11

World Bank World Bank Climate Change WorkshopClimate Change Workshop

What Water Managers Need to Know about What Water Managers Need to Know about Climate Change and Variability for Climate Change and Variability for

Water Resources Management Water Resources Management ::Adapting to UncertaintyAdapting to Uncertainty

Eugene Z. StakhivEugene Z. StakhivInstitute for Water ResourcesInstitute for Water ResourcesUS Army Corps of EngineersUS Army Corps of Engineers

22

Recent StudiesRecent StudiesHundreds of studies, thousands of papersHundreds of studies, thousands of papersIPCC I, II, III (IV in press)IPCC I, II, III (IV in press)US National Climate AssessmentUS National Climate AssessmentInternational Joint CommissionInternational Joint Commission--Lake OntarioLake Ontario--St. Lawrence StudySt. Lawrence Study--Upper Lakes StudyUpper Lakes StudyCorps studiesCorps studies--Upper Miss R. Flow Freq studyUpper Miss R. Flow Freq study--Ohio R. Climate Forecasting StudyOhio R. Climate Forecasting Study--8 River Basin climate assessments under 8 River Basin climate assessments under various IPCC climate scenarios/ GCM transient various IPCC climate scenarios/ GCM transient modelsmodels

33

Climate Time Scales and Water Resources Climate Time Scales and Water Resources Management UncertaintiesManagement Uncertainties

Use of Forecasts in Reservoir Operations

Flood Frequency Analysis and Levee Certification

Operations and Vulnerability Assessments

8 River Basins

IPCC- Climate Change

Upper Mississippi R.

InterdecadalClimate VariabilityCLIVAR

Seasonal to Interannual GCIPOhio River Basin

44

Corps IPCC Climate Corps IPCC Climate Impact AssessmentImpact Assessment

TacomaColumbia

Missouri

UpperRio Grande

Great Lakes

AC

Savannah

Potomac

Boston

55

ENSO FloodsENSO FloodsMississippi River at Hannibal, Missouri

10000

100000

1000000

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Cumulative Probability (in Units of Standard Deviation)

Dis

char

ge (c

fs)

Log Pearson III Other Floods El Nino Floods

66

IPCC Lexicon of AdaptationIPCC Lexicon of Adaptation

Precautionary PrinciplePrecautionary Principle (Anticipatory (Anticipatory AdaptationAdaptation--prevent uncertain damages)prevent uncertain damages)Adaptation/Adaptive managementAdaptation/Adaptive management““Proactive Proactive ‘‘No RegretsNo Regrets’’ Adaptation.Adaptation.””

(strategic planning, justifiable under current (strategic planning, justifiable under current criteria; efficient, costcriteria; efficient, cost--effective; serves effective; serves multiple purposes; adaptable to changing multiple purposes; adaptable to changing circumstances, technically feasible, etc. )circumstances, technically feasible, etc. )

““Autonomous AdaptationAutonomous Adaptation”” (ad hoc (ad hoc cumulative, tactical incremental adjustments to cumulative, tactical incremental adjustments to demands, needs, demographic patterns and demands, needs, demographic patterns and technology)technology)

77

Factors to considerFactors to considerThe history of water management is one of The history of water management is one of continuous continuous adaptionadaption to uncertainties; water to uncertainties; water engineering is about learning from mistakes engineering is about learning from mistakes Various rules, procedures, design safety factors have Various rules, procedures, design safety factors have evolved to accommodate R&U evolved to accommodate R&U There is a significant turnover in water management There is a significant turnover in water management infrastructure: ~ every 30 yrs capacity can be infrastructure: ~ every 30 yrs capacity can be upgraded/ reconfigured to adapt upgraded/ reconfigured to adapt -- rehabilitationrehabilitationThe discount rate, BCA procedures, IRR The discount rate, BCA procedures, IRR vsvs max net max net NED benefits is more relevant than climate NED benefits is more relevant than climate uncertainty in determining modes of adaptation.uncertainty in determining modes of adaptation.‘‘OptimalOptimal’’ solutions are often solutions are often ‘‘brittlebrittle’’ (not robust, (not robust, resilient to unexpected circumstances.resilient to unexpected circumstances.

