Okanagan Waterwise: Assessment of Water Management and Global Warming

1,003 views

Published on

Okanagan Waterwise: Assessment of Water Management and Global Warming

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,003
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
17
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Okanagan Waterwise: Assessment of Water Management and Global Warming

  1. 1. Participatory IntegratedAssessment of Water Managementand Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin,British ColumbiaFINAL REPORT Edited by STEWART COHEN AND TINA NEALE Adaptation & Impacts Research Division, Environment Canada
  2. 2. This report may be cited as: Cohen, S., and T. Neale, eds. 2006. Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia. Vancouver: Environment Canada and University of British Columbia.Individual chapters may be cited by the chapter authors. For example, Langsdale, S., A. Beall, J. Carmichael, S. Cohen, and C. Forster. 2006. Exploring Water Resources Futures with a System Dynamics Model. In Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia, edited by S. Cohen and T. Neale. Vancouver: Environment Canada and University of British Columbia.An electronic version of this report is available at the following web site: http://www.ires.ubc.ca/aird/ISBN No.: 0-662-41999-5Cat. No.: En56-209/2006ECover Photo CaptionsClockwise from top left:1. Drip irrigation and mulching, Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre, Summerland, BC (Tina Neale)2. Installation of water intake at Okanagan Lake, Penticton BC. (Bob Hrasko)3. Systems model output screen, Okanagan Lake stage scenarios (see Figure F.17).4. View across Okanagan Lake near Ellison Provincial Park (Wendy Merritt).
  3. 3. Participatory IntegratedAssessment of Water Managementand Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin,British ColumbiaFINAL REPORT Edited by STEWART COHEN AND TINA NEALE
  4. 4. NOTICE TO READERSPrevious reports published in this research series are:Cohen, S., and T. Kulkarni, eds. 2001. Water Management & Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin. Vancouver: Environment Canada & University of British Columbia.Cohen, S., and T. Neale, eds. 2003. Expanding the Dialogue on Climate Change & Water Management in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia. Interim Report, January 1, 2002 to March 31, 2003. Vancouver: Environment Canada and University of British Columbia.Cohen, S., D. Neilsen, and R. Welbourn, eds. 2004. Expanding the Dialogue on Climate Change & Water Management in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia. Final Report, January 1, 2002-June 30, 2004. Vancouver: Environment Canada, Agriculture and Agri- Food Canada & University of British Columbia.Several manuscripts from the 2004 study have been published in refereed journals, or arein press. These are:Cohen, S.J., D. Neilsen, S. Smith, T. Neale, B. Taylor, M. Barton, W. Merritt, Y. Alila, P. Shepherd, R. McNeill, J. Tansey, and J. Carmichael. 2006. Learning with local help: Expanding the dialogue on climate change and water management in the Okanagan region, British Columbia, Canada. Climatic Change. 75:331-358.Merritt W., Y. Alila, M. Barton, B. Taylor, S. Cohen and D. Neilsen. 2006. Hydrologic response to scenarios of climate change in subwatersheds of the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia. Journal of Hydrology. 326, 79-108.Neilsen, D., Smith, C. A. S., Frank, G., Koch, W., Alila, Y., Merritt, W., Taylor, W. G., Barton, M., Hall, J. W. and Cohen, S. J. 2006. Potential impacts of climate change on water availability for crops in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Soil Science. 86:921-936.Shepherd, P J. Tansey, and H. Dowlatabadi. 2006. Context matters: the political landscape of ., adaptation in the Okanagan. Climatic Change. 78:31-62.Papers from the 2006 study are still in preparation, and will be submitted for review later this year.Opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and not necessarily those of EnvironmentCanada, University of British Columbia, Natural Resources Canada, or any collaborating agencies.
  5. 5. STUDY TEAMNAME AFFILIATIONAllyson Beall Program in Environmental Science and Regional Planning, Washington State UniversityJeff Carmichael Institute for Resources, Environment & Sustainability, University of British ColumbiaStewart Cohen (P.I.) Adaptation & Impacts Research Division, Environment Canada Institute for Resources, Environment & Sustainability, University of British ColumbiaCraig Forster College of Architecture & Planning, University of UtahBob Hrasko Agua Consulting Inc.Stacy Langsdale Institute for Resources, Environment & Sustainability, University of British ColumbiaRoger McNeill Environment Canada, Pacific and Yukon RegionTina Neale Adaptation & Impacts Research Division, Environment Canada Institute for Resources, Environment & Sustainability, University of British ColumbiaNatasha Schorb School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British ColumbiaJodie Siu Smart Growth on the Ground, Smart Growth British ColumbiaJames Tansey Institute for Resources, Environment & Sustainability, University of British Columbia For further information, please contact Stewart Cohen at stewart.cohen@ec.gc.ca Stacy Langsdale (left) facilitating model building break-out group at the second model building workshop, April 15, 2005, Kelowna BC.
