Integrated Decision Support: Reducing Water Resources Vulnerability to

Climate Change through Adaptive Management

Aris Georgakakos Kosta Georgakakos

Huaming Yao Nick Graham
Martin Kistenmacher Fang-Yi Cheng
Cris Spencer

• 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

Generate consistent climate forcing sequences of

GCM Scenarios Rainfall and temperature.
Downscaling

Simulate soil moisture,

Watershed Hydrology evapotranspiration, runoff,
and streamflow.

Simulate current and

River/Reservoir adaptive mgt. policies
Planning & Management and assess impacts
on water uses.
Clair Engle Lake

Trinity Power Plant

Lewiston
JF Carr
Shasta
Lewiston
Spring
Shasta
Trinity

Cr
Whiskeytown

Keswick New Melones

Vulnerability
River

Oroville
Clea
r Cree

Keswick Oroville Melones

New Bullards Bar
Thermalito
k

ver

Assessment
er Ri

iver Tulloch
aR Folsom
Yub
Feath

Goodwin
Folsom
r
Ri ve
er
er

Black Butte Bear Natoma

Riv
can Riv

uin
Sa

oaq
Nimbus

and
nJ
cr

Ameri

Sa
am
en

IES,IMC,IYB,I TI
DSF
to

ISV Tracy To Mendota Pool

Delta-Mendota Canal
Riv

Pumping
IFT DDM
er

DFDM

Mitigation Potential
San Luis
California Aqueduct
DDA
River Node O’Neill
DDLT,DBS,DCCW D,DNBA Banks DSB Forebay

Pumping To Dos Amigos PP

Power Plant

Pumping Plant

Sacramento San Joaquin

Reservoir/ River Delta
Lake
 Climate Scenarios

ƒ CLIMATE MODEL: NCAR CCSM3.0  (COUPLED MODEL)

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

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

ƒ VARIABLES USED: 3‐D ATMOSPHERIC VARIABLES

ƒ TWO INPUT SETS: 1970 ‐2019  AND 2050 ‐ 2099

Good Large Scale Precipitation Correspondence
of Historical 1950‐1999 run with NCEP 
Reanalysis 1948‐1997 for West Coast
 Dynamic Downscaling: Mean Areal Precipitation and Temperature

ƒ 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

ƒ 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

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

Reference: HRC‐GWRI: http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/project_reports/CEC‐500‐2006‐109.html
 Watershed Hydrology: Snow, Soil, and Channel Modeling System

ƒ ADAPTATION OF NWS OPERATIONAL SNOW ACCUMULATION AND ABLATION MODEL

ƒ ADAPTATION OF NWS OPERATIONAL SOIL WATER ACCOUNTING MODEL

ƒ KINEMATIC ROUTING THROUGH RIVER NETWORK FOR ALL BASINS

Oroville Subcatchments

Hydrologic Model Domain Oroville‐ Historical ESP Reliability Diagrams

Reference: HRC‐GWRI: http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/project_reports/CEC‐500‐2006‐109.html
 Selected Results: Temperature, Precipitation, Streamflow

Temperature Difference (oC) – Feb 1800Z Precipitation Difference (mm/6hrs) – Feb

ƒ Future winters are warmer and wetter (at higher elevations) than the historical.

Simulated Flows: 
Future
Historical

ƒ Future flows are somewhat higher
and occur earlier (Shasta/Oroville)
 River and Reservoir Modeling System

Northern California River and Reservoir Trinity River System (Clair Engle Lake,
Trinity Power Plant, Lewiston Lake, Lewiston
System Schematic Plant, JF Carr Plant, Whiskeytown, Clear
Clair Engle Lake Creek, and Spring Creek Plant);
Trinity Power Plant
Shasta Lake System (Shasta Lake, Shasta
Power Plant, Keswick Lake, Keswick Plant, and
Lewiston
JF Carr
Shasta
Lewiston
Spring
Shasta the river reach from Keswick to Wilkins);
Trinit