88

Conventional Mechanisms for Conventional Mechanisms for Adapting to UncertaintiesAdapting to Uncertainties

Planning Planning new investmentsnew investments, or for capacity , or for capacity expansion (reservoirs, irrigation systems, levees)expansion (reservoirs, irrigation systems, levees)Operation & regulationOperation & regulation of existing systems: of existing systems: accommodating new uses or conditions (e.g. accommodating new uses or conditions (e.g. ecology, climate change, population)ecology, climate change, population)Maintenance and Maintenance and majormajor rehabilitationrehabilitation of of existing systems (e.g. dam safety, levees, etc.)existing systems (e.g. dam safety, levees, etc.)Modifications in Modifications in processes and demandsprocesses and demands(water conservation, pricing, regulation, legal)(water conservation, pricing, regulation, legal)Introduce new Introduce new efficient technologiesefficient technologies(desalting, biotechnology, drip irrigation, reuse, (desalting, biotechnology, drip irrigation, reuse, recycling, solar, etc.)recycling, solar, etc.)

Functions/Elements of Water Resources Management

99

Planning/Design PerspectivesPlanning/Design PerspectivesConventional BCAConventional BCA –– decision rule: select decision rule: select design level that maximizes net benefits design level that maximizes net benefits (requires frequency of events) (requires frequency of events) –– discount rate ?discount rate ?StandardsStandards--based approachbased approach: pre: pre--select design select design level (e.g. PMP, PMF, PMH, 100level (e.g. PMP, PMF, PMH, 100--yr) arbitrary yr) arbitrary levels or physicallylevels or physically-- basedbasedDecision Rules:Decision Rules: minmin--max; min riskmax; min risk--cost; riskcost; risk--cost effectiveness; NOAEL, etc.cost effectiveness; NOAEL, etc.Most Most water mgmt is a combinationwater mgmt is a combination of the of the threethree-- all require better hydrologic data, all require better hydrologic data, excedanceexcedance frequencies, frequencies, PDFPDF’’ss ((e.ge.g dam design)dam design)What is a safe/reliable/affordable level of What is a safe/reliable/affordable level of protection?protection? How to determine?; who decides?How to determine?; who decides?

1010

Corps Focus is on Corps Focus is on Climate VariabilityClimate Variability ––expanded use of traditional methods for risk, expanded use of traditional methods for risk,

reliability and uncertainty analysisreliability and uncertainty analysisAll design, operations, rehabilitation require All design, operations, rehabilitation require ‘‘planningplanning’’

Corps works on combined basis of standards & riskCorps works on combined basis of standards & riskDam safety (convert PMP/PMF to riskDam safety (convert PMP/PMF to risk--based designs)based designs)Levee design criteria ( SPF to riskLevee design criteria ( SPF to risk--based designs)based designs)Shore erosion, coastal protection (PMH)Shore erosion, coastal protection (PMH)Reservoir operating criteria, improved forecastingReservoir operating criteria, improved forecastingReservoir/system water allocation changesReservoir/system water allocation changesDelineation of 100Delineation of 100--year floodplains/NFIPyear floodplains/NFIPDrought & Flood Contingency Mgmt (reservoir, urban)Drought & Flood Contingency Mgmt (reservoir, urban)Emergency Operations/Advanced Measures Emergency Operations/Advanced Measures (seasonally anticipated snowmelt flooding, hurricanes)(seasonally anticipated snowmelt flooding, hurricanes)

Need new methods for flood/drought frequency analysis Need new methods for flood/drought frequency analysis under nonunder non--stationary climate, with trends.stationary climate, with trends.

