<DOC>
[110 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:37460.wais]
S. Hrg. 110-130
CLIMATE CHANGE AND WATER SUPPLY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO
RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON WATER SUPPLY AND
AVAILABILITY IN THE UNITED STATES, AND RELATED ISSUES FROM A WATER USE
PERSPECTIVE
__________
JUNE 6, 2007
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
-------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
37-460 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
RON WYDEN, Oregon CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming *
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
KEN SALAZAR, Colorado BOB CORKER, Tennessee
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
JON TESTER, Montana MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Frank Macchiarola, Republican Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Water and Power
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota BOB CORKER, Tennessee
RON WYDEN, Oregon LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming *
KEN SALAZAR, Colorado JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
JON TESTER, Montana JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
Jeff Bingaman and Pete V. Domenici are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
----------
Senator Thomas passed away on June 4, 2007.
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico................ 4
Brick, Tim F., Chairman, Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California, Los Angeles, CA.................................... 28
Cantwell, Hon. Maria, U.S. Senator from Washington............... 1
Corker, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from Tennessee.................... 3
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho.................... 3
Culbertson, Tim, Representative for National Hydropower
Association, Ephrata, WA....................................... 38
Fulp, Terry Ph.D., Area Manager, Boulder Canyon Operations
Office, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior...... 45
Milly, Christopher, Ph.D., Research Hydrologist, Geological
Survey, Department of the Interior............................. 13
Mote, Philip W., Ph.D., Research Scientist, JISAO-CSES Climate
Impacts Group, University of Washington, Seattle, WA........... 4
O'Toole, Patrick, President, Family Farm Alliance, Savery, WY.... 21
Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator from Colorado.................... 2
Udall, Bradley H., Director, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration-University of Colorado Western Water Assessment,
Boulder, CO.................................................... 8
Williams, Jack, Senior Scientist, Trout Unlimited, Arlington, VA. 33
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 55
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 73
CLIMATE CHANGE AND WATER SUPPLY
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Water and Power,
Committee On Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:48 p.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Maria
Cantwell presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. The Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power will come to order.
We are glad to have a hearing today to talk about the impacts
of climate change on water supply and availability in the
United States and related issues to water, water use, and
various perspectives.
I would like to thank the two panels here and we apologize
for the vote interrupting our start time. I am, in the interest
of that, going to put my opening statement into the record so
that we can go with the panels. But I'll ask either of my
colleagues if they would like to make an opening statement.
[The prepared statements of Senators Cantwell and Salazar
follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Maria Cantwell,
U.S. Senator From Washington
I call to order this hearing before the Water and Power
Subcommittee. It's my pleasure to welcome everyone to this afternoon's
hearing. We have a distinguished set of witnesses today, most of whom
have traveled across the country to be with us today. To each of them,
we appreciate your willingness to be here today, and share your views
with the Subcommittee.
I'd like to specifically thank Dr. Phillip Mote and Tim Culbertson
who have both traveled from Washington state to be with us today. Dr.
Mote's work at the Climate Impacts Group at the University of
Washington and as the Washington state Climatologist in documenting an
asserted decline in Cascade Mountain glaciers has become well-known and
respected within the scientific community.
Tim Culbertson, General Manager of the Grant County Public Utility
District in Eastern Washington. Grant County PUD is demonstrating
leadership in optimizing the management of water on the Columbia River
for hydropower generation, irrigation in the agricultural rich Columbia
River Basin, and for fish management.
The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the impacts
of climate change on water supply and availability in the United
States, and related issues from a water use perspective. These issues
are garnering more attention these days as the debate about whether
climate change is occurring, and its root cause, recedes to the
background.
We know that temperatures are rising and we know that human
activities account for most of the cause. We now need to fully
understand the implications. In the arid West, the impact of climate
change on water resources is an issue that deserves in-depth and
ongoing scrutiny.
As recently documented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, we know that increasing temperatures are resulting in increased
and earlier run-off from glacier-and snow-fed rivers; changes in
precipitation to less snowpack and more rainfall; and significant
warming in lakes and rivers, affecting habitat and water quality. These
changes, and a host of others that are being studied, add to the
significant challenges already facing water managers across the United
States.
Drought, population increases, environmental demands, and overuse
of limited water supplies, have already created numerous situations in
which federal, state, and local water managers have had to react
quickly to address potential water shortages and conflicts.
With emerging information on the impacts of climate change on
water, planning will now likely expand to address this new area of
concern. I am particularly interested in this aspect of global warming
since the Pacific Northwest faces unique challenges in trying to deal
with impacts on water supply.
Snowpack is the largest component of the water storage system in
our region--much more than man-made reservoirs. As snowpack decreases,
and runoff occurs earlier in the season, less water will be available
during the dry summer months for hydropower generation, irrigation, and
recreational purposes.
Salmon fisheries, a symbol of the Pacific Northwest, are already
being stressed beyond sustainable limits, and now face reduced flows of
higher temperatures at certain times of the year. Exacerbating the
problem, is the fact that most of the 950 glaciers in Washington state
are receding rapidly, compounding complications from reduced flows of
higher temperature.
In short, the impact of climate change on water supplies poses a
major threat to the economic vitality of the Pacific Northwest, as well
as other regions of the country. The issue therefore deserves the
attention of Congress.
We need to fully evaluate the problem and the adaptation strategies
needing implementation. This will help determine the extent to which
the Federal government needs to mobilize its resources to help states
and local communities address the challenges ahead. Today's hearing is
a good start in that process, and I look forward to gaining additional
insight from the witnesses.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ken Salazar, U.S. Senator
From Colorado
Thank you Chairman Cantwell and Ranking Member Corker. I want to
thank you for holding today's hearing on the impacts of climate change
on water supplies and availability, particularly in the Western United
States. I also want to thank the witnesses who have traveled to be with
us today.
Climate change is a very real and very present problem. Human
activities have changed the climate of the Earth. This Congress is
working hard to promote clean energy technologies that significantly
reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions released to the
atmosphere. We anticipate next week the Senate will be begin debate on
an energy bill that will ramp up domestic renewable energy production,
promote efficiency throughout the U.S. economy and invest in
groundbreaking research designed to reduce carbon emissions.
However, we are learning that some adaptation measures are
inevitable to reduce the harm from climate change that proves to be
unavoidable. In February 2007, the United Nations Foundation/Sigma XI
released a scientific expert group report titled ``Confronting Climate
Change: Avoiding the Unmanageable and Managing the Unavoidable.'' That
report gave significant attention to adaptation measures that will
likely have to be implemented to reduce the harm from climate change
that proves to be unavoidable.
Today's hearing is particularly important for the Western states of
the U.S. because many scientists are now saying the American West will
experience the effects of climate change sooner and more intensely than
most other regions. Our scarce snow and water of the West is already
being impacted, much of it in ways that we do not clearly understand.
Colorado, my State, has a lot at stake when it comes to global
warming. We have a world-class tourist industry that has flourished
because of our State's natural beauty. Colorado has some of the best
ski areas in the world, and some of the best big game fishing anywhere
in the continental U.S. But, these tourist industries depend on
sufficient winter snowfalls, slow spring melts, and river and lake
temperatures capable of supporting native fish species.
This hearing today is exceedingly important to help us learn what
is known and not known about the impacts global warming will bring to
the Western U.S., and especially the impacts being mitigated through
water. It is also important to help us understand what adaptation
measures must be planned for to ensure adequate water supplies for
agricultural, industrial, business and residential uses.
Madam Chairman, I thank you again for holding this important
hearing so that we can learn from the experts testifying today.
STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Corker. Madam Chair, I think because of the time
factor I'll let mine be entered, though I think it might be
appropriate for Senator Craig to make some comments about our
deceased colleague.
[The prepared statement of Senator Corker follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bob Corker, U.S. Senator From Tennessee
Chairwoman Cantwell, it's a pleasure to be here today to discuss
the impacts of climate change and variability on water supply.
I am pleased with the work the United States Geological Survey and
its partners are doing to better understand how climate variability is
impacting our water management decisions. The more we understand about
climate variability and climate change in regards to our water
resources, the better we can cope with both near and long-term water
resource challenges. I applaud the work Reclamation is undertaking to
improve their knowledge of general circulation climate models at the
level of individual Reclamation drainage basins, and how to incorporate
the data into their water management decisions within these basins.
We have come a long way in our understanding of how the weather
impacts our water management decisions. In the Western United States,
water managers have taken steps to improve their project operations and
efficiencies, which have led to water savings. In addition,
technologies have been developed to reuse and reclaim water that was
once thought of as only a waste product. These actions are important
because regardless of how climate change impacts water supply and
availability, significant challenges such as population growth already
exist that require attention and adaptation. I am a firm believer that
the more we can do with less water, the better off we will be in times
of need. I would urge each witness today to continue to utilize the
best available data and incorporate the data into how they manage our
water resources, while acknowledging that we still have a lot to learn
about the future of climate change and its potential impacts.
Again, I thank the witnesses for your presence, and thank you,
Chairwoman Cantwell, for conducting this hearing. I look forward to
hearing the testimony today.
Senator Cantwell. That would be very appropriate. Senator
Craig.
STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR
FROM IDAHO
Senator Craig. Well, Madam Chairman, thank you very much.
Senator Corker, thank you.
We have all lost a very real friend in our colleague
Senator Craig Thomas. I had the privilege of not only being his
neighbor out West with a bordering State, but I also served
with the Senator in both the House and the U.S. Senate, and as
a result of that we grew very close in not only friendship, but
of course the commonality of issues.
Today we are talking about water and its importance, and
out in the arid West Craig Thomas understood that better than
anyone else. As a westerner, I think Craig would have said very
early on ``Whiskey's for drinking and water's for fighting.''
That was kind of the rule of thumb from the day his parents got
to Wyoming and my grandparents got to Idaho, and I suspect
under climate change or any other scenario, Madam Chairman, it
would still be the fact. That would have been the character and
the belief of our deceased colleague Craig Thomas.
So certainly our best thoughts to his wife Susan and their
family. Wyoming lost a great champion, as did the United
States, and we will miss him in very real ways.
Thank you.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Senator Craig, for those
comments. I, too, will miss Senator Thomas and his gentle style
which he seemed to bring everywhere with him, to committee
hearings, to the floor of the Senate, to the halls of these
buildings, and having a ready smile for individuals.
But when he showed up at these committees he had a certain
fierceness in advocating for his position and I won't forget
that fierceness. I also had the pleasure 1 day of following him
down to the White House as he was driving his favorite
automobile, his prize possession, only to see the system at the
White House rip his bumper off. I assumed that would be a
pretty frustrating experience, but he took it all in great
stride, as he did so many things, and continued to have humor
about it.
We will miss him in the U.S. Senate and his advocacy. He
stood up for the people of Wyoming on a constant basis.
Oftentimes I feel like the Energy committee is the western
committee, no offense to my colleague here. But I feel
oftentimes that the Energy Committee has a lot of westerners on
it and a western perspective. But his perspective will be
sorely missed.
So thank you for reminding all of us about his presence on
this subcommittee and his contribution, and our thoughts and
prayers are with his family.
Senator Bingaman, did you wish to make any opening
comments?
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW MEXICO
The Chairman. I'll forego opening comments. Thank you very
much for having the hearing and I appreciate your very good
comments about Senator Thomas.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
Let's start then with the first panel. Dr. Philip Mote, who
is joining us from Climate Impacts Group from Seattle;
Christopher Milly, Dr. Milly, who is a research hydrologist
from the USGS; and Bradley Udall, Cooperative Institute for
Research in Environmental Sciences at Boulder, Colorado. We
welcome all of you. Thank you for being here. We have plenty of
room for full written testimony, as long as you want, but we
ask if your opening statements could be limited to 5 minutes.
We'll start with you, Dr. Mote.
STATEMENT OF PHILIP W. MOTE, PH.D., RESEARCH SCIENTIST, JISAO-
CSES CLIMATE IMPACTS GROUP, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, SEATTLE,
WA
Mr. Mote. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the
Committee, for holding this hearing. I'm Philip Mote and I'm a
research scientist at the University of Washington with the
Climate Impacts Group, which is one of eight regionally focused
teams sponsored by NOAA's Climate Program Office.
In a warming world, a reduction in ice and snow is a
general consequence as warmer air provides energy to melt
government in its solid form in preference for the liquid form.
Indeed, melting ice contributes roughly half of the observed 3
millimeters per year of sea level rise, and also provides
visual indicators of climate change.
This general fact that there's less snow and ice in a
warming world has special consequence for those of us out in
the western third of the country, where about 70 percent of
annual stream flow is snow melt. Snow stores far more water
than all the manmade reservoirs and this is important because
out West most precipitation falls in the winter and the peak
stream flow is in spring or early summer. Snow delays runoff by
several months. Human enterprises, including agriculture,
municipal water supply, hydropower, flood control, recreation,
and several others, which are the subject of the second panel,
are all built around the assumption that the future stream flow
will have the same annual shape as past stream flow. But that
assumption is breaking down.
You should have a two-sided, one-page handout with color
figures on each side and a bit of a journal article by Ira
Stewart and colleagues, that illustrates some of what is
happening. They looked at about 300 stream gauge records in the
western United States on snow melt-dominated rivers and showed
that spring snow melt has shifted earlier by roughly 2 weeks
during the past half century. The pink and red dots in the
single figure at the bottom of the first page show where those
changes were largest, roughly 1 to 4 weeks. These include
changes in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California, where the
changes were largest.
On the reverse side you find two panels showing that runoff
has shifted from June to March. The summer peak flow is
decreasing and the late winter flow is increasing.
These observations are consistent with other observations
that during the past half century winter and spring
temperatures have warmed substantially, plants are blooming
earlier, winter snow fall has diminished at most weather
stations in the West. Especially relevant to water supply,
spring snow pack has declined at about 73 percent of monitoring
sites, with largest declines near the snow line.
Many of these changes are largest, again, in Washington,
Oregon, Idaho, and California, where much of the winter
precipitation falls at temperatures close to freezing.
The warming in the West can now be attributed to rising
greenhouse gases and is not explained by any combination of
natural factors.
Computer models of global climate, of regional climate, and
of hydrology can be used to estimate a range of possible future
changes. Global model simulations performed by 21 modeling
centers around the world were summarized in the 2007 report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which I was
privileged to serve with.
For most of the continental United States, warming is
projected to be roughly 6 degrees Fahrenheit during the 21st
century for a high CO<INF>2</INF> scenario. That will
significantly erode the West's main water storage reservoir,
its snow pack. Models are divided over whether precipitation
will increase or decrease for the middle swath of the country,
but they agree on increases in the northern tier of States,
which our calculations estimate will not be enough to overcome
the warming as far as snow pack is concerned; and they also
agree on a decrease in precipitation in the Southwest.
Physically based models of hydrology can be used to
translate these climate model scenarios into changes in snow
pack, stream flow, soil moisture, and so on, and such studies
suggest that future changes are very much in line with what
we've seen in the past, reductions in summer flow and a shift
toward earlier spring snow melt.
To begin to manage this huge risk posed to the West's main
water storage reservoir, the Federal Government could do these
three things: First, Federal agencies involved in water
management could use existing academic tools to estimate ranges
of future stream flow and consider management options. Second,
the Government should ensure that existing observation networks
do not suffer further neglect and decline, but instead are
upgraded to effectively monitor changes. These networks include
the USGS stream gauge network and the National Weather Service
Cooperative Network. Third, the Government could catalyze river
basin-scale policy planning using reservoir optimization models
that optimally balance management objectives.
Thank you for turning your attention to this important
subject.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mote follows:]
Prepared Statement of Philip W. Mote, Ph.D., Climate Impacts Group,
University of Washington, Seattle, WA
introduction
In most river basins of the West, especially in California, Oregon,
and western Washington, snow (rather than man-made reservoirs) is the
largest component of water storage. Most precipitation falls in the
winter but about 70% of annual flow is snowmelt; snow provides a
roughly half-year delay in runoff. Furthermore, a significant portion
of the mountainous West receives much of its annual precipitation as
warm snow, with temperatures above -3C (Bales et al. 2006). Hence, the
West is (to varying degrees) vulnerable to climatic variations and
changes that influence snowpack. This document updates the testimony I
gave to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation (Mote 2004).
observed changes
What changes have been observed in the West since the mid-20th
century?
1) The West has warmed by roughly 0.8C in the November-March
season (Mote et al. 2005).
2) Snowfall has diminished at most weather stations; these
changes are large and statistically significant in California,
Oregon, and Washington (Knowles et al. 2005).
3) Spring snowpack has declined at roughly 75% of sites and
the magnitude of declines is largest at low elevations (Mote et
al. 2005).
4) Spring snowmelt is generally occurring earlier, roughly 2
weeks (Stewart et al. 2005) and these shifts are larger at
lower elevations than at higher elevations (Regonda et al.
2005).
5) In most snowmelt-dominated basins, winter flows have
increased and late spring-early summer flows have decreased as
flows shift (Stewart et al. 2005).
6) The timing of biological events like flowering of lilacs
have also shifted in response to springtime warming (Cayan et
al. 2001).
7) Flood risk appears to have changed in many river basins,
decreasing in snow-dominant basins and increasing in those with
some snow storage.
In several of these studies, a clear quantitative link was
established between the observed change and temperature in winter or
spring. The warming in the West can now confidently be attributed to
rising greenhouse gases and are not explained by any combination of
natural factors (Stott 2003).
These hydrologic shifts in response to warming--elevation-dependent
losses in snow storage, with concomitant increases in winter flow and
decreases in summer flow--are a harbinger of changes to come.
predicted future changes
The starting point for future changes are the physically consistent
global simulations of climate from climate models (e.g., IPCC 2007
Chapters 8, io, and ii). Such projections typically are reported as
seasonally averaged changes in temperature and precipitation (see
Figure below*, for the A1B socioeconomic scenario). Modeling centers
around the world have contributed hundreds of climate simulations to a
database maintained by the Program for Climate Model Diagnostics and
Intercomparison at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. From
such simulations one can construct average changes or produce also a
range of changes. The projected warming in North America is greatest in
high latitudes in winter, but is greatest in midlatitudes in summer
owing partly to a soil moisture feedback. For much of the Lower 48
states, warming is projected to be roughly 0.3C/decade for winter and
0.4C/decade in summer for the A1B scenario. Precipitation changes
globally tend to be positive in the tropical rainy belt and also in
high latitudes, and negative in low latitudes. For North America,
models are divided over whether precipitation will increase or decrease
for a swath (white area in the bottom row of the Figure) of the Lower
48, but tend to agree on increases in the northern tier of states and
tend to agree also that precipitation in the Southwest will decrease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Graphics in this document have been retained in subcommittee
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physically-based models of hydrology can be used to translate such
changes in climate into future changes in snowpack, soil moisture,
streamflow, and so forth. Studies with such models are still relatively
new, but it is clear that projected future hydrologic changes (e.g.,
Payne et al. 2004 for the Columbia River Basin, Christensen et al. 2004
for the Colorado, Maurer and Duffy for California) produce the same
types of changes in snowmelt-driven basins as have been observed. For
low-end scenarios of future temperature change, the reductions in
summer flow, shifts in timing of spring snowmelt, and increases in
winter flow over coming decades would be as large as those observed in
recent decades, whereas for high-end scenarios of future temperature
change the projected hydrologic changes are extremely large.
management and policy implications
Few water management agencies have begun to explore what these
changes would mean for their ability to meet management objectives, let
alone proactively address the changes. Some academic studies (e.g.,
Payne et al. 2004) have attempted to estimate changes in reliability of
various water supply systems, and to explore adaptation options.
Federal policy responses could include:
a) directing federal agencies involved in water management to
study future streamflow.
b) ensuring that existing observation networks (e.g., the
USGS stream gauge network and the National Weather Service
cooperative network) do not suffer further neglect and decline
but instead are upgraded to effectively monitor changes.
c) catalyze river basin-scale policy planning, using
reservoir optimization models that optimally balance management
objectives.
References
Bales, R. C., N. P. Molotch, T. H. Painter, M. D. Dettinger, R.
Rice, and J. Dozier, 2006: Mountain hydrology of the western United
States, Water Resour. Res., 42, doi:10.1029/2005WR004387.
Cayan, D.R., S. A. Kammerdiener, M. D. Dettinger, J. M. Caprio, and
D. H. Peterson, 2001: Changes in the onset of spring in the western
United States. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 82, 399-415.
Christensen, N.S., Wood, A.W., Voisin, N., Lettenmaier, D.P. and
R.N. Palmer, 2004: Effects of climate change on the hydrology and water
resources of the Colorado River Basin, Climatic Change 62, 337-363.
IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [S. Solomon et al., eds.].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Maurer, E.P. and P.B. Duffy, 2005, Uncertainty in projections of
streamflow changes due to climate change in California, Geophys. Res.
Letts. 32, doi:10.1029/ 2004GL021462.
Mote, 2004: U.S. Senate testimony, http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/
mote050604.pdf.
Mote, P.W., A.F. Hamlet, M.P. Clark, and D.R Lettenmaier, 2005:
Declining mountain snowpack in western North America, Bull. of the
Amer. Meteorol. Soc., 86, 39-49.
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 62, 233-
256.
Regonda S., Rajagopalan B., Clark M., and Pitlick J., 2005:
Seasonal cycle shifts in hydroclimatology over the Western US, Climate,
18, 372-384.
Stewart, I.T., D.R. Cayan, and M.D. Dettinger, 2005: Changes
towards earlier streamflow timing across western North America. J.
Climate, 18, 1136-1155.
Stott, RA., Attribution of regional-scale temperature changes to
anthropogenic and natural causes. Geophys. Res. Letts., 30,
doi:10.1029/2003GL017324, 2003.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
Mr. Udall, thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF BRADLEY H. UDALL, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION-UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO WESTERN WATER
ASSESSMENT, BOULDER, CO
Mr. Udall. Thank you, Chairman Cantwell. It's my pleasure
to be here. My name is Brad Udall. I'm the Director of the
Western Water Assessment at the University of Colorado. The
Western Water Assessment is the sister program to Dr. Mote's
program at the University of Washington. There are eight of
these regionally based programs around the country and we are
on the front lines of providing decisionmakers with climate
information.
I am not a scientist. I have spent the last 4 years of my
life embedded with scientists at the single largest laboratory
that NOAA operates in Boulder, Colorado. During these 4 years
I've learned a tremendous amount about climate and also managed
to impart some knowledge to those scientists about how water
management works, because my background is in engineering. This
has been a fabulous and life-changing experience for me.
As Phil said, all water planning is based on the idea of a
static climate. We now know this is no longer true. My favorite
quote is from the novelist T. Morris Longstreth, who wrote:
``Of course we weren't lost; we were merely where we shouldn't
have been without knowing where that was.'' That's the perfect
analog for water management these days.
I want to talk about three issues: The Colorado River,
Federal management of climate change science, and regional
decision support efforts. Even without climate change, the
Colorado River has a serious problem. We've had 8 years of
drought. We've lost half, half, of the storage on that river.
This is the fastest growing area in the Nation. At the current
rate of use, Lake Mead has 10 years of water left in it.
Reclamation modeling under average hydrology shows that Lake
Mead never refills at its current rate of use.
If you add climate change on top of this, you then
potentially have a very serious problem. Every model, every
study that I've ever looked at, shows that if precipitation
stays the same or declines you end up with less water in the
Colorado River. Dr. Milly I think will address that.
Let me switch now to Federal climate change science
management. I truly believe this is not effective. The CCSP,
the Climate Change Science Program, is a small office. It's
directed by a committee from 13 different Federal agencies.
It's underfunded and I truly believe it's not effective. For
one, it has no decisionmakers on its management staff. You
know, water managers in the West, they're not aware of this
program and it's truly a shame. We can do better about this.
There's also a lack of resources inside the Federal Climate
Change Science Program being spent on decision support.
One idea potentially--and Congress actually has passed
this--is for a national climate service. In 1978 Congress
passed an act. It's a great act. It has languished for lack of
funding, and I would urge you all to look at funding it
adequately.
We need a coherent data policy. No data, simply put, means
no science. Bad data gives us bad science. Management, of
course, requires good data.
We need to devote more resources to regional climate
science. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studies
are great, but they're not directed at regional decisionmakers.
Decisionmakers are now very eager for information at a regional
level.
The first way to do this is to get regional climate
modeling up to speed. It's not perfect, but it's the only tool
we have. Water resource managers, like Metropolitan, San
Francisco, everyone wants this. We also need additional
computing power. The RISAAs, the programs, these Regional
Integrated Sciences and Assessments, provide one model for
allowing this Nation to adapt to climate change. We could scale
up the eight programs that exist in the Nation to a national
effort. This will take time. It can't be done overnight.
But in my experience, when you combine academics, the
Federal Government and its power, and decisionmakers, you
generate quite wonderful products that are of real use to
regional decisionmakers.
One of my favorite quotes is that ``The proper response to
uncertainty is insurance, not denial.'' Many forms of
insurance. One is knowledge and we need to do a much better job
of getting the knowledge of climate change out there to the
decisionmakers that matter.
Thank you for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bradley H. Udall, Director, NOAA-University of
Colorado Western Water Assessment, Boulder, CO
Chairwoman Cantwell, Ranking Member Corker, my cousin Senator
Smith, and other Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to speak with you today on the impacts of climate change on
water supply and availability in the United States.
My name is Brad Udall. I am the Director of the Western Water
Assessment, an interdisciplinary Regional Integrated Science and
Assessment (RISA) project funded by the NOAA Climate Program Office and
a joint effort of the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory and the
University of Colorado. The eight RISAs around the country are
innovative programs designed to connect climate science with decision
makers. There are no other programs anywhere like these, and we are on
the front line of dealing with requests for regional information on all
aspects of climate variability and change.
Although I was invited to sit on a panel with scientists, I am not
a scientist. I am an engineer by training and I have an MBA. During the
last four years of my life I have been embedded with scientists at the
largest NOAA laboratory in the country where I have had the opportunity
to learn about climate from scientists while providing them with a real
world view of water management. It has been a fabulous and life
changing experience. Formerly, I was a principal at a consulting
engineer firm. In preparing this testimony I talked to scientists,
water managers, and consulting engineers. Many were eager to share
their thoughts on this important topic.
All water planning is based on the idea of a static climate. Normal
engineering practice for designing water supply and flood control
projects is to plan as if the future will look like the past. However,
we now know that our future climate will not look like the past, and
that in addition to warmer temperatures the normal patterns of water
movement around the globe will change. This is because the water cycle
redistributes heat from the equator to the poles--and it is this
movement of heat and water that determines our weather and climate. As
the planet warms, these relationships will change, and the water cycle
will adjust with potentially large impacts on humans.
This fundamental fact has profound implications for water
management. The novelist T. Morris Longstreth once wrote, ``Of course
we weren't lost. We were merely where we shouldn't have been without
knowing where that was.'' This is the position water managers find
themselves in today. As we move forward, all water management actions
based on ``normal'' as defined by the twentieth century will
increasingly turn out to be bad bets.
I would like to discuss three issues concerning adaptation to
climate variability and change today. The first is the serious
situation due to drought and increasing demands that has developed on
the Colorado River which climate change threatens to make far worse.
The second is my concern about how our national climate change
scientific enterprise is being managed, and the third is the need to
devote more scientific resources to meeting the needs of decision
makers, almost all of whom have a regional or local focus.
the situation on the colorado river
Please indulge me in a small bit of family history. My great-great
grandfather John D. Lee was asked by Brigham Young to found what is now
called Lee's Ferry, the all-important dividing line on the Colorado
River between the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin in the 1922 Colorado
River Compact. My great-grandfather and my grandfather farmed on the
banks of the Little Colorado River in northeastern Arizona. My father,
Morris Udall, was part of the Arizona delegation that passed the
Central Arizona Project Act in 1968 which now moves large quantities of
Colorado River water over 300 miles and 3000 vertical feet to Phoenix
and Tucson. And during the course of my life I have been both a Grand
Canyon River Guide and a water engineer.
I care deeply about this river which affects 30 million people in
seven states and faces an uncertain future even without climate change.
The population of the American Southwest is the fastest growing of
anywhere in the nation. The recent drought, which has featured extended
low flows not seen in the 100-year gauged record, has resulted in the
loss 30 million acre-feet of water, the equivalent of two years of
annual flow and half of the maximum total storage. The two largest
reservoirs, Lakes Mead and Powell, are now approximately half full.
Lake Mead is currently losing 1.4 million acre-feet per year, and
contains only 10 years of water at this rate of loss\1\ because the
Lower Basin states have grown accustomed to using excess water from the
Upper Basin, water that may not be there in the future under either
climate variability or under climate change. According to Reclamation
modeling, even under average historical hydrology Lake Mead never
refills and Lake Powell takes decades to refill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ With Lake Powell at about 50% of capacity, current operating
practice is to release 8.23 million acre-feet (mat) to Lake Mead which
combines with approximately 750,000 acre-feet of tributary inflow to
make total annual inflow to Mead of 9.0 maf. Annual releases from Lake
Mead total 10.4 maf: 7.5 maf total to Arizona, California and Nevada,
1.5 maf to Mexico to meet our treaty requirements and an additional 1.4
maf in evaporation and other losses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With climate change the picture is even more troubling. The West in
general is experiencing warmer springs, reduced snowpack, and earlier
runoff\2\. The Colorado River basin has warmed approximately 2F since
1976\3\. Recent studies on the Colorado River indicate that the basin
is likely to have less streamflow in the future\4\. In fact, all
climate change studies on the river, some dating back to 1979, have
found that less runoff will occur in the future under warmer conditions
with either the same or less precipitation, the most likely future
according to climate models. A variety of new studies\5\ based on the
most recent Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) modeling
also paint a future with less water in the. basin. Two other second
order effects of rising temperatures associated with climate change
potentially influence water supply. Insect pests such as the pine
beetle are projected to increase, which will affect forest health and
the potential for fire\6\. Large forest fires have increased in recent
years\7\ which may lead to increased reservoir sedimentation and water
quality degradation. While these studies and projections may be wrong,
the collective picture is troubling and it would be foolish to ignore
them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For an overview of climate related impacts see: ``Climatic and
Hydrologic Trends in the Western U.S.: A Review of Recent Peer-Reviewed
Research'' available at: http://wwa.colorado.edulproducts/forecasts and
outlooks/intermountain west climate summary/articles/ww a jan--
2007feature.pdf
\3\ National Research Council (NRC) 2007. Colorado River basin
Water Management--Evaluating and Adjusting to Hydroclimatic
Variability. The National Academies Press, Page 61.