  6. 6. Table of ContentsNotice to Readers dStudy Team eTable of Contents g List of Figures k List of Tables p List of Boxes qAcknowledgements rExecutive Summary iSommaire Executif viii1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Project History and Need for Further Research 1 1.2 Study Objectives and Structure of this Report 42.0 Urban Water Futures: Exploring Development, Management and Climate Change Impacts on Urban Water Demand 7 2.1 Case studies 8 2.2 Methodology 8 2.2.1 Scenario Inputs 10 2.3 Results 16 2.3.1 Climate Change, Dwelling and DSM Scenarios 16 2.3.2 Supply – Demand Comparison 31 2.4 Conclusions and Recommendations 34 2.4.1 Population Growth 34 2.4.2 Housing Patterns 34 2.4.3 Climate Change 34 2.4.4 Demand Side Management 35 2.4.5 Data Gaps and Quality 35 2.4.6 Other Research and Future Directions 353.0 Costs of Adaptation Measures 37 3.1 Supply Side Options for Adaptation 37 3.1.1 Groundwater Development 37 3.1.2 Upstream Storage (Watershed Development) 40 3.1.3 Mainstem Pumping 41 3.1.4 Impact of Water Treatment on Costs 42 3.1.5 Demand Side Adaptation Options 42 3.2 Impact of Water Treatment on Costs 44 3.3 Summary of Case Studies for Water Adaptation 46FINAL REPORT | g
  7. 7. 3.4 Local Water Management versus Okanagan Wide Adaptation Strategies 464.0 Shared Learning through Group Model Building 49 4.1 Introduction 49 4.1.1 Objectives 49 4.1.2 Previous work 49 4.2 Methodology 50 4.2.1 Participatory Integrated Assessment 50 4.2.2 System Dynamics 50 4.2.3 Related Work 51 4.3 The Group Model Building Process 51 4.3.1 Workshop 1 52 4.3.2 Workshop 2 54 4.3.3 Workshop 3 56 4.3.4 Round of Meetings 57 4.3.5 Workshop 4 57 4.3.6 Workshop 5 58 4.4 Results 58 4.5 Discussion 63 4.5.1 Lessons Learned 63 4.5.2 Did This Process Make a Difference? 645.0 A System Dynamics Model for Exploring Water Resources Futures 65 5.1 Introduction 65 5.2 Project History 65 5.3 Methodology 66 5.3.1 Participatory Modelling 66 5.3.2 System Dynamics 66 5.4 Description of the Model and the Actual System 66 5.4.1 Model Components 67 5.4.2 Dynamics of the System 69 5.5 Results 72 5.5.1 Adaptation 79 5.6 Discussion 79 5.7 Conclusions and Remarks 806.0 Residential Policy, Planning and Design – Incorporating Climate Change into Long-Term Sustainability in Oliver 81 6.1 Introduction to the Partnership 81 6.2 Incorporating Climate Change into Smart Growth on the Ground in Oliver 82 6.3 Results of the Work 83 6.3.1 The Charrette 83 6.3.2 Charrette Team Recommendations 83 6.3.3 Listing of Web Sites on Oliver Design Process 847.0 Agricultural Policy 85 7.1 Study Aim & Rationale 85 7.2 Origins of Multiple Risk 85 7.2.1 Early History of the Wine Industry 85h | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia
  8. 8. 7.2.2 Land Pressures 86 7.2.3 Trade Liberalization 86 7.2.4 State of the Industry 86 7.3 The Climate Change Adaptation Process 87 7.3.1 Autonomous Adaptation to Risk 87 7.3.2 Risk Perception 87 7.3.3 Adaptive Capacity in a Multiple Risk Environment 87 7.3.4 Support for Policy Intervention 88 7.4 Methods 88 7.4.1 Survey Instrument Choice and Design 88 7.4.2 Subject Recruitment and Success 88 7.4.3 Interview Structure and Analysis 90 7.5 Results 90 7.5.1 Demographic and Business Characteristics of Study Participants 90 7.5.2 Water Source & Management Profile 92 7.5.3 Balancing Multiple Risks in Pursuit of Profitability 96 7.5.4 Perceptions of Water Shortage Risk 97 7.5.5 Policy Development 100 7.6 Analysis 102 7.6.1 Risk Perception: Implications for Adaptation 102 7.6.2 Managing Multiple Risks 103 7.6.3 Implications for Water Management 105 7.7 Policy Considerations 106 7.7.1 Policy Recommendations 106 7.7.2 Institutional Change 107 7.8 Future Uncertainty 107 7.8.1 Need for a Cautionary Approach 108 7.9 Conclusions 108 8.0 Lessons Learned and Moving On 109Bibliography 113Appendix A. Groundwater Development 119 A.1 Introduction 119 A.2 Groundwater Opportunities 119 A.2.1 Role of Groundwater 119 A.3 Water Use and System Integration 120 A.4 Groundwater Risks 121 A.5 Regulatory Issues - Approvals 122 A.6 Typical Steps for Groundwater Development 123 A.7 Costing Considerations 124 A.7.1 Drilling Costs 125 A.7.2 Pumping Costs 127Appendix B. Case Study Detail Project Sheets 131Appendix C. Model Process 133 C.1 Okanagan Timeline Created by Workshop 1 Participants on February 22, 2005 133 C.2 Diagrams Created by Participants in Workshop 2, April 15, 2005 136FINAL REPORT | i
  9. 9. C.3 Worksheet: Setting the Course Discussion Guide 138 C.4 Pre and Post Evaluation Form, Workshop 5 139 C.4.1 Workshop 5 Pre-Evaluation 139 C.4.2 Workshop 5 Post-Evaluation 140Appendix D. Model Quick User Guide 141Appendix E. Model Level Documentation 143 E.1 Water Supply Sources 143 E.1.1 Climate Change Scenarios 143 E.1.2 Hydrologic Scenarios 143 E.1.3 Diversions from Adjacent Basins 144 E.1.4 Groundwater 145 E.1.5 Return Flows to Uplands 145 E.2 Water Demands 145 E.2.1 Population Growth Calculations 145 E.2.2 Converting Regional District Populations to Populations Using Each Water Source 147 E.2.3 Calculating Residential Water Use 149 E.2.4 Residential Demand Side Management Strategies 150 E.2.5 Agricultural Demand 150 E.2.6 Conservation Flow Requirements in Tributaries to Okanagan Lake 153 E.2.7 Fish Flow Requirements in South End 155 E.3 Water Balance Calculations 155 E.3.1 Uplands Hydrology Sector 155 E.3.2 Upland Storage Outflow Calculations Sector 157 E.3.3 Uplands Demand Reductions for Shortages Sector 159 E.3.4 Uplands Demand Allocations Sector 161 E.3.5 Uplands Allocation Summary Sector 161 E.3.6 Valley Hydrology Sector 162 E.3.7 Okanagan Lake Condition Sector 162 E.3.8 Valley Diversion Tracker Sector 162 E.3.9 Okanagan Lake Dam Operation Sector 162 E.3.10 South End Hydrology Sector 163Appendix F Model Output . 165 F.1 Summary of Base Case, 1961-1990 165 F.2 Summary of Two Scenarios without Adaptation, 2010-2039 and 2040-2069 165 F.3 Demand Side Management (DSM) and Urban Densification Portfolio 169 F.4 Supplemental Use of Okanagan Lake 172 F.5 Managing for Sockeye 177 F.6 Combinations of Response Options 177j | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia
  10. 10. List of FiguresFigure 1.1: Evolution of Okanagan Study Framework. 2Figure 1.2: Projected changes in annual flow and crop water demand for Trout Creek (Neilsen et al., 2004, 2006). The vertical and horizontal lines indicate existing supply and demand thresholds. The HadCM3-A2 scenario represents projected changes in climate simulated by theHadCM3 global climate model using the A2 scenario of rapid growth in global emissions of greenhouse gases obtained from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see Taylor and Barton, 2004). 4Figure 2.1: Daily domestic water use for the City of Penticton 1998 to 2003. 10Figure 2.2: Monthly domestic water use for the City of Penticton vs. mean maximum daily temperature for temperatures above and below the threshold temperature of 12°C. 11Figure 2.3: Relationship between mean monthly maximum daily temperature and monthly outdoor water use per dwelling in Penticton during the irrigation season 1998-2003. 13Figure 2.4: Annual water demand for the City of Kelowna with current preferences, current DSM and medium population growth for the 2001-2069 period. The figure shows demand without climate change and with six climate change scenarios. 17Figure 2.5: Comparison of annual water use for current preferences (CP) and smart growth (SG) scenarios for the City of Kelowna for all population growth scenarios with current DSM and CGCM2-A2. 18Figure 2.6: Impact of demand side management on annual water use for the City of Kelowna in the current preferences medium population growth scenario and CGCM2-A2 climate change. 19Figure 2.7: City of Kelowna annual water use in the “best-case” (smart growth, combined demand side management, CGCM2-B2) and “worst-case” (current preferences, current demand side management and HadCM3-A21) scenarios for all population growth scenarios. 