1111

Uncertainty and Flood Uncertainty and Flood Damage CalculationDamage Calculation

Floo

d St

age

(S)

Floo

d St

age

(S)

Flood Discharge (Q)

Flood Discharge (Q)

Freq

uenc

y

Freq

uenc

y

Flood Damage (D)

Flood Damage (D)

Q

S

P

Q

P

D

S

D

UEB - Upper Error Bound

LEB - Lower Error Bound

UEB

LEB

1212

Katrina Path from August 23 Katrina Path from August 23 -- 31, 200531, 2005

Mon. Aug 29

August 23Sat. Aug 27

Tropical depressionTropical stormCategory 1Category 2Category 3Category 4Category 5

Sun. Aug 28

1313

Data and InformationIntegrated Data Base Vertical Datum

Input Response Output

StormEnvironment

Structural Response

Interior Flooding

Pump Response

Consequences

Risk andReliability

Interagency Performance Evaluation Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force (IPET)Task Force (IPET)

Rain

StormForces

Structure Performance

1 Jun 06

1 May 06

1414

Risk and Reliability MethodologyRisk and Reliability Methodology

1515

Surge and WavesSurge and Waves

Static & DynamicStatic & DynamicForcesForces

Physical Performance AnalysisPhysical Performance AnalysisWhat forces were the structures What forces were the structures designed and built to withstand?designed and built to withstand?

Design & IntentDesign & Intent

AsAs--built andbuilt andConditionCondition

ExpectedExpectedPerformancePerformance

ObservedObservedPerformancePerformance

BehaviorBehaviorInsightsInsights FloodingFlooding

1616

Storm Surge and Wave ModelingStorm Surge and Wave ModelingWhat surge and waves did the levees and What surge and waves did the levees and

floodwalls experience from Katrina?floodwalls experience from Katrina?

High resolution coupledHigh resolution coupledstorm surge and wave modelsstorm surge and wave models

11.412.7 10.511.7

12.4

13.415.5

12.8

9.7

13.5

15.0

15.3 17.2

18.3

17.4

Wave Height = 10.5 ftWave Period = 9 sec

Wave Height = 8.2 ftWave Period = 6.7 sec

Storm Surge = 20.8 ftWave Height = 10.8 ftWave Period = 16 sec

1717

1818

Most Damaging HurricanesMost Damaging HurricanesYear Cat DamagesYear Cat Damages

Katrina (FL, LA, MS) 2005 3+ $ 100.0 B +Katrina (FL, LA, MS) 2005 3+ $ 100.0 B +Andrew (FL, LA) 1992 5 43.6 BAndrew (FL, LA) 1992 5 43.6 BCharley (FL) 2004 4 15.0 BCharley (FL) 2004 4 15.0 BIvan (AL, FL) 2004 3 14.2 BIvan (AL, FL) 2004 3 14.2 BHugo (SC) 1989 4 12.2 BHugo (SC) 1989 4 12.2 BAgnes (FL, GA, SC, PA) 1972 2 11.3 BAgnes (FL, GA, SC, PA) 1972 2 11.3 BBetsy (FL, LA) 1965 3 10.8 BBetsy (FL, LA) 1965 3 10.8 BFrances (FL) 2004 2 8.9 BFrances (FL) 2004 2 8.9 BCamille (MS, LA, VA) 1969 5 8.9 BCamille (MS, LA, VA) 1969 5 8.9 BDiane (East Coast) 1955 1 6.9 BDiane (East Coast) 1955 1 6.9 BJeanne (FL) 2004 3 6.9 BJeanne (FL) 2004 3 6.9 B

1919

Flood Damages as Percent of GDP(Based on damages and GDP data in 2000 dollars)

