Abstract
There is an emerging consensus in the scientific community that climate change has the potential to significantly alter prevailing hydrologic patterns in California over the course of the 21st Century. This is of profound importance for a system where large investments have been made in hydraulic infrastructure that has been designed and is operated to harmonize dramatic temporal and spatial water supply and water demand variability. Recent work by the authors led to the creation of an integrated hydrology/water management climate change impact assessment framework that can be used to identify tradeoffs between important ecosystem services provided by the California water system associated with future climate change and to evaluate possible adaptation strategies. In spite of the potential impact of climate change, and the availability of a tool for investigating its dimensions, actual water management decision-making processes in California have yet to fully integrate climate change analysis into their planning dialogues. This paper presents an overview of decision-making processes ranked based on the application of a 3S: Sensitivity, Significance, and Stakeholder support, standard, which demonstrates that while climate change is a crucial factor in virtually all water-related decision making in California, it has not typically been considered, at least in any analytical sense. The three highest ranked processes are described in more detail, in particular the role that the new analytical framework could play in arriving at more resilient water management decisions. The authors will engage with stakeholders in these three processes, in hope of moving climate change research from the academic to the policy making arena.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brekke LD, Miller NL, Bashford KE, et al. (2004) Climate change impacts uncertainty for water resources in the San Joaquin River Basin, California. J Am Water Resour Assoc 40(1):149–164
Burness S, Chermak J, Brookshire D (2004) Water management in a mountain front recharge aquifer. Water Resour Res 40:2160
Dettinger MD, Cayan DR (1995) Large-scale atmospheric forcing of recent trends toward early Snowmelt runoff in California. J Clim 8(3):606–623
Dettinger MD, Cayan DR, Meyer M, et al. (2004) Simulated hydrologic responses to climate variations and change in the Merced, Carson, and American River basins, Sierra Nevada, California, 1900–2099. Clim Change 62(1–3):283–317
Eckhardt K, Ulbrich U (2003) Potential impacts of climate change on groundwater recharge and streamflow in a central European low mountain range. J Hydrol 284(1–4):244–252
Falkenmark M, Rockström J (2004) Balancing water for humans and nature: the new approach in ecohydrology. Earthscan Press
Gleick PH (1987) The development of a water-balance model for climate impact assessment: modeling the Sacramento basin. Water Resour Res 23(6):1049–1061
Gleick PH, Chalecki EL (1999) The impacts of climatic change for water resources of the Colorado and Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basins. J Am Water Resour Assoc 35(6):1429–1441
Hayhoe K, Cayan D, Field CB, Frumhoff PC, Maurer EP, Miller NL, Moser SC, Schneider SH, Nicholas Cahill K, Cleland EE, Dale L, Drapek R, Hanemann RM, Kalkstein LS, Lenihan J, Lunch CK, Neilson RP, Sheridan SC, Verville JH (2004) Emissions pathways, climate change, and impacts on California. Proc Nat Acad Sci 101(34):12422–12427
Lettenmaier DP, Sheer DP (1991) Climatic sensitivity of California water resources. J Water Resour Plann Manage January/February 117(1):108–125
Lund JR, et al. (2003) Climate Warming & California's Water Future. A report for the California Energy Commission. Center for Environmental and Water Resource Engineering, University of California, Davis. Sacramento, California. Available in Internet at http://cee.engr.ucdavis.edu/faculty/lund/CALVIN/
Mahmood R, Hubbard K (2002) Anthropogenic land-use change in the North American tall grass-short grass transition and modification of near-surface hydrologic cycle. Clim Res 21(1):83–90
Miller NL, Bashford KE, Strem E (2003) Potential impacts of climate change on California hydrology. J Am Water Resour Assoc 39(4):771–784
Raskin P, Hansen E, Zhu Z (1992) Simulation of water supply and demand in the Aral Sea Region. Water Int 17:55–67
Stewart IT, Cayan DR, Dettinger MD (2004) Changes in snowmelt runoff timing in western North America under a `business as usual' climate change scenario. Clim Change 62(1–3):217–232
VanRheenen NT, Wood AW, Palmer RN, et al. (2004) Potential implications of PCM climate change scenarios for Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin hydrology and water resources. Clim Change 62(1–3):257–281
Winter T (2001) Ground water and surface water: the linkage tightens, but challenges remain. Hydrol Process 15(18):3605–3606
Winter T, Harvey J, Franke OL, Alley W (1998) Groundwater and Surface Water, A single resource. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1139, Denver, Colorado
Yates D, Purkey D, Galbraith H, Huber-Lee A, Sieber J (2005b) WEAP21 a demand, priority, and preference driven water planning model: part 2, Aiding freshwater ecosystem service evaluation. Water International. (in press) (http://weap21.org/)
Yates D, Sieber J, Purkey D, Huber-Lee A (2005a) WEAP21 a demand, priority, and preference driven water planning model: Part 1, Model Characteristics. Water International. (in press) (http://weap21.org/)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Purkey, D.R., Huber-Lee, A., Yates, D.N. et al. Integrating a Climate Change Assessment Tool into Stakeholder-Driven Water Management Decision-Making Processes in California. Water Resour Manage 21, 315–329 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-006-9055-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-006-9055-x