19Figure 2.8: Contributions of DSM, smart growth and climate change to the difference between the best- and worst-case high population growth scenarios for two sets of intermediate scenarios for the City of Kelowna. The specific scenarios (best-case, worst-case and two intermediate scenarios) represented by each of the numbered lines are presented in Table 2.7. Note that this does not include comparison with base case climate (i.e. no climate change). 20Figure 2.9: Percentage contributions to the difference between the high growth best- and worst-case scenarios of DSM, smart growth and climate change for two sets of intermediate scenarios in 2069 for the City of Kelowna. Note that this does not include comparison with base case climate (i.e. no climate change). 21Figure 2.10: Annual water demand for the City of Penticton with current preferences, current DSM and medium population growth for the 2001 to 2069 period. The figure shows demand without climate change and with six climate change scenarios. 22Figure 2.11: Comparison of annual water use for current preferences and smart growth dwelling scenarios for the City of Penticton for all population growth scenarios, CGCM2-A2 climate change and current DSM. 23Figure 2.12: Impact of demand side management on annual water use for the City of Penticton in the current preferences medium population growth scenario and CGCM2-A2 climate change. 24Figure 2.13: City of Penticton annual water use in the “best-case” (smart growth, combined demand side management, CGCM2-B2) and “worst-case” (current preferences, current demand side management and HadCM3-A22) scenarios for all population growth scenarios. 25Figure 2.14: Contributions of DSM, smart growth and climate change to the difference between the best- and worst-case high population growth scenarios for two sets of intermediate scenarios for the City of Penticton. The specific scenarios (best-case, worst-case and two intermediate scenarios) represented by each of the numbered lines are presented in Table 2.7. Note that this does not include comparison with base case climate (i.e. no climate change). 25FINAL REPORT | k
  11. 11. Figure 2.15: Percentage contributions to the difference between the high growth best- and worst-case scenarios of DSM, smart growth and climate change for two sets of intermediate scenarios in 2069 for the City of Penticton. Note that this does not include comparison with base case climate (i.e. no climate change). 26Figure 2.16: Annual water demand for the Town of Oliver with current preferences, current DSM and medium population growth for the 2001-2069 period. The figure shows demand without climate change and with six climate change scenarios. 27Figure 2.17: Comparison of annual water use for current preferences and smart growth dwelling scenarios for the Town of Oliver for all population growth scenarios with current DSM and CGCM2-A2. 28Figure 2.18: Impact of demand side management options on annual water use for the Town of Oliver. 29Figure 2.19: Town of Oliver annual water use in the “best-case” (smart growth, combined demand side management, CGCM2-B2) and “worst-case” (current preferences, current demand side management and HadCM3-A21) scenarios for all population growth scenarios. 29Figure 2.20: Contributions of DSM, smart growth and climate change to the difference between the best- and worst-case high population growth scenarios for two sets of intermediate scenarios for the Town of Oliver. The specific scenarios (best-case, worst-case and two intermediate scenarios) represented by each of the numbered lines are presented in Table 2.7. Note that this does not include comparison with base case climate (i.e. no climate change). 30Figure 2.21: Percentage contributions to the difference between the high growth best- and worst-case scenarios of DSM, smart growth and climate change for two sets of intermediate scenarios in 2069 for the Town of Oliver. Note that this does not include comparison with base case climate (i.e. no climate change). 30Figure 2.22: City of Kelowna annual licensed domestic and ICI allocation and demand comparison for best- (low population growth, CGCM2-B2, smart growth housing and combined DSM) and worst-case (high population growth, HadCM3-A2, current preferences housing and current DSM) scenarios. 31Figure 2.23: City of Penticton annual licensed domestic and agricultural allocation and demand comparison for best- (low population growth, CGCM2-B2, smart growth housing and combined DSM) and worst-case (high population growth, HadCM3-A2, current preferences housing and current DSM) scenarios. Historic demand includes 2001 domestic demand and average 1961 to 1990 modeled crop water demand. 32Figure 4.1: Initial representation of Okanagan water resources in STELLA™, used to motivate discussion in Workshop 2. This image was printed in the centre of poster sized sheets for the group work. 54Figure 4.2: Comparison of responses by event to the evaluation question: Do you feel this model is a legitimate and relevant tool to explore long-term water management in the Okanagan? 60Figure 4.3: Percent attendance of all participants at all six events, categorized by affiliation. Plotted as (a) total number of people, and (b) weighted by the number of events each person attended. 61Figure 4.4: Percent attendance of all participants at all six events, categorized by role in Okanagan. Plotted as (a) total number of people, and (b) weighted by the number of events each person attended. 61Figure 4.5: Percent attendance of those people who attended three or more of the six events, categorized by affiliation. Plotted as (a) total number of people, and (b) weighted by the number of events each person attended. 62Figure 4.6: Percent attendance of those people who attended three or more of the six events, categorized by role in the Okanagan. Plotted as (a) total number of people, and (b) weighted by the number of events each person attended. 62Figure 4.7: Distribution of attendance throughout process according to role in the Okanagan, as shown for each event. 63l | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia
  12. 12. Figure 5.1: Okanagan Basin Map, showing location in British Columbia in inset. From (Cohen et al. 2006). 67Figure 5.2: Upland, Valley and South End areas are outlined. 68Figure 5.3: Causal Loop Diagram of Okanagan Basin water resources system, showing which components are not included in the model, and those that are only present through user-selected options. 71Figure 5.4: Population in Okanagan by Regional District, with major events that increased growth rates indicated. 73Figure 5.5: Average year inflow to Okanagan Lake compared to total demand with (yellow) and without (orange) residential adaptation for historic, 2020s and 2050s periods and with Hadley A2 climate change. The lower boundaries of the shaded areas represent low population growth and the upper boundaries represent rapid population growth. 73Figure 5.6: Okanagan basin demand profile under Hadley A2 climate change scenario and rapid population growth. 30-year average. 74Figure 5.7: Okanagan basin demand profile under Hadley A2 climate change scenario and slow population growth. 30-year average. 74Figure 5.8: Dry year inflow to Okanagan Lake (average of the 10 driest years) compared to total demand with (yellow) and without (orange) residential adaptation for historic, 2020s and 2050s periods and with Hadley A2 climate change. The lower boundaries of the shaded areas represent low population growth and the upper boundaries represent rapid population growth. 75Figure 5.9: Okanagan basin demand profile under Hadley A2 climate change scenario and rapid population growth. Average of 10 driest years in each 30-year period. 75Figure 5.10: Okanagan basin demand profile under Hadley A2 climate change scenario and slow population growth. Average of 10 driest years in each 30-year period. 76Figure 5.11: 30-year average annual supply-demand hydrographs for the Historic/Base Case (1961-1990). 