoir storage, have little promise. Other major adaptations commonly used in the past, especially instream flow removals and groundwater mining, can substantially lower shortages but have serious external costs. If those costs are to be avoided, transfers from irrigated agriculture probably will be needed and could be substantial.

Plain Language Summary
This study estimates the likelihood of water shortages over the remainder of the 21st century in 204 watersheds covering the contiguous United States. The estimates are based on monthly projections of water demand and renewable water supply in light of population growth and climate change, taking into account water storage and transbasin diversion capacities. The study then examines several possible adaptations to projected shortages, including water withdrawal efficiency improvements, reservoir storage enhancements, demand reductions, instream flow reductions, and groundwater depletions. Results provide a broad measure of the relative efficacy of the adaptation measures and show when and where the measures are likely to be helpful.

Cutting to the chase:

Conclusion
Although there remains substantial uncertainty about future precipitation and thus water yield, climate change and population growth are likely to present serious challenges in some regions of the U.S., notably the central and southern Great Plains, the Southwest and central Rocky Mountain States, and California, and also some areas in the South (especially Florida) and Midwest. The continued reductions in per‐capita water withdrawal rates assumed here, which follow trends established over the past three decades, are essential but insufficient to avoid impending shortages. Attention will therefore focus on the other options examined here—additional reservoir storage capacity, groundwater mining, instream flow reduction, and ag‐to‐urban transfers—all of which have serious external costs. Of these four options, the first has limited promise, especially where most needed. Simulations show that major additions to storage capacity are ineffectual in the most vulnerable basins due to a lack of water to fill the reservoirs. The other three options, however, can be quite effective in many locations, indicating that pressures to implement them will mount as shortages become more severe.

If further reductions in groundwater storage and instream flow are to be avoided, improvements in irrigation efficiency beyond those assumed here will become a high priority, but in addition transfers from agriculture to other sectors probably will be essential (Tanaka et al., 2006). While not without external costs, such transfers fortunately occur voluntarily and would primarily involve water formerly used to grow relatively low‐value crops. As has been argued elsewhere (Binder et al., 2010), an important adaptation strategy will be to reduce institutional impediments to such transfers.

Yeah, they look at groundwater - see Figure 5.

Tim included the following notes with his email:

This study estimates the likelihood of water shortages over the remainder of the 21st century in 204 watersheds covering the contiguous United States. The estimates are based on monthly projections of water demand and renewable water supply in light of population growth and climate change, taking into account water storage and transbasin diversion capacities. The study then examines several possible adaptations to projected shortages, including water withdrawal efficiency improvements, reservoir storage enhancements, demand reductions, instream flow reductions, and groundwater depletions. Results provide a broad measure of the relative efficacy of the adaptation measures and show when and where the measures are likely to be helpful.

Although there remains substantial uncertainty about future precipitation and thus water yield, climate change and population growth are likely to present serious challenges in some regions of the U.S., notably the central and southern Great Plains, the Southwest and central Rocky Mountain States, and California, and also some areas in the South (especially Florida) and Midwest. The continued reductions in per‐capita water withdrawal rates assumed here, which follow trends established over the past three decades, are essential but insufficient to avoid impending shortages. Attention will therefore focus on the other options examined here—additional reservoir storage capacity, groundwater mining, instream flow reduction, and ag‐to‐urban transfers—all of which have serious external costs. Of these four options, the first has limited promise, especially where most needed. Simulations show that major additions to storage capacity are ineffectual in the most vulnerable basins due to a lack of water to fill the reservoirs. The other three options, however, can be quite effective in many locations, indicating that pressures to implement them will mount as shortages become more severe.”

Trends in water use for the U.S. are shown here. 

Total withdrawals for all categories of use in 2015 were estimated to be 322 billion gallons per day (Bgal/d), a level of withdrawal not reported since before 1970. Total withdrawals in 2015 were 9 percent less than in 2010, continuing a sharp but steady downward trend since 2005. Freshwater withdrawals were also 9 percent less than in 2015.