\4\ For an overview, see http://wwa.colorado.edu/products/
forecasts and outlooks/intermountain west climate summary/wwa may
2007.pdf
\5\ See for example: N. Christensen, D. P. Lettenmaier. 2006. A
multimodel ensemble approach to assessment of climate change impacts on
the hydrology and water resources of the Colorado River basin.
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, 3, 3727-3770.
Hoerling, M. and J. Eischeid. 2006. Past Peak Water in the Southwest.
Southwest Hydrology, 6(1). Milly, P. C. D., K. A. Dunne, et al. (2005).
``Global pattern of trends in streamflow and water availability in a
changing climate.'' Nature 438(7066): 347-350. Seager, R., M. Ting, et
al. (2007). ``Model Projections of an Imminent Transition to a More
Arid Climate in Southwestern North America.'' Science: 1139601.
\6\ Colorado's Grand and Summit counties now have over 1000 square
miles of diseased and dying trees.
\7\ Westerling, A. L., H. G. Hidalgo, et al. (2006). ``Warming and
earlier spring increase western US forest wildfire activity.'' Science
313(5789): 940-943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Lower Basin states of California, Arizona, and Nevada
have over-consumption and growth problems, the Upper Basin states have
another set of problems relating to the uncertainty of their compact
entitlements. In the state of Colorado, for example, there is no
unappropriated water in any basin other than the Colorado River, but
use of Colorado River water is constrained by a 1922 Colorado River
Compact downstream delivery requirement at Lee's Ferry. Developing
additional water to meet Colorado's needs is now highly uncertain--
there could be anywhere from 0 to 800,000 acre-feet, enough to supply
anticipated new growth for the next twenty years. Ever more problematic
is the concern that climate change induced drought might lead to
drastic curtailment of all `Post-Compact' water rights. Such
curtailment could include shutting off half of the water which is now
used by the major municipalities of the Front Range of Colorado where
75% of the state lives.
There is at least one bright spot on the river. For the last two
years Reclamation has been working on an Environmental Impact Statement
on how to share shortages and operate Powell and Mead during drought.
This effort has lead to a noteworthy and imaginative agreement among
the seven Colorado River states and Reclamation should issue a Record
of Decision later this year. However, given climate change projections,
I fear that this agreement will not be enough and the states will soon
have to deal again with the delicate issue of not enough water for too
many people.
better federal management of climate change science
We need a better way to manage the nation's overall climate change
science enterprise. This is a critically important national problem yet
the existing management structure seems ill-suited to the task. Does
anyone really think an effective way to manage $2b of climate change
science occurring in thirteen different federal agencies is by a small
office overseen by a national interagency committee without budgetary
authority? Despite good intentions, the Climate Change Science Program
(CCSP) is a feel-good veneer on a problem that requires a far bigger
response with an effective management structure. In addition, it is now
time to include resource managers and decision makers along with
scientists in the management of this very important program.
One sign of the current management problems is that despite being
eager for climate change information, almost no water manager in the
country is aware of the Climate Change Science Program. And they are
certainly not aware of the twenty one Synthesis and Assessment Products
being rolled out over the next two years, several designed specifically
for decision makers\8\. Another example is the lack of resources for
``decision support'', the term used to describe information readily
usable by policymakers. This is clear from both the small budget
devoted to these activities and from actions of the program. I attended
a CCSP workshop in 2005 on Decision Support attended by several hundred
scientists yet there were just a handful of resource managers and
decision makers in the audience. Please note that none of my comments
are meant to malign the hardworking staff or management of the CCSP;
they simply do not have the resources to pursue their mission
effectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Namely 3.1: Climate Models: An Assessment of Strengths and
Limitations for User Applications; 4.3: The effects of climate change
on agriculture, land resources, water resources, and biodiversity; and
5.1: Uses and limitations of observations, data, forecasts, and other
projections in decision support for selected sectors and regions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A National Climate Service, an idea under discussion by some in
NOAA and in the academic community, might provide an umbrella to solve
some of the climate variability and change needs of decision makers if
it were crafted with care. This enterprise would ``connect climate
science to decision-relevant questions and support building capacity to
anticipate, plan for, and adapt to climate fluctuations.'' \9\ NOAA's
new National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) is one
contribution to climate services. A national service would need to work
closely with the many federal agencies that already deal in climate.
Done effectively, this service would allow research scientists and
resource managers to overcome the differences between the academic and
management worlds. This concept already passed Congress in 1978 as
Public Law 95-367 but has languished for lack of funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Miles, E. L., A. K. Snover, et al. (2006). ``An approach to
designing a national climate service.'' PNAS 103(52): 19616-19623.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
National scientific leadership should also entail a coherent policy
for dealing with data. Simply put, no data means no science, and bad
data leads to bad science. Good management also requires good data. In
my experience with scientists, the first thing they love to argue about
is data, the best example being the current dispute over hurricane
trends. We will never end these arguments, but we should do our best to
minimize these problems when possible. All data--National Weather
Service data, USGS streamflow data, and National Resource Conservation
Service snow and soil moisture data among many others--should be
covered by a consistent national plan and be provided adequate funding.
Data collection is unfortunately the first thing that gets cut in time
of shortfall. Meta-data, that is data about data, is especially
critical ancillary data because it lets scientists cull bad data from
good.
devote more scientific resources to regional problems
In the last two years, the confluence of the severe on-going
drought, eye-opening information on far more serious droughts in past
centuries supplied by tree-rings, and the growing scientific certainty
over the causes of climate change, have provided a focus such that
water utilities and managers are now ready to be full participants in
the scientific enterprise on climate. This means, however, that we need
to be able to provide regionally specific information on risks, such as
changes in snowpack, timing of spring runoff, increases in water demand
from temperature increases, amount of sea level rise, and changes in
the length of the growing season. Unfortunately, to date, scientific
assessments like the IPCC have focused on the global and continental
scale effects of climate change and hence are of limited use to
regionally focused decision-making.
One example of the burgeoning demand for climate change information
came out of a water utility climate change summit early this year
hosted by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) which I
attended. This watershed event brought together some 250 water and
wastewater utility leaders from around the nation, agency officials,
top climate researchers, representatives from NGO's and the business
community. Organized by and for water utility leaders, the Summit
focused primarily on adaptation responses utilities are--and should
be--thinking about in light of climate change. As a result of that
Summit, a steering committee chaired by SFPUC General Manager Susan
Leal and made up of managers of some of the largest utilities in the
nation--Metropolitan in Southern California, New York, Seattle, Las
Vegas, Denver, Portland and San Diego--has begun meeting to learn from
one another and speak with a collective voice about what they need from
federal, state, and regional agencies.
Much of the regional response needs to revolve around regionally
specific climate modeling; this is an explicit concern of the utility
group. Regional modeling is urgently needed to inform water supply and
capital improvement planning in the water and wastewater utility
community. We know the climate models have problems dealing with
precipitation in mountains, and they do not represent important aspects
of climate variability like decadal fluctuations. They most certainly
are not a substitute for judgment. But they are the only tool we have
for investigating likely future conditions and as such are critical.
Used with care these models can provide an estimate of the range of
possible future conditions. Despite their limitations, we must move
forward with all forms of regional modeling as quickly as possible and
this includes educating decision makers on their strengths and
limitations.
Regional water management organizations need to work with
regionally-based entities to solve their climate needs. During their
10-year existence, the existing RISA programs have provided valuable
climate-related services and information for portions of the country.
Seattle Mayor Nickels' leadership on climate change with the US
Conference of Mayors is in part due to his connection to the Climate
Impacts Group at the University of Washington. The California
Applications Project at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography has
been heavily involved with Governor Schwarzenegger's climate change
initiative. My program has recently convened a panel of experts to
draft a road map to help the Lower Colorado office of Reclamation
prepare for climate change. Time over and again, RISAs have shown the
capability of providing regionally relevant information on a whole host
of issues ranging from information about past climates, to seasonal
forecasts, and recently to climate change.
The RISAs provide one model of meeting regional climate needs that
with additional resources could be scaled up to cover the nation. But
this can not be done overnight. The effort takes time, dedication and
commitment; overcoming the differences between the academic and
professional management world can be challenging but innovative
solutions come when academics, federal employees, and professionals
share and combine their knowledge.
conclusion
Drought and increased demand have combined to create a serious
water supply problem on the Colorado River which climate change
threatens to make far worse. To help the nation adapt to water supply
problems caused by climate variability and change, we need more
effective federal climate change science management and much more
regionally-directed science. Both of these will require the involvement
of resource managers and stakeholders in addition to scientists.
Solutions will involve challenges to everyone. Scientists will need to
understand needs and constraints of decision makers and adjust research
to fit. Water Managers will need to understand the science better, and
learn how to fit the uncertainty of climate change into their already
significant capability to deal with variability. And even Congress will
need to provide the necessary structure and oversight to allow the best
climate change adaptation response possible.
Someone once said that the ``proper response to uncertainty is
insurance, not denial.'' It is time that we start acquiring `insurance'
against the effects of climate change by making sure that we have the
necessary management, resources, tools and people to pursue critically
needed water sector climate change adaptation measures. Thank you for
the opportunity to address you today.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Udall.
Dr. Milly.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER MILLY, PH.D., RESEARCH HYDROLOGIST,
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR
Mr. Milly. Senator Cantwell and members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to present
testimony on the impacts of climate change on water supply and
water availability in the United States. Water is the lifeblood
of the Nation. Water keeps our bodies hydrated and clean and
sanitizes our living spaces. Water in the soil grows the food
we eat. We use water in the processing of food and fuel and the
manufacture of products. Water flowing through our rivers
generates electricity and transports cargo. Water is habitat
and highway for fish and fowl. Water, liquid or frozen, is the
Nation's playground in summer and winter.
The distribution of water across the Nation depends largely
on climate. Changing climate is now affecting the availability
of water in the United States. Water availability can be
measured in many ways. Precipitation is the gross income of our
Nation's water budget. Stream flow is the net income. It's what
remains after the evapotranspiration tax has been extracted.
Snow pack, reservoir levels, soil moisture, and water
tables represent the contents of our water bank accounts. The
bank accounts are important for getting us through hot, dry
summers or the inevitable years of drought. But ultimately
stream flow is the single best measure of disposable income in
our national water budget.
So what stream flow changes have been observed? The very
normal ups and downs of annual stream flow are superimposed
upon subtle longer-term changes. For example, during the last
30 years the U.S. Midwest and Alaska received more water income
than during earlier years of record and the U.S. Southwest
received less.
Long-term changes in seasonal timing of stream flow, as
you've already heard, have also been observed. In the western
United States and the northern tier of the eastern United
States, seasonal stream flows typically rose and fell about a
week earlier on average during recent decades than during the
prior period of record.
Are all these changes just normal variations or do they
reflect climate change? The observed pattern of stream flow
trends roughly matches the pattern that emerges from climate
models when they try to simulate national stream flow during
the 20th century. When we look at a global comparison of
observed and climate model changes, this rough agreement for
the United States is repeated over and over on the other
continents. Such a level of agreement across the globe would be
very unlikely to arise from natural variability alone.
We conclude that the same factors causing global warming
have been changing the global water cycle. The change in the
global water cycle in turn has contributed to the observed
changes in stream flow and water availability in the United
States. Additionally, the earlier stream flow timing observed
in western and northeastern United States has been correlated
with rising temperatures and a declining snow pack and is
consistent with expectations from models of forced climate
change.
So what about the future? The demonstrated skill of climate
models when looking back at the past means that they are
credible, though admittedly far from perfect, tools for looking
forward into the future. These models project sustained drying
of the Southwest and moistening of the Midwest and Alaska.
These projections are only caricatures of the real future and
they leave a lot of room for improvement. Climate models
represent areas larger than the State of Maryland all the way
from the Eastern Shore to the Allegheny Plateau by a single
point. Much higher resolution climate models are needed in
order to support optimal water management.
The Nation has no comprehensive network of stream flow
measurement stations dedicated to monitoring long-term changes
across the landscape. However, keeping higher resolution models
honest and tracking ongoing changes in water availability will
require higher resolution measurements.
Climate information needs to be delivered in a form that is
more relevant to its consumers, water management. Water
management needs flexible design and planning tools,
recognizing that climate will change during the lifetime of a
project and that those changes are uncertain.
Thank you for this opportunity to present testimony and
I'll do my best to answer any questions that you or the
subcommittee may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Milly follows:]
Prepared Statement of Christopher Milly, Ph.D., Research Hydrologist,
Geological Survey, Department of the Interior
introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to present testimony on the impacts of climate change on
water supply and water availability in the United States.
Water is the life-blood of the Nation. Water keeps our bodies
hydrated and clean and sanitizes our living spaces. Water in the soil
grows the food we eat. We use water in the processing of food and fuel
and the manufacture of products. Water flowing through our rivers
produces electricity and transports cargo. Water is habitat and highway
for fish and fowl. Water, liquid or frozen, is the Nation's playground
in summer and winter.
The distribution of water across the Nation depends largely on
climate. As discussed below, we believe the same factors causing global
warming are changing the global water cycle.
Water availability can be measured in many ways: precipitation,
streamflow, reservoir levels, snow pack, soil moisture, glaciers, and
water tables. Precipitation is the gross income of our Nation's water
budget; streamflow is the net income--what remains after the
evapotranspiration tax has been extracted. Snow pack, reservoir levels,
soil moisture and water tables represent the contents of our water bank
accounts. The bank accounts are important for getting us through hot
dry summers or the inevitable years of drought, but ultimately
streamflow is the single best measure of disposable income in our
national water budget.
How might water availability be expected to respond to a general
climatic warming? The behavior of the water substance is very sensitive
to temperature variations. Warm ice melts. Warm water expands. Warm air
can hold more water vapor. Together with some more advanced atmospheric
physics, which predicts subtle shifts in atmospheric circulation, these
facts suggest the changes in water availability that can result from
warming:
<bullet> Systematic regional increases and decreases of total annual
streamflow.
<bullet> Rising sea level, resulting in increased risk of saltwater
contamination of coastal freshwater supplies.
<bullet> Loss of snow pack, resulting in increased winter streamflow
and winter flood risk and decreased summer streamflow.
observed streamflow changes
During the last several decades, annual streamflow in the United
States fluctuated widely over time. In 1988, the Ohio River gave 115
million acre feet of water to the Mississippi; the next year it gave
270 million acre feet. Such wide variation is a normal state of
affairs.
The normal ups and downs of annual streamflow are superimposed upon
more subtle, longer-term changes. In recent decades, the U.S. Midwest
and Alaska became wetter, while the U.S. Southwest became drier. For
example, the flow of the Ohio River at Metropolis, Ohio, during the
last 30 years was 12 percent higher than during the preceding 48 years
of observations. The flow of the Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona,
was 3 percent lower than during the preceding 71 years (after making
adjustments for flow decreases associated with water withdrawals). The
flow of the Yukon River at Eagle, Alaska, was 3 percent higher than
during the preceding 26 years.
Long-term changes in seasonal timing of streamflow, possibly
related to warming-induced changes in snowfall and snowmelt, have also
been observed. As the western United States has warmed during recent
decades, a tendency toward earlier timing of streamflow has been noted.
Similar trends toward earlier streamflow have been seen in the northern
tier of the eastern United States. In both regions, seasonal
streamflows are typically rising and falling about a week earlier in
the year during recent decades than in the prior period of record.
causes of observed streamflow changes: normal variability vs. forced
climate change
On the basis of statistical analyses of streamflow measurements,
tree-ring records, and models, it appears that the recent long-term
changes in annual streamflow observed over large areas of the United
States were not unprecedented. Consequently, taken alone, these
streamflow changes are not unequivocal evidence of forced climate
change, but might be explained as mere manifestations of natural,
internal variability in the climate system.
However, these data need not be taken alone. We have other sources
of information, including streamflow measurements from around the world
and computer simulations of changing climate in the United States and
the rest of the world. The observed pattern of a wetter Midwest, a
drier Southwest, and a wetter Alaska is also the pattern that emerges
from climate models when they try to simulate streamflow during the
20th century. And, when we look at a global comparison of observed and
climate-modeled changes in annual streamflow during the 20th century,
this rough agreement for the United States is repeated over and over on
the other continents. Analysis suggests that such a level of agreement
across the globe would be very unlikely to arise simply by chance. On
the basis of this global perspective, we conclude that the same factors
causing global warming are changing the global water cycle. The change
in the global water cycle, in turn, contributes to the observed changes
in streamflow and water availability in the United States.
The earlier streamflow timing observed in the western and
northeastern United States has been correlated with rising
temperatures, but changes in precipitation amounts and timing have also
played a role. Changes in streamflow timing have not been clearly
attributed to forced climate change. However, we can say that the
observed changes in streamflow timing are qualitatively consistent with
expected impacts of forced climate change.
predicting future water availability
It is not valid simply to extrapolate the observed past changes in
water availability forward into the future. However, the demonstrated
skill of climate models in simulating the global pattern of 20th-
century change in annual streamflow means that those models are
credible, though far from perfect, tools for looking into the future.
Given best assumptions about future atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentrations and other drivers of climate change, these models
project a long-term drying trend in the Southwest and moistening trends
in the Midwest and Alaska. The drying trend in the Southwest can be
expected to imply also an increasing probability of occurrence of
Southwestern drought.
These projections, at best, are only crude caricatures of the real
future. Are they the best that we can realistically hope for? Not at
all. There is much room for improvement:
<bullet> Climate models typically represent conditions over areas
larger than the State of Maryland by a single point. Such an
approach has been adequate to assess global warming. However,
climate varies geographically on a much finer scale, especially
in mountainous regions. Therefore, to assess practical impacts
on water and to design, plan, and implement needed adaptations,
water managers need information on a much finer spatial scale,
more like that of a county. To deliver this, much-higher-
resolution climate models are needed.
<bullet> The Nation has no comprehensive network of streamflow
measurement stations dedicated to monitoring long-term changes
in streamflow in natural, developed, and developing
environments across the national landscape. The available
measurements, assembled from stations established for other
purposes, have proven critical for the progress that has been
made in detecting global changes in water availability.
However, keeping higher-resolution models honest and tracking
ongoing changes in water availability will require higher-
resolution measurements.
<bullet> Climate models have only begun to include the effects of
water-resource development, land use, and land-cover change on
climate. This has not been identified as a crucial impediment
for global analyses, but it probably matters at the finer
spatial scale of water management.
<bullet> Water shortages come about when supply falls short of
demand. Increased demand can create shortage, even when supply
is stable. A change in climate causes a change in water demand,
e.g., for irrigation and for natural ecosystems. Our
understanding of this relation between climate and water demand
needs improvement.
<bullet> Production of better climate information is necessary but
not sufficient to assess future impacts. Climate information
needs to come in a form that is relevant to water management.
In order to ensure the relevance of climate-model information
to water managers, accelerated and continuing dialogue will be
needed between climate science and water managers.
<bullet> To make best use of available information in a changing
climate, water management will need to adopt more flexible
tools than those that have sufficed in the past. These new
tools, unlike those that currently do the lion's share of
water-system planning and design, must recognize that climate
will change during the lifetime of a project and that estimates
of the changing climate are uncertain. This will require a sea
change in the field of water management. Such a change will not
be accomplished without a concerted effort by government,
academia, and professional societies.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to present testimony.
I will do my best to answer any questions that you or other members of
the subcommittee may have on this topic.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you for your
testimony.
I guess I'll go ahead and start. I was going to defer to
Senator Bingaman, but I'm happy to start.
You talked particularly, Dr. Milly, about water management
and all of you talked about the need for more information. Are
there some things that are known now that we should be doing?
I'm going to pose a question, too, whether storage capacity is
something that we should be looking at. Obviously, our views on
storage capacity have changed over the last several decades. Do
we need to rethink that and what else do we need to do in this
area of water management?
Mr. Milly. I could only say generally that storage capacity
is one of the tools that I understand water managers use to
help us match supplies and demands. I'm more at the end of
being able to report to you on the changes in the supply and
I'd prefer to defer to my colleagues here on the management
questions.
Senator Cantwell. Dr. Mote or Mr. Udall, for us in the
Northwest, as I'm sure you understand, Dr. Mote, the change in
climate even at 1 percent for an economy that is built on cheap
hydropower is quite a significant impact. So what should we be
doing?
Mr. Mote. First of all, climate change should clearly be
factored into any long-range plan involving water, whether it
be evaluation of new storage supplies--
Senator Cantwell. Do you have your microphone on?
Mr. Mote. I'm sorry.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
Mr. Mote. It's one of those things we forget if we don't do
this every day.
The relicensing of dams under FERC, for example, involves
calculations of flows and reliability of different objectives.
Clearly, climate change should be factored into things like
that. But in addition, just with today's reservoir management
approaches, one thing that could be done is to design reservoir
optimization models. This is a sort of a 21st century
technological approach replacing the sort of pen and paper
version of earlier decades, where you construct a cost function
or a benefit function for each use of water and then you let
the model decide, is it best to hold this water in May or
release it, because you're balancing hydropower with the needs
for fish and agriculture and so on.
This is an approach that has been tried in an academic
setting. It could be done on a wider scale and involve
stakeholders in designing the cost functions.
Senator Cantwell. Mr. Udall.
Mr. Udall. Senator, there are 8,000 reservoirs in the
United States over 6 feet tall according to the USGS. Eight
thousand of those are considered large, 4,000 in the West,
4,000 in the East. Certainly reservoirs play a role here. But
should anyone think that this is going to solve all of our
problems, I think they're going to be quite saddened that it
will not.
Groundwater storage may be a potential opportunity here,
that the State of Arizona is doing and others are doing. But
any reservoir--the good reservoir sites are gone now for the
most part.
Senator Cantwell. So that's a no on any new reservoirs. I
think--
Mr. Udall. It's not a no, but it's a very considered, there
may be some reservoirs that help us, but it will not be the
universal solution.
Senator Cantwell. Yes, I'm more getting at that I think
that the Bureau of Reclamation and our policies here have
basically turned in a different direction, away from
reservoirs, and maybe rightly so. But the question is what
should we be considering.
So you're not objecting to it being a tool, as Dr. Milly
mentioned, as far as management, but you're just saying just
don't overfocus on that that's a great solution?
Mr. Udall. Any reservoir that needs to be built nowadays
has to be off-channel for the most part because of the
environmental consequences, I think.
Senator Cantwell. Dr. Milly, did you want to add something?
Mr. Milly. Yes. I should comment that there are regions in
which, as I said, the net income basically of water is
declining, that no amount of storage capacity can create that
water, of course.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
Senator Corker.
Senator Corker. Thank you, Chairwoman, and thank you for
your testimony. Dr. Milly, I've seen some of the modeling and I
couldn't agree more that we need higher resolution and need to
be able to look at this data in much closer detail. I
appreciate your comments in that regard.
I was listening to Mr. Udall's comments about Lake Mead and
the need for climate modeling, but based on the scenario you
were describing it seems to me that far more urgent activity
needs to occur. By the time you've developed climate modeling,
based on what you said, Lake Mead would have no water. I'm
wondering if there's other efforts under way while modeling is
being proposed?
Mr. Milly. Absolutely, and I think Dr. Fulp here will
address this on the second panel. Reclamation now has an EIS
under way that's going to solve, at least for the short term,
the water management problems on the Colorado River. The larger
question is is this enough. Basically, this environmental
impact statement allows shortages to Arizona of 600,000 acre-
feet a year, and yet we're digging a 1.4 million acre-foot hole
in the reservoir every year. Those numbers still diverge in a
way that's scary, and if some of the scenarios that play out
here with climate change and reduction of water in the
Southwest come about we're going to be talking about this again
in the not too distant future.
Senator Corker. Dr. Mote, as far as the 0.8 Centigrade
change that's taken place in warming recently, if you look back
through historical times, how does that relate?
Mr. Mote. For the globe as a whole, a 0.8 degrees--we
experienced 0.7 degrees in the last 100 years, according to the
IPCC, and it was very likely that that rate of change over any
50-year period had not been experienced in at least the last
1300 years.
For the West as a whole, I'm not sure whether such a rate
of change has been experienced within the last thousand years.
But it is faster than the warming that occurred in the early
part of the instrumental record by quite a lot.
Senator Corker. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Senator Cantwell. Senator Craig, do you have any questions
for our panelists?
Senator Craig. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you.
I guess one question, Dr. Milly. You've described a number
of studies that are under way by the administration to study
the effect of climate change in relation to water supply. Can
you give us any idea of what those studies will bear, meaning
what anticipated information will change the way we operate our
current water systems? What are you anticipating?
Mr. Milly. The question of how one operates water supply
infrastructure is not one that I claim to have expertise in.
Senator Craig. So what are we looking for, baselines from
which to make decisions?
Mr. Milly. We believe that's true, yes. So the one who has
to manage that supply, if we can tell him, for example, on
average over the next 30 years you're going to see 20 percent
less water coming down the Colorado, although it'll be
fluctuating up and down, of course, as it always has in the
past, then we understand that that's useful information to
them, and that's the sort of information that we try to
provide.
Also, the information on the fact that with the loss of
snow pack you may expect to see stream flow declining earlier
in the year, so that as late summer draws on there's just not
nearly as much water coming down the river as you've been
accustomed to in the past, that kind of information. Then it's
up to the water manager to decide how to meet the demands,
given that information.
Senator Craig. Mr. Udall and the chairman just got involved
in a discussion about potential additional storage. I don't
disagree that if it comes it's probably off main stem. Would
your information attempt to help us understand as those flow
patterns change times when there may be a greater opportunity
to store than was historically the case? Is that the intent?
Mr. Udall. The intent of regional climate modeling is to
provide hydrology, future hydrology, that the engineers who
operate these systems can figure out how best to optimize our
reservoirs. Those operations involve things like how much do we
worry about floods, how low do we draw our reservoirs down in
the spring so that they can capture water and be safe so that
you don't have a flood, but also capture the maximum amount of
water possible?
Senator Craig. Yes, I experienced the reality of an
interesting thought here. About a year ago, the Boise River was
at near flood stage, hadn't been in quite a while. Of course,
in that quite a while period of time people had busily built in
the flood plain. I was trying to suggest to many of my
constituents that a flood was a good thing because we hadn't
had one in a while, which meant we were having an optimum water
year. I had never thought of it in that way and oftentimes we
think of flood as being a negative event. Out West in the last
few years, it really is a positive event, if you're in the
right place anyway or haven't chosen to be in the wrong place.
But anyway, gentlemen, thank you.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Senator Craig.
One last question I had, Dr. Udall. You talked about
modeling and information. Do we have the ability to do region-
specific climate change models? Or Dr. Mote, either one of you.
Mr. Udall. We certainly have the capability of doing it in
the future, and people are taking large general circulation
models, the big climate models, and downscaling them nowadays
and getting reasonable results. But I think the idea here is,
for example in the West, where topography is so important in
determining what happens in the hydrological cycle, the smaller
you can focus these models on, the better the results you get
out. We need to expend more resources on that aspect of climate
modeling.
Mr. Mote. There is--
Senator Cantwell. Go ahead, Dr. Mote.
Mr. Mote. Excuse me. There is an effort under way among
several modeling groups to do regional modeling for the whole
United States, called NARCCAP, which I think is North American
Regional Climate Change Applications Program, something like
that. So within a few months we'll have national scale regional
modeling. It's only at a 50- kilometer, 30-mile resolution, so
it's better than the global models, but still not good enough
for some resolutions.
We in the Pacific Northwest have a much finer scale model
that we've run a couple of times.
Senator Cantwell. What does that tell us in the sense of
helping us to do water management? What data have we acquired
from that?
Mr. Mote. We're still at the early stages of evaluating the
results of those modeling experiments. But they suggest, for
example, that some of the changes in cloudiness or
precipitation in the Yakama Basin versus west side of the
Cascades, that these can be differentiated.
Senator Cantwell. But you think that, given the ecosystem
of the State of Washington, that we can defer--I mean, that we
can differentiate ecosystems from east and west. But you think
this is an investment we should be making for the entire United
States?
Mr. Mote. NARCCAP is an excellent first step. A few years
from now we'll need to revisit it on a much higher spatial
resolution to support water management and other needs.
Senator Cantwell. We might pose further questions on this
because I think part of the challenge here is if you say that
key to the strategy in dealing with this change is the
modeling, I think we need to understand what the modeling will
actually deliver for us. So we might pose some further
questions to you.
Well, gentlemen, thank you. I think we'll go to panel No. 2
unless my colleagues have any other further questions. Let's
hear from some of the actual water users. Gentlemen, thank you
for your testimony and your expertise in this area. We look
forward to continuing to dialog with you on this important
issue.
I'd like to call panel two now. Mr. Patrick O'Toole from
the Family Farm Alliance from Wyoming, and I want to mention
that Mr. O'Toole served in the Wyoming State Legislature with
Senator Thomas, so we're glad that he is here with us today.
Jack Williams from Trout Unlimited; Mr. Terry Fulp, who is the
Area Manager of Boulder Canyon Operations for the United States
Bureau of Reclamation; Mr. Tim Brick, the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California; and Mr. Tim Culbertson,
representing National Hydropower Association, from Ephrata,
Washington.
Gentlemen, thank you very much. We do have participation
across the country, but again a little bit more focused in the
West, where water issues are often fought over. So thank you
for being here, and, Mr. O'Toole, thank you very much for being
here and we'll start with you.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK O'TOOLE, PRESIDENT, FAMILY FARM ALLIANCE,
SAVERY, WY
Mr. O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Chairman. When I was asked to
be on this panel, Senator Thomas's office contacted me, and I
was so looking forward to him introducing me. We worked
together in the legislature. He was a colleague. He was a
friend and we will miss him.
The last meeting actually that I had with Senator Thomas
was at Saratoga, Wyoming, last year when we talked about what
is a very graphic manifestation of at least the perception of
climate change in the Rocky Mountain States. If you've flown
over southern Wyoming and Colorado, you would be stunned to see
the effects of the die-off of trees that has happened over the
last 3 or 4 years. I was stunned to see what had happened over
the last, from last fall to this spring. There were forests
with 90 percent of the trees gone, and they will be gone for my
lifetime and into my grandchildren's lifetime as we regenerate.
Our conservation was what could we do to enhance water
supply in those areas that are so affected. I believe that
Family Farm Alliance, which I am currently president of, what I
think we bring to the table is the ability to reach out to all
of the 16 western States in which we have irrigator members and
talk about the specific instances that are happening State by
State.