76Figure 5.12: 30-year average annual supply-demand hydrographs for the 2020s simulation. 77Figure 5.13: 30-year average annual supply-demand hydrographs for the 2050s simulation. 77Figure 5.14: Okanagan basin demand profile under Hadley A2 climate change scenario and rapid population growth with residential adaptation (corresponding to Figure 5.6). 30-year average. 78Figure 5.15: Okanagan basin demand profile under Hadley A2 climate change scenario and slow population growth with adaptation (corresponding to Figures 5.7). 30-year average. 78Figure 7.1: Number of years that the respondent’s family has been farming in the Okanagan. 91Figure 7.2: Pros of overhead irrigation identified by its practitioners. 93Figure 7.3: Cons of overhead irrigation identified by its practitioners. 94Figure 7.4: Pros and cons of drip irrigation identified by its practitioners. 94Figure 7.5: What is the trade-off associated with investing in water efficiency? 95Figure 7.6: Responses to the question: Through my current system of water provision, I have enough water to irrigate during peak times and whenever I need it during the growing season. 98Figure 7.7: Perceptions of the change in volume of water in the basin’s hydrological system and its availability for personal supply between 2006 and 2031. 99Figure 7.8: Distribution of responses to the question: Are there any external/policy incentives for you to conserve water on your property? 99Figure 7.9: Distribution of respondents’ preferences for the agency or partnership they most strongly support to lead development and implementation of an agricultural water conservation policy. 100Figure A.1: Groundwater Drilling Cost Curves. 125Figure A.2: Pump and Motor Cost Curve. 128Figure A.3: Operational Pumping Costs. 128Figure C.1: Sketch created by Group 1. 136Figure C.2: Sketch created by Group 2. 137Figure C.3: Sketch created by Group 3. 138FINAL REPORT | m
  13. 13. Figure E.1: Two year hydrograph of aggregated flow in upland streams, showing shift from base case (1981-82), to a decreased, earlier peak in Hadley A2 – 2020’s (2030-31) and Hadley A2 – 2050’s (2060-61). 144Figure E.2: STELLA component for treatment of groundwater in the Upland sector. 145Figure E.3: Exponential growth in the STELLA language. 147Figure E.4: Comparison of crop water demand [m] for seven major water purveyors in the Uplands during the first two years of the historic scenario (1961-62). 151Figure E.5: Comparison of crop water demand [m] for the three different water source types. Note the increasing trend from Uplands down to the warmer South End. 151Figure E.6: Comparison of crop water demand rates [m] for the four categories of crops in the Uplands. 152Figure E.7: Comparison of Pasture crop water demand scenarios. Note increasing trend from historic base case to 2020’s and 2050’s. 152Figure E.8: Modeled standard conservation targets shown with five years of varying hydrologic conditions (1978 – flood; 1979-80 – drought; 1981-82 – average). 154Figure E.9: Conservation targets with modifications. Conservation target is no more than 50% of inflows. Greatest reductions are in drought years (1979-80). 154Figure E.10: Instream flow targets for Sockeye in Okanagan River near Oliver over a 12-month period (Jan – Dec). 155Figure E.11: Main components of the Uplands Hydrology Sector, where the water balance for this region is calculated. 156Figure E.12: UL Reservoir Storage Target ranges as a percentage of the total capacity. These targets help direct management decisions for releasing (summer) and filling (during spring freshet). 157Figure E.13: Spill Rules Factor rule curve. 158Figure E.14: UL Cutoff Rules Factor, as a function of the UL Cutoff Ratio. 158Figure E.15: Residential Outdoor Restrictions Factor defined as a function of the UL Supply Demand Balance Ratio. 159Figure E.16: Residential Indoor Restrictions Factor defined as a function of the UL Supply Demand Balance Ratio. 160Figure E.17: Agriculture Restrictions Factor defined as a function of the UL Supply Demand Balance Ratio. 160Figure E.18: Supply and Demand balance calculation for the Valley Sector. 162Figure E.19: Supply Demand Balance calculation for the South End Region. 163Figure F.1: 1961-1990 base case summary of basin population, inflow, water demand and Okanagan Lake stage. 166Figure F.2: Basin summary for 2010-2039 scenario with no adaptation (same indicators as in Figure F .1). 166Figure F.3: Upland agricultural supply-demand balance, 2010-2039 (red), no adaptation, compared with 1961-1990 base case (blue). 167Figure F.4: Uplands residential outdoor supply-demand balance, 2010-2039 scenario (red) compared with 1961-1990 base case (blue). 167Figure F.5: Uplands residential indoor supply-demand balance, 2010-2039 scenario (red) compared with 1961-1990 base case (blue). Similar format as in Figure E.4. 168Figure F.6: Basin summary for 2040-2069 scenario (same indicators as in Figure F .1). 168Figure F.7: Upland agricultural supply-demand balance, 2040-2069 (red), no adaptation, compared with 1961-1990 base case (blue). 169Figure F.8: Uplands residential outdoor supply-demand balance, 2040-2069 scenario (red) compared with 1961-1990 base case (blue). 170Figure F.9: Uplands residential indoor supply-demand balance, 2040-2069 scenario (red) compared with 1961-1990 base case (blue). 170Figure F.10: Uplands agricultural supply-demand balance, 2010-2039 scenario with DSM portfolio (red) compared with 2010-2039 no-adaptation case (blue). 171n | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia
  14. 14. Figure F.11: Uplands residential outdoor supply-demand balance, 2010-2039 scenario with DSM portfolio (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 171Figure F.12: Uplands residential indoor supply-demand balance, 2010-2039 scenario with DSM portfolio (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 172Figure F.13: Uplands agricultural supply-demand balance, 2040-2069 scenario with DSM portfolio (red) compared with 2040-2069 no-adaptation case (blue). 173Figure F.14: Uplands residential outdoor supply-demand balance, 2040-2069 scenario with DSM portfolio (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 173Figure F.15: Uplands residential indoor supply-demand balance, 2040-2069 scenario with DSM portfolio (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 174Figure F.16: Okanagan Lake stage, 2010-2039 scenario with supplemental withdrawals from Okanagan Lake (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 174Figure F.17: Okanagan Lake stage, 2040-2069 scenario with supplemental withdrawals from Okanagan Lake (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 175Figure F.18: Valley outflow, 2040-2069 scenario with supplemental withdrawals from Okanagan Lake (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 175Figure F.19: Upland residential indoor supply-demand balance, 2040-2069 scenario with supplemental withdrawals from Okanagan Lake (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 176Figure F.20: Upland instream needs supply-demand balance, 2040-2069 scenario with supplemental withdrawals from Okanagan Lake (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 176Figure F.21: Valley outflows, 2010-2039 scenario with system managed for sockeye (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 178Figure F.22: Okanagan Lake stage, 2010-2039 scenario with system managed for sockeye (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 178Figure F.23: Valley outflows, 2040-2069 scenario with system managed for sockeye (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 179Figure F.24: Okanagan Lake stage, 2040-2069 scenario with system managed for sockeye (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 179Figure F.25: Uplands agriculture supply-demand balance, 2010-2039, with system managed for sockeye AND Okanagan Lake supplemental use (red) compared with no-adaptation (blue). 