The drop in total withdrawals in 2015 was primarily caused by significant decreases in withdrawals for thermoelectric power (28.8 Bgal/d), which accounted for 89 percent of the decrease in total withdrawals. The decrease in public-supply withdrawals accounted for another 9 percent of the decline in total withdrawals. Categories of use with larger withdrawals in 2015 than in 2010 were irrigation and mining. The increase in irrigation withdrawals was only about 2 percent greater than 2010 levels, partly resulting from updated 2010 data, and mining withdrawals were corrected downward for 2010.

Enjoy!

"A great scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die." - Max Planck (quoted in @UK_TheTimes via @TheWeek)

Paper: 'Compound Climate Events Transform Electrical Power Shortfall Risk in the Pacific Northwest'

I just ran across this open-access paper in Nature Communications: Compound Climate Events Transform Electrical Power Shortfall Risk in the Pacific Northwest by S. W. D. Turner, N. Voisin, J. Fazio, D. Hua & M. Jourabchi, Nature Communications volume 10, Article number: 8 (2019).  

Download S41467-018-07894-4

Download data:click here 

Abstract
Power system reliability is sensitive to climate-driven variations in both energy demand and water availability, yet the combined effect of these impacts is rarely evaluated. Here we show that combined climate change impacts on loads and hydropower generation may have a transformative effect on the nature and seasonality of power shortfall risk in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Under climate change, potential shortfall events occur more readily, but are significantly less severe in nature. A seasonal reversal in shortfall risk occurs: winter shortfalls are eradicated due to reduced building heating demands, while summer shortfalls multiply as increased peak loads for day-time cooling coincide with impaired hydropower generation. Many of these summer shortfalls go unregistered when climate change impacts on loads and hydropower dispatch are analyzed in isolation—highlighting an important role of compound events.

Cutting to the chase...

Discussion
A planner or policy-maker trying to interpret and respond to these results might consider the following practical implications. First, the dramatic shift in vulnerability of the system from winter to summer highlights the importance of informing resource expansion planning with the combined effect of climate change on load and water availability. For instance, there are certain actions that might be taken in light of the potential for increased summer event frequency. Demand response measures may be viewed more favorably, and alternative joint power-river operating methods could be explored. Second, given the apparent sensitivity of shortfall severity to climate change, it may be useful to know how damage or cost varies according to shortfall duration and magnitude. This has to be studied in light of the potential for non-linearity in costs of emergency actions (e.g., compensation to industry for loss of power). For example, a 5000 MW shortfall is likely to be more than five times as costly as a 1000 MW shortfall if it exhausts standby and emergency options, causing rolling brown-outs for customers. Incorporating this level of understanding will be necessary to make risk-based planning decisions based on an analysis of shortfall events. Third, it will be important to consider uncertainty in the load and hydropower dispatch projections, and the conditions under which the forcing effects used in this study could be mitigated or exacerbated. Important considerations might include evolving market and regulatory structures that promote inter-regional planning, transmission, and distribution constraints, changes to the Columbia River Treaty, and new environmental regulations. There may also be socioeconomic changes that affect the relationship between load and temperature. Homes that currently lack electrified cooling may install new air conditioning systems. The prevalence of air conditioning systems in Portland (Oregon,), for example, increased from ~44% of households in 2002 to more than 70% of households in 2016. The future relationship between temperature and load will depend on whether and for how long this uptake trend will continue before reaching saturation.