To us it is very graphic, and the reality of the loss of
water is affecting virtually every irrigation district in the
West. Currently people talk about looking down from 50,000
feet. Well, I live at 7,000 and am surrounded by mountains at
10,000 feet, and I maybe will give you a little bit of what it
looks like from the ground.
Last year we had 130 percent snow pack in March. Last
summer was the driest summer. It burned up our country just
because of the change in climate. This year our basin is at 29
percent, 29 percent of normal, and Wyoming is discussed over
the long-term average, possibly as low as 60 percent deliveries
to the Colorado River. Those are significant numbers that are
going to have effects on our members and, more importantly, on
what we perceive as America's food supply and its national
security as it relates to that.
We have listed in our testimony a lot of different examples
of various things that are happening in various States and
various things various States are doing. But we started putting
together 3 years ago and I testified and presented in front of
the Senate--the House Energy Committee a study that the Family
Farm Alliance did on storage. We believe that is one of a
toolbox of things that we should be doing in the future, not
limited. Certainly we've all talked about big dams already
having been built, but in the valley that I live in we have
built a project that began delivering water a couple of years
ago, 23,000 acre-feet. It saved us in the last 2 years of
drought. It also created 25 miles of fishery and the mitigation
for it created the largest manmade wetland in Wyoming. Birds
went from 30 to 130 in that wetland area.
So what we have learned as farmers and people on the ground
is that the uses of water cross such a broad range. In talks I
very often say water is life, but I read a book on Africa
recently and they talked about water as hope. I've become much
more convinced that the ability to know that there'll be water
in the system is much more of a hopeful experience and it's one
that in this particular case it is very clear that if we do not
make decisions, indecision will be decisions in the West.
One thing that Pat Mulvary from southern Nevada and I agree
on is that the drought has pushed debate 20 years ahead. So
it's our responsibility to come up with solutions that are much
further ahead than we thought we were going to have to make as
policymakers.
The Family Farm Alliance has, at our yearly convention
every State reports what's happening in the particular State.
It is a graphic experience the last 3 or 4 years about the
transitions of not thousands, but tens of thousands and
hundreds of thousands of irrigated acres that are going to fall
out of production. It's a food security issue I think that we
need to address. We could go on about the impacts of foreign
food into the matrix of what we should be looking at. But when
you look at the combination of both, the combination of
drought, and now the new discussion about ethanol and using
water to produce large quantities of ethanol--I know it's an
issue that Senator Thomas was aware of. The one example we've
used this week while we were here is the billion gallons of
ethanol that California has projected out would cost 2.5
trillion gallons of water to produce. That's the water that
central California delivers to southern California.
I very much appreciate being able to visit with you today
and anything I can do to help and our organization, we'd
appreciate.
[The prepared statement of Mr. O'Toole follows:]
Prepared Statement of Pat O'Toole, President, Family Farm Alliance
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss
climate change and water supply impacts on Western irrigated
agriculture. My name is Patrick O'Toole, and I serve as the president
of the Family Farm Alliance (Alliance).
The Alliance is a grassroots organization of family farmers,
ranchers, irrigation districts and allied industries in 16 Western
states. The Alliance is focused on one mission: To ensure the
availability of reliable, affordable irrigation water supplies to
Western farmers and ranchers. We are also committed to the fundamental
proposition that Western irrigated agriculture must be preserved and
protected for a host of economic, sociological, environmental and
national security reasons--many of which are often overlooked in the
context of other policy decisions.
My family operates a cattle, sheep and hay ranch in the Little
Snake River Valley on the Wyoming-Colorado border. I am a former member
of Wyoming's House of Representatives and I served on the federal
government's Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission in the
late 1990's.
The topic of this oversight hearing is not only tremendously
important to the Alliance, it also is immediately relevant to me and
other Wyoming water users, and to farmers, ranchers and small
communities all over the West.
alliance involvement with climate change issues
The Family Farm Alliance Board of Directors at its 19th Annual
Meeting in Las Vegas last February established a subcommittee to
develop a white paper that addresses the important issue of climate
change, its possible impact on Western water supplies and irrigated
agriculture, and recommendations on how to plan and provide stewardship
for this change. That document will soon be finalized and publicly
released, and we will share it with the subcommittee. I think it will
once again demonstrate the Alliance's realistic approach to problem
solving.
current and projected impacts of climate change to western farmers
and ranchers
In the past six months, the public has been inundated with a flood
of new studies that focus on projected climate change impacts to
Western water resources. Predictions and conclusions reached about the
impacts climate change will have on future water resources availability
are as varied as the Western landscape. However, we are increasingly
hearing reports that predict dire long-term hydrologic consequences for
the West. Several studies further focus on specific regions or
watersheds and are briefly discussed below.
Arizona
Experts in Arizona say that climate change is occurring and will
likely have more impacts in the future to water resources. A climatic
water budget runoff model has been developed for the Salt and Verde
River basins of central Arizona\1\, which used the outputs of six
global climate models to estimate runoff in the future under assorted
``scenarios'' developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Due to projected warmer temperatures by the year 2050,
projected changes in runoff for the two basins suggest that the runoff
from the Salt and Verde will have approximately an 85% chance of being
less in the future due largely to warming in the study area. This could
have significant impacts for these two basins, which have six dams, a
variable hydrology, and a total storage capacity of 2.3 million acre-
feet (as compared to the 27 million acre-feet capacity of Lakes Powell
and Mead on the Colorado River).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CLIMATE CHANGE 2050: IMPACTS ON RUNOFF FROM THE SALT AND VERDE
RIVER SYSTEMS. PRESENTATION TO THE FAMILY FARM ALLIANCE ANNUAL
CONFERENCE, February 22, 2007, Dr. Robert C. Balling, Jr., School of
Geographical Sciences, Arizona State Uuniversity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
California
A report released in 2006 by the State of California\2\ predicts
that climate change will result in a drastic drop in the state's
drinking and farm water supplies, as well as more frequent winter
flooding. The report suggests that warmer temperatures will raise the
snow level in California mountains, producing a smaller snowpack and
more winter runoff. This means more floodwaters to manage in winter,
followed by less snowmelt to store behind dams for cities, agriculture,
and fish. By the year 2050, the statewide snowpack would shrink by 5
million acre-feet less water, more than the total capacity of Lake
Shasta, the state's largest reservoir.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ OUR CHANGING CLIMATE-ASSESSING THE RISKS TO CALIFORNIA, A
summary biennial report from the California Climate Change Center,
2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By 2050, the State study predicts that average snowpack in the
Sierra Nevadas is likely to diminish by more than a third, and more
precipitation will fall as rain rather than as snow, making it harder
for reservoirs to capture for the long summer the same amount of water.
The dwindling snowpack could reduce deliveries of Sierra supplies to
Central Valley farmers by 10%.
According to another recent study developed by the University of
California\3\, agricultural water users in the Central Valley are also
the most vulnerable to climate warming. For the driest climate warming
scenario assessed, the predicted hydrology would reduce agricultural
water deliveries by about a third. For that dry scenario, the study
speculates that, while financial losses to the agricultural community
would be compensated by water sales to urban areas, much of this loss
would likely result in an uncompensated structural change in the
agricultural sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ CLIMATE WARMING AND WATER MANAGEMENT ADAPTATION FOR CALIFORNIA,
Stacy K. Tanaka et al, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics,
University of California, Davis 95616.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado River Basin
A February 2007 report by a National Research Council (NRC)
committee\4\ says agriculture is the likeliest target for shifting use
to urban needs in the fast growing West. But it cautions that ``the
availability of agricultural water is finite.'' It adds that rising
population and water demands ``will inevitably result in increasingly
costly, controversial and unavoidable trade-off choices'' in managing a
shrinking resource. Future droughts may be longer and more severe
because of a regional warming trend that shows no signs of dissipating,
the NRC report notes. It also states that a preponderance of evidence
suggests that rising temperatures will reduce the river's flow and
water supplies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ COLORADO RIVER BASIN WATER MANAGEMENT: EVALUATING AND ADJUSTING
TO HYDROCLIMATIC VARIABILITY, National Research Council, Division on
Earth and Life Studies, Water Science and Technology Board, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee also looked at how a steadily rising population and
related increases in water demand will affect Colorado River water
management. The population across the western United States has grown
rapidly. Despite some successful water conservation efforts, urban
water use in the region has increased significantly along with the
expanding population. Increasing urban water demands are often met
through sales, leases, or transfers of water rights from farm users.
Water transfer agreements will be limited in their ability to satisfy
growing, long-term demand, according to the NRC committee, and such
agreements may also cause problems for third parties, such as
downstream farmers or ecosystems. Technology and conservation measures
are useful and necessary for stretching existing water supplies, the
committee acknowledged, but any gains in water supply will be
eventually absorbed by the growing population.
Pacific Northwest
Last April, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released
a report\5\ that predicts climate-change related impacts to water
resources in the Pacific Northwest. Similar to predictions made in
other parts of the West, dwindling mountain snowpack is expected to
make summer water scarce especially east of the Cascades, where
agriculture is a strong component of rural communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ CLIMATE CHANGE 2007: IMPACTS, ADAPTATION AND VULNERABILITY,
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE, World Meteorological
Organization and the United Nations Environment Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snowpack in the Cascade Range holds two-thirds of the region's
stored water. As it melts during the dry summer months, it fills
rivers, generates hydropower, and helps meet the water needs of
irrigation, fish, recreation and growing urban areas. However, Cascade
snowpack has diminished in the past 50 years and is expected to further
shrink. Projected warmer winter temperatures will cause snowpack to
melt earlier in the spring, which could exacerbate both spring-time
flooding and late-summer drought conditions. This prediction does not
bode well for irrigation-dependent eastern portions of Oregon and
Washington.
Utah
A 2003 study directed by Congress and led by Utah State University
professor Frederick Wagner\6\ lays out a variety of possibilities if
temperatures increase from nearly 4 to 6 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.
The potential scenarios range from increased precipitation (with
decreased snowpack and greater downstream flood risks) to decreased
precipitation (desertification and a decline in water resources). In
all scenarios, water management changes would be required, and the
worst-case scenario would likely trigger water transfers from
agriculture to urban areas, which would contribute to a sharp decline
of farming and ranching. Water resources experts in Utah also realize
that new surface water storage projects may be necessary to capture
more snowmelt or more water from other sourcesg.\7\ The Southern Nevada
Water Authority--which has essentially used up its share of Colorado
River water--is already planning to take groundwater out of aquifers
under the Utah-Nevada state line and pipe it to Las Vegas. Ranchers in
this area are fighting this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Professor emeritus of the Department of Forest, Range and
Wildlife Science at Utah State University.
\7\ Professor Jack Schmidt, Utah State University, Dept. of
Aquatic, Watershed, and Earth Resources, quoted in ``Global Warming:
What about water?'', Salt Lake City Tribune, October 30, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
summary of anticipated impacts to agricultural water users
The Western Governors' Association (WGA) recently testified\8\ in
support of a bill that would reorient and fully fund the U.S. Global
Change Research Program to make it more user-driven. The WGA testimony
mirrors many of the common themes and findings developed in the reports
identified above. WGA found that we can expect to see the following
general effects and impacts caused by warming future temperatures in
the Western U.S.:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Testimony before the . . . Western States Governors Association
. . .
<bullet> Smaller snow packs and earlier snowmelt will affect
reservoir storage and demand for water and impact productivity
and value of hydroelectric generation;
<bullet> More rain than snow is likely, with uncertain projected
impacts to overall precipitation amounts in specific areas;
<bullet> Extreme flood events could be more common and larger.
<bullet> Droughts and higher temperatures would be more intense,
frequent and last longer, which would increase stream and
reservoir evaporation, diminish surface water supplies, and
stress groundwater supplies and water quality.
Despite the highly variable and uncertain nature inherent with
climate change predictions, it can safely be concluded that, in the
West, with a warming climate, there will be less water stored in our
biggest reservoir . . . the snow pack. More water in the form of
rainfall and runoff will come at farmers and ranchers sooner in the
season, when it may not be useful and may even present a threat.
what are irrigators, water agencies and businesses doing to address
climate impacts?
While a great deal of scientific inquiry and public discourse has
been focused on climate change and its possible consequences for the
planet's future, Western irrigators and irrigation districts are
concerned about the problems threatening their water supplies today--
drought and urban population growth. Event without climate change,
these factors present an immediate crisis for agricultural water users
in the West. If the effects of climate change are anything like those
outlined in the research discussed here today, Western irrigated
agriculture could be largely eliminated. This is, of course, worrisome
to farmers and ranchers and their communities. It ought to be of great
concern to nation as a whole because climate change may result in a
disruption of food production worldwide. If that is what is in store
for us, then this country cannot afford to lose the food production
capacity of Western irrigated agriculture.
The response of irrigators and water agencies to current water
supply challenges can provide some insight into the possible measures
that might be taken to cope with long-term water supply reductions
resulting from climate change.
drought response
Much of the West is currently in drought or facing reduced water
supplies as a result of environmental regulation. In response, farmers
and water agencies are taking creative measures to conserve water and
increase the efficiency of irrigation. Here are a few examples.
<bullet> In the San Joaquin Valley of California, state-of-the-art
drip irrigation systems water some of the most productive
farmland in the world.
<bullet> Further north, in the Sacramento Valley, producers and local
governments are working to develop a regional water management
program that will help address not only water quantity
challenges, but also water quality and environmental issues.
Those same growers 15 years ago were key players in a state-
managed drought water bank that temporarily transferred local
water to southern California to meet other statewide needs.
<bullet> In Idaho, water users are working with state and federal
agencies and the Nez Perce Tribe to settle longstanding
disputes and create more certain water supplies.
<bullet> Along the Columbia River, irrigators are developing water
exchange programs to increase supply reliability while
improving salmon habitat.
pressures of urban population growth
The West is the most rapidly growing part of the United States.
Yet, water supplies there are essentially static. In some areas, urban
demand for water--and land--is straining agriculture and rural
communities to the breaking point. New environmental water demands
imposed by regulatory agencies or courts also first look to
agriculture. This is happening in every state, but farmers and ranchers
point to some striking examples:
<bullet> A report released last year by Environment Colorado found
that, from 1987-2002, Colorado lost an average of 460 acres per
day of ag land. The report predicts 3.1 million more acres will
be lost to development by 2022.
<bullet> Arizona's massive Salt River Project (SRP) in a few years
will cease to provide water to agriculture in order to meet new
demands exerted by development.
<bullet> In Las Vegas, Nevada, over 70,000 new residents are moving
in every year, and urban water officials are looking to rural
areas to satisfy its growing thirst.
<bullet> A restoration agreement developed for the Platte River could
potentially dry up hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland
in Nebraska and Wyoming, in order to reallocate water to meet
the perceived needs of imperiled fish and wildlife.
<bullet> The California Department of Conservation indicates that
more than 1 million acres of farmland in the state was
converted between 1988 and 1998. Last year, California's
population officially topped 37 million, a growth rate of 1.4
percent, representing 500,000 new residents in the last fiscal
year.
Farmers, ranchers and rural communities cannot solve the water
supply problem created by the Western population boom. Nor can they be
expected to sacrifice their livelihoods for the ``greater good'' of
golf courses, strip malls and housing developments.
Farmland is disappearing at a time when the U.S. needs a stable
domestic food supply (just as it needs a stable energy supply). We are
concerned that this critical issue--which becomes even more serious
when viewed in the context of projected climate-change impacts to water
supplies--is being overlooked by our national leaders.
A reliable, safe and sustainable domestic food supply is just as
important as a strong military to the protection of our national
interests. The post 9/11 world of terrorist threats makes the stability
of domestic food supply even more pressing.
what are western irrigators doing to reduce greenhouse gases?
Western farmers and ranchers are already taking actions to reduce
greenhouse gases and other possible contributors to climate change.
Some of these actions are undertaken consciously with this objective in
mind; others have been implemented as part of the broad portfolio of
actions that successful farmers have to take to stay profitable in
today's economic and regulatory climate. In virtually every Western
state, there are examples of activities that agricultural producers are
taking that have an overall effect of reducing carbon dioxide
emissions, which many policy makers believe are a primary contributor
to global warming. These actions include:
<bullet> Use of cleaner and more efficient diesel engines;
<bullet> Reduction of energy needs on farms;
<bullet> Use of biodiesel;
<bullet> Low-till practices;
<bullet> Involvement in conservation programs, which provide
incentives to set aside thousands of acres of farmland for
wildlife habitat;
<bullet> Selling carbon credits to industries for approved management
actions.
Probably most obviously, and most importantly, crops turn carbon
dioxide into oxygen. Further, new research suggests that irrigation has
kept croplands cool, countering to some extent the rising temperatures
caused by greenhouse gas emissions over the last half century.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Kueppers, L. M., M. A. Snyder, and L. C. Sloan (2007),
IRRIGATION COOLING EFFECT: REGIONAL CLIMATE FORCING BY LAND-USE CHANGE,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L03703, doi:10.1029/2006GL028679.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
recommended strategies to address potential impacts
Western water supplies are already inadequate to the demands of
agriculture, urban growth and environmental enhancement. Global climate
change, we're told, will further reduce those supplies.
So how will we meet the ever-increasing demand for water in the
West in an era when there will be an ever-decreasing supply? Improved
conservation and efficiency by urban and agricultural water users is
certainly part of the solution, but only part.
1. Implement a Balanced Suite of Conservation and Supply Enhancement
Actions
We believe that it is possible to meet the needs of cities and the
environment in a changing climate without sacrificing Western irrigated
agriculture. To achieve that goal, we must expand the water supply in
the West. There must be more water stored and available to farms and
cities. Maintaining the status quo simply isn't sustainable in the face
of unstoppable population growth, diminishing snow pack, increased
water consumption to support domestic energy, and increased
environmental demands.
It is simply ludicrous to believe that conservation alone will
supply enough water for the tens of millions of new residents expected
to arrive in Western cities during the coming decades. Farmers and
ranchers understand that conserved water cannot realistically be
applied to instream uses, as it will more likely be put to beneficial
use by the next downstream appropriator or held in carryover storage
for the following irrigation season.
Many water projects are ready and waiting to be developed in the
West\10\. While conservation and recycling programs have done a
tremendous job of meeting new growth, still, only a small amount of new
water has been developed in the past 30 years. We cannot continue to
``conserve just a little more'' forever. It's time to start developing
and implementing the water infrastructure needed to cope with a
changing climate, meet the needs of a burgeoning population, and
support a healthy agricultural base in the West.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ WESTERN WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT DATABASE, Family Farm
Alliance, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Streamline the Regulatory Process to Facilitate Development of New
Infrastructure
Modern, integrated water storage and distribution systems can
provide tremendous physical and economic flexibility to address climate
transformation and population growth. However, this flexibility is
limited by legal, regulatory, or other institutional constraints, which
can take longer to address than actually constructing the physical
infrastructure\11\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ CLIMATE WARMING AND WATER MANAGEMENT ADAPTATION FOR
CALIFORNIA, Stacy K. Tanaka et al, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Department of Agricultural and Resource
Economics, University of California, Davis 95616.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The often slow and cumbersome federal regulatory process is a major
obstacle to realization of projects and actions that could enhance
Western water supplies. In addition, there exists with agencies a
defeatist attitude that no dams or water supply projects will be built.
So, there is no commitment to earnestly begin and engage the difficult
problems described above. The Family Farm Alliance wants to work with
Congress, federal agencies and other interested parties to build a
consensus for improving the regulatory process.
3. Prioritize Research Needs
Our country has tremendous, but limited, resources available to fix
our problems, so we must prioritize. One priority research items should
be a comprehensive validation of West-wide changes in climate change-
driven streamflow. This should be followed by quantification of the
amount of additional reservoir storage, conservation targets, etc
required to re-regulate this change in hydrology. This would quickly
illustrate to policy makers the need to start modernizing our water
infrastructure. This assessment should be accompanied by a
comprehensive study of the collective impacts of agricultural land and
water changes in western states over the last 10 years, as well as
predicted trends. A study of this sort may provide the type of hard
findings that may help wake up policy makers on the ``big picture''
ramifications of this issue.
conclusion
Climate change could further strain fresh water supplies in the
American West. We must begin to plan for that now, and not wait until
we are forced to make decisions during a crisis. Relying on agriculture
to be a ``shock absorber'' to soften or eliminate the impending water
shortage is not planning. It is a choice to put our heads in the sand
and hope for the best. It is a decision that could worsen the overall
impact of climate change on our nation's economy and security.
Millions of acres of barren land have been transformed into the
most efficient and productive agricultural system in the world. About 5
percent of the land area of the West is irrigated, and the Bureau of
Reclamation provides water to about one-fifth of that acreage. All of
this has been done for a total federal investment of $11 billion. A
1998 study found that the economy of the United States receives a
greater than 100% return each year on this investment\12\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ That report and associated data was produced by Darryll Olsen,
Ph.D. of the Pacific Northwest Project in Kennewick, Washington and
Houshmand Ziari, Ph.D. of IRZ Consulting in Hermiston Oregon. The
report was prepared for the Family Farm Alliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now is not the time to retreat from our investment. Now is the time
to enact sound policies that encourage continued investment in
irrigated agriculture. Allowing water-short cities to absorb farmers'
water supplies will significantly diminish domestic food production at
exactly the same time global warming is predicted to severely adverse
impact food production worldwide.
The U.S. recently became a net importer of food. The U.S., which
once fed much of the world, now imports more food than it exports. Food
production, like so many of our industries and services, is moving off
shore, and a large part of our security is moving with it.
Europeans aggressively protect their farms and food production
capability because they still remember the hungry years during and
after World War II when they relied on other nations, America in
particular, to feed them. The time has come--indeed, it's long
overdue--for the United States to similarly adopt an overriding
national goal of remaining self-sufficient in food production. Policy
decisions on a wide range of issues ranging from taxation to the
management of natural resources should then be evaluated to be sure
they are consistent with that goal. It's hard to imagine a simpler or
more important step to safeguard the American public.
Thank you.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you again, Mr. O'Toole, for being
here.
Mr. Brick.
STATEMENT OF TIM F. BRICK, CHAIRMAN, METROPOLITAN WATER
DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,
LOS ANGELES, CA
Mr. Brick. Madam Chair and distinguished Senators. I too
would like to begin by expressing my deepest sympathy to the
family and friends of the late Senator Thomas. He was a great
friend of western water and we will miss him.
I'm Tim Brick, the Chairman of the Board of the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. For about
80 years we've been supplying water to a population that is now
18 million people through the coastal plain of southern
California. Our two main sources of supply have been the
Colorado River and the California State Water Project from
northern California.
I'd like to say that I guess my main message really is that
in order to meet our reliability goals we've had to start
changing and transforming the way that we approach water
planning and to emphasize a diversification of supply and
resources. A lot of the lessons for this we really learned from
the drought that occurred in the late 80's and early 90's,
which hit our region very hard.
But the current situation in southern California is that we
are in the driest year on record. Los Angeles, which typically
has 15 percent--15 inches average rainfall, this year has 3.2
inches of average rainfall. In the 9 most recent years, it has
fallen to 11 inches, which is 27 percent below normal, and that
included one of the highest rainfall years on record as well.
My community of Pasadena 3 years ago had 58 inches of rainfall.
This year it had 3.5 inches of rainfall.
This pattern throughout the West is largely typical of the
West, in which we're experiencing record low precipitation and
runoff. This is the first time in Metropolitan's history in
which critical dry conditions exist locally and on all of our
supply watersheds.
You've heard estimates of great concern with regard to the
long-term adequacy of supplies on the Colorado River and
estimates that it's likely that runoff will decline in the near
future from 10 to 15 percent, and some would even say
substantially more. On our State Water Project entitlement and
supply, there has been some extensive study by the government,
by the State Government, to look at the key issues with regard
to runoff, water quality, and extreme weather conditions
related to the State Water Project, with some very disturbing
kinds of conclusions.
Our response really has been to move toward a
diversification of supplies and the development of a buffer
beyond even that basic goals that we set for future supply. It
includes storage, both surface storage and groundwater storage.
We've spent more than $450 million in recent years on
groundwater storage and more than $2 billion on surface
storage.
It includes a very substantial commitment to conservation
and increased conservation programs, even including trying to
change how southern Californians view landscaping and
developing a California-friendly landscaping program which
emphasizes natives and appropriate vegetation. We made a major
investment in recycling and groundwater recovery as well, with
85 programs that we've spent $215 million on that now supply
about 128,000 acre-feet of supply per year. That's about enough
water for 600,000 people.
We also now manage imports for ecosystem health and
competing needs, shifting the timing of deliveries to wetter
years or wetter periods when there's less impact on fish and
the environment. It's important to know that that's
particularly important because the effects of climate change
are going to create great stress on the ecosystems and the
watersheds that supply southern California and the rest of the
West.
In the next year there's going to be some critical
decisions made that we need Federal help and support on. The
first is with regard to the basin State recommendations to the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation on how to manage shortage on the
Colorado River Basin. The second is with regard to the
Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta System. Key decisions need
to be made and the basic message that we would offer is that we
cannot afford to wait. We need to partner with the scientific
community, implement no-regrets actions, undertake aggressive
conservation steps, and we need imperative decisions regarding
the California Bay Delta System and the Colorado River Basin
States Initiative.
Metropolitan stands ready to work cooperatively and
collaboratively with you and with the Federal agencies you
oversee. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brick follows:]
Prepared Statement of Timothy F. Brick, Chairman, Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Chairman Bingaman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
this opportunity to testify regarding the impacts of climate change on
water supply and availability in the U.S. My name is Timothy Brick, and
I am the Chairman of the Board of the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California.
For more than 75 years Metropolitan Water District has provided
imported water to the Southern California region from the Colorado
River and the State Water Project originating in Northern California.
Our mission has been to be the wholesale provider of high quality,
reliable drinking water supplies primarily for municipal and industrial
use. In recent decades, we have begun to diversify our resources and
commit to contingency planning in order to live up to our mission.
Metropolitan Water District is the nation's largest provider of
imported water to an urban area. The population today in our service
area is more than 18 million, and it is projected to rise to 22 million
by 2030. Metropolitan is comprised of 26 member public agencies that
service an area spanning 5,200 square miles and six southern California
counties.
climate change
Metropolitan's latest challenge is one shared by not only the water
community, but also the global community as a whole. California's
history shows us that change in climate and weather, both natural and
human-induced, are inevitable.
This climate change will have a dramatic impact on water supplies
and demands and will necessitate a strong ethic of water use efficiency
in our communities as well as the aggressive development of innovative,
alternative water supplies to meet growing water needs.
Southern California is currently experiencing its driest year on
record. Since July 1st 2006, Los Angeles has received only 3.21 inches
of rainfall as compared to the normal of 15 inches per year. This year
seems to be a continuation of a critically dry weather trend. In the
most recent nine years, Los Angeles has averaged only eleven inches per
year, 27% below normal.
On a larger scale, most of the western United States is
experiencing record low precipitation and runoff. For the first time in
Metropolitan's history, there are critical dry weather conditions
occurring concurrently in our service area of Southern California as
well as in the watersheds for our Colorado River and State Water
Project water supplies. These regional climate trends are shown in the
recent drought outlooks provided by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
colorado river water supplies
A report released by the National Research Council in February 2007
looked at past climate and streamflow conditions in the Colorado River
and raised concerns regarding the long-term adequacy of Colorado River
water supplies.
The western United States, particularly the region that depends on
Colorado River supplies, has been experiencing drought conditions since
the late 1990s. Years 2002 and 2004 are among the 10 driest years on
record in the upper basin states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and
Wyoming. Correspondingly, water storage in the basin's reservoirs has
dropped sharply and now is at the lowest level since their initial
fillings many decades ago.
It is now known that water allocations between the upper and lower
Colorado River basin, as governed by the Colorado River Compact of
1922, were based on a short record of relatively high annual flows of
15 million acre-feet annually on the Colorado River. Recent patterns as
well as reconstructed river flows based on tree-ring data dating back
several centuries indicate that the past water management decisions on
river water allocations and use may be overly optimistic of future
water availability as annual flow could be 10 to 15 percent less than
the 1922 estimate. Some experts would say even more.
Temperature records across the Colorado River basin and the western
United States document a warming trend over the past century. Most
recent climate model projections suggest that temperature across the
region will continue to rise in the foreseeable future. Higher
temperatures will result in less snowfall, increased evaporation
losses, and shifting of snowmelt to earlier in any given year. The
preponderance of scientific evidence suggests reduced Colorado River
streamflow and water supplies, as well as increasing severity,
frequency, and duration of future droughts.
In addition, the western United States is experiencing rapid
population growth, further increasing the pressure for Colorado River
water supplies. For example, population grew 66% in Nevada, 40% in
Arizona, and 30% in Colorado from 1990 to 2000; these three states
ranked number 1, 2, and 3 in terms of highest percentage population
growth during the last Census.
Better understanding of past climate and streamflow conditions of
the Colorado River, rapid population growth and increasing water
demands in the region, an apparent climate warming, and warnings from
many climate model simulations have cast great uncertainty in the
reliability of future Colorado River supplies to southern California
and the Southwest.
california state water project
Last year the California State Department of Water Resources
released a report titled ``Progress on Incorporating Climate Change
into Management of California's Water Resources.'' The report was
prepared in response to Governor Schwarzenegger's Executive Order S-3-
05 establishing California greenhouse gas emissions targets.
This report utilized four climate scenarios from two global climate
models and downscaled potential ranges of change to the State Water
Project watershed to analyze potential impacts. While the report does
not represent a comprehensive assessment of the climate change impact,
it does reveal at least three major potential impacts that constitute
growing concerns for water managers.
Runoff
The first concern is related to the timing of snowmelt runoff.
Studies suggest that warmer temperatures during the past half-century
have brought significant changes in the seasonal timing of runoff.
Smaller spring snow packs are a very real possibility and earlier
melting of these natural reservoirs. When warmer temperatures in the
winter translates into more rain and/or less snow in our Sierra Nevada
mountains, it will severely lessen the ability to store water for peak
summer water needs, avoid costly flooding, and otherwise manage fresh
water--an increasingly scarce resource.
Water Quality
Water quality is also a concern linked to climate change. A higher
sea level would likely bring increased salinity levels intruding on the
freshwater system that is already vulnerable to salt water intrusion,
and could further jeopardize levee stability, possibly leading to
larger and more frequent failures like one that happened last year.
Long periods of dry weather can also bring water quality challenges as
contaminants typically accumulate on land surfaces. When the rain
returns, it carries these contaminants in the runoff, making water
treatment more difficult.
Extreme Weather Conditions
The third concern is linked to the possibility of extreme weather
events that change the frequency of storm and drought conditions.