Cr
Whiskeytown
New Melones
y Riv

Keswick
Oroville
Feather River System (Oroville Lake, Oroville
er

Clea
r Cre

Power Plants, Thermalito Diversion Pond,

Keswick Oroville Melones
New Bullards Bar
Thermalito
ek

Yuba River, and Bear River);

iver

er Tulloch
er R

a Riv Folsom
Yub
Feath

Goodwin

American River System (Folsom Lake,

Folsom
er
r Riv er
River

Black Butte Bea Natoma

Riv
uin
Folsom Plant, Natoma Lake, Nimbus Plant,
Sa

oaq
Nimbus
rican

nJ
cr

Sa
am

Ame

Natoma Plant, and Natoma Diversions);

en

IES,IMC,IYB,ITI
DSF
to

ISV Tracy To Mendota Pool

Delta-Mendota Canal
Ri

Pumping
DDM
ve

IFT
DFDM
San Joaquin River System (New Melones
r

San Luis

River Node
California Aqueduct
O’Neill
DDA Lake, New Melones Power Plant, Tulloch Lake,
DDLT,DBS,DCCWD,DNBA
Demands from Goodwin, and Inflows from
DSB Forebay
Banks
Pumping To Dos Amigos PP
Power Plant
the main San Joaquin River); and
Pumping Plant

Sacramento San Joaquin

Reservoir/ River Delta Bay Delta (Delta Inflows, Delta Exports,
Coordinated Operation Agreement--COA, and
Lake

Delta Environmental Requirements).

Objectives:
Water Supply
Energy Generation
Environment
Ecology
Recreation
 River and Reservoir Modeling System (2)

Reservoir Power Plant Units Capacity (MW)

Reservoir Name Hmin Hmax Smin Smax
ID Trinity 2 140
10 Clair Engle Lake 2145 2380 313 2617 Lewiston 1 0.35
20 Whiskeytown 1000 1223 0.23 284 JF Carr 2 141.4
30 Shasta 900 1068 1167 4347 Spring Creek 2 150

40 Oroville 640 900 852.2 3537.8 Shasta 5 659

Keswick 3 75
50 Folsom 327 470 83 1022
Oroville 6 600
60 New Melones 800 1100 273 2571
Folsom 3 210
70 Tulloch 57 67 10 20 Nimbus 2 13.5
80 San Luis 300 546 15.5 2026 New Melones 2 150

River Nodes Tributary Inflows Water Supply AFRP (Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan)
Lewiston Thermalito State Banks PP
Trinity Clear Creek Below Whiskeytown Lake (Trinity)
JF Carr Folsom Pumping State Tracy PP
Whiskeytown Below Keswick Dam (Sacramento)
Folsom South Canal Delta Mendota Canal
Clear Creek Shasta Below Nimbus Dam (American)
OID/SSJID Federal Dos Amigos
Spring Creek
Keswick-Wilkins CVP Contractors Federal O'Neil to Dos Amigos
Keswick San Felipe
Oroville CCWD
Wilkins Cross Valley Canal
Yuba River Barker Slough
Feather Federal Tracy PP Federal Exchange O'Neil
Bear River
American River Federal Banks On-Peak Federal Exchange San Luis
Freeport Folsom South Bay/San Jose
Federal Banks Off-Peak
Goodwin Sacramento Miscellaneous Federal Banks PP – Total State Dos Amigos
SJR above Stanislaus Eastside streams Federal Banks PP – CVC Delta Consumptive Use
Delta Miscellaneous streams Federal Banks PP - Joint Point Freeport Treatment Plant
SJR at Vernalis
Federal Banks PP – Transfers Yolo Bypass
Antioch New Melones
North Bay Aqueduct Transfer Inflow
Delta Exit San Joaquin River
 River and Reservoir Modeling System (3)