180Figure F.26: Okanagan Lake stage, 2010-2039 with system managed for sockeye AND Okanagan Lake supplemental use (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 180Figure F.27: Okanagan Lake stage, 2040-2069 with system managed for sockeye AND Okanagan Lake supplemental use (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 181Figure F.28: Upland in-stream flow needs, 2040-2069 with system managed for sockeye AND Okanagan Lake supplemental use (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 181Figure F.29: South End outflow, 2040-2069 with system managed for sockeye AND Okanagan Lake supplemental use (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 182Figure F.30: Uplands residential indoor supply-demand balance, 2010-2039, with DSM AND Okanagan Lake supplemental use (red) compared with no-adaptation (blue). 182Figure F.31: Uplands residential outdoor supply-demand balance, 2040-2069, with DSM AND Okanagan Lake supplemental use (red) compared with no-adaptation (blue). 183Figure F.32: Okanagan Lake stage, 2040-2069 with DSM AND Okanagan Lake supplemental use (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 183Figure F.33: Uplands in-stream needs, 2040-2069 with DSM AND Okanagan Lake supplemental use (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 184Figure F.34: Valley outflows, 2040-2069 with DSM AND Okanagan Lake supplemental use (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 184FINAL REPORT | o
  15. 15. Figure F.35: Uplands agricultural supply-demand balance, 2040-2069 with DSM AND sockeye management (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 185Figure F.36: Uplands residential indoor supply-demand balance, 2040-2069 with DSM AND sockeye management (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 185Figure F.37: Okanagan Lake stage, 2040-2069 with DSM AND sockeye management (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 186Figure F.38: Uplands in-stream needs, 2040-2069 with DSM AND sockeye management (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 186Figure F.39: Valley outflow, 2040-2069 with DSM AND sockeye management (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 187List of TablesTable 2.1: Case study attributes. 8Table 2.2: Case study population growth scenarios comparing 2069 population to the 2001 Census population. 11Table 2.3: Number of dwellings in 2069 in smart growth and current preferences dwelling scenarios for all three population growth scenarios for each case study. 12Table 2.4: Annual indoor and outdoor water use per dwelling type and per capita and regression statistics for mean maximum daily temperature and outdoor water use per dwelling. 14Table 2.5: Indoor and outdoor water savings used in DSM scenarios. 16Table 2.6: Comparison of per capita and per dwelling water use projections for the City of Kelowna. Water use is presented in ML. 17Table 2.7: Progression from best-case to worst-case for orders 1 and 2 shown in Figures 4.5, 4.11 and 4.17. 21Table 2.8: Comparison of per capita and per dwelling water use projections for Penticton. 23Table 2.9: Comparison of per capita and per dwelling water use projections for the Town of Oliver. 27Table 2.10: Domestic water demand scenarios and number of scenarios exceeding the City of Penticton’s licensed domestic allocation of 14,485.25ML. 33Table 3.1: Water Sources for Major Water Utilities. 38Table 3.2: Typical Wells for Major Utilities in the Okanagan Basin. 39Table 3.3: Parameters Related to Reservoir Storage Water Quality. 40Table 3.4: Summary of reservoir storage costs. 41Table 3.5: Mainstem pumping projects. 41Table 3.6: Water Treatment Process Costs. 42Table 3.7: Conservation project summary. 43Table 3.8: Domestic water rates. SFE = Single Family Equivalent. 44Table 3.9: Water treatment process costs (repeated from Table 3.6). 44Table 3.10: Recent and proposed projects for water supply, water conservation and water treatment. 45Table 4.1: Summary of Events in Group Model Building Process. 51Table 4.2: Description of Workshop 1. 52Table 4.3: Description of Workshop 2. 54Table 4.4: Research questions that participants want the model to be able to answer. 55Table 4.5: Description of Workshop 3. 56Table 4.6: Description of the Round of Meetings and Workshop 4. 57Table 4.7: Description of Workshop 5. 58Table 4.8: Number of responses to the post-workshop evaluation question “Have your perceptions of future water availability in the basin changed due to this exercise? 60Table 4.9: Average values of responses on pre- and post-evaluations, for the question: “How well do you understand the model’s structure?” 60Table 5.1: Adaptation and policy options included in the model on the user interface. 70p | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia
  16. 16. Table 7.1: Interview recruitment success rates in each of the study communities. 90Table 7.2: Participant distribution by business type and location. 90Table 7.3: Land-use before establishment of the current vineyard. 91Table 7.4: Summary of water consumption trends (per acre) since 1996. 92Table 7.5: Types of irrigation systems in place. 92Table 7.6: Decisions growers can make to mitigate the impact of these risks. 97Table 7.7: Pros and cons of water metering as identified by producers. 101Table A.1: Drilling Costs. 126Table A.2: Well Development Qualifiers. 127Table A.3: Pumping and Water Treatment Operational Cost Summary. 129Table E.1: Current population data for Regional Districts, and the portion of the population served by Okanagan Basin water sources. 146Table E.2: Comparison of historic populations and those simulated by the model using calculated growth rates from the historic to the present. 147Table E.3: Historic and Projected Annual Population Growth Rates [%] by Regional District. 147Table E.4: Division of residential water use according to water source. 148Table E.5: Linear relation parameters correlating outdoor water use to daily max temperature. 149Table E.6: Reprint of Table 3.3 from Neale (2005), p 47. Also Table 2.5 this text, Chapter 2. 150Table E.7: Conservation flow target structure. 153List of BoxesBox 4.1: The following list was generated by participants at Workshop 1, February 2005. 53Box 7.1: The process of autonomous adaptation to risk. 89Box 7.2: Risks and challenges that affect growers’ ability to maintain the profitability of their businesses. 96Box 7.3: The interactions of producer-identified risks and their implications for water demand. 104FINAL REPORT | q
  17. 17. Acknowledgements T his study is a follow-up to earlier research projects, cited as Cohen and Kulkarni (2001) and Cohen et al.(2004) (see Chapter 1.0). The authors of this report are members of a collaborative research team, some of whom also contributed to these earlier publications. This project was made possible with financial support from the Government of Canada’s Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Program (Project A846). The authors would also like to acknowledge support and cooperation from: Environment Canada, Smart Growth on the Ground, University of British Columbia, and BC Ministry of Environment. We would also like to thank Denise Neilsen and Grace Frank from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and Wendy Merritt from Australian National University, who assisted with data transfer from their components (see Cohen et al. 2004) to this study. The group-based model building process, led by Stacy Langsdale, was a crucial component of this research effort. We would like to express our appreciation to Jeff Carmichael, Craig Forster, Brian Symonds, Allyson Beall, Barbara Lence and Jessica Durfee, for their advice and participation in the design of this year-long process of interactive workshops and dialogue. We would like to acknowledge and thank the following individuals who participated in this process, and helped to shape the structure and content of the model: Diana Allen, Des Anderson, Greg Armour, Darryl Arsenault, Jeptha Ball, Lorraine Bennest, Vicki Carmichael, Kristi Carter, Al Cotsworth, Corui Davis, Anne Davidson, Don