Extreme weather conditions bring about many challenges, water quality
being only one. Storage becomes another challenge as managers are
caught in a tradeoff between storing water for future dry periods and
lowering reservoirs before the onset of a flood season to protect
downstream communities.
Climate change impacts further accentuate the variability and
uncertainties surrounding water supplies from the State Water Project
system.
metropolitan's policy on climate change
In March 2002, our board adopted policy principles on global
climate change as related to water resource planning. The principles
stated in part that ``Metropolitan supports further research into the
potential water resource and quality effects of global climate change,
and supports flexible ``no regret'' solutions that provide water supply
and quality benefits while increasing the ability to manage future
climate change impacts.''
metropolitan's response
The policy principles are reflected in Metropolitan's Integrated
Resource Plan (IRP). Metropolitan and its member agencies have
developed an IRP water resource portfolio that emphasizes
diversification and adaptability of supply sources to manage current
and future uncertainty. The IRP has also placed an increasing emphasis
on local supplies such as conservation, water recycling and groundwater
recharge.
Metropolitan built a new storage reservoir in the late 1990's in
order to store water when it is plentiful during wet years for use in
dry periods. In addition, Metropolitan is completing a large project
called the Inland Feeder that will also expand our ability to obtain
water from the Colorado River and State Water Project when it is
available and to provide greater system reliability and flexibility.
Metropolitan has also forged many agreements in the past few years
to store water in groundwater basins within and outside of southern
California. Our cumulative investment in groundwater storage through
2006 was more than $400 million for groundwater storage augmented by
$45 million of state grants.
Metropolitan also recognizes that importing water requires a large
amount of energy. For example, importing an acre-foot of water via the
State Water Project requires 3,200 kwh, and an acre-foot of Colorado
River supplies requires 2,000 kwh. The IRP places increased emphasis on
less energy consuming local water resources.
The greatest concentration of effort and resources in recent years
has been in the area of conservation. Metropolitan has made a
cumulative investment of $251 million in conservation. Metropolitan has
long been an advocate and supporter of water conservation providing
financial incentives to member agencies to grow conservation programs
in their service areas through a variety of programs and rebates.
Conservation has occurred in both residential and business sectors with
Metropolitan offering guidance and financial incentives to use more
water-efficient technologies. The most recent push has been in the area
of outdoor conservation. Our California Friendly program is an
umbrella for many different programs that promote waterwise lifestyle
choices.
Today, the California Friendly umbrella extends over a wide area of
Metropolitan-sponsored programs that include retail partnerships to
encourage of native and California Friendly plants in the product mix
of large home improvement stores; a bewaterwise.com Web site that hosts
as many as 3,000 visitors a day; and a landscape rebate program for new
homes and a model home program with incentives for new home builders to
install more efficient water saving devices in their model homes.
In recent years, Metropolitan has helped to bring about more than
85 water recycling and groundwater recovery programs by providing
financial incentives to member agencies. Metropolitan has invested
about $215 million through 2006 into these projects, which produce
128,000 acre-feet per year, equivalent to the water needs of over
600,000 people.
Metropolitan's diverse water resource portfolio continues to
include imported supplies from the Colorado River and California State
Water Project. To better manage the water systems for ecosystem health
and competing needs, Metropolitan has shifted the timing of deliveries
from these sources to wetter years or wetter periods when there is less
impact on the fisheries and environment. To further efforts towards
proper management of these supplies, Metropolitan has been
participating with the other Colorado River basin states to provide
recommendations to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation on how the river
system should be managed. Similarly, Metropolitan is a participant with
other interests within the State of California on improvements to the
Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta system, which is the hub of water
deliveries for the State Water Project. The goal is to more effectively
manage water supply, water quality, and environmental needs. Both the
efforts on the Colorado River system as well as the State Water Project
Delta system will face critical decisions in the coming year.
conclusion
The great challenges presented by the uncertain effects of climate
change and increasing demands on the scarce freshwater supply mean we
cannot afford to wait. Metropolitan, and the water community as a
whole, needs to partner with the scientific community to conduct
further research in assessing risks and integrating them into water
management decisions. Metropolitan will continue to implement ``no
regrets'' actions that incorporate climate change into our planning and
investments in infrastructure, energy management and water supply
development. Importantly, aggressive conservation and water use
efficiencies must be practiced within California's communities and
businesses to use our limited water supplies wisely and to protect the
environment and ecosystems that will be stressed by climate change.
To support Metropolitan's continued supply diversity, and better
adapt to climate change and other impacts, it is imperative that
decisions regarding the Delta's ecosystem, levee and other
infrastructure improvements. In addition, the Colorado River basin
states initiatives and water management programs must be implemented to
assure proper management of Colorado River resources during this
extended drought.
Finally we need greater collaboration and partnerships with
governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, and other
entities to implement solutions that provide benefits in multiple areas
such as water quality and quantity, ecosystem health, and reduced
energy usage. The federal government should play a key role in
addressing uncertainty with regard to climate change by being a direct
participant in the State of California's efforts on the Delta, Colorado
River, and local water management. Metropolitan stands ready to work
cooperatively and collaboratively with you and the federal agencies
that you oversee.
Senator Cantwell. Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Brick.
Mr. Williams.
STATEMENT OF JACK WILLIAMS, SENIOR SCIENTIST, TROUT UNLIMITED,
ARLINGTON, VA
Mr. Williams. Yes. Madam Chairman, members of the
committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today to provide Trout Unlimited's perspective on the impacts
of climate change on our Nation's water supply and related
impacts to salmon and trout populations.
My name is Jack Williams. I'm the Senior Scientist at TU.
Trout Unlimited is the Nation's largest cold water fisheries
conservation organization dedicated to the protection and
restoration of our Nation's trout and salmon and the watersheds
that sustain them.
Trout Unlimited is very concerned about the impacts of
climate change on our water and fisheries resources. During the
past 2 years we have modeled the impacts of climate change on
coldwater fisheries and developed a set of strategies that, if
implemented, will build resistance to climate change impacts
and help maintain our Nation's important salmon and trout
resources.
I have four main points that I would like to make this
afternoon. These points are described in detail in my written
testimony and are as follows:
First, climate change will have a major negative impact on
trout, salmon, and the stream systems that support them.
Second, despite these concerns, we believe there are
strategies that can be implemented now to build resistance to
climate change into our fish populations and river systems.
Third, these actions must strategically target populations
where we can achieve immediate and lasting impacts.
Finally, the long-term health of our rivers and watersheds
must have priority over any quick fixes.
Let me briefly elaborate. First, climate change will have a
major negative impact on trout and salmon and the river
systems. Most models predict salmon populations to decline by
20 to 40 percent by the year 2050 in the Pacific Northwest and
by larger amounts in California and Idaho. In some regions
trout populations will decline by more than 50 percent. Our
Nation's streams and rivers will be impacted by more
pollutants, lower flows, reduced snow packs, and a greater
likelihood of floods, drought, and wildfire. Erosion rates will
increase, as will polluted runoff from our cities and
agricultural areas.
The negative impacts of climate change are already upon us.
Two quick examples to that effect. One, off the coast of the
State I live in in Oregon we've had a dead zone that's appeared
off the coast every year since 2002 that appears to be caused
by changes in ocean currents that are in turn controlled by
weather patterns. In 2006, this dead zone covered an area the
size of Rhode Island.
Another sign. Because of warmer stream flows and earlier
runoff, May flies and other aquatic insects are emerging
earlier in Rocky Mountain streams. Earlier emergence of aquatic
insects means that females are smaller in body size and produce
fewer eggs than would insects that emerge later. Such changes
may seem minor, but they have cascading implications to fish
populations that depend on May flies, caddis flies, and other
aquatic insects as their primary foods.
This brings me to my second point. Despite these concerns,
we believe there are strategies that can be implemented now to
build resistance to climate change into our fish and river
populations. But unless immediate action is taken, stream
conditions will degrade and more of our native trout and salmon
may warrant the protection of the Endangered Species Act. Our
strategies can be summarized as the protect, reconnect, restore
model of fishery sustainability. This process emphasizes
protection of our best remaining habitats and populations,
reconnection of stream systems by removing in-stream barriers
and reestablishing in-stream flows, and restoration of main
stem river habitats.
In many ways the impacts of climate change will bring
additional stress to stream systems and watersheds that have
already been pushed to their ecological limits. We may not be
able to slow the immediate impacts of changing climate, but we
can identify and remove or mitigate existing sources of stress.
Watersheds that are in a healthy condition will be better able
to withstand the stresses of climate-imposed impacts and
rebound from floods and drought.
Third, as I mentioned, these actions must be
strategically--target populations where we can achieve
immediate and lasting impacts. We must plan and coordinate our
efforts to focus where we can get the most bang for our buck.
Last, the long-term health of our rivers and watersheds
must have priority over any quick fixes. We are highly
skeptical of any attempts to channelize streams or dam
headwaters in an effort to control flows on floods. Rather, we
advocate healthy streams and flood plains that are more able to
absorb the higher energies associated with floods and also more
likely to slowly release water and maintain flows to minimize
drought.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today and
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jack Williams, Senior Scientist, Trout Unlimited
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to provide Trout Unlimited's
perspective on the impacts of climate change on our nation's water
supply, related impacts to trout and salmon populations, as well as
strategies that we believe can be important in responding to the very
serious threat that climate change poses to these valuable resources.
Trout Unlimited (TU) is the nation's largest coldwater fisheries
conservation organization dedicated to the protection and restoration
of our nation's trout and salmon, and the watersheds that sustain them.
Our goal is to restore robust populations of native and wild coldwater
fishes so that future generations can enjoy these resources. TU has
more than 160,000 members organized into 450 chapters across the
country. Our members generally are trout and salmon anglers who give
back to the resources they love by voluntarily contributing substantial
amounts of their personal time and energy to fisheries habitat
protection and restoration on public and private lands. The average TU
chapter donates 1,000 hours of volunteer time on an annual basis.
My name is Jack Williams and I serve as Senior Scientist for Trout
Unlimited. Prior to working for TU, I was privileged to serve in a
number of research and management positions in the federal government,
including Endangered Species Specialist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, National Fisheries Program Manager for the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), Science Advisor to the Director of the BLM, Deputy
Forest Supervisor on the Boise National Forest, and Forest Supervisor
on the Rogue River and Siskiyou national forests. I have also served as
a Professor at Southern Oregon University and retain the title of
Adjunct Professor at that institution.
Trout Unlimited is very concerned about the impacts of climate
change on our water and fisheries resources. During the past year, a
team of TU scientists and geographic information specialists have
modeled the impacts of climate change on coldwater fishes, reviewed
available scientific literature, and prepared articles on the impacts
of climate change for our members. In addition, TU has polled hunters
and anglers across the country to determine their level of interest and
concerns about how climate change is likely to impact their
recreational pursuits. Furthermore, we have developed a series of
strategies, that if implemented, we believe will substantially increase
the resistance and resilience to climate change impacts in our nation's
salmon and trout streams.
I would like to briefly describe the impacts from climate change on
our trout and salmon resources and their habitats and then proceed to
describe our strategies to increase resistance and resilience to these
impacts.
impacts to trout and salmon resources
There is a clear scientific consensus that climate change will have
major and negative implications to our nation's hydrology and river
systems. Numerous peer-reviewed studies have predicted broad declines
in trout and salmon populations as well. U.S. Forest Service scientists
have predicted that between 53 and 97% of wild trout populations are
likely to be eliminated from the Appalachian Mountains because of
warming climate. Losses of western trout populations may be as high as
64%. Most studies of Pacific Coast salmon predict losses of 20-40% by
the year 2050. The bad news about the salmon models is that they may
actually be optimistic predictions because they focus on freshwater
conditions and do not consider the complexity and uncertainty of
changing ocean environments.
Although some regions will fare better than others and the timing
and severity of impacts is somewhat uncertain, the overall need for
concern should be clear. Based on review of the relevant literature and
research, the following impacts from climate change are likely to
occur: increased stream temperatures, increased evaporation rates,
earlier spring runoff, reduced snowpack, higher winter flows and lower
summer flows in most streams, greater storm intensity and increased
frequency of floods, drought and wildfires, and rising sea levels.
Erosion rates will increase as will polluted runoff from our cities and
agricultural areas. One of the most significant bottom lines for
fisheries and other water users is that stream flows are likely to be
even lower during future summers than they have been in the past.
While some consequences of climate change are highly predictable
others are not. Beginning in 2002, a ``dead zone'' of very low
dissolved oxygen has appeared each year off the Oregon coast. Unlike
other oceanic dead zones, this one is not attributable to pollution or
other human impact that has been identified. Rather, it is caused by
changes in ocean currents and upwelling that is in turn, controlled by
weather patterns. In 2006, the dead zone covered 1,235 square miles, an
area the size of Rhode Island. According to Oregon State University
Professor Jane Lubchenco, ``we are beginning to think there has been
some sort of fundamental change in ocean conditions off the West
Coast.'' The changes appear consistent with wind patterns modified by
climate change.
The Oregon coast changes bring up another important concern:
climate change is not just a problem of the future, but is a growing
concern of the present. Our climate already is rapidly changing and we
currently are seeing impacts to our stream systems and aquatic
communities. For instance, because of warmer stream flows and earlier
peak runoff, mayflies and other aquatic insects are emerging earlier in
Rocky Mountain streams. Earlier emergence of aquatic insects means that
females are smaller in body size and produce fewer eggs than would
insects that emerge later. Such changes may seem minor but could have
cascading implications to fish populations that depend on mayflies,
caddisflies, stoneflies and other aquatic insects as their primary food
supplies.
At TU we have modeled impacts of climate change on Colorado River
cutthroat trout in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado; Bonneville cutthroat
trout in Idaho, Utah, Wyoming and Nevada; and westslope cutthroat trout
in Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington. In 5 of the 8 major river
drainages where Colorado River cutthroat trout occur, most populations
already are below adequate habitat thresholds and will be further
stressed by climate change impacts. The same situation is true for 2 of
4 geographic management areas of Bonneville cutthroat trout. Most
remaining populations of both subspecies are restricted to small,
headwater streams, which will feel the brunt of climate change impacts
due to declining snowpacks, drought and wildfire. Westslope cutthroat
trout fare somewhat better because of existing strongholds in National
Forest wilderness areas. Nonetheless, populations of westslope
cutthroat continue to be invaded by non-native rainbow trout that
hybridize with the cutthroat and eliminate the native gene pool.
Depending on the climate model used, most salmon populations in the
Pacific Northwest are expected to decline by 20 to 40% by the year
2050. In California, where temperatures already pose a significant
source of stress for fisheries, greater declines are likely.
Unless immediate action is taken to restore resistance and
resiliency to climate change impacts, stream conditions will degrade
and many more of our native trout and salmon may soon warrant the
protection of the Endangered Species Act. Let me outline what can be
done to alleviate at least some of the adverse impacts of climate
change on the nation's trout and salmon populations.
strategies to increase the resistance and resilience to climate change
impacts
Trout Unlimited works primarily to implement what we refer to as
the Protect-Reconnect-Restore model of fishery sustainability. This
process emphasizes protection of our best remaining habitats and
populations, reconnecting stream systems by removing instream barriers
and reestablishing flows, and restoring vital lower-elevation rivers. I
will describe six strategies for dealing with a rapidly changing
climate that fit this model. These strategies are consistent with the
best available science and have been proven to be effective in on-the-
ground application. Our primary goal in suggesting these strategies is
to increase the resistance to climate change impacts in our natural
systems and to enable fish populations and their habitats to rebound
more completely once they are disturbed by flood, drought and wildfire
that will accompany a warming environment.
Furthermore, it is important to realize that these actions must be
implemented strategically to achieve success. That is, for each
evolutionarily significant unit of salmon, or each large river basin
with trout, we need to identify the best subset of opportunities for
protection, reconnection, and restoration. We must carefully choose
those areas for restoration where we can make the most immediate and
lasting impact.
Strategy 1: Protect remaining core habitat areas.--It is vital that
remaining salmon and trout strongholds as well as watersheds that
produce reliable supplies of cold water be protected from additional
disturbance. Watersheds that currently support large and robust
populations of native fisheries should be protected from new dam and
road development. Simply stated, it is more biologically sound and cost
effective to protect existing population strongholds than attempt to
restore them once they have been disturbed.
Strategy 2: Maintain genetic and life history diversity.--Higher
levels of genetic diversity enable populations to better adapt to
future environmental change. For example, scientists at the University
of Washington have demonstrated that large numbers of separate spawning
populations of sockeye salmon in Alaska's Bristol Bay have been the key
to maintaining that robust fishery in the face of changing freshwater
and marine conditions. Under certain conditions, one set of stocks will
be favored and produce abundant offspring; when conditions shift, a
different group of populations will be favored. It is simply a matter
of maintaining all the genetic pieces to maximize adaptability.
Life history diversity also is critical. In western cutthroat
trout, for example, most populations are resident stream forms that are
restricted to single tributaries. But, restoring migratory populations
expands habitat options, produces bigger fish, and allows remaining
individuals more opportunities to find suitable habitats as stream
conditions and flows change.
Strategy 3: Increase size and extent of existing populations.--
Currently, many populations of native trout in the West have been
pushed into upper elevation streams as non-native species have been
introduced downstream. We know that at least 5 miles of continuous high
quality habitat are necessary to ensure the likelihood that each trout
population will persist for many generations. The populations already
are being squeezed from downstream reaches. Climate change will squeeze
them from upstream as snowpacks diminish and precipitation patterns
change. The options for these fish are to expand into remaining
downstream habitat or perish. But for downstream expansion to be
possible, non-native fishes must be removed and habitats restored.
Strategy 4: Minimize outside stressors.--In many ways, the impacts
of climate change will bring additional stress to stream systems and
watersheds that already have been pushed to their ecological limits. We
may not be able to slow the immediate impacts of a changing climate,
but we can identify and remove or mitigate existing sources of stress.
Too many roads, poorly constructed culverts, and poor livestock
practices are a few examples of existing stressors that can be fixed.
Watersheds that are in a healthy condition will be better able to
withstand the stress of climate-imposed impacts and rebound from
disturbances.
We know basic improvements in water quality, restoration of
riparian habitats, and restoration of stream channel complexity will
improve habitats and create refuges from warm water by forming deeper
and more shaded pools of cool water. This appears just as true for
small mountain streams in New Mexico or Montana as it does for larger
river systems in coastal areas of Oregon and Washington.
Strategy 5: Manage at watershed scales to reconnect stream
systems.--Many existing stream systems have been disconnected by
construction of dams, water diversions, and other dewatering processes.
We should identify and reconnect the hydrology in those areas that are
most likely to provide for long-term survival of trout and salmon. In
some cases, this may be as easy as replacing poorly designed culverts
with small bridges that allow upstream and downstream movement of fish
and spawning gravels.
Strategy 6: Monitor, evaluate and employ adaptive management.--As
noted earlier, our ecosystems are complex and some impacts of climate
change are difficult to predict with certainty. Therefore, it is
important to adequately fund monitoring programs and maintain the
ability to modify our management approach in the face of changing
conditions and new information. We must listen to what the land is
telling us as climate shifts.
conclusion
In conclusion, we find that climate change poses a serious and
imminent threat to our nation's water and stream resources and to the
trout and salmon populations they support. Further, we believe that the
impacts of a rapidly changing climate are already manifesting
themselves through changes in precipitation regimes and snowmelt
patterns, warmer weather and increasing drought, reduced snowpacks and
earlier stream runoff, reduced stream flows in the summer, and a
greater threat from disturbance processes such as drought, flood and
wildfire.
Despite these significant challenges posed by a rapidly changing
climate, we believe there are many reasonable and proven actions, such
as the strategies described herein, that can be taken immediately to
reduce the threats to our coldwater fishery resources. We strongly
believe that our actions must be based on the principles of
conservation biology and restoration ecology.
The long-term health of our rivers and watersheds must have
priority over any quick fixes. We are highly skeptical of any attempts
to channelize streams or dam headwaters in an effort to control flows
and floods. Rather, we advocate healthy streams and floodplains that
are more able to absorb higher energies associated with floods and also
are more likely to slowly release water and maintain flows during
summer and autumn.
Many of our existing trout and salmon face an increased risk of
extinction. It is important to make investments in protection and
restoration of our streams, riparian areas and watersheds during the
current and coming years while the debates and discussions concerning
our energy policies and carbon footprint move forward. By making such
basic investments in the health of our watersheds, we will insure the
persistence of our most valuable salmon and trout populations and buy
the time needed to deal with the larger problem of reducing our carbon
footprint.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I look
forward to answering any questions that you may have.
Supplemental Testimony
elements of a contingency plan to save coldwater fish communities from
the impacts of climate change
Background.--Climate change is predicted to have severe impacts to
stream systems and water supplies in the United States (see Philip W.
Mote, June 6, 2007 testimony and references therein). Populations of
trout and salmon are projected to decline accordingly with
corresponding impacts to recreational and commercial interests that
depend on these resources for their livelihood. Improving the condition
of habitats and expanding target populations can improve the likelihood
that important fisheries will persist in the face of additional stress
imposed from climate change. For example, recent studies on
Washington's Snohomish River Basin found that habitat restoration could
offset salmon declines predicted by all but the most dire climate
models (James Battin et al. 2007. Projected impacts of climate change
on salmon habitat restoration. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 104:6720-6725).
Goals of contingency plan.--1) to identify a representative sample
of stream and lake habitats throughout the United States that support
the best remaining coldwater fish communities, 2) to restore resistance
to climate change impacts to this representative sample through
ecological restoration, and 3) to protect these habitats from
additional stressors. This will maximize the likelihood that the
natural diversity of coldwater fishes will persist until such time that
site-specific impacts of climate change are more fully understood.
Steps in development of a contingency plan.--The initial step to
completing such a strategy is to identify watershed-scale
representatives of the best remaining habitats in each river basin
containing trout and salmon resources. This could be accomplished
through a broad-scale status tool such as Trout Unlimited's
Conservation Success Index (see http://tucsi.spatialdynamics.com).
Trout and salmon make appropriate surrogates for the broader aquatic
biodiversity because their habitat requirements are relatively well
known, they are sensitive to habitat disturbances and require cold and
clean water, and they are broadly distributed across the country. If
the trout and salmon are protected, it is likely that other native
components of the aquatic communities within these drainages will be
well protected.
The second step is to determine needed action to restore resilience
and resistance to climate change impacts in each selected system and
implement these measures. These actions would be based on ecologically
sound and proven strategies of stream restoration and population
expansion (see testimony of Jack E. Williams, June 6, 2007). These
actions include, among other actions, restoration of instream flows,
removing barriers to fish movement, and restoring life history
diversity in target sites.
The final step would be to provide interim protection to these
areas while additional research is conducted to revise and focus our
understanding of the local impacts of climate change on stream systems.
By minimizing outside stressors, these Combined range of Bonneville
cutthroat trout and Colorado River cutthroat habitats and their fish
trout in the western United States. Results of Conservation Success
Index communities would be analyses for these two species illustrate
how habitat and population integritymore likely to withstand can help
identify target populations in each major river basin. Subwatersheds
additional stress from with the highest total scores would be compared
with climate change models to find the best remaining populations that
should be least impacted by climate change impacts.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Culbertson, thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF TIM CULBERTSON, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL
HYDROPOWER ASSOCIATION, EPHRATA, WA
Mr. Culbertson. Madam Chairman, members of the
subcommittee, I'm Tim Culbertson, General Manager of Grant
County Public Utility District No. 2, located in the central
part of the State of Washington. I appear before you today to
testify on behalf of NHA, a nonprofit national association
dedicated exclusively to advancing the interests of the U.S.
hydropower industry, including new water power technologies,
ocean, tidal, and in-stream hydrokinetic power. Along with NHA,
I greatly appreciate the opportunity to speak to you on the
importance of recognizing the critical role hydropower plans to
help combat climate change, the potential effects to hydropower
resources resulting from climate change, and planning that is
under way, particularly in Washington State and the Pacific
Northwest, in preparation of these changes.
Grant County PUD is a consumer-owned utility in a rural,
predominantly agricultural section of the State. Grant PUD's
energy portfolio is diverse and expanding, which is consistent
with Grant PUD's focus on renewable energy, including
hydropower. Combined, Grant County PUD's two dams, Priest
Rapids and Wanapum on the Columbia River, have a rated capacity
of around 2,000 average megawatts. In a typical year, our
hydroelectric projects generate enough power to serve over
8,000 homes with clean, reliable, and affordable electricity.
That is enough to power the entire Seattle area.
This power is also a driving force not only for the
Washington State economy, but for the entire Pacific Northwest
region, as Grant PUD provides electricity at cost to 22 other
utilities throughout the Northwest, providing power to millions
of consumers in Washington, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Utah,
Wyoming, and California.
Senator Cantwell, members of the subcommittee, our message
to you today is simple. Congress needs to fully consider
hydropower and its many benefits as it debates and develops
climate change policy for the United States. Too often
hydropower is overlooked or taken for granted in these
discussions. This is unfortunate because hydropower is a clean,
renewable, and domestic resource and has a significant role to
play in combating climate change.
Not only is hydropower the largest source of renewable
power in the United States, but there is a tremendous growth
potential that remains untapped. A new report released by the
Electric Power Research Institute conservatively estimates the
potential increase in hydropower generation capacity at 23,000
megawatts by 2025. The overall resource potential based on
resource assessments conducted by the U.S. Department of
Energy, EPRI, and the industry is estimated to range from
85,000 to 95,000 megawatts. This represents a doubling of
hydropower's current contribution to the Nation's energy
supply.
However, the industry realizes that the benefits hydropower
brings to the table are threatened if climate change is left
unchecked. Changes in local conditions caused by reduced snow
pack, earlier spring runoff, and affected peak flows will
impact the timing, availability, and amount of water power for
generation. This will in turn create challenges in meeting the
country's increasing need for electricity, as well as have
significant consequences to downstream water uses such as
irrigation, recreation, fish migration, and water supply
resources.
These effects to all of these resources will have
significant economic impacts and affect consumers both
regionally and nationally. As a result, the hydropower industry
and others are beginning to examine these potential impacts and
have begun planning for them.
Grant PUD recognizes that as climate impacts to the
Nation's rivers unfolds steps will need to be taken to address
them. For its part, the PUD has begun to optimize its existing
water resources with installation of more efficient generating
equipment, with the utilization of advanced hydropower turbines
at Wanapum Dam. The PUD is currently in design for new turbines
and generators at Priest Rapids Dam for additional
efficiencies. Installing more efficient equipment will provide
more power with the same amount of water.
However, variability in the amount of water and timing of
the water from year to year is not unusual for the hydropower
industry. Grant County PUD participates in a coordination
agreement with Federal and non-Federal dam operators on the
Columbia and Snake River systems. In addition, long and short-
term water planning of the system is discussed with regional
operators as often as weekly throughout the runoff season.
In addition to Grant PUD's investment in equipment and
river coordination agreements, hydropower in general is an
excellent flexible resource. During drought or excess water
years, hydropower's built-in flexibility helps to address
changing water conditions and the many pressures on the system.
While there are several things that can be done to help plan
for the future impacts, hydropower's unique ability to adapt,
an attribute unmatched by other energy resources, again
highlights its role as part of the climate change solution.
Beyond the hydropower industry's efforts, all around the
country State, regional, and local initiatives are under way to
investigate the impacts of climate change. Washington State in
particular is taking aggressive steps to address climate
change. The Washington Climate Change Challenge, which has
engaged business, community, and environmental leaders over
this year, will culminate in specific recommendations both to
the Governor and the State legislature.
Washington is also working closely with other western
States, California, Oregon, New Mexico, and Arizona, and
together they have established the Western Regional Climate
Action Initiative to collaborate on identifying, evaluating,
and implementing ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
However, there is also an important role for the Federal
Government to play. NHA encourages the Congress not only to
work with the industry to develop a better understanding of
climate change impacts to the resource, but to provide the
policy support necessary to realize the industry's substantial
growth potential.
Senator Cantwell. Mr. Culbertson, we want to definitely
hear your recommendations, but could you summarize those?
Mr. Culbertson. Sure. Which ones?
Senator Cantwell. Whatever recommendations to the Federal
Government that you have.
Mr. Culbertson. One is to consider the benefits that
hydropower plays to the region and the fact that there is a
huge potential. There's an awful lot of talk about renewable
standards and I hope that the Federal Government adopts a
Federal standard. It would be helpful I think to all the States
to have some consistency.
But one of the roles I think the Federal Government can do
is understand that behind the renewables there needs to be some
other resource that stands behind these renewable resources to
firm them, because they're intermittent generation resources.
As we look at our requirements as a utility to operate control
areas and provide a reliable system, we have to have a resource
that we can count on for capacity. So we believe the resource
of choice to stand behind these other renewable resources is
hydrogeneration.
So I think considering hydrogeneration is a viable resource
not only in conjunction with renewable standards, but it also
serves well when we talk about climate change.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Culbertson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tim Culbertson, on behalf of the National
Hydropower Association, Ephrata, WA
introduction
Good afternoon, I am Tim Culbertson, General Manager of Grant
County Public Utility District No. 2 located in the central part of the
state of Washington. Grant County PUD is a long time member of the
National Hydropower Association (NHA)\1\ and I appear before you today
to testify on behalf of NHA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NHA is a non-profit national association dedicated exclusively
to advancing the interests of the U.S. hydropower industry, including
the new water power technologies--ocean, tidal and instream
hydrokinetic power. It seeks to secure hydropower's place as an
emissions-free, renewable and reliable energy source that serves
national environmental and energy policy objectives. Its membership
consists of more than 140 organizations including; public utilities,
investor owned utilities, independent power producers, equipment
manufacturers, environmental and engineering consultants and attorneys.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The association greatly appreciates this opportunity to speak to
you on the importance of recognizing the critical role hydropower plays
to help combat climate change; the potential affects to hydropower
resources resulting from climate change; and the planning that is
underway, particularly in Washington state and the Pacific Northwest,
in preparation for these changes.
Senator Cantwell, members of the Subcommittee, our message to you
today is simple--Congress needs to fully consider hydropower and its
many system benefits as it debates and develops climate change policy
for the U.S. Too often hydropower is overlooked or taken for granted in
these discussions. This is an unfortunate oversight because hydropower,
a clean and domestic resource, has a significant role to play to combat
climate change.