0.0%

0.1%

0.1%

0.2%

0.2%

0.3%

0.3%

0.4%

0.4%

0.5%

0.5%

1900

1903

1906

1909

1912

1915

1918

1921

1924

1927

1930

1933

1936

1939

1942

1945

1948

1951

1954

1957

1960

1963

1966

1969

1972

1975

1978

1981

1984

1987

1990

1993

1996

1999

2002

2005

Dir

ect f

lood

dam

ages

as

perc

ent o

f GD

P

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Tota

l flo

od d

amag

es a

s pe

rcen

t of G

DP

Direct damages as percent of GDPTotal damages as percent of GDP

MississippiRiver Valley

Ohio & Lower Mississippi River

Basins

Kansas &Missouri Rivers

HurricaneDiane

Hurricane Agnes

Teton DamFailure

Midwest Floods

138%

61%

99%

2020

Hurricanes & Global Warming?Hurricanes & Global Warming?2004, 2005 Atlantic hurricane seasons broke many 2004, 2005 Atlantic hurricane seasons broke many recordsrecords2006 predicted to have 15 named storms; 10 2006 predicted to have 15 named storms; 10 hurricane strength; 4hurricane strength; 4--5 major making landfall in US 5 major making landfall in US 2006 A BUST !!! Not much happened (FEMA, Corps 2006 A BUST !!! Not much happened (FEMA, Corps and other agencies spent $millions anticipating)and other agencies spent $millions anticipating)Debate among US meteorologists:Debate among US meteorologists:

A. 25A. 25--40 yr cycle ?40 yr cycle ? (e.g. (e.g. LandseaLandsea & Gray) or & Gray) or B. part of global warming cycleB. part of global warming cycle (e.g. Emmanuel) (e.g. Emmanuel)

Herein lies the problem for water engineersHerein lies the problem for water engineers-- how to how to translate vague climate scenarios, scientific disputes translate vague climate scenarios, scientific disputes and flawed predictions into design criteria for and flawed predictions into design criteria for reliable structures and response systems?reliable structures and response systems?

2121

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1854

1858

1862

1866

1870

1874

1878

1882

1886

1890

1894

1898

1902

1906

1910

1914

1918

1922

1926

1930

1934

1938

1942

1946

1950

1954

1958

1962

1966

1970

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

2002

Total number of tropical cyclones

Number of hurricanes

Number of hurricanes which center's madeU.S. landfall

Source: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration

Note: Prior to 1970, tropical cyclones were not monitored by satellites; meaning that those cyclones that did not hit the land of the United States were not systematically recorded.

MANY STRONG WEAKER MANY STRONG WEAKER

Cycle of Hurricanes* (James O’Brien)

2222

Changing Great Lakes Water LevelsChanging Great Lakes Water Levels

Water Level ShiftsWater Level ShiftsHighs Highs -- 70s70s--9090’’ssLows Lows -- 6060’’s, 1998s, 1998--20012001

ImpactsImpactsHigh LevelsHigh Levels

Erosion Erosion –– FloodingFlooding

-- Low LevelsLow LevelsHydropower Hydropower -- Navigation Navigation -- Recreational Boating Recreational Boating --EnvironmentEnvironment

Actions Actions -- Review of IJC OrdersReview of IJC Orders$20 M St. Lawrence$20 M St. Lawrence--Ontario StudyOntario Study(completed)(completed)$15 M Upper Lakes Study (2006$15 M Upper Lakes Study (2006--2011)2011)

Unknown Unknown -- Climate ChangeClimate Change

4 0 0

5 0 0

6 0 0

7 0 0

8 0 0

9 0 0

1 0 0 0

TOTA

L S

UP

PLY

(10

m3

/s)

1 8 6 0 1 8 7 0 1 8 8 0 1 8 9 0 1 9 0 0 1 9 1 0 1 9 2 0 1 9 3 0 1 9 4 0 1 9 5 0 1 9 6 0 1 9 7 0 1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 0

L A K E O N T A R IO T O T A L S U P P L Y 1 8 6 0 -2 0 0 0

2323

Ongoing Adaptation InitiativesOngoing Adaptation InitiativesGreat Lakes/IJCGreat Lakes/IJC

Great Lakes Water Quality AgreementGreat Lakes Water Quality AgreementLakewideLakewide Management Plans (Management Plans (LaMPsLaMPs))Remedial Action Plans (Remedial Action Plans (RAPsRAPs))Great Lakes Fisheries Strategic planGreat Lakes Fisheries Strategic planLake Levels Reference study 1993Lake Levels Reference study 1993Lake Ontario 1998 PlanLake Ontario 1998 PlanLake Superior Operation Criteria Study 2002Lake Superior Operation Criteria Study 2002IJC LOSLR Regulation Criteria Study (2000IJC LOSLR Regulation Criteria Study (2000--06)06)IJC Upper Lakes Study (2006IJC Upper Lakes Study (2006--11)11)Numerous wetlands, Numerous wetlands, BMPsBMPs, regulations, regulations