Degan, Shannon Denny, Rod Drennen, Phil Epp, Don Guild, Brian Guy, Leah Hartley, Rob Hawes, Robert Hobson, Bob Hrasko, Nelson Jatel, Mary Jane Jojic, Stephen Juch, Jessica Klein, Steve Losso, James MacDonald, Deana Machin, Lloyd Manchester, Wenda Mason, Don McKee, Rick McKelvey, Siobhan Murphy, Denise Neilsen, Tim Palmer, Toby Pike, Barbara Pryce, Steve Rowe, Gord Shandler, Tom Siddon, John Slater, Ron Smith, Mike Stamhuis, Brian Symonds, Sonia Talwar, Jillian Tamblyn, Ted van der Gulik, Peter Waterman, Mark Watt, Adam Wei, Bruce Wilson, and Howie Wright. The study on agricultural practices, contributed by Natasha Schorb, benefited from the participation of growers from the Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen. We would like to thank James Tansey and Tim McDaniels for their advice, and to acknowledge the growers for generously giving their time and effort to be interviewed. The study on residential water demand, contributed by Tina Neale, required detailed water use data from a number of communities. We would like to thank the staff of the City of Kelowna water utility, City of Penticton and Town of Oliver for providing this data and assisting with its interpretation and use for this research. The authors would like to thank the reviewer, Jim Bruce, for his thoughtful comments on this report.r | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia
  18. 18. Executive Summary T his is the final report of the study, “Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia.” This study was made possible with financial support from the Government of Canada’s Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Program (project A846). The research activity described in this report is a collaborative, interdisciplinary effort involving researchers from Environment Canada, Smart Growth on the Ground, the University of British Columbia, and the BC Ministry of Environment, as well as many local partners and researchers from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Australian National University, who participated in our 2002-2004 study. Previous research on climate change and Okanagan water resources since 1997 has provided a potential damage report. Impacts on water supply and water demand have been described, and a dialogue on adaptation options and challenges has been initiated. This study offers a participatory integrated assessment (PIA) of the Okanagan water system’s response to climate change. The goal of the PIA is to expand the dialogue on implications of adaptation choices for water management to include domestic and agriculture uses and in-stream conservation flows, for the basin as a whole as well as for particular sub-regions. This has been accomplished through collaboration with ongoing studies in these areas, and builds on the results of earlier work. The major components of this study are: 1. Residential water demand: developing future demand scenarios for residential users, factoring in population growth and adaptation options; 2. Adaptation costs: expanding the inventory of various supply and demand management measures and incorporating water treatment costs; 3. Decision support model: building a system model, using a group-based process with local experts, which enables learning on impacts of climate and population changes, and the effects of implementation of various adaptation measures; 4. Adaptation policy – residential design: bringing climate change into community design through Smart Growth on the Ground’s process for creating a water-smart community plan in the Town of Oliver and surrounding area; 5. Adaptation policy – agricultural water use: exploring growers’ views on regional water policy. Residential Water Demand Previous studies in the Okanagan Basin have found that average daily residential water use in the region is highly variable, ranging from approximately 470 to 789 litres per capita per day (Lpcd). Drought year residential water use in the Lakeview Irrigation District has beenFINAL REPORT | i
  19. 19. estimated as high as 1,370 Lpcd. When compared to and 115-360% in the 2050s. The maximum increase inmunicipal water use across Canada, water use in the water use determined in the current preferencesOkanagan is relatively high. housing scenarios, without the impacts of climate change or additional DSM, ranged from 163% in theThe Okanagan has experienced dramatic population low growth scenario to 570% in the high growthgrowth, from approximately 210,000 in 1986 to scenario.310,000 in 2001. The population is expected tocontinue to grow, reaching nearly 450,000 by 2031. The climate change impact on water use in the 2020sThis increase in population and associated development ranged from approximately 6% to 10%. The climatewill result in increased municipal water demands. change impact became more pronounced in the 2050sPlanning for future municipal water demands must take increasing water use by 10 to 19%. When combinedinto account not only the future population of the with population and current preferences dwellingregion, but also urban development patterns, and growth, the climate change impact on water use waschanges in water demand resulting from a warming magnified. This is due to the increased number ofclimate. ground-oriented dwellings and hence, increased outdoor water use. In the high population growthBuilding on earlier work reported in the 2004 study, scenario, the combined effects of climate change andthree case studies were chosen for this research: the population growth increased water use between 111Town of Oliver, City of Penticton and City of Kelowna and 119% in the 2020s and 407 to 446% in the 2050swater utility. This study was a multi-attribute analysis over the 2001 baseline. This was 12 to 21% more thanthat used scenarios, constructed with available data, to population growth alone in the 2020s and 45 to 86%explore the combined impacts of population growth, more in the 2050s.residential form, climate change and demand sidemanagement on municipal water demand. The The implication for climate change in waterscenarios approach aimed to create depictions of future management planning is that annual water demandswater demand that were plausible given a range of predicted without climate change occur several yearsdevelopment, climate change and water management earlier in the climate change scenarios. For example, intrends that could occur in the future. Scenarios of the 2030 to 2039 period, annual water demand withfuture water demand for each case study were “average” climate change occurred approximately fourcalculated in a spreadsheet model at annual time steps years earlier than in the no climate change scenario. Infor the period 2001 to 2069, corresponding with the the 2040 to 2059 period, this increased to an average of2020s and 2050s periods typical of climate change six years earlier.scenarios. A combined DSM portfolio, including public education,Three scenarios of population growth (low, medium metering with increasing block rate tariffs, xeriscapingand high) were defined for each case study based on and high-efficiency appliances, was assessed in severalpopulation growth projections published in available scenarios. For climate change scenarios, residentialplanning documents. “Current preferences” and “smart water use increased by only 2 to 5% in the 2020s andgrowth” housing scenarios were defined as lower and 81 to 92% in the 2050s, compared with 2001. Withhigher density development patterns. The six climate low population growth, 2020s water use was actuallychange scenarios developed in the 2004 study were reduced below 2001 levels by 10 to 13% in the 2020sapplied to determine the impacts of climate change on and increased only 24 to 32% in the 2050s. With highoutdoor residential water use. A literature search was population growth, 2020s average water use increasedconducted to compile a list of residential demand side by 20 to 24% and 2050s use by 165 to 182%. Similarmanagement (DSM) options along with their expected savings were reported for the Penticton and Oliver casewater savings. The information was then used to define studies.seven DSM options for testing in the water demand The untapped potential of demand side management inscenarios. DSM options were selected to reflect a range the Okanagan region offers significant flexibility inof possible water savings approaches including dealing with changing supply and demand regimeseconomic incentives, educational programs, and without impacting quality of life for water users. In themechanical or technological solutions. scenarios, DSM resulted in dramatic reductions in waterFor Kelowna, population and dwelling demand growth use, even in the cases where demand managementin the current preferences scenario accounted for programs were already in place. Water metering canaverage increases in water use by 41-99% in the 2020s significantly reduce demand, but the combined effectsii | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia
  20. 20. of full retrofits and xeriscaping would reduce water use $3200 per ML depending on the height required forfar more than metering. pumping, the length of intake pump required and the ability to use existing balancing reservoirs versus newIt is also important to note that DSM measures have construction. In this study, some newer projects costs’benefits beyond water use efficiency to the overall have been determined, and these range from $114/MLsustainability of the Okanagan. Demand management to $1375/ML, however, the lower cost projects onlyreduces the sensitivity of water management systems to present costs for the lake intake pipe portion and doexternal influences such as climate change and not include conveyance costs, and none of these studiesdevelopment patterns. Regardless of what the future include reservoir or water treatment costs. Since thebrings in terms of climate change and population quality of mainstem water is often better than thegrowth, demand management is relevant to the present quality upstream, water treatment costs can also beand represents a “no regrets” option for dealing with a lower. Given the possibility of significant newvariety of concerns. mainstem pumping developments, it is worth considering some of the micro and macro scaleAdaptation Costs issues. For example, if service is required more thanThe focus of this component was on measures that 130 metres above the lake, an additional pumpingindividual utilities could undertake to adapt to the station may be required.changing hydrology of the basin and to increased water When calculating the costs of any supply sidedemands due to climate warming. These measures, adaptation options, the costs of water treatment shouldaimed at increasing the reliability of the system’s water also be considered. In most supply options, the costssupply to meet its needs, are not conceptually new and of treating the water are at least as great as the coststhe engineering and management issues are well of developing the supply. The various filtrationunderstood. technologies, often required to meet regulatoryHistorically, developers of new water supply have relied standards, range from $2,700 to over $5,000 per MLon surface water in the Okanagan, concentrating first treated. UV disinfection and clarification have a muchon gravity fed systems from upstream storage and lower cost range. As a result, water treatment costssubsequently on pumped water from the mainstem become even more important in adaptation decisions.system when tributary storage was not adequate. Previous work on DSM options outlined the rangeGroundwater development followed, but mostly as a of costs of a number of options including publicsecondary or small local source of supply. All of the education, irrigation scheduling, high efficiencymajor communities, with the exception of Osoyoos rely irrigation systems, leak detection and domestic waterprimarily on surface water as their main supply. metering. Irrigation scheduling ($400 – 700 per ML)Groundwater development costs can be relatively low and public education ($700 per ML) were the twocompared to other alternatives. A recent development lowest cost options. Leak detection and high efficiencyby the Glenmore-Ellison Improvement District irrigation systems were in the $1200 to $1400 costillustrates the cost effectiveness of groundwater. The range, while costs of domestic metering ranged fromwell, currently under construction, has an estimated $1500 to $2200 per ML saved. Costs for each of thecapital cost of $258,000 with an annual supply of 1200 various measures varied based on assumptions aboutmegalitres (ML), resulting in a per-unit cost of $206 /ML. the size and location of the system.This represents an extremely low cost compared to Data from recent conservation case examples isother options. However, problems exist that will affect available for the central Okanagan including the Blackthe use of this option in the future. Mountain Irrigation District (BMID), the South EastUpstream storage is another supply option. Costs are Kelowna Irrigation District (SEKID) and the City ofdependant on site specific factors and vary considerably Kelowna. The cost of the meters in SEKID is aboutfrom project to project. Dam height is particularly $450 per ML. A proposed domestic metering programimportant, resulting in more stringent construction by SEKID would have a higher cost of about $2500 perrequirements and higher costs. Costs of recent storage ML saved. At BMID, the cost per ML saved is estimatedprojects range from $418/ML to $4988/ML. to be approximately $600 for the agricultural metering. The City of Kelowna implemented a domestic meteringMainstem pumping, including pumping from Okanagan program in 1996-97 which included a public educationLake, has a probable cost range of about $800 to component. This program resulted in a 20 percentFINAL REPORT | iii
  21. 21. reduction in water use by domestic users. The costs Participants provided a wealth of ideas about theper ML saved are approximately $2000. Okanagan system, particularly in the areas of hydrology, imported water, instream flow, water quality, land useWater conservation will often be a first choice option (Agricultural Land Reserve), forestry, population &for individual utilities given its cost advantages, urban , development, residential water use, and cropparticularly when considering the cost of water water demand.treatment for new supply sources. Despite the costadvantages, conservation efforts by individual utilities The software used in the construction of this modelmay not be sufficient to meet the joint challenges of was the stock and flow STELLA™ software.population growth and climate change. The potential Participants became familiar with STELLA™ through a20-30% water savings from conservation by municipalities year-long series of workshops and individual sessions.may represent only a few years of growth in demand Previous research conducted on climate change andfrom increasing population. The larger absolute gains hydrologic scenarios, and crop water demand andachievable through agricultural metering will take residential demand, served as an important foundationlonger to implement. Utilities are thus forced to look for the model. However, the participants provided theat options for developing new supplies. information to link what these scenarios mean to the Okanagan context. The software became the mediumThere are a few upstream storage developments in the for expressing these linkages. Because the participantsproposal stage, which are advantageous from both a did not actually create the model code themselves,basin wide and an individual utility’s perspective. The generating a feeling of ownership and trust in themore cost effective upstream storage sites have already model was challenging. The workshops provided thebeen developed, limiting further development by best opportunity for education about the modelmunicipalities and irrigation districts. Given