Not only is hydropower the largest source of renewable power in the
United States, but there is tremendous growth potential that remains
untapped. In fact, a new report released by the Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI) conservatively estimates the potential increase in
hydropower generation capacity at 23,000 Megawatts (MW) by 2025.\2\
This same study also acknowledges that 90,000 MW of hydropower remains
undeveloped. With the right government policies a significant portion
of this clean homegrown energy could be captured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Assessment of Waterpower Potential and Development Needs. EPRI,
Palo Alto, CA: 2007. 1014762.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the industry realizes that the benefits hydropower brings
to the table are threatened if climate change is left unchecked.
Changes in local conditions, such as the timing and availability of
water for power generation, will create challenges in meeting the
country's increasing need for electricity, as well as have significant
consequences to irrigation, recreation and water supply resources. All
of which will have a significant economic impact to this growing region
and affect consumers both regionally and nationally. As a result, the
hydropower industry and others are beginning to examine these potential
impacts and have begun planning for them.
In order to fully meet the challenges posed by the effects of
climate change, the industry requests that Congress partner with the
private sector to develop the needed strategies and responses. Federal
investment in new advanced hydropower technologies--through economic
incentives and research and development funding--is critical to assist
the industry in its planning and preparation for the impacts climate
change will impose on the resource. It is critical that we apply best
practices and technological advances to optimize water resources for
the benefit of all users. Smart use of policy, planning and technology
application is the best path forward.
background
Let me take a few moments to provide some information about Grant
County PUD; its hydropower resources; and the importance of those
resources to Washington state and the Pacific Northwest.
Grant County PUD is a consumer-owned utility, created in 1938 by a
popular vote of county residents who struggled for 20 years to receive
electricity. Grant County is a rural, predominantly agricultural
region. Electricity provided by Grant PUD supports the county's
important role in the agricultural sector of Washington state, which
accounts for a fifth of the state's annual gross product and employs
173,000 people--more than any other sector in the state.
Grant PUD's energy portfolio is diverse and expanding, which is
consistent with Grant PUD's focus on renewable energy, including
hydropower. Combined, Grant County PUD's two dams, Priest Rapids and
Wanapum on the Columbia River, have a rated capacity of around 2,000
average megawatts (actual generation varies depending on river flow and
other factors). In a typical year, 2005, our hydroelectric projects
generated enough power to serve over 800,000 homes with clean, reliable
and affordable electricity. That is enough to power the entire Seattle
area.
This power is also a driving force not only for the Washington
state economy, but for the entire Pacific Northwest region. Grant PUD
provides electricity at cost to 22 other utilities throughout the
Northwest, providing power to millions of consumers in Washington,
Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, and California. Combined, Grant
PUD's dams allow the Northwest to avoid 942,000 tons of carbon
emissions annually.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Natural gas combined-cycle turbines are the predominant backup
generation source in the Pacific Northwest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
impacts on hydropower resources and their effects
In 2004, hydropower made up approximately 7% of the electricity
generation in the United States. Focusing on the state of Washington,
hydropower represents 72% of its electricity generation. As such, the
state clearly understands that the potential impacts due to climate
change on hydropower resources will have a significant effect on its
economy, the lives of its residents, and the environment. As a result,
Washington has begun to closely examine those impacts and their
effects.
This year, Governor Christine Gregoire signed Executive Order 07-
02, which among other things, created the Washington Climate Change
Challenge, an initiative designed to consider the full range of
policies, strategies and specific steps the state of Washington should
take to prepare for the impact of global warming.
As part of the initiative, impacts to hydropower resources were
examined. Specifically, effects on mountain glaciers, snow pack and
peak flows were analyzed utilizing data summarized in a November 2006
report titled, ``Impacts of Climate Change on Washington's Economy.''
The report states that mountain glaciers in the North Cascades have
lost a significant percentage of their total volume since 1983; that
average mountain snow pack in the North Cascades, which is critical to
summer stream flows, has declined at a majority of mountain sites
studied causing spring runoff to occur earlier in the year; and
finally, that stream flows have been affected resulting in peak flows
occurring earlier in the year throughout the state, including the
Columbia River Basin.
These impacts are creating changes in the availability of water and
the timing and amount of flows. This increases the stress on the
hydropower system and affects power output, as well as poses challenges
and creates secondary effects on downstream uses such as fish
migration, recreation, irrigation, and water supply.
For hydropower, output may be affected as changes in water
management become necessary. Simulations of the power market by the
University of Washington indicate a possible revenue impact of 5
percent or less, which at today's rates totals $165 million per
year.For salmon and other fish, changes to peak river flows may affect
rearing, migration and spawning. Low flows in spring and summer could
result in warmer water, which holds less oxygen and can stress fish. In
addition, increased temperatures in summer streams may exceed the
tolerable limits for coldwater fish.
In the end, all the additional uses of the water--recreation,
irrigation, water supply--for which hydropower projects provide, will
be affected in one way or another by changes in the amount and timing
of flows.
For a hydropower system that is as highly regulated as that in the
state of Washington, the additional stress brought on by climate change
will exacerbate tensions between the competing water users and their
needs. The challenge we face is ensuring our current policies,
particularly regulatory frameworks, are flexible enough to withstand
the additional stress and result in the appropriate balance of these
competing needs.
planning for impacts
Grant County PUD recognizes that as climate impacts to the nation's
rivers unfold, steps will need to be taken to address them. For its
part, the PUD has begun to optimize its existing water resource with
the installation of more efficient generating equipment with the
utilization of the advanced hydropower turbine at Wanapum Dam. The PUD
is currently in design for new turbines and generators at Priest Rapids
Dam for additional efficiencies. Installing more efficient equipment
will provide more power with the same amount of water.
Variability in the amount of water and timing of the water from
year to year is not unusual for the hydropower industry. Grant County
PUD participates in a coordination agreement with federal and non-
federal dam operators on the Columbia and Snake Rivers. In addition,
long and short term water planning of the system is discussed with
regional operators as often as weekly throughout the runoff season.
In addition to Grant County PUD's investments in equipment and
river coordination agreements, hydropower, in general, is an excellent
adaptor. During drought or excess water years, hydropower's built-in
flexibility helps to address changing water conditions and the many
pressures on the system. While there are several things that can be
done to help plan for future impacts, the advantages contained in
hydropower's flexibility and ability to adapt once again highlight its
role as part of the climate change solution.
Beyond the hydropower industry's efforts, all around the country,
state, regional and local initiatives are underway to investigate the
impacts of climate change. From the work of the Northeast states
participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) to
California's passage of its greenhouse gas emissions bill, governments,
industries, and the public are actively engaged in climate change
planning and preparation.
As mentioned earlier, Washington state in particular, is taking
aggressive steps to address climate change. The Washington Climate
Change Challenge, which has engaged business, community and
environmental leaders over this year, will culminate in specific
recommendations to both the Governor and the state Legislature.
Currently, a Climate Advisory Team composed of about 30 leaders
from business, labor, and local jurisdictions, is hard at work
reviewing policies and potential strategies for slowing climate change.
They are working with Technical Working Groups to analyze impacts and
actions focusing on the agriculture, energy supply (including
hydropower), forestry, transportation, and residential, commercial and
industrial sectors.Washington is also working closely with other
western states--California, Oregon, New Mexico and Arizona--and
together they have established the Western Regional Climate Action
Initiative to collaborate on identifying, evaluating and implementing
ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The work underway, from that of individual utilities to regional
groups, is important in order for the hydropower industry to prepare
for climate change and other impacts on water--from regulation to
transportation, and from fish needs to irrigation needs. Coordination
of runoff planning for the many uses of water will be more difficult as
the predicted events of climate change unfold. Additional long term
planning for water storage and support for hydropower operations is
necessary to address the future uses of the hydropower system.
hydropower's role in combating climate change
Hydropower should be encouraged and supported to play an important
part in solving the climate problem. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions
will require the use of all of the climate-friendly technologies
currently available, as well as new technologies.
Hydropower provides significant benefits and potentially even
greater benefits in the future, if properly supported. Beyond the fact
that it is renewable, climate friendly, and domestic, hydropower offers
some advantages over other resource options.
Hydropower provides significant generation, peaking capacity, and
ancillary services to bolster the reliability, stability, and
resilience of the nation's transmission system. This includes frequency
control, regulation, load following, spinning reserve, supplemental
reserve and blackstart capability. The August 2003 blackout on the east
coast was a testament to these benefits, where hydropower projects in
New York and elsewhere remained online and were critical in restoring
power to the area.
In addition, as the U.S. significantly increases the amount of
renewable resources in its overall portfolio, hydropower offers one
other significant advantage. Hydropower is one of the few resources
suited to ``firming'' intermittent or non-dispatchable resources such
as wind. As the development of wind, solar and other intermittent
resources grows, as is widely expected, the need for ``firming''
resources will become even more important. Without these ``firming''
resources, the value of intermittent or non-dispatchable resources is
greatly reduced.
Today, hydropower accounts for approximately 77% of the actual
renewable electricity generation and 83% of the nation's renewable
energy capacity. As robust a resource as hydropower is today, there
remains tremendous growth potential for the industry. As stated
earlier, a new EPRI report finds the potential increase in generation
capacity at 23,000 MW by 2025. To put this in perspective, the total
installed generating capacity for wind is approximately 9000 MW.
The EPRI estimate includes: 2,300 MW capacity gains at existing
conventional hydropower (incremental hydropower); 5,000 MW of new
conventional hydropower at existing non-powered dams\4\; 2,700 MW of
new small and low power conventional hydropower (<30 MW installed
capacity); 10,000 MW from ocean wave energy; and 3,000 MW from
hydrokinetic technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Currently only 2 percent of U.S. dams have hydropower
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPRI report also states that these estimates could be
significantly increased if economic incentives and regulatory
processing for the industries are enhanced. The overall resource
potential, based on resource assessments conducted by the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE), EPRI, and industry is estimated to range
from 85,000 to 95,000 MW. This represents a doubling of hydropower's
current contribution to the nation's energy supply.
If the U.S. is serious about its response to the effects of climate
change, then federal support for the development of this untapped
potential is necessary.
Hydropower resources should be treated as fairly and equitably as
any other renewable energy resource under any proposed national
renewable portfolio standard, which should include incremental
hydropower, hydropower at existing non-powered dams and the new
hydropower technologies--ocean, tidal and instream hydrokinetic power.
Economic incentives, such as the Production Tax Credit and the
Clean Renewable Energy Bonds program should be extended long term,
fully funded, and expanded to include more resources such as additional
hydropower at non-powered dams and the new technologies. Credit parity,
so that all new renewable resources brought on-line receive the same
credit amount, should also be adopted.
To that end, NHA applauds Senator Cantwell for proposing 5.1370,
the Clean Energy Investment Assurance Act of 2007, and for her
continuing support of the hydropower resource. The bill, co-sponsored
by Senator Gordon Smith and Senator John Kerry, addresses these needed
changes to the PTC and CREBs programs, resulting in increased clean
renewable hydropower being brought online throughout the U.S.
Finally, the hydropower research and development program at the
Department of Energy should be reinstituted and expanded to include
initiatives for both the conventional industry and the ocean, tidal,
and hydrokinetic technologies. Advanced turbine designs for
conventional hydropower have shown promising first round results. Grant
County PUD utilized the DOE R&D program as a private-public partnership
in developing the advanced turbine now being deployed at Wanapum Dam.
Seeing the program to completion and supporting the necessary studies
for the development of the new technologies are crucial if these
advancements are to succeed and gain acceptance.
With the proper support outlined above, the hydropower industry
will be able to responsibly develop the identified growth potential,
thus significantly contributing to the climate change solution.
conclusion
Members of the Subcommittee, let me conclude with these final
thoughts. The hydropower industry must remain actively engaged in the
discussions on climate change. We have begun, along with state and
local partners, to undertake an examination of the issues; to review
policies to address them; and to take steps to mitigate potential
effects.
However, there is also an important role for the federal government
to play. NHA encourages the Congress not only to work with the industry
to develop a better understanding of climate change impacts to the
resource, but to provide the policy support necessary to realize the
industry's substantial growth potential.
Most important, the federal government must step up and reinvest in
hydropower and new waterpower technologies, which allow us to maximize
the water resource with the application of new advancements. The DOE
program must be reinstated and the federal hydropower system should
cooperate with the non-federal sector to study and deploy new advanced
technologies to achieve this goal.
Senator Cantwell we commend you for your leadership in holding this
hearing on the interplay between climate change and the hydropower
resource. Climate issues are some of the most complex of our time. NHA
and the hydropower industry look forward to working with you and other
policymakers and we offer ourselves as a resource for future climate
hearings or other events.
Thank you.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you again for being here and thank
you for your testimony.
Mr. Culbertson. You're welcome.
Senator Cantwell. Dr. Fulp, thank you.
STATEMENT OF TERRY FULP, PH.D., AREA MANAGER, BOULDER CANYON
OPERATIONS OFFICE, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
Mr. Fulp. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the
subcommittee. My name is Terry Fulp and I'm the Area Manager of
the Boulder Canyon Operations Office for Bureau of Reclamation.
We operate Lake Mead and Hoover Dam and our other facilities
down to the Mexico border.
I'm pleased to be here today alongside my colleagues and
others to discuss the Bureau of Reclamation's operations and
the state of the science on global climate change. I have
submitted a written statement for the record. Additionally, I'd
like to just start off by saying that in my job with
Reclamation my primary responsibility is related to the
management of the lower Colorado River. If you have specific
questions outside my area, I'd be happy to respond to those in
writing for the record.
As you know, there is extensive interest, as we've heard
today, in the scientific as well as the water communities with
regard to the potential impacts of climate variability and
climate change on water resources in the western United States.
Fortunately, Reclamation already possesses great operational
flexibility to respond to hydrologic variability in order to
fulfil our mission in the West. Droughts, floods, and wide
climate variability in the West are a fact of life and
something we've been adapting to for over 100 years.
However, that flexibility may be challenged in the future.
Our understanding of climate change and the capabilities of
climate change models to provide information on the scales that
we need is improving, as we have heard today, and will continue
to improve. We are preparing now to be able to determine how
and where to incorporate that new information into our water
management decisions.
We have several collaborative efforts ongoing and I'd like
to just touch on a few of those for you. Our primary
partnership is with our sister agency the U.S. Geological
Survey, with which Reclamation is working to define the impacts
of climate variability and climate change on western water
resources. Dr. Milly mentioned several areas we're focusing on
that will better help us predict future water availability.
As I also mentioned, we need information with regard to
these potential impacts of climate change on relatively
detailed temporal and spatial scales. We're collaborating with
the Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory to develop and evaluate climate model output at the
level of individual Reclamation drainage basins. The result of
this effort will essentially be an archive of what is called
down-scaled climate data from numerous climate models that we
as Reclamation managers can then use to assess our operational
risks.
Turning to specific basins, we are partnering with the
California Department of Water Resources to conduct joint
research to assess the risk of shifting climate on
Reclamation's water and power operations in California. This
research may also be applicable to all of our basins.
Additional partners in this activity include the Army Corps of
Engineers, of course the Geological Survey, the Scripps
Institute, and Santa Clara University.
We're also collaborating with NOAA and the University of
Colorado, as represented by Mr. Udall, to assist in better
understanding the science surrounding climate variability.
Specifically, my office is working directly with Mr. Udall,
from whom you heard from earlier and other climate scientists
to assess current abilities to analyze the potential impacts of
climate change specifically on Colorado River water supply.
We're also working very closely with the University of
Arizona to understand what tree ring records can tell us with
respect to past hydrologic variability on the Colorado River.
Reclamation and the Department of the Interior will
continue to develop these collaborative efforts in order to
understand and incorporate climate information into our water
resource planning and operations efforts. I do want to take
this opportunity to point out that we do not believe that real-
time operational changes to release patterns or storage levels
at our major facilities are warranted at this time. As I stated
in the beginning, we possess great operational flexibility at
our major facilities that can respond to hydrological
variability.
We need more specific real-time hydrologic indicators at
the basin scale that show how inflows change, both in terms of
timing and volume, and how those changes fall outside the
historical ranges that our operations currently can handle.
We'll continue to actively pursue seeking this information with
our collaboration and we'll of course incorporate it in our
operational schemes as appropriate.
In summary, together and with the support of Congress and
our customers, we believe that this and other collaborations
will equip Reclamation with the necessary information and tools
to adapt to potential climate change impacts in the future.
Thank you and I'd be happy also to address any questions
you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fulp follows:]
Prepared Statement of Terry Fulp, Area Manager, Boulder Canyon
Operations Office, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Terry
Fulp, and I am the Area Manager at the Boulder Canyon Operations Office
at the Bureau of Reclamation. It is a pleasure to be here today
alongside the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to discuss the Bureau of
Reclamation's operations, and the state of the science on global
climate change.
There is extensive study, and discussion, within the scientific
community about whether the West is experiencing warmer temperatures,
longer growing seasons, earlier snowpack runoff, and more precipitation
occurring as rain rather than snow. As the predictive capabilities of
climate change models improve, western water resource management is
looking to where and how to incorporate new climate change information.
A report released earlier this year from the National Academies of
Science on Colorado River Basin Water Management concluded that
``higher temperatures will result in less upper basin precipitation
falling as snow, increased evaporative losses, and will shift the
timing of peak spring snowmelt to earlier in the year.'' Reclamation is
evaluating methodologies for incorporating climate change information
into its west-wide operations.
Fortunately, Reclamation already possesses operational flexibility
to respond to hydrologic change and fulfill its mission to deliver
water and power in the West. Drought, flood, and wide climate
variability are all common occurrences in the western United States.
Given its mission, Reclamation must manage with this variability in
mind. However, solutions and strategies for incorporating climate
change science into water project operations is an emerging effort
being undertaken by all western water management interests, not just
Reclamation. Identifying the information needed will require
coordinated participation from all the organizations that can provide
expert climate and hydrologic sciences.
Reclamation works with its many partners to better understand and
incorporate climate information into western water resource management.
These partnerships include:
<bullet> Department of the Interior--United States Geological Survey
(USGS)--The Reclamation Research and Development (R&D) Office
is working with climate change experts in the USGS to help
define the impact of changes in climate variability and climate
change on western water resources. USGS and Reclamation
management met in April 2006 to discuss collaboration and
coordination efforts.
<bullet> Department of Energy (DOE)--Reclamation is working with DOE
on evaluating general circulation climate models at the level
of individual Reclamation drainage basins, and use of the
resulting model information by Reclamation Regions.
<bullet> Department of Commerce--National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA)--Reclamation is in the early stages of
collaboration with NOAA Regional Integrated Science and
Assessments Centers in the western U.S. to assist in data
selection, interpretation, and understanding. These centers
include the University of Washington Climate Impacts Group, the
California Applications Group, the Western Water Assessment,
and Climate Assessment for the Southwest. We are also
collaborating with NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory to
assist Reclamation to better understand the science surrounding
climate variability and climate change.
<bullet> National Science Foundation (NSF) Funded Science Centers--
These research centers include the National Center for
Atmospheric Research and the National Center for Sustainability
of Semi-Arid Hydrology and Riparian Areas. NSF also funds the
Consortium of Universities for the Advancement of Hydrologic
Science Inc., which has developed a Hydrologic Information
System that may be of use to Reclamation as we seek to have
better access to critical Hydrologic data. Reclamation plans to
work with individuals in these centers and to utilize the
available data to understand the impact of climate variability
and climate change on western water resources.
<bullet> State of California--Department of Water Resources (DWR)--
Reclamation is conducting joint research with DWR on assessing
the risks of shifting climate on Reclamation's water and power
operations This effort focuses on the Central Valley and State
Water Projects. Additional partners include the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, USGS, Scripps Institute, and Santa Clara
University.
<bullet> U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS)--NRCS's Snowpack Telemetry (SNOTEL)
network provides an extensive, automated system designed to
collect snowpack and related climate data in Alaska and the
western United States which can be used to produce water supply
forecasts. NRCS's Soil Climate Analysis Network (SCAN) is an
information system designed to provide data on soil moisture
and climate information from a number of different sources.
Secretary Kempthorne has convened a Climate Change Task Force
chaired by Deputy Secretary Lynn Scarlett. In testimony delivered April
26, 2007, the Deputy Secretary spoke about the Task Force to the House
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. She explained that uncertainties
persist on the timing, scale, and site-specific incidence of climate
change impacts. Widely respected models differ in their projections
about precipitation patterns, changes in vegetation, extent of sea
level rises, and so on. Moreover, global climate modeling is just
beginning to provide descriptions and projections at the regional and
smaller scales that are needed to be useful for land managers on the
ground.
To address this, the Task Force has designated three subcommittees.
The first is currently reviewing the legal and policy issues associated
with reviewing climate change effects in land-use planning. The second
subcommittee focuses on land and water management, and cataloguing
impacts relevant to Interior managed lands and waters. And the third
subcommittee will focus on whether modeling might be developed at
regional scales to better project more location-specific changes to the
landscapes we manage. The three subcommittees will evaluate information
needs and whether new types of monitoring might strengthen our
understanding of on-the-ground trends in water availability and timing
of flows, vegetative patterns, movement of species and so on.
Reclamation will continue to develop these partnerships to better
understand and incorporate climate information into western water
resource management. However, we do not believe that operational
changes to release patterns or storage levels at major water facilities
are warranted at this time. In order for new operational regimes to be
warranted, Reclamation would look for much more specific, real-time
hydrologic indicators at the basin level than currently exist, to show
that runoff and inflows are occurring far outside the normal range. In
some locations, methods may be available for linking climate change
information to actual runoff. But more specific data to inform those
methods is needed, and Reclamation would look for a dramatic change in
the timing and volume of inflows beyond the capability of current
operations and flood plans before implementing substantial changes in
operations.
We also continue to work with our water users to institute improved
water management and conservation in order to be better prepared for
any possible future impacts associated with climate change. Our Water
2025 and Water Conservation Field Services Program, as well as current
processes to analyze shortage sharing and coordinated water operations
in the Colorado River Basin, all are important in this effort.
Together, and with the support of Congress and our customers, we
believe that these activities will make Reclamation well-equipped to
adapt to climate change impacts if and when they bring about new
hydrologic regimes within the river basins of the West.
This concludes my written statement. I am pleased to answer any
questions the subcommittee may have.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Dr. Fulp, and thank you to all
the panelists for being here and for your testimony. I'll
remind you again that you can submit longer statements if you
have them for the record and that the subcommittee has received
additional testimony, statements, and exhibits and we'll make
those part of the official record today. Again, my colleagues
I'm sure may ask additional questions and we'll submit them to
the panelists.
Mr. Fulp, are you saying in your testimony that you're
going to continue on the path that you're on now--given that
the projections for temperature increases will be in the
magnitude of several times greater than what they have been
over the last 50 years, don't you think we ought to have a
contingency plan?
Mr. Fulp. Well, again I believe we see that as maybe a two-
part question. First of all, that temperature, those
temperature effects, we need to understand clearly how that
relates to the water supply, particularly the precipitation
inflow in our specific basins; and then from that we can
understand how any operational regime changes or scheme changes
need to be made.
So we believe that's exactly the path we should be on, is
get the science further along in order to provide us that
specific information.
Senator Cantwell. Has the Bureau done any analysis on the
impact?
Mr. Fulp. We have several efforts that I didn't talk about
in the verbal remarks that are listed in the testimony. The one
that I did mention here with the Department of Water Resources
in the State of California, we are looking at potential impacts
to both water and power in our Central Valley operation.
Similarly, in Colorado we believe that recent research is
going to be fruitful and we'll be able to look at also
potential water flow impacts on the Colorado River Basin.
Senator Cantwell. But would you say the Bureau has changed
its priorities, given data and information about climate
change?
Mr. Fulp. I believe our priority remains the same in the
sense of our mission and that's to deliver water and generate
hydropower. We obviously want to do that in the most safe,
efficient way possible, and so certainly this new information
we are pushing very hard to get it and we are very anxious to
see what it tells us.
Senator Cantwell. Mr. Culbertson, does that sound like a
contingency plan?
Mr. Culbertson. I don't know for the California river
systems, but I do know that the Bureau in the Northwest is
looking at the question you asked earlier that addresses
incremental storage. I think you're probably well aware that
the Bureau and others are looking at incremental storage in the
State of Washington. One is the Black Rock Project, which would
pump water out of the headwaters of our Wanapum--Priest Rapids
Dam. But also the Bureau is in the final stages of looking at
one of four projects. The most feasible project we believe at
this time is in the Lower Crab Creek area, which is right in
the center of the county of Grant and is twice the size of
Black Rock.
So if you look at the shapes of water and the surplus years
that we have, it may make some real viable sense to think about
building some incremental storage projects to capture some of
the water, especially in the spring time when we have a fair
amount of surplus water that we end up spilling even in below
average water years because of the shape of the flows. So
incremental storage may actually make some sense depending on
the size of the projects. But the Bureau is looking at those as
we speak today.
Senator Cantwell. I think, Dr. Fulp, I'd be more
comfortable if the Bureau was proposing some changes as it
related to our strategy in delivering and protecting water in
the West, given climate change. The fact that you don't have
the data, and we heard from our previous panelists the
importance of data to the specific approaches and solutions.
I'd feel more comfortable if the agency was advocating, even
within its budget, this amount of money to make sure that we
are on track with modeling and impacts.
But not having the data shouldn't be a substitute for not
having a strategy. If step No. 1 is let's get the data, then
I'm happy to hear that.
Mr. Fulp. Well, I don't mean to imply that we aren't doing
other things. Let me give you an example perhaps--
Senator Cantwell. Just so I can bring in Mr. Culbertson's
comment, my comment was I think you won't stop getting
recommendations from the panelists who are here. You won't stop
getting local governments who are in search of solutions and
asking for Federal dollars. So it'd be better if the Bureau had
its own proposal as it relates to this.
Mr. Fulp. Okay, yes. Let me maybe make two points.
Certainly we have an active research program and we will
continue to do that and we are funding that.
Second, I think I also want to point out we are doing other
things. One that Mr. Udall mentioned is the adoption of
additional operational guidelines for the Colorado River. What
that does for us is implement a shortage strategy. If in fact
the reservoirs continue to decline, we would then have a
strategy by which we reduce water deliveries.
Another key aspect of it, however, though, is in very
active conservation program. If these guidelines go into place
as we think in December, if would allow our water users to
conserve water and store it in Lake Mead for use later. So that
will be quite a new tool that will give us flexibility to allow
our users essentially to trade water. So we believe that's
going to really be a good addition to our management scheme in
the lower basin.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
Senator Corker.
Senator Corker. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Mr. Brick, when you look at the issues that you have to
deal with of water supply and you have to weigh the threats, if
you will, that you're dealing with, how would you allocate them
from the standpoint of just natural weather changes, population
growth, and forced climate change? How would you rate the
threat, if you will, to the water supply in your particular
area?
Mr. Brick. Well, it's very difficult to separate out what
is kind of natural hydrologic variation and the new impact of
climate change. But I would say that the planning that we've
done to respond to drought conditions coming irregularly has
served us well, has positioned us well, really, to be able to
deal with the kind of uncertainty and risk that climate change
presents.
It's not clear what the impacts are going to be, but it's
clear that we can't wait to find out and that we need to take
hopefully kind of no-regrets kind of actions immediately in
order to deal with both hydrologic uncertainty in general as
well as with the added layer of complexity that climate change
adds to that.
Senator Corker. What about the population growth piece as
it relates to the other issues?
Mr. Brick. Well, population growth is certainly critical,
and in the Colorado River Basin this is a very rapidly growing
area, and in the 90's Nevada grew by 66 percent, Arizona grew
by 40 percent, Colorado grew by 30 percent. This is the most
rapidly growing area in the Nation.
So we're faced with a situation in which the allocation of
Colorado River water was based upon a relatively wet period of
time and the division of 15 million or 16.5 million really
acre-feet of water on the Colorado River when that is not
considered to be the realistic normal flow of the Colorado
River at this point.
With estimates from climate scientists who say that climate
change is likely to induce a variation of 10 to 15 percent, and
some of the estimates go as high as 41 percent reduction in the
stream flow on the Colorado River in the future, it creates a
great deal, a great deal of concern, Senator, as to what we're
going to have to do on the Colorado River.
I would like to say that the statements by our friend from
the Bureau of Reclamation are important and the basin States
have responded to this and do have some action steps that we
are all united in asking the Bureau of Reclamation to pursue
with regard to shortage sharing criteria on the Colorado River
and also with regard to the creation of what's being called
intentionally created surplus, which is the ability to bank
water on the Colorado River, which is a very important
management step for us at a very reasonable cost, a lot less
than building other reservoirs and other things like that. We
will be able to manage and trade water in the future based on
these recommendations from the basin States.
So we encourage congressional oversight of that and support
for the basin States' recommendations.
Senator Corker. But back to the population growth issue, it
seems to me that we know we have a lot of contributing factors
to sort of magnify the problem, but with the tremendous
population growth that's taking place without these other
factors, you have serious issues. Is that correct?
Mr. Brick. That's absolutely correct. Even in our service
territory, we're now at 14 or 18 million people, rather. It was
12 million when I first came on board with the Metropolitan
Water District. So it's changed that much, from 12 to 18
million, and we expect it's going to go up to 22 million by
2030.
Senator Corker. Are there things happening at the State and
local level? I mean, the things that we are talking about in
this panel are semi-more difficult to deal with. They're based
on modeling and all of us as a world, if you will, have to work
together to address that issue. It sounds like that in your
particular area that's a very definable thing to deal with
through zoning and working with State and local governments,
and that's a much more tangible, easily handled problem that
sounds like it's of greater magnitude in many ways than what
we're talking about today as it relates to water supply.
So are there things happening at the State and local level
to deal with the huge magnitude of growth that is using up this
water?
Mr. Brick. Well, two-thirds of the growth in southern
California is coming, is internally generated. But you're
absolutely right, the local land use planning and a lot of the
important decisions that get made about the density of
developments are very important. Moves toward mixed use
development in urban areas and concentrating growth in urban
areas and protecting green belts or other zones outside of
cities are very important. More dense housing in urban areas is
very preferable to carpet bombing the desert with new
subdivisions.
Many steps like that are being taken, but I think that
you're right that there is a need for much more action in that
area in order to really assure that the needs of southern
California and other regions in the West are met in the future.
Senator Corker. Again, I was with the chairman last week in
Brussels working with others, the European Commission, and
looking at global warming, and it seems to me that again to
have such a tangible way of dealing with it at the local and
State level might be a great first step with some of the issues
that are coming up.
Mr. Culbertson, and I thank you all for your testimony. But
on the renewable portfolio standard that we're going to be
dealing with I think very soon in the next 3 weeks, I know one
person on this committee plans on putting forth an amendment.