Base Demand Locations and Amounts (WS Deliveries) Delta-related Model Variables (68)
GroupID SeqID SeqName
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Delta Inflows 1 Sac Valley Acc/depl
Delta Inflows 2 Freeport Treatment Plant
Thermolito 35 0 11 67 189 178 200 178 78 95 104 71 Delta Inflows 3 Freeport Flow
Delta Inflows 4 SJR at Vernalis
Folsom Pumping 4 4 4 7 8 12 13 12 10 7 5 4 Delta Inflows 5 Eastside Streams
Delta Inflows 6 Misc Creeks Inflow
Folsom South Canal 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 4 3 2 1 1
OID/SSJID 0 0 14 60 90 90 95 95 74 14 0 0
Delta Inflows
Delta Inflows
Delta Inflows
7 Yolo Bypass
8 Transfer Inflow
9 Total Delta Inflow
Delta Inflows
Delta Exports 10 CCWD Diversion
Delta Exports 11 Barker Slough
CVP Contractors 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Delta Exports 12 Federal Tracy PP
Delta Exports 13 F. Banks On-Peak FBON
CCWD 14 17 18 18 14 14 13 13 13 10 11 13 Delta Exports 14 F. Banks Off-Peak FBOFF
Delta Exports 15 Federal Banks PP - Total
Barker Slough 2 2 1 2 4 5 7 7 6 5 3 3 Delta Exports 16 Federal Banks PP - CVC
Delta Exports 17 Federal Banks PP - Joint Point
Federal Tracy PP 258 233 258 250 135 169 270 268 260 258 250 258 Delta Exports 18 Federal Banks PP - Transfers
Delta Exports 19 Total Fed Pumped Planned
Federal Banks On-Peak 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 28 28 0 0 0 Delta Exports
Delta Exports
20 Total Fed Pumped Computed
21 Total Federal Export Planned
Delta Exports
Delta Exports 22 Total Federal Export Computed
State Banks PP 390 355 241 68 108 125 271 278 238 175 193 390 Delta Exports 23 NBA Diversion
Delta Exports 24 State Banks PP
State Tracy PP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Delta Exports 25 State Tracy PP
Delta Exports 26 Total State Export Planned
Delta Mendota Canal 30 60 100 120 190 220 270 240 180 110 40 30 Delta Exports 27 Total State Export Computed
Delta Exports 28 Total Exports Planned
Federal Dos Amigos 40 50 60 70 110 180 238 178 68 30 30 30 Delta Exports 29 Total Exports Computed
Delta COA 30 Required Delta Outflow
Federal O'Neil to Dos Delta COA 31 Delta Consumptive Use

Amigos 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 Delta COA 32 Req. Combined Res. Release

Delta COA 33 Computed Delta Outflow
San Felipe 6 6 10 15 19 20 21 20 13 11 8 8 Delta COA 34 Excess Outflow

South Bay/San Jose 2 2 2 5 5 7 7 8 7 12 8 6

Delta COA
Delta COA
Delta COA
35 Total Federal Storage Withdrawal
36 State Storage Withdrawal
37 Unstored Flow for Export
Delta COA
Delta COA 38 Est. In-Basin Use of Stor. With.
State Dos Amigos 105 127 158 105 348 348 423 388 269 229 196 61 Delta COA 39 USBR Allowable Export
Delta COA 40 USBR Monthly COA Account
Delta Consumptive Use -56 -37 -10 63 121 191 268 252 174 118 55 2 Delta COA 41 Accumulated COA
Delta COA 42 Rio Vista Flow
Freeport Treatment Plant Delta Environment 43 X-channel Gates
14 13 14 12 12 12 12 13 12 12 12 13 Delta Environment 44 Cross Delta Flow
Delta Environment 45 Antioch Flow
Base Water Demand Target Delta Environment
Delta Environment
Delta Environment
46 QWEST Calculated
47 Inflow Diverted Std%
48 Inflow Diverted % Computed
Delta Environment
1200 Delta Environment 49 X2 Location (km from GG)
Delta Environment 50 Supplemental Project Water (Term 91)
Delta South 51 Delta Mendota Canal
1000 Delta South 52 Federal Dos Amigos
Delta South 53 F.D. . ON to DA
Delta South 54 S. Felipe Demands
Delta South 55 Cross Valley Demand
800
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.
TAF

