Alan F. Hamlet, Philip W. Mote, Nate Mantua,Dennis P. Lettenmaier

•JISAO/CSES Climate Impacts Group•Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering

University of Washington

Transboundary Implications of Climate Change for the Columbia River Basin

Example of a flawed water planning study:The Colorado River Compact of 1922

The Colorado River Compact of 1922 divided the use of waters of the Colorado River System between the Upper and Lower Colorado River Basin. It apportioned **in perpetuity** to the Upper and Lower Basin, respectively, the beneficial consumptive use of 7.5 million acre feet (maf) of water per annum. It also provided that the Upper Basin will not cause the flow of the river at Lee Ferry to be depleted below an aggregate of 7.5 maf for any period of ten consecutive years. The Mexican Treaty of 1944 allotted to Mexico a guaranteed annual quantity of 1.5 maf. **These amounts, when combined, exceed the river's long-term average annual flow**.

      

Despite a general awareness of these issues in the water planning community, there is growing evidence that future climate variability will not look like the past and that current planning activities, which frequently use a limited observed streamflow record to represent climate variability, are in danger of repeating the same kind of mistakes made more than 80 years ago in forging the Colorado River Compact.

Long-term planning and specific agreements influenced by this planning (such as long-term transboundary agreements) should be informed by the best and most complete climate information available, but frequently they are not.

What’s the Problem?

Global Climate Change Scenarios and Hydrologic Impacts for the PNW

Pacific Northwest

°C

0.4-1.0°C0.9-2.4°C 1.2-5.5°C

Obse

rved 2

0th

centu

ry v

ari

abili

ty

+1.7°C+0.7°C

+3.2°C

Pacific Northwest

% -1 to +3%

-1 to +9% -2 to +21%

Obse

rved 2

0th

centu

ry v

ari

abili

ty

+1% +2%

+6%

The warmer locations are most sensitive to warming

+2.3C,+6.8% winter precip

2060s

Mote P.W.,Hamlet A.F., Clark M.P., Lettenmaier D.P., 2005, Declining mountain snowpack in western North America, BAMS, 86 (1): 39-49

Trends in April 1 SWE 1950-1997

April 1 SWE (mm)

20th Century Climate “2040s” (+1.7 C) “2060s” (+ 2.25 C)

-3.6% -11.5%

Changes in Simulated April 1 Snowpack for the Canadian and U.S. portions of the Columbia River basin(% change relative to current climate)

-21.4% -34.8%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep

Sim

ula

ted

Bas

in A

vg R

un

off

(m

m)

1950

plus2c

Simulated Changes in Natural Runoff Timing in the Naches River Basin Associated with 2 C Warming

Impacts:•Increased winter flow•Earlier and reduced peak flows•Reduced summer flow volume•Reduced late summer low flow

CORRA LINN

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

oct

dec

feb

apr

jun

augA

vera

ge

Flo

w (

cfs)

Base

comp 2040

ICE HARBOR

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

oct

dec

feb

apr

jun

augA

vera

ge

Flo

w (

cfs)

Base

comp 2040

Effects of Basin Winter Temperatures

Northern Location(colder winter temperatures)

Southern Location(warmer winter temperatures)

Water Resources Implications for the Columbia River Basin

Impacts on Columbia Basin hydropower supplies

• Winter and Spring: increased generation

• Summer: decreased generation

• Annual: total production will depend primarily on annual precipitation

(+2C, +6%)(+2.3C, +5%)

(+2.9C, -4%)

NWPCC (2005)

Warming climate impacts on electricity demand

NWPCC 2005

• Reductions in winter heating demand • Small increases in summer air conditioning demand in the warmest parts of the region

Source: Payne, J.T., A.W. Wood, A.F. Hamlet, R.N. Palmer, and D.P. Lettenmaier, 2004, Mitigating the effects of climate change on the water resources of the Columbia River basin, Climatic Change, Vol. 62, Issue 1-3, 233-256