Talk to me a little bit about new opportunities for hydropower,
the investment? Talk to me a little bit about the possibility
of--I know that's one of the renewables that is included per
this person's proposed amendment. But talk to me about the
opportunities there?
Mr. Culbertson. There are a number of potential
opportunities. Unfortunately, in the utility industry many
times we tend to put all of our eggs in one basket. Currently I
think that the utility industry--and I've been around 30-some
years in the utility business out West. The resource of choice
right now is basically two. One is wind and that's
predominantly the renewable resource of choice. The other is
gas-fired generation.
However, there are multiple hydro projects around the
United States, especially the Northwest, that, at least under
the State of Washington, qualify potentially as a renewable
resource, and hopefully a Federal standard will include hydro
resources as renewable generation. We recently filed--I'll give
you an example--on a small project known as the Klee-Ellen
Project about halfway between where I live in the center part
of the State and Seattle. It's an existing storage project,
flood control primarily.
We have filed that preliminary permit application to add
incremental generation to that project. It's a cost- effective
resource. It is considered a renewable resource. We believe
there are a number of those kind of projects around the country
that could be retrofitted. There are canal systems that have
low drops on the canal systems. We have a number on our system.
We're going to go back and retrofit, I believe, a number of
those drops. They're not huge, but every little bit of
generation, incremental generation, is a benefit to the system.
Technology is rapidly changing. Microturbines in canal
systems and low-flow stream systems. We are watching that
technology as it rapidly advances. We believe that our canal
system and low-flow streams--not too far in the future--we'll
be able to put little microturbines in there and generate off
of those microturbines.
But when you look at all of that, if you have rapid growing
areas, I guess I'll sit here and say before you I believe all
hydro generation is renewable. It's a renewable resource,
always has been. There are other projects across the West and
across the country where you could do exactly the same thing as
we talked about about the Klee-Ellen Project, only on a larger
scale. You have existing large storage projects where you could
retrofit to put generation capacity on those storage projects.
We're looking at some of those. They're larger scale, but at
this point in the State of Washington and the standard
adopted--it's going through its rulemaking process--would not
be included as renewable. That's not going to stop us from
looking at those, at those projects, because right now I think
they're some of the most cost effective projects that can be
developed when you look at the scope of projects that utilities
are able to look at right now.
If you take coal off the table, put nuclear back on the
table, which some are doing, but when we look at what the
potential is for renewable projects I think it's large-scale
and small-scale hydro projects. That's where we're going to
focus a lot of our efforts. We're going to look at biomass. We
are the largest producer of biomass in the State of Washington,
so we're going to look at methane digesters at dairies. But
they're very small. You're not going to get large-scale
generation. We're going to probably develop a wood products
biomass facility. Senator, if you haven't heard we've signed a
new agreement with the Yakama Nation. I think your staff will
be briefed about it tomorrow.
But you have to look at all of those things and you can't
put all of your eggs in one basket. I believe that we've got to
diversify our renewable portfolio. But I think a good portion
of that is also then developing the incremental hydro resources
that we have available to go along with those other renewable
resources.
Senator Corker. I know the body language in the back with
people standing suggests that it's time for this hearing to
come to a close. But just if you will, what is your mix, your
portfolio mix at present?
Mr. Culbertson. At present we have 2,000 plus megawatts of
hydrogeneration.
Senator Corker. Do it in percentages, if you will.
Mr. Culbertson. Hydro is 95 or 96 percent of our
generation, wind is probably 2 percent, and other is the
remaining percent--whatever it is.
Senator Cantwell. All States should be so lucky as to have
a Grant County PUD. I should tell you that.
Mr. Culbertson. Yes, we're very fortunate.
Any more questions?
Senator Corker. I want to thank all of you for your
testimony and traveling so far to be with us. All of this is
very helpful. I know in many cases there's not many Senators
here up at the dais, but we do get your written testimony and
our staffs all do look at that.
I want to thank the chairwoman for having this hearing and
for all of you being here.
Senator Cantwell. Well, Senator Corker, thank you for
attending and being here this afternoon. I think your questions
were right on. Having jointly chaired the San Joaquin hearing a
few weeks ago, we definitely see how the impacts of local
decisions play into this. I personally think the Energy
committee and this subcommittee should take a much more
aggressive role at looking at these water issues throughout the
country, but certainly impacting the West, and promulgate more
ideas about what we should be doing in a proactive sense, given
the level of frustration.
I don't think I've seen a more contentious issue than water
except for fish and, Mr. Williams, often fish and water go
together. The lack of fish and water has caused a great deal of
debate in western States in the last several years, and
oftentimes they end up right at our doorstep. So I would
suggest if we could think about being a little more proactive
maybe we can deal with those issues in advance of court cases
and court decisions and coming to us with last resort
agreements.
So anyway, thank you very much for your testimony and the
subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Tim Brick to Questions From Senator Cantwell
Question 1a. Your testimony identifies an impressive array of
investments that Metropolitan has made in groundwater storage,
conservation, and water reuse projects. It appears that Metropolitan's
approach is to make itself as diversified as possible with respect to
water supply, and as efficient as possible in its operations, as the
way to meet the long-term water supply challenges posed by climate
change and other factors.
If that correct? Is it your view that implementing strategies for
good water management is the best strategy for dealing with the impacts
of climate change will have on water supply?
Answer. Good water management by diversifying water resources and
practicing demand management is key to handling current and future
uncertainties, including climate change, for the southern California
region.
Since the adoption of its first Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) in
1996, the diversified water supply strategy has proven to work well for
Southern California. The region was able to withstand a 40% reduction
in Colorado River supply beginning in 2003 (due to the on-going drought
on the River and the Quantification Settlement Agreement). Furthermore,
2004 was one of the driest years on record for California. Southern
California managed without water rationing.
Southern California relies on four different hydrologic basins for
its water supplies, and integrating the management of these sources
provides greater overall capability to handle hydrologic variability of
these basins. In addition, Metropolitan has worked to integrate the
resources of its member agencies and agencies outside Metropolitan. The
region has benefited from storing water to help meet both seasonal
swings in water demand and year-to-year variation in water supply.
Metropolitan also works with other water agencies to purchase
transfer water during dry periods. In 2003 and 2005, it acquired over
125,000 acre-feet of options to purchase transfer water supplies from
agricultural water districts in the Sacramento River Basin. In 2004,
Metropolitan entered into a 35-year program with Palos Verde Irrigation
District that provides Metropolitan with up to 111,000 acre-feet of
Colorado River water annually, depending on Metropolitan's needs.
Metropolitan provides incentives for strong conservation practices
and water recycling, which enhances local supply and conservation for
the region.
It is important to note that none of these actions alone is enough;
that only a mixture of these management actions maintains a reliable
water supply for Southern California.
Question 1b. Does Metropolitan, as part of its Integrated Resource
Plan have specific actions it is taking solely due to impacts expected
due to climate change?
Answer. At this time, Metropolitan is implementing `no regrets'
actions and projects to prepare for climate change; that is, projects
which provide water supply and quality benefits now, because they make
overall water management sense, while increasing the ability to manage
potential climate change impacts when they occur. Our IRP is revised
every 5 years and plan implementation is reported annually to track
progress, changes in resource status or assumptions, and anticipated
implementation challenges. The last version of the IRP, released in
2004, included a ten percent buffer to provide for uncertainties about
water supply and management programs and for uncertain developments
such as climate change.
MWD staff is currently preparing a new, major revision of the IRP
that will be released in 2008. This revision will incorporate specific
responses to potential climate change impacts.
Question 2. You mentioned that Metropolitan, and the water
community as a whole, needs to partner with the scientific community to
conduct further research to assess the risks of climate change on
water, and integrate appropriate responses into water management
decisions. We heard a similar recommendation from the first panel that
there needs to be better integration between the science community and
the water user community.
Do you have any suggestions on how we might accomplish a better
integration of scientists and water users on the issue of climate
change and water? Is there an existing program or structure that can be
used to facilitate that integration?
Answer. Metropolitan supports a close collaboration between climate
scientists and water resource planners and engineers on applying the
science of climate change. Water resource planners and engineers use
previous experience to predict the future, and the climate scientists
say the past may no longer predict the future. Hence, a planned
structure for interaction is needed. The communication needs to be two-
way; engineers and planners would convey their needs to
climatologists--key parameters for determining risks-tolerance levels
including magnitude and frequency of impacts, and scale to be of use.
And climatologists need to convey to planners and engineers tools to
predict the future.
Answer. Metropolitan believes that we need a joint determination of
indicators for adjusting strategies for water resource planning and
emergency preparedness. Funding from the Regional Integrated Sciences
and Assessments (RISA) and Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) need
to be earmarked for this exchange. Funding needs to be reinstated for
USGS stream gage monitoring and weather station data collection
programs, which have suffered declining budgets in recent years and
have curtailed the collection of invaluable data.
Metropolitan recommends that Congress earmark part of the National
Science Foundation grant funding for climate research for projects that
partner academics and water industry practitioners. Metropolitan also
supports NASA's program for satellite monitoring of the Earth's
climate, and NASA's CCSP budget needs to earmark the aggressive
development of actual application of satellite data.
Response of Tim Brick to Questions From Senator Salazar
Question 1. Are the existing reservoir storage capacities capable
of handling the early snowpack melts?
Answer. While the operations of existing storage facilities are
being adjusted to capture the earlier snow melts, additional surface
and groundwater storage will be required to manage future impacts of
climate change for more intense runoff, less snow pack, and longer
droughts. Existing reservoir storage volume and operating guidelines
were developed based on historical runoff patterns and storm
intensities. Changes predicted to occur with climate change would
require revising flood management and water conservation and recycling
strategies. With the possible impact of higher storm intensities, it is
likely that more storage space would need to be reserved for flood
control thereby reducing the ability to capture runoff for consumptive
use by people. Additional surface and groundwater storage may be
required in certain watersheds to compensate for the reduced capture
ability.
In addition, water use efficiency gained through water conservation
and recycling enhances the ability to meet water demands. Each acre-
foot of conservation savings or recycling water would lessen the need
to utilize stored water during dry periods. Finally, climate change
would likely impact fish and wildlife, and hence the reservoirs may be
called upon to regulate the quantity and temperature of streamflow,
further limiting the ability to store water for consumptive needs.
Question 2. What are the best options you believe are available to
adapt to global warming impacts on water supplies in the West?
Answer. Metropolitan believes that the water agencies should
incorporate options that include both mitigation and adaptation to
climate change in their water resource management plans. For example,
Metropolitan is examining its operations, including reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions, to mitigate climate change. It also supports
the Governor Schwarzenegger Executive Order S-3-05 and recently enacted
state legislature AB 32 by state assembly speaker Nunez to reduce the
extent of climate change and associated impacts to water supply.
For adaptation, Metropolitan has diversified its resource mix and
created additional water storage opportunities. It has developed
conservation and recycling incentives for local agencies to develop
these programs. It has worked with industry associations and
legislatures for stricter plumbing codes (e.g. low flow showerheads)
and stricter appliance efficiency standards (e.g. clothes washing
machines). Metropolitan also supports streamlining regulatory
requirements for water transfers and water recycling.
Question 3. Have conservation efforts been effective in reducing
water demand or have increases in population in the West negated the
savings from conservation?
Answer. Because of the investments the region has made in storage,
conservation, recycling and groundwater recovery, Southern California
uses the same amount of imported water today as the region did in 1990,
even though the region has grown by more than 3 million people.
For Metropolitan's service area, conservation efforts have reduced
the daily per person consumption by 36 gallons. Our projections
anticipate that by 2025, conservation efforts will reduce per person
daily water use by 54 gallons. In more fully developed areas such as
the City of Los Angeles, the region's largest city, with four million
people, water use has been stable for 25 years despite the addition of
one million people. Retrofitting older, less water efficient devices
and appliances delays the need for new water supplies.
Water demands in more rapidly developing areas would increase with
population and economic growth, since the newer housing and development
have already incorporated more water-efficient features through the use
of stricter plumbing codes in place. However, Metropolitan strives to
increase water use efficiency in the newer areas through partnerships
with local, regional and national homebuilders, with support from the
California Building Industry Association and U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, to increase the awareness by home buyers and remodelers of
water-efficient landscapes and devices. Through its California
Friendly Home Program, Metropolitan currently offers incentives to
builders to offset the costs of equipping model and production homes
with water-efficient fixtures and landscapes that exceed plumbing code
requirements. Homes built with California Friendly specifications are
designed to use 30 percent less water than conventional homes.
Question 4. Do you believe that climate change impacts on water
supplies will have to be considered when making commitments about
future water deliveries?
Answer. Climate change is an important consideration for water
agencies in the planning and implementation of water management
strategies. Water agencies, such as Metropolitan, must consider ranges
of water supply and demands in their planning for future water
deliveries, including supply uncertainties due to climate change and
other factors (such as population and economic growth, endangered
species and ecosystem needs, more stringent water quality requirements,
etc.) In addition, recent state legislation requires local governments
to demonstrate sufficient water supply for 20 years when approving new
developments exceeding certain thresholds. The federal government could
hold oversight hearings to ensure state and water agencies are taking
into account potential impacts of climate change on investment
decisions, and future water rights and appropriations. Climate change
considerations should also be incorporated into decisions regarding
federal water contracts and system operations that directly affect
water apportionments to individual states.
Regarding water resources to southern California, the federal
government plays a key role in making decisions regarding ecosystem,
operations and infrastructure improvements for the Colorado River and
the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento and San Joaquin River Delta. It is
important that those decisions would result in sustainable water
delivery systems from the Colorado River and the Delta to meet urban,
agricultural and environmental water needs.
______
Responses of Patrick O'Toole to Questions From Senator Cantwell
Question 1a. You mention the need for expanding the water supply in
the West through new storage projects that will make water available to
farms and cities.
What type of storage projects has the Alliance and its members
been contemplating?
Answer. The Board of Directors of the Family Farm Alliance in 2005
launched a forward looking project that pulled together a master data
base of potential water supply enhancement projects from throughout the
West. Our goal was to gather together ideas from around the West and
put them into one master data base.
The types of projects contained in the resulting Western Water
Supply Enhancement Study database are not monstrous dams like China's
Three Gorges project. Instead, they are supply enhancement projects
that range from canal lining and piping, to reconstruction of existing
dams, to integrated resource plans. There are also some very feasible
new surface storage projects. The benefits from these projects include
providing certainty for rural family farms and ranches, additional
flows and habitat for fish, and cleaner water.
Along with basic information included on a CD-ROM, the database
that was generated from the compilation of the survey has a Global
Information System (GIS) element and includes pictures, maps and a
description of up to 500 words for each project or proposal. New GIS
format technology is embedded that permits viewers to see a map of 17
Western states and then ``drill down'' to see map details of a project
area. If you would like, we can make copies of the CD-ROM available to
your committee. We welcome all constructive comments.
The Initiative shows that, in most areas of the West, water
resources are available and waiting to be developed. However, the
policies of the federal government make development of that water
nearly impossible. Water wars are being fought throughout the West
simply because we have not had the vision to develop new,
environmentally sound, sources of water.
Question 1b. Can you give some examples?
Answer. There are more than 100 projects included in our data base.
Some specific projects include:
<bullet> Water for Irrigation, Streams, and Economy Project (WISE), a
collaborative effort in Oregon to improve the health of the
Little Butte Creek and Bear Creek systems and increase the
effectiveness and efficiency of local irrigation districts. The
WISE Project utilizes a combination of strategies including:
piping and lining canals, increasing the storage capacity of
selected reservoirs, and installing a pumping system that will
provide access to water that has been allocated for
agricultural purposes. Collectively, more water will be
available for management for irrigation and environmental
instream purposes.
<bullet> Sites Reservoir in has been identified by the California
Department of Water Resources and the CALFED Program as one of
the most cost-effective and environmentally beneficial new
facilities under consideration in California. The Sites project
would enhance water supply reliability for environmental, urban
and agricultural uses throughout the state. Sites would provide
water supplies in average and dry years for urban, agricultural
and environmental purposes, increase San Francisco Bay-
Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta outflows during critical times,
improve flood control, enhance groundwater recharge, bolster
fish flows, and improve flexibility for existing projects, such
as Shasta Reservoir. Sites reservoir can greatly increase
reliability of water supplies by reducing water diversions on
the Sacramento River during critical fish migration periods.
<bullet> Strawberry Valley Rehabilitation and Betterment Projects
(Utah) are proposed to decrease the water seepage and losses in
the Strawberry Valley Project, as well as provide gravity
pressure for the continued migration toward sprinkler
irrigation systems, which would then provide additional water
savings. These projects could save approximately 15,000 to
20,000 acre-feet of water per year in an agricultural area that
is rapidly urbanizing.
<bullet> Farmington Groundwater Recharge Program. This $33.5 million
effort is lead by Stockton East Water District (California) in
partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to contribute
to restoration of local aquifers and to repel saline water
intrusion. The Program seeks to rotate water with other land-
uses via short-and long-term agreements with landowners, and
develop permanent recharge facilities. The recharge facilities
also provide seasonal habitat for migratory waterfowl. This
will provide an additional water supply yield to the region of
approximately 17,000 acre-feet annually.
Question 1c. Obviously, there will be environmental concerns
associated with any new surface water storage projects. Moreover,
increasing temperatures means more reservoir evaporation, resulting in
some loss of the water supply that storage might otherwise make
available. In your opinion, is it possible to address those issues and
move forward with storage projects that will ultimately have broad
support from a number of different stakeholders?
Answer.
Environmental Impacts
Individual surface storage proposals must be evaluated and the
associated benefits and risks must be viewed in a net, comprehensive
manner. While some environmental groups focus on perceived negative
impacts associated with new facility construction (e.g. loss of
habitat, disruption of stream flow patterns, and potential evaporative
losses), these perceived impacts must also be compared to the wide
range of multi-purpose benefits that storage projects can provide.
Properly designed and constructed surface storage projects provide
additional water management flexibility to better meet downstream
urban, industrial and agricultural water needs, improve flood control,
generate clean hydropower, provide recreation opportunities, and--yes,
create additional flows that can benefit downstream fish and wildlife
species.
Evaporation
Potential increasing temperatures and associated increased
evaporation must also be evaluated for new storage projects on a case-
by-case basis. Evaporation is a function of several variables,
including temperature, wind and the surface area of the reservoir.
Sometimes, new reservoirs might actually result in lower evaporative
losses than is the current case.
Consider, for example, Oregon's Long Lake basin, located just west
of Upper Klamath Lake, the principal reservoir for the Klamath
Irrigation Project. Putting in earthen dams in the mostly dry Long Lake
could create a reservoir with about the same storage capacity as Upper
Klamath, but with only about 10 percent of the surface area. It would
be about 160 feet deep, compared to an average depth of just 8 feet for
Upper Klamath Lake. Upper Klamath's annual water loss to evaporation is
290,000 acre-feet. The projected annual loss from a Long Lake Reservoir
would be 8,000 acre-feet. That's a huge difference--and a huge benefit.
So is the fact that the water from such a reservoir would be much
colder than water from Upper Klamath.
Stakeholder Support for New Projects
Some people and organizations oppose dams as a matter of dogma.
They have no flexibility when it comes to surface storage. But
experience teaches us that solving complex problems requires a great
deal of flexibility. It also requires the collective efforts of
reasonable, well-intentioned people who may come at the problem from
entirely different perspectives. Surface storage isn't the solution in
all cases, but dismissing it out-of-hand serves no good purpose.
Creative, successful solutions can be found by motivated,
unthreatened parties. The holders of water rights approach the Western
water supply problem with much at risk, and with much to offer in the
form or practical experience managing the resource on a daily basis.
Incentives that create reasons to succeed will do more good for the
environment in a shorter period of time than actions that rely on
threats of government intervention.
Question 1d. Given the cutbacks in water supply funding over the
last several years, do you envision that water users will be able to
pay for a majority of any new water supply infrastructure?
Answer. Those who benefit from new water supply infrastructure
should help pay for that infrastructure. For the most part, new water
supplies are not being proposed to meet the expanding needs of
agriculture. On the contrary, we are seeing a move in the opposite
direction, where agricultural lands are going out of production and
being lost to expanding urban development. Water that was originally
established for agriculture and the communities it supports is now
being reallocated to meet new growing urban and environmental water
demands. The growing numbers of urban water users in the West and the
public interest served through improved environmental water supplies
should naturally be part of equitable financing schemes.
The President and Congress will prioritize whatever federal funds
are available to meet existing and future needs. As for the rest of the
capital, it must come either from state and local governments or from
the private sector. If the federal government cannot fund the required
investments, it should take meaningful steps to provide incentives for
non-federal entities to fill the void, and remove barriers to the new
ways of doing business that will be required.
In this time of tight budgets and huge overseas spending, the
federal government must adopt a policy of supporting new projects to
enhance water supplies while encouraging state and local interests to
take the lead in the implementation of those projects.
Question 2. Your testimony identifies as a priority, the need for
research that would validate projected climate-driven changes in
streamflow; and which would then be coupled with a plan addressing the
new storage and conservation targets essential to compensate for the
changed hydrology. You also suggest the need for a comprehensive
assessment of changes in agricultural land and water use over the last
decade.
In your opinion, should the Federal government lead such a research
effort? If so, who should take the lead? Is any one agency equipped to
carry out such a large task?
Answer. No. Rather, this type of study lends itself well to a
private-public partnership that would add non-governmental farming
organizations, state agencies and academic institutions to a team of
federal agencies like the Natural Resources Conservation Service,
Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Geological Survey. For example, the Family
Farm Alliance has partnered with Colorado State University and recently
developed a proposal to the U.S. Department of Agriculture for a
project that would assess public attitudes and perceptions regarding
agricultural water use in the West. A similar type of proposal--one
that involves producers, state and federal agencies, and academia--
could be developed to create a partnership of the above agencies and
other entities to collaboratively lead a climate change/hydrology
research effort. We would be happy to further coordinate and detail
such a proposal.
Responses of Patrick O'Toole to Questions From Senator Salazar
Question 1. Are the existing reservoir storage capacities capable
of handling the early snowpack melts?
Answer. There are several reports that suggest existing reservoirs
will not be capable of safely accepting the earlier, more intense
snowmelt. As noted in our written testimony, a report released last
year by the State of California predicts that climate change will
result in a drastic drop in the state's drinking and farm water
supplies, as well as more frequent winter flooding. The report suggests
that warmer temperatures will raise the snow level in California
mountains, producing a smaller snowpack and more winter runoff. This
means more floodwaters to manage in winter, followed by less snowmelt
to store behind dams for cities, agriculture, and fish. Water resources
experts in other parts of the West also realize that new surface water
storage projects may be necessary to capture more snowmelt or more
water from other sources.
Some Western water managers believe there will likely be a ``rush''
to re-operate existing multi-purpose projects to restore some of the
lost flood protection resulting from the changed hydrology associated
with climate change. These projects were designed to provide a certain
level of flood protection benefits that will be reduced because of more
``rain flood''-type of events. There will be a call to reduce carryover
storage and to operate the reservoirs with more flood control space and
less conservation space. If this is done, it will even further reduce
the availability and reliability of agricultural water supplies.
Further, many water users are located upstream of existing
reservoirs. These users must then rely on direct or natural that is
primarily fueled by snowmelt. In the Rocky Mountain West, snowmelt
traditionally occurs during the onset of the irrigation season. Since
conveyance systems are never 100% efficient, water is diverted,
conveyed and spread on the land in excess of the net irrigation demand.
This surplus returns to the stream and recharges groundwater aquifers,
which augments water supplies for all users located downstream from the
original diversion. If more runoff were to occur during warm cycles in
winter before the onset of the irrigation season, this would impact the
utility associated with these return flows.
One priority research item should be a comprehensive validation of
West-wide changes in climate change-driven streamflow. This should be
followed by quantification of the amount of additional reservoir
storage, conservation targets, etc required to re-regulate this change
in hydrology. To optimize beneficial use, storage should be spaced
through the drainage and locate at high and low elevations to regulate
and subsequently re-regulate the water supply to maximize beneficial
use.
Question 2. What are the best options you believe are available to
adapt to global warming impacts on water supplies in the West?
Answer. In our written testimony, we elaborated on general actions
that should be prioritized to allow us to mitigate climate impacts to
Western water supplies:
a) Implement a Balanced Suite of Conservation and Supply
Enhancement Actions;
b) Streamline the Regulatory Process to Facilitate
Development of New Infrastructure; and
c) Prioritize Research Needs.
Also, many of the West's Reclamation projects are nearly 100 years
old and are badly in need of repair. Rehabilitation measures should
focus on maximizing the conservation effort through increased delivery
efficiencies, construction of re-regulation reservoirs to prevent
operational waste, and construction of new dams and reservoirs in
watersheds with inadequate storage capacity to increase beneficial use
and provide operational flexibility. Conjunctive management of surface
and groundwater supplies should be encouraged. Installation of
additional stream gauges, water meters, groundwater monitoring wells
and better estimates of consumptive use are of paramount importance for
the equitable management of available water supplies.
Question 3. Have conservation efforts been effective in reducing
water demand or have increases in population in the West negated the
savings from conservation?
Answer. Yes, conservation efforts have been effective, but it
strains credibility to believe that conservation alone will supply
enough water for the tens of millions of new residents expected to
arrive in Western cities during the coming decades. Also, conservation
does not work in many cases, especially where the desire is to increase
in-stream flow. Water that is conserved tends to be used by the next
junior downstream appropriator and the flow remains the same.
In our written testimony, we provided several examples from
throughout the West, where creative measures have been taken to develop
and efficiently manage water resources for irrigation. These examples
represent just a handful of the creative water management programs that
Western irrigators are working on. Efforts to conserve water in urban
areas have also been impressive, particularly in the Southwest.
The experience of the City of Las Vegas may provide the best
response to Senator Salazar's question. The Southern Nevada Water
Authority (Authority) has imposed dramatic conservation measures in the
areas it serves in and around Las Vegas. Consider the following:
<bullet> As of March 2006, a program developed to pay customers $1
per square foot to remove lawns had already spent $56 million.
<bullet> New restrictions were imposed on landscaping.
<bullet> Use of recycled water was stepped up dramatically.
<bullet> Casino-hotels along the Las Vegas Strip have made
significant investments in water features, capturing and
treating grey water and using recycled water.
<bullet> A stiff four-tier rate structure was imposed, as were high
connection charges.
With conservation measures in place, southern Nevada reduced water
use by 65,000 acre-feet in two years. However, despite these aggressive
conservation actions, the Authority is moving with equal determination
to develop new water supplies in other parts of the region, since
probabilities of shortages on the Colorado River are likely going to
increase over time. As noted in our written testimony, the Authority is
already planning to take groundwater out of aquifers under the Utah-
Nevada state line and pipe it to Las Vegas.
So, this particular example--which describes some of the most
innovative and aggressive conservation measures undertaken in the
West--suggests that even the highest level of conservation is
insufficient to keep up with new demands caused by new residents moving
to Las Vegas.
Question 4. Do you believe that climate change impacts on water
supplies will have to be considered when making commitments about
future water deliveries?
Answer. Yes, with qualifications. Proper planning of any water
resources project includes thorough hydrologic assessments and modeling
of potential future scenarios. These scenarios can include a range of
variables, including population projections, financial predictions, and
weather/climate scenarios. However, caution should be employed when
making commitments about future water deliveries, especially where
climate change is concerned. Policy makers must understand the
incredible uncertainty and high range of variability inherent in
climate change predictive models before considering using these models
as a basis for commitments.
It often appears that agency modelers will expend seemingly endless
amounts of funding based on their hope to create predictive tools, even
though we are decades or more away from models that will have enough
reliability to commit money or other resources. Climate scientists love
their models, but when asked if they have enough confidence in them to
make irreversible commitments of resources, the message becomes a more
subdued ``no, but we hope to get there''.
______
Response of Philip W. Mote to Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. Subcommittee staff have been looking at putting
together a National Water Science Initiative that would focus on
expanding, standardizing, and modernizing data acquisition for streams,
groundwater, lakes, and reservoirs. Hopefully, this effort would lead
to the development of better hydrologic models which would improve
overall water management. I would also hope that these models could be
coupled with atmospheric models to improve our ability to assess the
impacts of climate change on water supplies.
What do you think of such an initiative? It sounds as if the focus
has been on streamflows in most of the research. What about other
parameters affecting water supplies such as groundwater recharge; soil
moisture; reservoir evaporation; and evapotranspiration? Would it help
to increase our knowledge base about these parameters to use in
conjunction with more streamflow data?
Answer. Such an effort is vitally needed in order both to
understand the details of how climate change will affect water
resources in different watersheds and to improve streamflow prediction
on timescales from a week to a year. At the University of Washington,
the hydrology group headed by Prof. Dennis Lettenmaier developed the
VIC (Variable Infiltration Capacity) hydrologic model, which unlike
conventional hydrology models balances both water and energy fluxes and
hence is more physically realistic and more suitable for estimating how
streamflows, soil moisture, and evapotranspiration will change in a
changing climate. This model has been used in numerous studies of
climate change and also for shorter-term forecasting. Better data,
especially naturalized streamflows, would improve this and other
models' ability to accurately simulate streamflows and other aspects of
the hydrologic system.
The National Integrated Drought Information System, which Congress
and the President authorized and funded in 2006, is a trailblazing step
in the direction you suggest. It is among other things intended to
harmonize data collection and distribution efforts among the various
federal agencies. The National Weather Service's Historical Climate
Network Modernization effort is also relevant for the effort you
propose.
Question 2. It's been my understanding that the climate change
scientific community has relied heavily on data made available from
satellites; and also made significant investments in trying to develop
new remote sensing technologies. Unfortunately, I recently read a news
report indicating that the Administration is drastically scaling back
the use of satellite based data collection, which is critical to
refining our understanding of the implications of global warming.
Your testimony noted the importance of additional data and analysis
in tracking and understanding the implications of climate change on
water. Are you aware of these planned cutbacks in satellite data, and
if so, how do you think it will affect ongoing science programs in this
area?
Answer. I believe you are referring to the NPOESS, National Polar
Orbiting Environmental Satellite System, which is intended to make
better use of planned satellites in both the Department of Defense and
Department of Commerce. I understand that the NPOESS schedule has
slipped considerably and that the instrument packages on the various
satellites have been reworked, and there is considerable risk now that
the first NPOESS satellite will not launch until the demise of NASA's
Terra and Aqua satellites. Satellites are primarily used for process
studies, and they have a role to play in climate monitoring but
generally their design lifetime is too short to constitute monitoring,
so overlapping series of satellites are needed.