600 Delta South

Delta South
Delta South
59 Federal Storage
60 S. Bay/ N S.J.
61 State Dos Amigos
Delta South
400 Delta South 62 State SL P/G.
Delta South 63 State Storage
Delta South 64 Total SL Storage
200 Delta South 65 SL Area
Delta South 66 SL Elevation
Delta South 67 SL Est. Evap.
Delta South 68 SL Evap Coefficients
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
 River and Reservoir Modeling System (4)
Current and Adaptive Management Policies
Current Policy Adaptive, Risk-based Policy

• Generate inflow forecasts—median trace (HA). • Generate inflow forecasts—full ensemble (HA).

• Determine water year type (DWR: C/D/N/AN/W).

• Determine reservoir releases for the next 9
• Adjust base demands based on year type. months to
- meet water delivery targets and minimum
• Determine next month reservoir releases to required flows at various river nodes,
- meet water delivery targets and minimum - meet environmental and ecological Delta
required flows at various river nodes, requirements associated with the X2,
assuming no extra releases are required to meet location and Delta outflow,
Delta demands (X2) and pumping to South CA. - generate as much energy as possible, and
- maintain high reservoir levels and
• If X2 requirements and south CA delivery targets
sufficient carry-over storage.
are not met, increase releases according to COA
(roughly 25/75 rule). (System-wide, stochastic optimization;
Not according to the COA. )
• If deficits persist, allocate water to meet X2 first,
then south CA water deliveries.

• Repeat at the next month. • Apply first month release and repeat.
Main Policy Differences
Current Policy Adaptive Policy
• Focuses on current month. Optimizes over the next 9 months.
• Deterministic. Risk based.
• Adjusts demand targets twice a year. Re-optimizes every month.
• Follows COA in extra water allocation. Finds optimal allocation strategy each time.
 Adaptive Management System (INFORM DSS)

INFORM DSS: Overview

System-wide, stochastic optimization
Multiple Objectives, Time Scales, & Decision Makers

Actual Hydrologic
Conditions
Operational Planning and Management
Management Agencies/Decisions
Near Real Time Decision Support
Water Distribution
Hourly / 1 Day Flow Regulation

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

Planning Agencies/Decisions
Climate-Hydrologic Planning Tradeoffs
Forecasts Long Range Decision Support
• Water Supply/Allocation
Demand Forecasts Weekly, 10-Day or Monthly / 1-2 Years • Energy Generation
• Water • Carry-over Storage
• Food Management Policy • Env.-Ecosystem Management
• Energy Infrastructure Develpmnt.
• Env.-Ecosystem
Water Sharing Compacts
Sustainability Targets
Assessments

Inflow Scenarios Development Tradeoffs

Scenario/Policy Assessment
Development/Demand • Urban/Industrial
Off-line

Scenarios Monthly / Several Decades • Agriculture

• Power System
• Water/Energy • Socio-economic & Ecological
• Water/Benefit Sharing Sustainability
• Environmental Sustainability

Reference: HRC‐GWRI: http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/project_reports/CEC‐500‐2006‐109.html
 Assessment Process

Clair Engle Lake

Lewiston
Trinity Power Plant
9-month Forecast-Decision Horizon
JF Carr
Shasta
Lewiston
Spring
Shasta
Trinity

Cr
Whiskeytown

Keswick New Melones

River

Oroville
Clea
r Cre

Keswick

Inflow Forecasting
Oroville Melones
New Bullards Bar
Thermalito
ek

Assessment Criteria
iver

r Tulloch
ive
er R

aR Folsom
Yub
Feath

Goodwin
Folsom
r
Rive
er
River

Black Butte r
Bea Natoma
Riv
quin
Sa

Lake Levels, Spillage

Nimbus
ican

Joa
cr

n
Sa
Amer
am
en

IES,IMC,IYB,ITI
DSF
to

ISV Tracy To Mendota Pool

Delta-Mendota Canal
Ri

Pumping
DDM

River/Reservoir
ve

IFT
DFDM
r

Water Supply Reliability

San Luis
California Aqueduct
DDA

Simulation
River Node O’Neill
DDLT,DBS,DCCW D,DNBA Banks DSB Forebay

Pumping To Dos Amigos PP

Power Plant

Energy Generation
Pumping Plant

Sacramento San Joaquin

Reservoir/ River Delta
Lake

Reservoir Mgt. Bay Environment (X2)