Adaptation to climate change will require complex tradeoffs between ecosystem protection and hydropower operations

2070-2098

60

80

100

120

140

FirmHydropower

Annual FlowDeficit atMcNary

Perc

en

t o

f C

on

tro

l R

un

Cli

mate

PCM Control Climate andCurrent Operations

PCM Projected Climateand Current Operations

PCM Projected Climatewith AdaptiveManagement

Flood Control vs. Refill

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Oct

Nov

Dec Ja

n

Feb

Mar Ap

r

May Ju

n Jul

Aug

Sep

Stor

age

Full0

10002000300040005000600070008000

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar Apr

May Ju

n Jul

Aug

Sep

Rese

rvoi

r Inf

low

: Current Climate

Flood Control vs. RefillStreamflow timing shifts can reduce the reliability of reservoir refill

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Oct

Nov

Dec Ja

n

Feb

Mar Ap

r

May Ju

n Jul

Aug

Sep

Stor

age

Full

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Oct

Nov

Dec Ja

nFe

b

Mar

Apr

May Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Res

ervo

ir In

flow

: Current Climate

+ 2.25 oC

: + 2.25 oC No adaption

Flood Control vs. RefillStreamflow timing shifts can reduce the reliability of reservoir refill

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Oct

Nov

Dec Ja

n

Feb

Mar Ap

r

May Ju

n Jul

Aug

Sep

Stor

age

Full

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Oct

No

v

De

c

Jan

Fe

b

Ma

r

Ap

r

Ma

y

Jun

Jul

Au

g

Se

p

Re

serv

oir

Inflo

w

: Current Climate

: + 2.25 oC plus adaption

+ 2.25 oC

: + 2.25 oC No adaption

Temperature thresholds for coldwater fish in freshwater

+1.7 °C+1.7 °C +2.3 °C+2.3 °C

• Warming temperatures will increasingly stress coldwater fish in the warmest parts of our region– A monthly average air temperature of 68ºF (20ºC) has been used as an

upper limit for resident cold water fish habitat, and is known to stress Pacific salmon during periods of freshwater migration, spawning, and rearing

Implications for Transboundary Water Management in the Columbia Basin

•Climate change will result in significant hydrologic changes in the Columbia River and its tributaries.

•Snowpack in the BC portion of the Columbia basin is much less sensitive to warming in comparison with portions of the basin in the U.S. and streamflow timing shifts will also be smaller in Canada.

•As warming progresses, Canada will have an increasing fraction of the snowpack contributing to summer streamflow volumes in the Columbia basin.

•These differing impacts in the two countries have the potential to “unbalance” the current coordination agreements, and will present serious challenges to meeting instream flows on the U.S. side.

•Changes in flood control, hydropower production, and instream flow augmentation will all be needed as the flow regime changes.

•The Columbia River Treaty is focused primarily on conjunctive hydropower and flood control operations.

•Arguably the greatest shortcoming of the agreement in the context of climate change adaptation is that currently the CRT does not encompass tradeoffs between the full range of management concerns facing the US and Canada.

•Of particular concern is the need to encompass the different (and often competing) ecosystem needs in Canada and the US.

•Does the Columbia River Treaty have the flexibility and scope needed to adapt to the water resources challenges of the 21st Century?

Implications for the Columbia River Treaty

Selected References and URL’s

Climate Impacts Group Website

http://www.cses.washington.edu/cig/

White Papers, Agenda, Presentations for CIG 2001 Climate Change Workshop

ftp://ftp.hydro.washington.edu/pub/hamleaf/climate_change_white_papers

Climate Change Streamflow Scenarios for Water Planning Studies

http://www.ce.washington.edu/~hamleaf/climate_change_streamflows/CR_cc.htm

Northwest Power and Conservation Council Columbia Basin Hydropower Study

http://www.nwppc.org/energy/powerplan/plan/Default.htm

Book Chapter on Transboundary Challenges in the Columbia Basin

ftp://ftp.hydro.washington.edu/pub/hamleaf/transboundary_climate_change