Response of Philip W. Mote to Questions From Senator Cantwell
Question 1. Your testimony states that ``warming in the West can
now be confidently attributed to rising greenhouse gases and are not
explained by any combination of natural factors''. Researchers at the
University of Washington have recently debated the trends being
observed in snowpack in the Pacific Northwest, and whether those trends
were attributed solely to global warming or more closely related to the
natural variations in weather patterns.
How do you discern between the two causes and how might we improve
in understanding and addressing this distinction in the future?
Answer. Implicit in the question are two separate logical steps.
The first is whether snowpack has changed in a manner that can be
explained by warming, regardless of the cause of the warming. The
second is whether western warming can be explained by natural factors
or whether the buildup of greenhouse gases is involved.
For the first question, as one of the primary parties in that
discussion of snowpack, I am very familiar with the issues discussed. I
and colleagues at several other institutions have published about 8 or
9 peer-reviewed papers demonstrating that snowmelt-driven hydrology in
the West has changed in the last 50-60 years and that warming is
clearly involved. Our papers considered about 1,000 locations where
snow has been monitored and about 300 locations where streamflow has
been monitored, as well as detailed hydrologic modeling that
substantially corroborated the observations. The ``debate'' arose after
a colleague at UW, on the basis of cursory analysis with a handful of
snow monitoring sites and without the scrutiny of peer review,
challenged the findings of these 8-9 far more detailed and peer-
reviewed studies, referring to the notion of declining snowpack as a
``myth''. However, an independent review panel of four faculty at UW
examined the evidence on both sides and wrote a short report affirming
the basic conclusion that snowpack in the Cascades had declined some
30% since the mid-twentieth century largely in response to warming.
The second question was addressed in a paper by Peter Stott in
2003, which showed that the warming in western North America could not
be explained solely by natural variability but could be explained by
the buildup of greenhouse gases. An easy way to see that is by
considering trends in temperature and how they relate to the primary
pattern of western climate variability, which is a north-south seesaw
associated with Pacific basin climate patterns. That is, the Northwest
tends to have winters that are wetter and cooler than average when the
Southwest has winters that are drier and warmer than average, and vice
versa. But in the past 50 years all regions of the West have warmed,
illustrating that rising greenhouse gases have dominated the natural
see-saw.
Question 2. In talking about predicted future changes, you
discussed climate models being used by the IPCC, and that those models
tended to agree that precipitation will likely increase in the north
and decreases in the Southwest. Mr. Udall and Dr. Milly's testimony
seem to be in sync with those conclusions. A recent story in USA Today,
though, entitled ``Climate change models overstate droughts'', talks
about a new study entitled ``How Much More Rain Will Global Warming
Bring'', which finds that climate change will result in increased
global rainfall which may be 3 times greater than currently predicted.
The story concludes by stating that ``climate modelers are overstating
how much rainfall will dry up in a warmer climate''.
Are you familiar with this new study, and if so, does it have
implications for the modeling results that you've all discussed today?
Answer. I have read the paper in question by Mears et al., and I
believe its results were somewhat overstated in the USA Today article.
The last two sentences of the paper says that it raises more questions
than it answers: ``The observations reported here suggest otherwise,
but clearly these questions are far from being settled.'' [emphasis
added]
The authors studied variability in precipitation from satellite
data over about the last 20 years, and the relationship between
temperature and precipitation that they reported was predominantly a
tropical relationship and was dominated by the 1997-98 El Nino event
and the changes in rainfall and wind that occurred then; it uses the
relationships derived from the past 20 years to test the models, and
extrapolates from that behavior to the future. Furthermore, what their
paper showed outside the tropics was that the pattern that global
climate models project for future changes--drying in the subtropics and
more precipitation in higher latitudes--are correct, but the intensity
is underestimated. In other words, if they are correct that models
underestimate the intensity of the hydrologic cycle are correct, the
projection of increased drought in the southwest is also an
understatement. Heavier precipitation in the tropics goes along with
less rainfall in the desert areas.
Question 3. You discuss the need to produce information on a
regional basis as opposed to a global scale, including the development
of regional climate models. It's my understanding that a great deal of
the projections currently being made are the result of ``downscaling''
global climate models to assess climate change impacts in specific
regions.
It's my understanding that you have a paper in the works on this
subject. What are your views on the issues associated with
``downscaling'' and the prospects for regional models? What will
regional models be able to do better than global models?
Answer. Thank you for noticing that paper. We believe that regional
models are a useful tool for studying climate change, sometimes
illustrating how large-scale changes in circulation can interact with
small-scale topography to produce interesting results. In some respects
global model changes can be considered to be uniform across a large
region--for example, the factors producing a 3F warming or 10%
decrease in summer precipitation would be largely the same in central
Washington as in eastern Idaho, even though the baseline temperature
and precipitation in each place is different. However, for other
aspects like the interaction between snow cover and surface
temperature, getting the details of the location correct (for example,
whether it has snow cover) are very important for determining the rate
of warming. Regional models can be useful tools for such details. There
are a number of technical challenges in using regional models, not
least the computing power required to do long simulations and to
improve their numerics.
Response of Philip W. Mote to Questions From Senator Salazar
Question 1. What studies do you believe would be most beneficial to
understanding the potential impacts from global warming on water
supplies?
Answer. First, estimating future flows using a combination of
global climate models, regional models, and physically-based hydrologic
models. Ideally this approach would include a range of scenarios of
future climate. Second, each water management agency that has a water
resources model should run the model on a range of future flows to
investigate the impacts. For example, the Northwest Power and
Conservation Council has used flows produced using the VIC hydrologic
model (mentioned in my responses above) in its Genesys hydropower model
to investigate what climate change could do to future hydropower
production.
Question 2. Are the existing observation networks, e.g., for
measuring streamflows, snowpacks, etc., adequate to understanding the
observed impacts from global warming? Are there additional observation
networks we should be putting in place?
Answer. None of these networks was originally designed for
monitoring climate changes. Monitoring long-term climate and hydrology
requires greater consistency in instrumentation, observing practices,
and surrounding landscape than most sites have achieved. Using these
networks to deduce changes over time therefore requires some efforts to
estimate the effects of these non-climatic factors, for example the
effects of changing a thermometer type. A serious problem of attrition
is reducing the number of long-term weather stations, stream gauges,
and snow courses, and, as the American Association of State
Climatologists and various panels of the National Academy of Sciences
have said, Congress should reverse this decline so that we can at least
maintain the level of monitoring capability that we have now. Improving
real-time reporting capability and data access are another high
priority. Adding sensors like soil moisture, groundwater, and solar
radiation to existing networks would further improve their value. These
various tasks are in my opinion more urgent and more valuable than
establishing new networks, with the exception that the Climate
Reference Network (which is currently being installed) should certainly
be completed.
______
Response of Bradley H. Udall to Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. Subcommittee staff have been looking at putting
together a National Water Science Initiative that would focus on
expanding, standardizing, and modernizing data acquisition for streams,
groundwater, lakes, and reservoirs. Hopefully, this effort would lead
to the development of better hydrologic models which would improve
overall water management. I would also hope that these models could be
coupled with atmospheric models to improve our ability to assess the
impacts of climate change on water supplies.
What do you think of such an initiative? It sounds as if the focus
has been on streamflows in most of the research. What about other
parameters affecting water supplies such as groundwater recharge; soil
moisture; reservoir evaporation; and evapotranspiration? Would it help
to increase our knowledge base about these parameters to use in
conjunction with more streamflow data?
Answer. The answer is, without qualification, yes. I would
encourage you to include the NRCS, USGS, and NOAA in this effort. I
think it is possible for these three entities to collaborate much
better than they currently do and synergies should result. The USGS is
currently beginning a necessary and overdue effort to combine
groundwater and surface water models; more innovative efforts of this
type need to be pursued. In my experience there is a knowledge gap
between the atmospheric scientists and the hydrologists that needs to
be bridged; each discipline would be well served to learn from the
other.
In the context of climate change there is very little research on
groundwater recharge and evapotranspiration, somewhat more has been
done on soil moisture and reservoir evaporation but all four are
lacking focused research efforts. There is very little soil moisture
data. The NRCS is in the process on installing soil moisture sensors at
some of its SNOTEL sites, and elsewhere. This is a start, but much more
is needed. There is anecdotal evidence that the record low 2002 runoff
occurred because of low soil moisture prior to the runoff season that
year. But given current datasets, it is impossible to test this
hypothesis. If true, this would increase our capability to issue
accurate streamflow forecasts.
Question 2. It's been my understanding that the climate change
scientific community has relied heavily on data made available from
satellites; and also made significant investments in trying to develop
new remote sensing technologies. Unfortunately, I recently read a news
report indicating that the Administration is drastically scaling back
the use of satellite based data collection, which is critical to
refining our understanding of the implications of global warming.
Your testimony noted the importance of additional data and analysis
in tracking and understanding the implications of climate change on
water. Are you aware of these planned cutbacks in satellite data, and
if so, how do you think it will affect ongoing science programs in this
area?
Answer. Yes, I am very aware of these issues. The American
Association for the Advancement of Science felt strongly enough to
issue a policy statement on this problem this year on April 28.
There are likely two causes: (1) the mismanagement of the NPOESS
satellite programs by NASA, NOAA and DOD; (2) the ill-conceived and
focus on sending a human to Mars.
I categorically state that this will impact climate science.
The AAAS Statement is worth reading in its entirety, and I agree
with it completely, but here are some selected extracts:
The network of satellites upon which the United States and
the world have relied for indispensable observations of Earth
from space is in jeopardy. These observations are essential for
weather forecasting, hurricane warning, management of
agriculture and forestry, documenting and anticipating the
impacts of global climate change, and much more.
Maintenance of an adequate constellation of Earth-observing
satellites and the instruments they carry is now threatened by
budget cuts and reallocations in the two federal agencies that
share the primary responsibility for them, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The situation is already causing harm, and it will become
rapidly worse unless the Congress and the Administration take
prompt action to reverse the recent trends.
The new NRC report finds that [T]he United States'
extraordinary foundation of global observations is at great
risk. It also concludes that the sensors planned for the next
generation of U.S. Earth observing satellites are `generally
less capable' than their counterparts in the current, now
rapidly diminishing generation.
These declines will result in major gaps in the continuity
and quality of the data gathered about the Earth from space.
As noted in the new NRC study and elsewhere, this trend of
sharply diminished U.S. capacity in Earth observations from
space has been the result not only of tightening constraints on
NASA and NOAA budgets but also of an explicit redirection of
NASA's priorities away from Earth observation and toward
missions to the Moon and Mars. The goals in NASA's mission
statement formerly began with `To understand and protect our
home planet . . . ' Those words have now been replaced with
`Pioneering the future . . .'. The aim of better exploring the
moon and Mars has attractions, but we agree with the sentiment
expressed by the former chairman of the House Science
Committee, Representative Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), who
observed at a hearing on this topic in April 2005 that `The
planet that has to matter most to us is the one we live on.'
The result of the change in NASA priorities is that the funds
needed to sustain critical space-based observations are now
declining precipitously, even as the agency's total budget
grows. budgets and currently fall far short of U.S. needs The
NRC study offered detailed recommendations for restoring U.S.
capabilities in Earth observations from space to acceptable
levels, including:
<bullet> reconstituting specific key observation
capabilities that have recently been deleted from
scheduled NOAA satellite series;
<bullet> accelerating NASA's current launch schedule
to shrink the data gaps implied by current plans; and
<bullet> committing to the 17 highest-priority new
Earth-observation missions, out of more than 100
candidates evaluated for the 2010-2020 time period.
The study concluded that its recommendations could be funded
until 2020 by returning the Earth-science budget at NASA to its
FY 1998-2000 level and stabilizing the budget of NOAA's
National Environmental Satellite Data, and Information Service
at only slightly above the FY2007 level, adjusted for
inflation. This is a blueprint for a program that will bring
immense returns for modest costs. The Congress and the
administration ought to implement it.
Response of Bradley W. Udall to Questions From Senator Cantwell
Question 1. In talking about predicted future changes, you
discussed climate models being used by the IPCC, and that those models
tended to agree that precipitation will likely increase in the north
and decreases in the Southwest. Mr. Udall and Dr. Milly's testimony
seem to be in sync with those conclusions. A recent story in USA Today,
though, entitled ``Climate change models overstate droughts'', talks
about a new study entitled ``How Much More Rain Will Global Warming
Bring'', which finds that climate change will result in increased
global rainfall which may be 3 times greater than currently predicted.
The story concludes by stating that ``climate modelers are overstating
how much rainfall will dry up in a warmer climate''.
Are you familiar with this new study, and if so, does it have
implications for the modeling results that you've all discussed today?
Answer. I am familiar with this study and have had several
discussions with scientists about it. Here's what I've discovered:
1) Like all science, this article will take some time for
people to digest.
2) The new 2007 IPCC WG1 Summary for Policy Makers says the
following about the observations for heavy precipitation and
droughts:
``More intense and longer droughts have been observed
over wider areas since the 1970s, particularly in the
tropics and subtropics. Increased drying linked with
higher temperatures and decreased precipitation have
contributed to changes in drought. Changes in sea
surface temperatures (SST), wind patterns, and
decreased snowpack and snow cover have also been linked
to droughts. (3.3)''
and
The frequency of heavy precipitation events has increased
over most land areas, consistent with warming and observed
increases of atmospheric water vapour. (3.8, 3.9)
Wentz's article focuses on heavy precipitation events and
barely discusses droughts. Theory predicts both heavier
precipitation and more drying due to atmospheric physics as the
planet warms. These two concepts, contrary to perception, are
tied together and one does not preclude the other. In fact,
they are related.
3) There is a very short dataset associated with the article.
Data from only 20 years is frequently too short to be able to
detect and quantify trends. For example, the early satellite
temperature record showed very little tropospheric warming.
Today, we now know that the methods used to analyze that data
were in error, and after many discussions and publications,
science finally got it right.
4) The science of more floods and more droughts' associated
with climate change is quite robust. It bothers me that the
authors did not cite what is one of the most important articles
on the topic, Kevin Trenberth's ``Changing Character of
Precipitation'' published in 2003 in the Bulletin of the
American Meteorological Society.
5) The satellite data for the study only covers the oceans,
not continents. Continental data was assumed to be a constant.
6) In summary, this was a study done with a short dataset,
looks only at oceans, focuses on precipitation and not
droughts, and seems to disagree with the most recent
observations on drought as reported by the IPCC. I suspect many
of these issues will be discussed in papers that respond to
this article.
7) With regard to models, there is much work to be done on
many fronts. Please see my response below to Senator Salazar.
Question 2. You discuss the need to produce information on a
regional basis as opposed to a global scale, including the development
of regional climate models. It's my understanding that a great deal of
the projections currently being made are the result of ``downscaling''
global climate models to assess climate change impacts in specific
regions.
Udall--What is ``downscaling'' and is it the best way to evaluate
trends in specific regions? Do we have the capability to develop
region-specific climate models and, if so, will they be likely to
produce better predictive results?
Answer. The current generation of global circulation models
operates with very large scale grid boxes--on the order of 200km per
side. In areas of complex topography like mountains, these large grid
boxes do not do a good job of simulating climate. In addition, some
weather and climate processes operate on scales much smaller than
200km, and these processes are, grossly speaking, estimated, rather
than precisely calculated. These large grid boxes are due to computer
limitations--in order to make the grid boxes half the current size and
process data at the same rate, computers need to be 16 times faster.
(one grid box turns into four grid boxes, the four boxes are then
divided vertically making 8 grid boxes, and the model time step is cut
in half meaning that 16 solutions are required where previously only
one solution was needed.) As computer power increases following Moore's
law, every 4 years we can halve the grid box size. In order to get grid
boxes on the order of 25km, we need 3 halvings' or about 12 years.
Until models get to much smaller grid boxes, the only way to get
more accurate regional level information is to take the large scale
output and downscale' it. There are 2 ways to do this: (1) find
statistical relationships between the computer model and known
historical conditions, and use those relationships to convert future
model data into downscaled' data (``statistical downscaling''); and (2)
use a regional computer model (or nested model') to take the large
scale model and put it into a similar model but one with small grid
boxes(``dynamical downscaling''). The statistical method is generally
quite fast; the regional model is much slower.
Both techniques have strengths and limitations: the statistical
method can downscale output from many different computer models and
even different runs of the same model with ease while the regional
model is believed to be more representative of the actual physics at
work and hence offers the opportunity for more realistic
representations. The statistical technique is, however, constrained by
the statistics of the past events while the dynamical technique is very
slow.
In answer to the question, we now have both of these capabilities.
The statistical technique have been more widely used. We need to
encourage groups doing statistical downscaling to do large parts of the
country in addition to their particular region, and store the output in
a common location. In the case of dynamical downscaling, these efforts
are just beginning. The North American Regional Climate Change
Assessment Program (NARCCAP) is such an effort. More needs to be done
on the dynamical downscaling front.
Question 3. You describe in your testimony a host of problems
facing water managers in the Colorado River basin--for example--over-
consumption; population growth; and uncertainty as to the extent of
legal entitlements.
Do those issues dwarf the issues likely to be posed by climate
change? Should our focus be primarily on better water management and
increased efficiencies on the theory that improvements in these areas
will also serve the water supply challenges posed by climate change?
Answer. This is a great question. Yes, in the short term, we should
certainly focus on these areas because better water management and
increased efficiencies do offer some significant solutions for now that
will carry over into the future climate change problems. With respect
to planning for climate change on a longer term horizon, I believe we
need to begin building capacity now in water management organizations
to deal with the unique problems of climate change. This will take
time--engineers, managers, boards of directors all need to learn about
the state of the science, including the limitations, and begin to think
about how to incorporate this knowledge into operations. I believe this
will take several years, by which time I hope our regional modeling
capabilities will improve such that we can begin to obtain future more
reliable future projections, especially with respect to precipitation.
Should the models not be available at this time, I still very much
believe this effort will generate returns by having water providers
begin to reanalyze their entire operations.
Response of Bradley W. Udall to Questions From Senator Salazar
Question 1. What studies do you believe would be most beneficial to
understanding the potential impacts from global warming on water
supplies?
Answer. The more I talk to scientists, the more I think that the
US's three computer modeling groups need to be directed to fix known
problems in their general circulation models before introducing new
complexity. This may or may not require additional resources. When
upgrading and enhancing these models it is too easy to direct new
effort into increasing model complexity, when more value could be
obtained from doing model intercomparisons, identifying problems, and
then fixing known issues. The draft report from the Climate Change
Science Program for Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.1, Climate
Models: An Assessments of Strengths and Limitations for User
Applications, covers many of the known problems with these models. A
good start would be to encourage these modeling groups to address known
problems before adding new features.
Question 2. Are the existing observation networks, e.g., for
measuring streamflows, snowpacks, etc., adequate to understanding the
observed impacts from global warming? Are there additional observation
networks we should be putting in place?
Answer. The networks are clearly not adequate. We are losing
important streamgages with long periods of records regularly. USGS
Cooperators and not happy with the high fees being charged by the USGS
to handle data collected by the cooperators, and as such are not
willing to pay for their portion of the co-op station. Meta data, that
is the data that describes the particulars of real data, is frequently
non-existent. I had a discussion with a high level person in the NRCS
recently about the meta-data associated with SNOTEL and he was very
concerned about the quality of the data. Without the metadata it is
difficult to obtain accurate studies on snow trends. This is a resource
question. Very little is known about soil moisture because the soil
moisture network is so sparse. Additional sites are needed. It would be
very interesting to have the NRCS, USGS and NWS provide a joint report
on how these networks could be improved in a cost-effective manner to
provide reliable data for water management and research. Encouraging
these entities from three different federal agencies to work together
could potentially identify interesting synergies. All of these networks
need sets of stations that are relatively clean' of aberrations so that
long-term trends can be deduced. While the USGS and NWS supposedly have
these data sets, many scientists complain that these sets have
significant problems that hinder long term trend analysis.
______
Response of Jack Williams to Questions From Senator Cantwell
Question 1. You cite to several studies predicting broad declines
in trout and salmon populations as a result of climate change. You also
mention a range of impacts that will likely occur--from reduced
streamflows to changes in insect hatches.
In the studies predicting broad declines, is there any consensus on
what factor, in particular, will negatively affect coldwater fisheries?
Is it reduced streamflows, warmer temperatures, changed timing in
streamflows or some other specific impact?
Answer. We do not believe there is any consensus regarding a single
factor that would primarily be responsible for predicted declines.
However, we believe that the following two factors will be the most
influential in predicted declines of trout, char and salmon.
<bullet> Reduced streamflows as a result of reduced snowpack, earlier
runoff, drought and increased evaporation rates.
<bullet> Increased flooding as a result of more intense and frequent
storm events, and resulting impacts from flood-control
activities such as dam construction and stream channelization.
Of course, the causal factors are complex and often synergistic.
For example, drought may reduce streamflows but is also likely to cause
more frequent and larger wildfires.
We also are very concerned about potential impacts of well-meaning
but ill-advised attempts exert more artificial control on streamflows,
floods and drought. Dams, for example, may appear a tempting way to
address water supply shortages but have been shown to cause negative
impacts downstream and actually increase risk of larger flood events as
dam capacities are exceeded or reservoir capacity is used for other
purposes besides flood control. We encourage measures that improve the
long-term health of our watersheds rather than quick fixes.
Question 2. In recommending strategies to increase the resilience
of fisheries to Climate Change, you talk about the need to protect
remaining core habitat areas, as well as the need to expand the range
currently available through habitat restoration projects.
Is there any coordinated set of federal programs to address the
habitat protection and restoration activities that you envision? It
seems that most of the activities that I'm aware of on the federal
level are ESA-driven. Is that indeed the case, and if so, will that be
too late if the impacts of climate change are rapidly accelerating?
Answer. I do not believe that there is a coordinated federal effort
to address the habitat protection and restoration activities that we
envision. However, there are several important pieces at the federal
level, which if adequately funded and coordinated, could achieve the
desired result. For example, the Western Native Trout Initiative is an
effort of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in cooperation with other
federal and state agencies and non-governmental organizations, to
develop a multi-species approach to conservation of coldwater fish
habitats. TU will be encouraging adoption of a climate-driven
contingency plan to protect aquatic diversity at their next meeting in
Phoenix, Arizona.
Of course, much of the restoration work must take place on private
lands. The Farm Bill provides $4 billion annually to help pay for
conservation and restoration efforts on private lands, including water
conservation and riparian and stream habitat restoration. The Farm Bill
programs, administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service,
can help pay for activities to help avoid ESA listings or recover
species so that they can be taken off of the list.
We are concerned that if preventative action is not taken soon to
improve the condition of our fisheries that additional species will
require ESA protection. The ESA would likely improve protections for
important fish species but its provisions would be invoked only after
substantial declines occurred.
Response of Jack Williams to Questions From Senator Salazar
Question 1. Are the existing reservoir storage capacities capable
of handling the early snowpack melts?
Answer. We believe that changes in dam operation have limited
ability to offset water supply changes anticipated by climate change.
Most existing reservoirs are located far downstream of mountain areas
that will be most influenced by changes in snowpacks. Many existing
dams are multipurpose facilities that could not handle significant
additional storage needs.
We also are concerned about attempts to build new dams to offset
climate impacts. Steep, mountainous terrain most affected by snowpack
changes offers few good dam sites. Any new dams constructed in such
areas would cause significant disruption to stream systems and aquatic
biodiversity.
Question 2. What are the best options you believe are available to
adapt to global warming impacts on water supplies in the West?
Answer. We believe that there are a number of conservation actions
that could readily be taken to reduce demand for water supplies. In
particular, numerous efficiencies could occur through improved
irrigation practices, such as replacing flood irrigation with
sprinklers, restricting sprinklers to morning and evening hours when
evaporation is less, and installing drip irrigation where feasible.
Improving the condition of our riparian areas and watersheds will
improve the natural storage capacity of our lands, mitigate impacts of
floods and drought, and insure that runoff is metered out throughout as
much of the year as possible.
Question 3. Have conservation efforts been effective in reducing
water demand or have increases in population in the West negated the
savings from conservation?
Answer. While conservation efforts have been effective in reducing
water demands, their overall influence on water supplies is seldom
realized because of increasing population growth, particularly in
larger urban centers in the West. Nonetheless, we believe that water
conservation efforts, in municipal, agricultural, and industrial areas,
should be a critical part of our response to climate change. We also
believe that restoration of our watersheds will improve their natural
storage ability and metered delivery of runoff throughout the year.
Restoration efforts also should be a critical part of our response to
climate change.
Question 4. Do you believe that climate change impacts on water
supplies will have to be considered when making commitments about
future water deliveries?
Answer. We believe that changes in water supplies that are
predicted from a changing environment should be considered when making
future commitments for water delivery. Already throughout the West, we
have many river and groundwater systems that are over allocated, which
causes protracted legal disputes, disrupted streamflows, and loss of
fisheries.
______
Response of Tim Culbertson to Questions From Senator Cantwell
Question 1a. Your testimony talks about the additional stress and
competition that climate change will bring about for limited water
resources--a point reiterated by the testimony of other panelists. You
also mention the opportunities that exist for additional hydropower
development in the U.S.
In the face of the potential new conflicts that climate change may
cause in the competition for limited water resources, do you think it
will be possible to move forward and develop the hydropower potential
that you discuss in your testimony?
Answer. Yes, we do believe that the projected growth opportunity
for hydropower can be realized despite the fact that some areas of the
country will experience additional water constraints. The estimates of
new hydropower generation are conservative. Additionally coal, nuclear
and natural gas facilities also consume fairly large quantities of
water during the production of electrical energy and also have a stake
in the use of our water resources.
Some existing hydropower facilities will lose a portion of their
current output due to shrinking snow pack, etc., while other regions
will experience an increase in rainfall or snow pack. Projections are
showing that the issue will be more of a transfer of water availability
from particular regions to perhaps another area of the country, or a
significant change in the timing of the water availability and the form
in which it is received. Rather than melting snows, some rivers will be
fed by significant rains. These rains may, or may not, arrive in
spring. As a result, the issue becomes one of managing the water
received, the timing of that receipt, and addressing the form (rain
versus snow), rather than an issue of no or too little water.
As a result, we believe that new strategies will be developed to
address the water management issue. These strategies will address the
form in which the water is received and the timing to ensure that
enough water is available for the many competing interests and uses.
This may require the building of additional water storage facilities on
which hydropower could be built. In addition, it is especially
important to develop new hydropower potential at existing dams that are
currently without generation facilities. It is simply good public
policy to ensure that our Nation's infrastructure, whether newly
planned or existing, provides the greatest societal benefit to the
consumer. Otherwise, the overall value of hydropower relative to other,
more GHG-producing resources will not be fully realized.
Another important strategy to address these impacts is increased
research and development funding. As important as this research is, the
Department of Energy has not funded a hydropower R&D program to any
large degree. In fact, over the last two years the administration has
not proposed any funding at all. A robust DOE R&D program, as is under
consideration for FY 2008, would support: resource assessments for both
conventional hydropower and new waterpower technologies, such as ocean,
tidal and instream resources; environmental impact studies; RD&D for
advanced technologies; and importantly, new turbine designs.
New turbines, in particular, could address the timing issue with
variable speed designs and other improvements that result in greater
efficiencies. Underfunding research is shortsighted given the need to
design and deploy turbines that can produce the same amount of energy
with variable water supply. The National Hydropower Association calls
on Congress to consider the important need for a reinvestment in
hydropower to help prepare for the effects of climate change.
Question 1b. Of all the impacts to water supply discussed in the
hearing, what is the most troubling to the hydropower industry? Is it
the change in timing of streamflows, the potential overall reduction in
water supply or some other factor?
Answer. Both the timing question and the supply are equally
important concerns. Some regions may be troubled more on the timing
issue depending on their ability to store water. Not all facilities
have storage capability, and many industry members are constrained by
FERC license requirements as to the amount of water they can store.
What will be important to future planning will be a willingness to be
flexible and provide the appropriate tools for industry to address the
issue. More flexibility on the part of FERC and the resource agencies
to store additional water or change release schedules could be
something for future consideration, but it is too early as yet to
determine exactly what tools will be necessary and under what
circumstances they might be needed. We believe that it will require the
cooperation of FERC, industry, the resource agencies and the
stakeholders to work through the issues presented by the storage
question.
Question 1c. Will the ultimate impacts likely be different in
different river basins? For example, will it depend on the amount of
reservoir storage capacity that's available relative to the overall
streamflow?
Answer. Yes, as indicated in the response to the earlier question,
regions of the country will be affected differently. Some areas already
rely on spring rains, rather than large mountain snow packs and are
well equipped to store water, timing releases over the drier summer
months. Other regions have relied heavily on a consistent melting snow
pack to feed rivers over the drier summer periods.
Not all regions have studied the projected impacts climate might
have on their water supply issues. The Northwest, California and some
of the other western states have just recently begun to look into the
issue. Well versed in the scarcity of water issues, western states have
begun to understand the importance of the issue and, as a result, are
working to develop a plan of action. While eastern states have
experienced localized periodic droughts over the years, these regions
of the country have generally been blessed with an abundant water
supply system. Just the same, most industry members, despite their
regional location, have addressed water management issues in the past
and have the ability to plan for the future. The question is more one
of providing the support to industry and the sharing of information
from national, state and regional perspectives, as industry works to
address climate change's affect on water management issues. This
support should be in the form of information sharing, regulatory
cooperation and financial support of research and development.
______
Response of Tim Culbertson to Questions From Senator Salazar
Question 1. Are the existing reservoir storage capacities capable
of handling the early snowpack melts?
Answer. The short answer regarding storage capacities is that some
reservoirs are equipped, while others may not be capable to store large
additional supplies of water. This is a site specific issue and depends
on the original design and plan for the storage facility, the FERC
license terms and conditions, and how projects are managed on the same
river or within the same river basin.
Some facilities will be engineered to handle the additional water,
but may be constrained from a FERC license or a regional management
perspective to hold the additional water. Projects may have a FERC
license that requires that no water be stored, forcing the owner to
operate the project as run-of-river. Under such a scenario, all the
water will be required to be passed down the river system. Run-of-river
operations are more of a trend under relicensing over the last five
years as the preferred operation mode by many of the stakeholders
engaged in the relicensing process. As such, the region could be
subject to energy shortages when rains end and no additional rains are
received during the hot summer months because the backup battery--the
storage facility--has been eliminated. With no snow pack constantly
feeding the river over these drier months, energy shortages could
occur.