The Western electricity crisis of 2001 was referred to as a “perfect storm”—the culmination of a decade of underinvestment and a steadily widening supply-demand deficit, exposed by an extreme dry period with impaired hydropower conditions in the Pacific Northwest. The crisis wrought enormous financial costs for utilities in the Pacific Northwest, including substantial compensation paid to the aluminum industry to halt production. Today, rigorous, forward-looking planning ensures that power systems are built out to be more resilient for now and in the future. Yet whilst planning makes allowances for expected socioeconomic change, including population growth and industrial development, the possible impacts of climate change on shortfall risk are rarely evaluated. Currently, the science literature contains only a small and piecemeal collection of studies examining climate impacts on grid operations, with each study focusing on disparate aspects of the power system. For example, a study of the U.S. Eastern Interconnection found that grid reliability is sensitive to summer heatwaves, which may raise peak cooling loads and derate gas turbine plants simultaneously Similarly, a study of grid operators in Germany and Austria demonstrated a need for additional generating capacity to meet growing summer peak loads for cooling. The importance of compound effects demonstrated in the present work suggests that what planners will ultimately need is an assessment that combines all potential climate-related impacts across a spectrum of climate futures and policy scenarios.

In this study we apply lower-bound, conservative climate change scenarios to demonstrate a measurable impact of compound events under the most conservative climate scenarios available. Summer shortfall risk would be intensified further under more extreme forcing that is projected by other models, or which may be expected later in the century (see Supplementary Figure 1). Planning for such effects will be particularly important for the Pacific Northwest, which, like many other power grids throughout the world, exports electricity across adjacent grids. Further research for this region may be directed toward improved understanding of climate impacts on supply and demand under a broader range of climate futures, including the imminent river flows and reservoir rule curves to be produced under the auspices of the River Management Joint Operating Committee (RMJOC).

Enjoy!

“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.” - Matthew 11:28

My Presentation to the Chinese Ministry of Water Resources: 'Water Allocation, Management and Policy in the USA: The Good, The Bad and the Ugly'

My friend Qiuchi Shi, who directs a center in the Chinese Ministry of Water Resources, invited me to come to her offices on 17 September 2019 to speak on Water Allocation, Management and Policy in the USA: The Good, The Bad and the Ugly. 

I prepared two slide decks. But I showed very few because over a two-hour lecture we all would have fallen asleep. I displayed a graphic of the USA with state boundaries for about 90 minutes and talked about water allocation and management.

Thanks to Melissa McCracken for her California slides and former Nevada State Engineer Jason King for the 'spaghetti western' graphics. My comments are mine alone and do not reflect those of any of my affiliated organizations.

Part 1:

PPT: Download Campana_MWR_China_17Sept2019_1

PDF: Download Campana_MWR_China_17Sept2019_1

Part 2: 

PPT: Download Campana_MWR_China__17Sept2019_2

PDF: Download Campana_MWR_China__17Sept2019_2

3) Part 3 - Abstract: 

PDF: Download Campana_MofWR_China_Water_Allocation_USA

Word: Download Campana_MofWR_China_Water_Allocation_USA

Water Allocation, Management, and Policy in the USA:
The Good, The Bad and The Ugly 
Michael E. Campana
Professor of Hydrogeology and Water Resources Management
Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon USA

"If climate change is a shark, water is its teeth." - Gemma Poag 

Abstract

When it comes to freshwater issues, the USA seems to be comprised of 50 individual sovereign nations rather than 50 states. This perception is not unique to foreigners but to some USA citizens as well.  

      The differences are most striking when it comes to water allocation. The states have the authority to allocate the waters within and beneath their borders. Various mechanisms exist for accomplishing this but there are two major systems in place: the prior appropriation (PA) system, unique to most Western states, and the riparian system, common to the Eastern states.

      In the PA system, the mantra is simply "first in time, first in right" and "if you don't use it, you lose it". In its simplest form PA translates to a system where, in a basin, the earliest users have a more senior right as long as they put their water to beneficial use. In times of drought, senior users may get their full allocation while some junior users go dry. The riparian system is based upon English common law and holds that a property owner whose land borders a stream can withdraw water for her use, with some restrictions. Each system may differ slightly from state to state. Groundwater allocation can follow these two systems as well as other ones that apply, and is quite different from surface water allocation. In general, the law regarding groundwater allocation is not as well advanced as that for surface water.