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

TOTA

L S

UP

PLY

(10

m3

/s)

1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

LAKE ONTARIO TOTAL SUPPLY 1860-2000

(Current Plan 1958D was not designed to handle the extreme low water of the 1960s or the high water of the 70s, 80s and 90s)

2525

LOSLR Study Board GuidelinesLOSLR Study Board GuidelinesContribute to Contribute to Ecological IntegrityEcological IntegrityMaximize economic and ecological net Maximize economic and ecological net benefitsbenefitsNo No disproportionate loss to any sector disproportionate loss to any sector (Equity)(Equity)Flexible in recognition of Flexible in recognition of unusual or unexpectedunusual or unexpectedconditionsconditionsAdaptable to Adaptable to climate changeclimate change and and climate climate variability (variability (AM Plan for key uncertainties)AM Plan for key uncertainties)Adapt Adapt to future advances in knowledge, science to future advances in knowledge, science and technologyand technology (Adaptive Management Plan)(Adaptive Management Plan)

DecisionDecision--making will be making will be transparent and transparent and representativerepresentative

2626

Spatial Comparison

Mean temperature change

73.5

74.0

74.5

75.0

75.5

76.0

1860

1863

1866

1869

1872

1875

1878

1881

1884

1887

1890

1893

1896

1899

1902

1905

1908

1911

1914

1917

1920

1923

1926

1929

1932

1935

1938

1941

1944

1947

1950

1953

1956

1959

1962

1965

1968

1971

1974

1977

1980

1983

1986

1989

1992

1995

1998

2001

Lake Ontario Water LevelsLake regulation scenario

HHydrologydrologicic Scenarios Including Scenarios Including Climate ChangeClimate Change

2727

IERM IERM ““PI Time SeriesPI Time Series””DiagramDiagram

2828

Candidate Plans:Candidate Plans:A: Balanced EconomicsA: Balanced EconomicsB: Balanced EnvironmentalB: Balanced EnvironmentalD: Blended BenefitsD: Blended Benefits

Natural Flow PlanNatural Flow PlanE: Natural Flow E: Natural Flow

Interest Specific:Interest Specific:Ontario Riparian PlanOntario Riparian PlanRecreational Boating PlanRecreational Boating Plan

Reference Plans:Reference Plans:Plan 1998Plan 1998Plan 1958DDPlan 1958DDPlan 1958DPlan 1958D

International Lake Ontario International Lake Ontario ––St. Lawrence River StudySt. Lawrence River Study

Bluff Recession for Different Plans (same wave climate)

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

700 720 740 760 780 800 820

Distance (m)

Blu

ff He

ight

(m)

Climate 2090 1998 Plan 1958D without Dev. Input ProfileClimate 2050 Actual (1966-1995) Pre-Project LWD (m)

3030

Net Economic/Ecologic Benefits Net Economic/Ecologic Benefits of Alternative Plansof Alternative Plans

1.561.561.171.171.441.441.021.021.001.00Wetlands IndexWetlands Index

4.044.041.101.101.351.351.061.061.001.00Environmental Environmental IndexIndex

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Municipal WaterMunicipal Water

14.1614.161.821.825.975.973.503.500.000.00HydroelectricHydroelectric

--4.644.642.042.04--0.580.584.234.230.000.00Recreation BoatingRecreation Boating

4.134.132.312.312.202.200.410.410.000.00NavigationNavigation

--25.9625.960.320.32--1.111.11--0.620.620.000.00Shoreline DamagesShoreline Damages

--12.3012.306.526.526.486.487.527.520.000.00Net BenefitsNet Benefits

Plan EPlan EPlan DPlan DPlan BPlan BPlan APlan APlan Plan

58DD58DD

Avg. annual Avg. annual net benefits net benefits ($US million)($US million)