Basin wide
others.
Inflow Scenario
Management Policy
Demand Scenario
(Monthly time steps)
Regulation Policy One Step System
Simulation

Simulation Horizon
1970 to 2019 (Historical)
2050 to 2099 (Future)
 Inflow Comparison (Historical vs. Future Scenario)

System Historical vs. Future Inflows

Trinity Historical vs. Future Inflows Total Reservoir Inflows

20000
Trinity Monthly Mean

18000
3000
Trinity His
16000
Trinity Fut
2500 Future
14000 Historical

2000 12000

TAF/Year
10000
1500

8000
1000
6000

500 4000

0
2000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Exceedance of Probability (% )

ƒ Average future inflows are somewhat higher.

(Trinity 6.3%; Oroville 10%; Shasta 4.3%; Folsom 5.6%.)
ƒ Minimum future inflows are considerably lower indicating more severe droughts
(27% reduction).
ƒ Future inflows are more variable.
ƒ Wet season shifts earlier.
 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

10000 10000

8000 8000
TAF

TAF
6000 6000

4000 4000
His/DSS Future/DSS
His/CurrentPolicy Future/CurrentPolicy
2000 2000

0 0

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
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

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

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

increases.

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

His/DSS Future/DSS
8000 8000
His/CurrentPolicy Future/CurrentPolicy

7000 7000

6000 6000

TAF/Year
TAF/Year

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(%)

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

ƒ Current policy WS during most severe drought (TAF): 4,798 (Historical); 2,545 (Future)
Adaptive DSS WS during most severe drought (TAF): 4,923 (Historical); 4,949 (Future)
 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 Future/DSS
6000 His/CurrentPolicy
6000 Future/CurrentPolicy

5000 5000

4000 4000

GWH/Year
GWH/Year

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 (%)

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

ƒ 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
Current Policy Adaptive DSS Policy

Delta Outflow

X2 Location

ƒ 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
Current Policy
Future vs. Historical Period DSS

40 35.0

30 27.9

20
14.5

10 7.7
3.0 3.5 3.9
0.5 0.0
0
Precent (%)

-10 Avg. Spillage Avg. WS Avg. Energy X2 Violation

-9.2

-20
-21.4
-30

-40 Firm Energy

-50 -47.0

-60 Min. WS

ƒ 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%).

ƒ 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
Historical
DSS vs. Current Policy Future

110
94.4
90

70

50
Precent (%)

30
18.8

10 2.6 2.8
0.9 -0.1 0.2 0.0

-10 -2.1 -3.5

-12.3

-30 Avg. Spillage Avg. WS Min. WS Avg. Energy Firm Energy

-35.0
-50
X2 Violation

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

ƒ 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.

ƒ 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

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

ƒ 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.

ƒ 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

ˆ P ) , (T,
{ (P, ˆ T )}
ε ε

ˆ P ) , (T,
{Q̂ , Q ε } = fH [ S H , (P, ˆ T ), α , k ]
Climate ε ε H

Forecasts
{ Î, I ε } =
ˆ
= fS [S S , (Q,Q ε ),( ...), α S , u(S S ) , k ]

Hydrologic
Forecasts
u: Dynamic/Adaptive
p

Decision
u: Static/Fixed
Rules
Impact Forecasts
Impacts
Flood Damage, Water Supply,
Energy Generation, Agriculture
Adaptive decision rules can manage forecast Public Health, etc.
uncertainty.
Heuristic regulation rules cannot.
 Further Work

ƒ Bracket cloud influence in climate downscaling component.

ƒ Incorporate impacts of sea-level rise.

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

ƒ 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.).

ƒ Multi-stressor assessments including demand and land use change.

ƒ 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.