      Water management can be accomplished by states, state-authorized agencies, municipalities, the private sector, etc. Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM), also known as One Water, One Water One Watershed (OWOW) and other catchy titles, is generally practiced.

      The USA has no formal water policy. Many states are resistant to such a national policy, as they fear they would lose autonomy.

    What about water quality and transboundary water? What happens when states have disputes? Who resolves these?

      The author will give a whirlwind tour of what he sees as the good, the bad and the ugly aspects of USA water allocation, management and policy. The ability of USA water institutions to adapt to climate change will also be addressed.

Enjoy!

"The problem is in the water; the solution is on the shore." - Chinese saying

Article in Harvard International Review: 'High and Dry - Central Asia’s Failure to Avert the Impending Water Crisis'

This 2017 article by Alisher Ilkmanov appeared in the Harvard International Review: 'High and Dry - Central Asia’s Failure to Avert the Impending Water Crisis'.

The graphic is from here.

Download High_and_Dry_Central_Asias_Failure_to_Avert

Introduction
In 2016, the World Resources Institute published a map called Water Stress by Country, comparing the shortages of fresh water experienced by countries across the world. This map clearly indicates the Mongolian-Arabian belt of high water stress, which includes Central Asia, along with Mongolia, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, and the Arabian Peninsula. As a result of a number of factors, it can be argued that these countries belong to a zone of coming crisis, a lack of fresh water.

A study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, operating under the auspices of the United Nations, shows that since the beginning of the twentieth century the overall temperature in the region has increased by 1-2 percent, and one can expect further raising by 2-4 percent in the coming decades. According to the World Bank, this trend may result in a 11 percent fall in the region’s GDP in the next 20 years.

Central Asia’s main sources of water resources are two major river basins, the Amudarya and Syrdarya, both of which are tributaries of the Aral Sea, which used to be one of the world largest lakes. According to forecasts, due to the expected melting of mountain glaciers, the river runoff in the Amudarya river basin will be reduced by 30 percent, compared with the average annual runoff over the past 10 years. This will lead to increased spring runoff, causing more flooding, as well as dramatically reduced water availability in the summer, causing more droughts. There is no need to say that this trend will most severely affect agriculture, a dominant sector of the economy in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, as well as southern Kazakhstan.

Are countries in the region prepared to face this scenario? Do all of them have adequate awareness of this issue? At the very least, there are no signs of discussions in the public sphere going on in the region on this subject.

The coming shortage of fresh water is only part of the broader set of water scarcity problems in Central Asia. These problems also include a lack of irrigation water for agriculture, as well as the pollution of the Amudarya and Syrdarya by high content of salts and agrochemicals from irrigation runoff. As a result, we are witnessing a social and economic crisis in the regions located downstream from the two main rivers, as well as declining quality of life in those areas, as populations experience water shortages and are forced to consume water with high salt content.

Perhaps some of the spring floods could be stored by implementing Managed Aquifer Recharge, similar to what Maria Gibson and I have been doing in the Yakima Valley in Washington State, USA.The hazard could be reduced and the water stored underground for later use. Here is a Texas case study.

Cutting to the chase...

Conclusion
As we can see, the solution to the problem of conservation and rational use of water resources requires a complex set of measures at the national and regional levels, and most importantly, the development of robust institutions. If the formation of institutions does not work at the national level, it is unlikely that we will see the emergence of capable institutions on a regional scale. It seems that regional governments and local populations are not prepared to meet the challenge and prevent an impending water crisis. As for international organizations, agencies, and donors, although they want to help countries in Central Asia solve these problems, they are not able to replace these governments and do the work that these governments are supposed to do themselves.

Given the current state of affairs, I remain quite skeptical about the possibility of solving key problems of a looming water shortage in the region. Perhaps, an old saying better reflects what we can expect in observable future: “The worse the better.” Until the people of Central Asia begin experiencing real hardships due to lack of water, they are unlikely to confront the government with a strong political will and desire for change.

Enjoy!

“The worse the better.” - Alisher Ilkmanov