3131

Economic Robustness of Plans Economic Robustness of Plans w.r.tw.r.t Climate Change ScenariosClimate Change Scenarios

--21.3821.389.659.6511.7811.788.338.3313.9813.98C4 C4 -- Warm/WetWarm/Wet--2.462.4617.7717.772.612.6121.5321.53--81.6981.69C3 C3 -- Hot/WetHot/Wet

--34.0334.035.255.254.894.899.859.85--49.5249.52C2 C2 -- Warm/DryWarm/Dry--4.914.9120.0920.09--1.421.4234.8934.89--115.65115.65C1C1-- Hot/DryHot/Dry

--12.3012.306.526.526.486.487.527.5200Plan 1958DDPlan 1958DD

Plan EPlan EPlan DPlan DPlan BPlan BPlan APlan APlanPlan

1958D1958D

Avg. ann. Avg. ann. net benefits net benefits ($US million)($US million)

3232

Stochastic Scenarios: 4 representative centuries based on 50,000yrs

3333

3434

Stochastic Scenarios:Stochastic Scenarios:

(# Ecol PI(# Ecol PI’’s with gains or losses)s with gains or losses)

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

Plan A

Net

# o

f PIs

w/ S

igni

fican

t Gai

ns

Historical (1900-2000)Stochastic #1 - Wettest CenturyStochastic #2 - Driest CenturyStochastic #3 - Like HistoricalStochastic #4 - Longest Drought

Plan A Plan D Plan B PreProject

3535

Summary/ConclusionsSummary/ConclusionsWater resources management has been and is inherently a Water resources management has been and is inherently a selfself--adapting enterpriseadapting enterprise –– hydrology & hydraulics, hydrology & hydraulics, planning, design & operations, technology is constantly planning, design & operations, technology is constantly adjusting. adjusting. Large events (e.g. Katrina, Miss R. Flood) force innovations Large events (e.g. Katrina, Miss R. Flood) force innovations --rate of adaptationrate of adaptation is the issue.is the issue.Continuous adjustmentContinuous adjustment (autonomous adaptation) to (autonomous adaptation) to climate variability, changes in water use patterns, values and climate variability, changes in water use patterns, values and demands (e.g. US water use has declined since 1975)demands (e.g. US water use has declined since 1975)IWRM/CZMIWRM/CZM is a keystone of, and prerequisite for purposeful is a keystone of, and prerequisite for purposeful strategic strategic ““no regretsno regrets”” approachapproachTighter regulationsTighter regulations ((e.g.TMDLe.g.TMDL’’ss) impose efficiencies and ) impose efficiencies and technological adaptation, Best Mgmt Practicetechnological adaptation, Best Mgmt Practice’’ssTechnological advancesTechnological advances, esp. in energy, , esp. in energy, agriculagricul. & biotech . & biotech will provide will provide ‘‘bufferingbuffering’’ in future in future –– society can/will adaptsociety can/will adapt

3636

Summary (ContSummary (Cont’’d)d)Need to Need to move beyondmove beyond IPCC broad impact analysis IPCC broad impact analysis to developing specific to developing specific evaluation frameworksevaluation frameworkswhich couple economics with hydrology to deal which couple economics with hydrology to deal explicitly with R&U of climate change and variabilityexplicitly with R&U of climate change and variabilityFocus on Focus on variabilityvariability –– informed by climate changeinformed by climate changeFocus on Focus on adaptationadaptation: planning & evaluating : planning & evaluating alternative approaches, models, tools, technologies alternative approaches, models, tools, technologies Focus on Focus on applied R&Dapplied R&D for analytical tools for for analytical tools for hydrology, hydrologic engineering under nonhydrology, hydrologic engineering under non--stationary climatestationary climateStandardizeStandardize use and tools of R&U analysis in use and tools of R&U analysis in planning & design of water infrastructureplanning & design of water infrastructureEmphasis on advances in shortEmphasis on advances in short--term term flood flood forecastingforecasting, and , and mesomeso--scale GCM modeling will scale GCM modeling will result in more reliable water managementresult in more reliable water management