Industry has the knowledge and the engineering ability to address
these issues. However, it will require cooperation, support of R&D, and
regulatory flexibility to address the problem and provide the tools to
successfully manage the water resource.
Continuing to provide support for research and the development of
new turbines that allow for greater water efficiencies and variable
speeds will be an important and critical step forward. Variable speed
turbines that allow industry to address a more flexible water resource
will be key to maintaining energy supply under the uncertainties
presented by climate. Congress needs to support a hydropower research
and development program within the DOE well beyond its current strategy
of providing little to no funding. Significant new dollars should be
invested in this program to ensure that industry has the tools
necessary to address the climate issue and climate's affect on water
supply.
Question 2. What are the best options you believe are available to
adapt to global warming impacts on water supplies in the West?
Answer. First, we need to continue to study and plan for impact.
Federal support should be provided for cooperative efforts to prepare
for the impact on water supply. Second, the issue may very well drive
states to reconsider new water supply storage facilities; the addition
of clean, climate friendly hydropower should be considered to maximize
the full benefit of these facilities should the states proceed with
such a plan; 3) development of new clean, non or low emitting
generation should be pursued to lower the carbon emissions and reduce
the threat of global warming; this will include the development of
ocean, tidal and hydrokinetic or damless waterpower technologies; 4)
most important, a reinvestment in research and development, with a
particular emphasis on turbine efficiencies and variable speed designs,
will provide the necessary hardware tools to address the problem; 5)
cooperation and sharing of information between the levels of government
and industry regarding impacts and operation best practices would be
extremely helpful; and finally 6) regulatory flexibility that would
permit the issue of climate's impact to be considered regarding
operation terms under existing licenses and inclusion of this equation
as new licenses or relicensings are considered would be an important
step forward.
Question 3. Have conservation efforts been effective in reducing
water demand or have increases in population in the West negated the
savings from conservation?
Answer. Increases in population will always affect water planning
strategies, including conservation. Despite this issue, many regions
have found water conservation programs effective. The question is not
so much whether conservation works in the context of growth, but
whether regional cooperation exists within a river basin to ensure the
effectiveness of the program.
Question 4. Do you believe that climate change impacts on water
supplies will have to be considered when making commitments about
future water deliveries?
Answer. While most hydropower projects do not ``deliver'' water,
the issue of water availability for all of the competing interests is
of great concern to the hydropower industry. The terms under which a
hydropower plant must operate are set in the license agreement. These
agreements set flows and timing of releases as well as the amount of
water that can be held back in a reservoir.
Obviously, climate considerations should become an issue that is
addressed as the license terms are set since water availability could
change over the term of the license, which generally last for 30-50
years. With some regulatory flexibility built in to the license,
operators would be able to plan for and address climate change's impact
on water availability. All stakeholders should understand that need and
expectations for water allocations should be governed with a
willingness to remain flexible in future or out years.
Despite the need for flexibility and the anticipated effect climate
change will have on water availability, with proper planning and
support, the hydropower industry will be able to address these impacts.
At the same time, it is critical that the federal government move
forward in addressing the climate change issue. One important strategy
that must be considered as part of this national campaign is the
nation's hydropower system which sits, along with its sister renewable
technologies, as our best hope for the future. Yet, too often,
hydropower is not recognized for the role it could play and is left out
of incentive plans to spur growth.
As mentioned, hydropower is primed for significant growth in the
areas of both conventional hydropower and new technologies. A new
Electric Power Research Institute report has found that 23,000 MW of
growth potential could be developed by 2025 utilizing conventional
hydropower and new ocean, tidal and instream hydrokinetic technologies.
This potential will require that hydropower receive the same incentives
currently provided wind, solar, geothermal and biomass.
Long term extension of the production tax credit, credit parity
with the other renewables, recognition of new technologies under the
eligibility definition within the PTC and modifications on the statute
addressing eligibility of non-powered dams for consideration under the
credit are all key policy changes that should be part of our plan to
address climate change. In addition, a federal renewable portfolio
standard should consider new technologies and non-powered dams as
eligible renewable resources. By taking these simple acts, Congress
could be adding substantially to our clean energy portfolio and reduce
the nation's reliance on carbon producing generation. We urge Congress
to give greater consideration to hydropower as part of its national
plan to reduce our carbon footprint and lessen the impact of climate
change on our planet.
NHA once again expresses its appreciation to the Committee for the
opportunity to testify at the June 6 hearing and to demonstrate
hydropower's growth potential and role as part of the solution to
climate change. If there are any further questions regarding NHA's
testimony or these questions, please feel free to contact us.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of Dan Geary, Nevada Representative, National
Environmental Trust
We appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony regarding impacts
of climate change on water supply and availability in the United
States, and related issues from a water use perspective. The National
Environmental Trust is a non-profit, non-partisan organization
established to inform citizens about environmental problems and how
they affect our health and quality of life.
Few issues have as dramatic an impact on our communities in Nevada
than the urgent concern of global warming and a changing climate.It is
no secret that water is the lifeblood of the American West. A frequent
expression used to describe water and the West is the old phrase
attributed to Mark Twain, ``Whiskey is for drinking, water is for
fighting over.''
Nevada's communities are completely dependent on the rivers and
natural aquifers of the West. Booming Clark County, which contains
metropolitan Las Vegas, receives its water from the Colorado River,
with our primary reservoir stored behind Hoover Dam in one of the
largest man-made lakes in the world. The Colorado River Compact is the
instrument by which the waters of the Colorado River basin are
distributed to all of the upper and lower basin states. The Colorado
River is fragile and stretched to the breaking point. Although it once
stretched to the Pacific Ocean from its headwaters in Colorado, the
river now ends in an empty riverbed miles east of its natural terminus
in Baja, Mexico. Nevada's northern counties, along with much of
California, are dependent upon the snowpack contained in the mighty
Sierra Nevada Mountains. Nevada's own jewel, Lake Tahoe, is entirely
fed by the snowpack of the Sierras.
The tale of the American West is a tale of coping with scarcity.
The harsh reality is that water in the West is not only scarce; it is
scarcest where and when it is most needed. Much of policymaking for
western states is driven by this scarcity and the use of water, whether
in cities or on farms and ranches. Most of the West's precipitation
falls in the mountains. When air rises to pass over mountains, its
moisture is forced out as precipitation. Man could not have devised a
more efficient water storage and distribution system than the natural
connection between snowpack in the mountains and the distribution
system of the West's rivers. The cycle of winter snowfall and spring
runoff provides nearly three-quarters of the West's water.
Through extensive engineering along the arid Colorado River basin,
we can hold four times the river's annual flow, and pipelines deliver
the water where it is needed, including my home of southern Nevada.
Water from the Colorado River is also diverted under the Continental
Divide and through an aqueduct across the California desert to meet the
needs of cities and farms and ranches at the edge of the Great Plains.
Even with these marvels of engineering, the largest reservoir of water
is the annual snowpack, which delays the runoff until spring,
delivering water where and, most importantly, when it is needed most.
That human activities are already changing the nature of water in
the West is well documented. Regional snowpack, which acts as a natural
reservoir system that stores water until needed, has been shrinking in
recent years and releasing fresh water earlier than usual. There is a
growing body of evidence documenting these changes, including the
following specific findings:
<bullet> Higher temperatures: Increases in annual temperatures have
been greater in the West than in other regions of the
contiguous states, according to National Weather Service
Data.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Climate Prediction Center, National Weather Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Temperature and
Precipitation Trends: Annual, <www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/anltrend.gif>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Less snow, more rain: Since 1949, less winter precipitation
is falling as snow and more as rain, according to a 2006
analysis of National Climatic Data Center records from 200
western mountain weather stations.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ N. Knowles, M. D. Dettinger, and D. R. Cayan, ``Trends in
Snowfall versus Rainfall for the Western United States, 1949-2004,''
Journal of Climate, September 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Less snowpack: Most snowpack levels are declining, according
to an exhaustive analysis of 824 western snowpack-measurement
records spanning the period 1950 to 1997.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ P. W. Mote, A. F. Hamlet, M. P. Clark, and D. P. Lettenmaier,
``Declining Mountain Snowpack in Western North America,'' Bulletin of
the American Meteorological Society 86(2005): 39-49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Earlier snow melt: Snowpacks are now melting earlier in the
year. For a majority of 279 snowmelt-dominated western rivers
and streams, the timing of peak flows advanced over the period
1948 to 2000, with the peaks coming 10 to 30 days earlier.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ I. T. Stewart, D. R. Cayan, and M. D. Dettinger, ``Changes in
Snowmelt Runoff Timing in Western North America Under a `Business as
Usual' Climate Change Scenario,'' Climatic Change 62(2004): 217-232.
Unfortunately, western states can look forward to a continuation of
this trend. As one expert testified before Congress in 2004, ``losses
in the West's total April 1 snowpack are likely to exceed 40% by the
2050s.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The West's Snow Resources in a Changing Climate, Testimony
before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, May 6, 2004, Philip W. Mote, PhD, Joint Institute for
the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean Climate Impacts Group, University
of Washington. <www-jisao.atmos.washington.edu/cig/outreach/
presentfiles/Mote--SenateTestimony--050604.pdf>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) found in its
2007 report on the current and projected impacts of global warming
that: ``Climate change is very likely to constrain North America's
already intensively utilized water resources, interacting with other
stresses.'' The panel found that ``projected warming in the western
mountains by the mid 21st century is very likely to cause large
decreases in snowpack, earlier snowmelt, more winter rain events,
increased peak winter flows and flooding, and reduced summer flows.''
Coupled with increases in demand, climate-driven water scarcity is
likely to complicate management of heavily utilized water resources.
In some cases, the panel's projections are quite stark. For
example, the IPCC states: ``In the case of the Sacramento-Joaquin River
and the Colorado River basins in the western USA . . . streamflow
changes . . . are so strong that beyond 2020, not all the present-day
water demands (including environmental targets) could be fulfilled even
with an adapted reservoir management.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Barnett, Malone, Pennell et al. cited by Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, ``Chapter 3: Technical Summary,'' Working
Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Fourth Assessment
Report, 2007, <http://www.ipcc-wg2.org/index.html>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many circumstances are responsible for the complexity of water
concerns throughout the United States, and particularly in the West.
Some of these are within our control and some are not. Two that are in
our control are diminished water availability due to global warming and
increased water consumption due to the energy choices we make. It will
be more important than ever to consider how choices about climate and
energy will affect future economic growth, agriculture, wildlife, and
recreation.
national action
The United States can produce substantial, near-term reductions in
domestic greenhouse gas emissions. An effective near-term climate
policy would:
<bullet> Enact comprehensive emissions reduction requirements that
include a carbon cap,
<bullet> Enact simple-to-implement policies to expand production of
electricity from renewable sources,
<bullet> Adopt a stronger federal fuel economy standard to improve
light-vehicle fuel efficiency, and
<bullet> Aggressively implement existing federal authority to set
equipment and build energy efficiency standards and codes.
In addition, the United States should begin to lay the groundwork
for much deeper reductions in global warming emissions. These actions
should include:
<bullet> Replacing the highest emitting sources with cleaner sources,
such as renewable energy or advanced fossil energy systems with
low or no greenhouse gas emissions,
<bullet> Researching and developing technologies that permanently
capture and sequester carbon from commercial fossil-fueled
energy sources,
<bullet> Developing action plans for significantly reducing several
non-carbon dioxide greenhouse emissions or concentrations
(methane and ozone formation), along with emissions of black-
carbon aerosols, and
<bullet> Reengaging in the international dialogue to effectively
construct an international policy to address climate change
worldwide.
______
Statement of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Using a unique approach to model climate and hydrologic processes
and their linkages, scientists and engineers at the Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory have been investigating the impacts of climate
change on water resources in mountain watersheds and river basins for
over a decade. These investigations have been in support of missions
for multiple federal agencies including Department of Energy, NOAA,
NASA, and EPA.
Early studies at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory focused
primarily on assessing cumulative impacts of climate change. Since the
mid-1990's, however, our focus has increasingly been on developing
approaches to adaptive response to climate change. Since water
resources are one of the primary sectors directly impacted by climate
change, adaptive water resources management has long been a focus.
Climate change will affect water resources. Water resources are
critical to nearly every aspect of human endeavor. The impacts of
climate change on goods and services that directly or indirectly rely
on water propagate in ways that our understanding can only allow us to
crudely postulate. While water is generally a regional resource, many
of the goods and services water provides are global. For example,
hydropower generated by rivers in the Northwest provides electrical
power to the nation through the power grid, and numerous irrigated
crops grown in eastern Washington State are exported worldwide.
Over the past century the nation has made vast investments in the
water related infrastructure such as dams, canals, groundwater wells
that is specifically required to mitigate the impacts of seasonal
patterns and inter-annual variability of water supply and water demand.
Reservoirs help mitigate the impacts of drought and flood. Water law
provides a framework to prioritize the allocation of water in periods
of drought. This existing infrastructure provides a capacity for some
degree of adaptation to changes in climate.
While climate models forecast only minor changes in the average
quantity of precipitation in the Pacific Northwest, scientists at PNNL
predict significant changes in the seasonal patterns of water
availability. This change is due to the shift toward increasing
fraction of precipitation occurring as rainfall than as snow as the
climate continues to warm in the future following the observed trend
over the past half century due to the buildup of greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere. Historically, the snowpack in the Pacific Northwest
represents the largest ``reservoir'' of freshwater in the region.
Reduction of this virtual reservoir due to reduced mountain snowpack
will management of already stressed water resources even more difficult
A priority research need identified by scientists and engineers at
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is to significantly advance the
methods that water mangers use to forecast and mitigate potential
impacts of extreme events including catastrophic floods and sustained
droughts. Our studies have suggested an increased likelihood of intense
precipitation and winter floods in the Northwest, with the latter
caused primarily by an increased frequency of rain-on-snow events.
Water mangers must continuously balance the need to draft reservoirs to
provide adequate storage for flood protection against maximizing water
storage to mitigate drought impacts. It will be important for
scientists to advance and validate their methods to simulate the
observed frequency and intensity of extreme events and predict how they
will shift in the future, and for water managers to assess adaptation
approaches to manage the extremes under the climate-changed regimes.
Another area that Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is
currently investigating to help mitigate climate change impacts is
improved conjunctive management of groundwater and surface water. Many
regions overlie groundwater reservoirs that can be utilized to provide
reliable backup water supplies during drought. Climate change may alter
the rates at which these subsurface reservoirs are recharged. For
example, in a warmer climate, reduced subsurface discharge would likely
result from more precipitation falling as rain rather than snow,
favoring surface runoff over subsurface recharge and higher evaporation
from the surface during summer. Withdrawing from the subsurface
reservoirs in excess of the recharge rate will cause potentially non-
renewable water table decline and a variety of associated adverse
impacts. The conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater must be
assessed in the larger context of climate change, its impacts on water
and the ecosystems, and water use.
Meeting these challenges within individual states, regions, and
across regions will require increasingly sophisticated and integrated
modeling and analysis tools to understand complex earth system
processes at a variety of spatial and temporal scales and to model the
potential outcomes of various management alternatives. Further, we will
need to integrate these new tools into a decision framework that will
harness the most comprehensive data sets and advanced earth systems
models related to regional climate, hydrology, and demand analysis, and
will translate our improved understanding of the system into more
efficient and sustainable water resource, ecosystem, and economic
operations and practices.
______
Statement of Western Resource Advocates
background
In the western United States the availability and development of
water resources has shaped the pattern of human settlement. So
important is water in these arid lands of the west that inscribed in
the rotunda of the Colorado State Capitol is the saying ``Here is a
land where life is written in water.''\1\ The ability of mankind to
survive where rainfall is infrequent and evaporation rates high is
wholly dependent upon the availability of water and we have produced
enormous dams and water conveyance structures to bring water to mines,
farms, and metropolitan areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Honorable J. Steven Griles, Deputy Secretary of the
Interior, Address to the Colorado River Water Users Association, Las
Vegas, NV, December 17, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But our manipulation of western waterways has not come without
consequence. Over the past 150 years we have seen ecosystems dry up and
many native species die as the water that once supported them has been
diverted for urban, industrial, and agricultural needs.
Our ability to conquer and harness the energy of natural resources
is unparalleled. However, these actions have also had dramatic
increases in combustion of fossil fuels. Emissions from this combustion
have been found to alter the chemical composition of Earth's atmosphere
and unabated continued production will bring changes in the global
climate, influencing temperatures and precipitation patterns.
Human influenced climate change will have a tremendous impact on
water resources. Experts agree that we are at the dawn of a new era in
which greater and more frequent fluctuations in water availability will
exist.\2\ Due to heavy human reliance upon water in the western United
States, it is critical that westerners prepare for the changes that may
come and adopt management strategies to decrease per capita energy and
water use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ US Environmental Protection Agency, ``Clean Water After Climate
Change, Inside the Greenhouse,'' Global Warming Web Page, Fall 2001,
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/globalwanning/
greenhouseigreeenhouse15/water.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
climate change & the greenhouse effect
Since the industrial revolution, humans have been using fossil
fuels in large quantities to heat homes, fuel vehicles, produce
electricity and manufacture goods.\3\ The burning of carbon based
fuels, such as oil and coal releases a large amount of carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Once in the atmosphere
these gases act alongside their naturally occurring counterparts
trapping and reradiating heat back to the surface of the earth. The
increase of trace greenhouse gases in the atmosphere causes more heat
than would naturally be trapped to remain in the atmosphere; this
phenomenon is known as global warming or climate change.\4\ The balance
between retaining and releasing heat is delicate and even the slightest
alterations can have monumental impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Ibid.
\4\ McKinney, Michael L. Environmental Science: Systems and
Solutions, 3rd Ed. Jones and Bartlett. Sudbury, MA. 2003. 419
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One impact of climate change that is of particular concern is the
impact on water resources and how people living in the Western United
States need to modify behavior and re-structure their management
approaches to dramatically change how water is used.
precipitation & stream flow
Studies have shown that even a slight 1.7 degree Celsius increase
in temperatures alone could result in an 18 percent decrease in annual
runoff within the Colorado River Basin, one of the primary water
arteries of the west.\5\ \6\ Should precipitation also decrease, the
annual run off could be reduced anywhere between 14-44%.\7\ Moreover,
the storage capacity of the river could drastically decrease due to
increased evaporation, potentially reducing the reservoirs by 40
percent in the next 50 years.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Christensen, N.S., et al., ``Effects of Climate Change on the
Hydrology and Water Resources of the Colorado River Basin,'' 347, 350.
\6\ Ibid, 350.
\7\ Nash, ``The Implications of Climatic Change for the Stream Flow
and Water Supply in the Colorado Basin, ``171.
\8\ Christensen, ``Effects of Climate Change on the Hydrology and
Water Resources of the Colorado River Basin,'' 348.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impacts such as this are not isolated to the Colorado River but are
real concerns for all rivers throughout the Western United States. A
recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report projected that
average annual runoff from rivers and the availability of water would
``decrease by 10-30% over some dry regions and mid latitudes'' by the
middle of this century.\9\ Another report stated that ``Reduction in
snow pack will very likely alter the timing and amount of water
supplies, potentially exacerbating water shortages and conflicts,
particularly throughout the western US.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Impacts, Adaptation,
Vulnerability Summary for Policy Makers, Working Group II Contribution
to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment
Report. 2007.
\10\ Jerry Melillo et al. Climate Change Impacts on the United
States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increased temperatures in the western United States are likely to
lead to changes in precipitation patterns that could have great impacts
on residents. It is predicted that as temperature increases, more
precipitation will fall in the form of rain rather than snow in higher
altitudes of the West. This will result in a decline of the alpine snow
pack that feeds many of the major western rivers. The soils of this
semi-arid region are not able to absorb large amounts of water rapidly;
therefore, increased rain may also lead to an increase in large-scale
floods.
In the West precipitation type has a close relationship to runoff.
Many major river systems throughout the west are heavily reliant upon
snowmelt runoff; in fact in the Colorado River basin, 70% of runoff
comes from melting snow pack,\11\ which in turn feeds the basin during
the arid summer months.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Kenneth M. Strepek, David N. Yates. ``Assessing the Effects of
Climate Change on the Water Resources of the Western United States,''
Water and Climate in the Western United States, 2003, 102.
\12\ ibid, 102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, a change in the type of precipitation falling, such as
increased rain to snow ratio,\13\ would alter the hydrograph of rivers,
shifting when water is available for use. This is also problematic in
that water rights are currently issued based on the flow of the river
over a specified time. If the timing of river flow were to change
dramatically with an increase in winter runoff and a decrease in summer
runoff, it could lead to less water being available for junior water
right holders, even if the overall annual runoff remains the same.\14\
Additionally, many of the flows that benefit the environment fail to
have any water rights at all. As a result, many flows that benefit fish
species, the aquatic environment, and recreation, will be the first to
be affected as flows decrease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Ibid, 340.
\14\ Strepek, ``Assessing the Effects of Climate Change on the
Water Resources of the Western United States,'' 102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increased temperatures will also result in higher rates of
evaporation in rivers, lakes, reservoirs and soils. Increased
evaporation will lead to reduced stream flow and runoff, which will
carry serious implications for river basins and those species dependent
upon their resources.\15\ Cold water fish such as trout and salmon are
especially vulnerable as they will be unable to survive in streams with
high temperatures. The endangerment of these species could have a
spiraling effect on other organisms within the river that would
otherwise not be as impacted by changes in water temperature.
Additionally, increased temperature will lead to increased levels of
salinity within western rivers.\16\ This will not only impact aquatic
species ability to survive but it may also lead to treaty violations
between the United States and Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Christensen, ``Effects of Climate Change on the Hydrology and
Water Resources of the Colorado River Basin,'', 350
\16\ Tim Barnett et al., ``The Effects of Climate Change on Water
Resources in the West: Introduction and Overview,'' Climatic Change,
62, 2004, 7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
population growth
Over the last fifteen years nearly all western states have seen
dramatic population increases. For major cities like Las Vegas, Phoenix
and Los Angles the major source of water is a single river--the
Colorado. Since 1990 the population of Las Vegas, Phoenix and Los
Angeles has increased a combined 228%. Las Vegas alone grew over 140%.
In the last six years the population of the Southwest has increased by
4,500,000 people an average increase of 14.15%.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ U.S. Census Bureau, http://quickfacts,census.gov/
qfcliindex.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to increased water demands as population soars, land
use patterns are changing to accommodate homes for all these people.
This can result in forests being heavily degraded. Deforestation for
croplands as well as expanding cities will impact both water quality
and supply. It has been found that forests play a critical role in
precipitation patterns and that sudden loss of forested land can
quickly lead to desertification, only exacerbating the aridity that the
Western United States currently faces.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Melillo. Climate Change Impacts on the United States. 97
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
energy demands
One repercussion of increased temperatures and higher evaporation
rates could be a drastic decrease in storage, due to an already over
allocated stream flow. Relatively small fluctuations in stream flow of
1018% could result in significant decrease in reservoir storage along
major rivers in the West. The impact of climate change on river flows
and storage will also affect hydropower production.
Compounding this is the prediction that in the coming years,
electricity demand in the West will increase at a rate of 4-6% more
under climate change conditions than they would otherwise. This
increase in demand will likely encourage new energy development, which
can place significant additional stress on already limited water
supplies. Extraction and consumption of fossil fuels currently uses
significant amounts of water. In 2000, coal and gas steam-generating
electric plants in the eight state Interior West withdrew over 650
million gallons of water per day, totaling over 728,000 acre-feet each
year.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Clean Air Task Force and Western Resource Advocates, The Last
Straw: Water Use by Power Plants in the Arid West, 2003, 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some proposed new sources of energy would also have dramatic
additional water demands. Water consumption estimates for oil shale
range from 2.1 to 5.2 barrels of water per barrel of oi1.\20\ At 3 bbl
water/bbl oil, producing one million barrels of oil per day would
consume about 150,000 acre-feet per year--the total amount that some
water resource managers say may remain in the entire upper Colorado
River Basin for development.\21\ Power production to support in-situ
retort also uses additional water. Shell's in-situ process uses
approximately 250 to 300 kWh/bbl oil , and each kWh of electricity
generated consumes about 0.5 gallons of water .\22\ ,\23\ ,\24\ ,\25\ A
production rate of one million bbl/day oil would require about 150,000
ac-ft water/yr just for power production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Bartis, J.T., et al., Oil Shale Development in the United
States: Prospects and Policy Issues. RAND Corporation. Santa Monica,
CA. 2005.
\21\ Magill, B. Water manager: Climate change to ebb state's flows.
The Daily Sentinel, January 27. 2007.
\22\ Bartis, J.T., et al., Oil Shale Development in the United
States: Prospects and Policy Issues, 2005.
\23\ Clark, J. R., Nuclear energy proposed for production of shale
oil. Oil and Gas Journal, vol 104(26), 2006. 18-20.
\24\ Department of Energy (DOE), Report to Congress: The
Interdependency of Energy and Water. 2006. Available at: http://
www.sandia.gov/energy-water/does/121-RptToCongress-EWwETAcomments-
FINAL.pdf Accessed 2/28/07.
\25\ Forbes, S. Estimating Freshwater Needs to Meet Future
Thermoelectric Generation Requirements. DOE/NETL/2006-1235. 2006.
Accessed 2/17/07. Available at: http://www.netl.doe.govitechnologies/
coalpoweriewr/pubs/WaterNeedsAnalysisPhasel 1 006.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feeling the need to adapt and diversify water resources, many
communities throughout the west are also considering large scale
pipelines to transport water from one region to another. Some of these
proposals are for pipelines exceeding 200 miles in length.\26\ Pumping
water this distance requires immense amounts of energy if met through
coal or gas-fired power plants.\27\ The construction of these power
plants, which emit great deals of carbon dioxide will only further
perpetuate the cycle of climate change and all its associated impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Christina Roessler, Las Vegas and the Groundwater Development
Project: Where does it start? Where will it end?, Progressive
Leadership Alliance of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, 2006.
\27\ ibid
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
agriculture in the western united states
Eighty percent of all water in the United States is used for
agricultural irrigation;\28\ if temperatures rise, causing elevated
evaporation rates and decreasing the amount of surface water available
for humans, then farmers may be forced to look elsewhere for water. One
place for farmers to draw upon is groundwater. Over-pumping these
underground aquifers (pumping more quickly than the aquifer is
replenished) can cause land subsidence, salt-water intrusion and a
myriad of other problems, further exacerbating difficulties that many
states are already experiencing.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Glenn Schaible, ``Irrigation, Water Conservation, and Farm
Size in the Western United States,'' Amber Waves, June 2004. http://
www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/June04/findings/IrrigationWestern.htm
\29\ McKinney. Environmental Science: Systems and Solutions, 3rd
Ed, 231 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
looking forward
Decreasing river flows and lake and reservoir levels that are the
expected by-product of climate change provide great incentives to step-
up water conservation.
Role of Governments.--While the bulk of conservation work needs to
be carried-out by municipal governments, state and federal agencies can
play an important role by providing funding and technical assistance
and helping shape regional and state-specific education and message
development.
Planning.--The uncertainties generated by climate change require
more frequent conservation planning and conservation goal-setting by
water suppliers. Substantial state funding should be made available in
the form of planning and implementation grants.
Implementation.--Many cities in the West have demand management
programs but, in many areas, improvements can still be made as cities
refine their conservation programs and savings goals. Conservation
program elements often include:
<bullet> Rate structures that reward conservation and provide
incentive to avoid water waste;
<bullet> Rebate programs the assist customers (both residential and
business) with installing high efficiency water fixtures,
appliances, and devices;
<bullet> City ordinances and utility programs that encourage
efficient irrigation;
<bullet> Business and residential audits that identify property-
specific water issues;
<bullet> Education programs that deliver a consistent conservation
message to all;
Outdoor Water Use.--As municipal landscapes irrigation accounts for
roughly half of total annual municipal water use, it deserves special
attention. Successful outdoor programs include:
<bullet> Incentives and requirements to amend the soil before
planting new landscapes;
<bullet> Encouraging Xeriscape--to boost the prevalence of water-
saving landscapes and, in some cases, limiting the amount of
turf as a percentage of total landscaped area;
<bullet> Increasing efficiency by changing watering habits
(decreasing the numbers of watering days per week and lowering
the amount of time per sprinkler zone);
<bullet> Irrigation improvements, including rains sensors (that turn
off sprinkler systems during rain) and more efficient sprinkler
head placement and water pressure.
Because the West's new residents have not yet arrived, we should
focus on new development to decrease the future water-use footprint, by
encouraging residential and commercial developers and builders to use
state-of-the-art conservation practices.
In addition to the water conservation elements noted above, we need
to build a future where energy is used more efficiently and more
electricity is generated from renewable resources like, wind and solar
power--since these sources require water little and do not emit green
house gases that further contribute to climate change. Our recent
analysis concludes that 7.3 million acre-feet (2.4 trillion of gallons)
can be saved each year across the West, more specifically; 613 Acre-
feet (200 billion gallons) of water can be saved in Nevada alone. In
addition to the water savings from greater efficiency and renewable
sources, there are other substantial pollution and economic benefits of
changing the ``business as usual'' approach to energy development.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Western Resource Advocates, A Balanced Energy Plan for the
Interior West, 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
conclusion
The water resources of the West are magnificent resources and ones
that are plagued by conflicting objectives. We desire electricity, food
and development, yet we treasure our natural heritage and rich
biological diversity. In the coming decades the challenge for the West
will be to find an equitable balance between these goals; to use
technological advances to aid human ingenuity, but not rely upon them
as our sole crutch; to value human development, while preserving
natural ecosystems for future generations.
The vast majority of credible scientists believe that temperatures
are rising in the western United States and that this will alter the
natural environment that humans and other organisms rely so heavily
upon. For this reason it is critical that governments and individuals
take proactive measures to safeguard our natural resources. Managing
the allocation of water in the west is a complex undertaking and will
only be further complicated as supplies fluctuate. Prioritizing use,
requiring conservation and addressing the root causes that have brought
us to this place are all necessary steps to deal with the impacts that
a changing climate may bring.
Perhaps most importantly, measures must be put in place to
encourage the efficient use of water. Such measures focus on demand
side issues instead of supply side concerns. Rather than rely on the
antiquated approach of finding more water, this approach asks the
question, how can water demand be decreased or made more efficient? In
the face of a changing climate and exploding populations, efficiency
measures must be part of a long term solution. What is equally as
important is that efficiency measures can easily be embraced by all
sectors of water users; helping urban, industrial and agricultural
communities take steps to reduce use and improve the efficiency of
their water.