the cost through hands-on interaction and dialogue with theadvantages, utilities will be looking to develop modeling team.groundwater supplies where feasible. The long-term significance of this participatoryDecision Support Model modeling process to policy development cannot be measured during the timeframe of this phase of theThe purpose of this component was to assist the project. Since we do not have a control group, we mayOkanagan water resources community in incorporating never be able to measure what changed as a result ofclimate change in their planning and policy our efforts. Regardless, we are optimistic that thedevelopment and to evaluate their water resources in a process did make a difference to the participants, whosystem context. This was done through a Participatory were quite positive about the experience. ThroughoutIntegrated Assessment (PIA) process centered on the the process, participants recommended that this workdevelopment of a System Dynamics model. The study be shared with a wider community, particularly todid not only focus on climate change, but on a wide elected officials and the public.range of issues co-defined by the participants andresearchers. The products of this process are: (1) A Only one climate scenario was tested in this version ofshared learning experience for the participants and the the model: Hadley A2. Of the six scenarios evaluatedresearch team; and (2) The resulting simulation model, in the 2004 study, Hadley A2 is a moderate to worsta decision support tool for increasing knowledge about climate scenario depending on the evaluation criteriathe system, and for exploring plausible future scenarios and the period of interest. Based on this climateand adaptation opportunities. scenario, and a range of regional population growth scenarios, model results show that without interventions,Participants in the group model building process were regional water demands will not be met in the future.recruited by invitation, with the intention of achieving Demand will exceed supply by the 2050s, and as earlya diverse and balanced representation of the various as the 2020s in relatively dry years. Aggressiveorganizations and responsibilities related to water implementation of residential conservation measuresresources management in the Okanagan Basin. could reduce total demand in the 2050’s by aboutAffiliations included First Nations, Federal, Provincial 8-12% (low growth and high population growth(BC), Regional District, and Local Governments; scenarios, respectively). In any event, this is notEnvironmental Non-Governmental Organizations; enough on its own to offset the supply-demand gap.Academia; Irrigation Districts; Agricultural Association(BC Fruit Growers Association); Consultancy; and The components of supply and demand respondLocal Initiative (The Okanagan Partnership). differently to the stressors of population growth andiv | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia
  22. 22. climate change. According to the Hadley A2 scenario (SGOG) is a unique initiative, helping BC communitiesthat was built into the model, natural flow into the to plan and implement more sustainable forms of urbanbasin from precipitation will decrease from historic growth.rates, more gradually in the 2020’s by about 5%, then In 2005/2006, the Oliver BC region was the focus ofmore drastically in the 2050’s, by about 21%. At the SGOG work. The SGOG partners formed links withsame time, agricultural demand across the basin will the Participatory Integrated Assessment team to gainincrease with climate change. Residential demand will experience in connecting climate change research andincrease with climate change as well; however, urban design within an ongoing SGOG design processresidential demand appears to be more sensitive to taking place in Oliver.growth rate than climate change, within the range ofgrowth rates tested. Instream ecosystem demand rates A key activity in the SGOG process is a Designare more challenging to define. In this work, they are Charrette. A charrette is an intensive, multi-based on established policies. Since these policies stakeholder design event. Citizens, elected officials,allow adjustments to the requirement during low flow government staff, and other experts are broughtyears, the instream flow demand level appears to together with professional designers. In a collaborativedecrease with climate change. This is a result of the atmosphere, charrette team members undertake anincreased incidence of low flow years, and does not “illustrated brainstorm.” The team created land use,reflect the actual needs of the ecosystem in warmer transportation, urban design, and other design plansclimates. for the particular geographic area under study. The design brief included a target of a 38% reduction inAggregating these three needs, the total average residential water use by 2041. The team was alsodemand is 79-82% of total inflow in the 2020’s, and encouraged to explore “greener” building standards to82-113% of total inflow in the 2050’s. Low values in conserve water. The charrette team made a numberthe range correspond to slow residential growth and the of recommendations on water management and actionsupper values correspond to rapid population growth. to address climate change, including “thickening”Aggressive implementation of residential adaptation (increasing residential density), xeriscaping, greeningmeasures can at least partially compensate for the of streets and buildings, and expanded use of residentialincrease in demand due to the population expansion. water saving devices.Additional conservation measures in the agriculturalsector will also help to offset the increase in demanddue to climate change; however, the combination of all Adaptation – agricultureof these conservation policies may not be sufficient to The goal of this component was to improvemaintain the level of system reliability that was understanding of both the process of autonomousexperienced in the 1961-1990 simulation period. adaptation to climate change and the factors that mustSupplemental use of Okanagan Lake would be of be considered in the development of agricultural waterbenefit to meeting future agricultural and residential policy in the Okanagan. To accomplish this goal, thisuser demands. However, system performance for study explored the ways in which Okanagan wine-grapemeeting future instream flow requirements significantly growers use water and are likely to respond to futuredeteriorates, and Okanagan Lake levels would decline. scarcity. Understanding how grape-growers makeThis indicates that on its own, additional withdrawal decisions to manage multiple risks and how actionsfrom Okanagan Lake would lead to mining of the lake taken to mitigate one risk affect exposure to others isand increased risks to aquatic ecosystems. This does an integral part of understanding the types ofnot mean that supplemental use of the lake should be adaptations farmers do and will make, and the policyrejected as a possible adaptation option. If used in initiatives they are willing to support.conjunction with DSM, overall system performance Information on growers’ views on current and futurecould improve. water use were obtained through interviews in the South Okanagan. Previous research has indicated thatAdaptation—residential design wine-grape growers in the South Okanagan are more vulnerable to climate change and more dependent onOne approach to design and implementation of water to manage risk than those in the central oradaptation responses, within the context of local and northern parts of the region. Growers were interviewedregional development, is a process known as “Smart in January 2006 using a semi-structured questionnaireGrowth”, being promoted by Smart Growth on the with a mix of open and closed questions, designed toGround (SGOG). Smart Growth on the GroundFINAL REPORT | v
  23. 23. facilitate comparison between responses and provide variable, and prone to extremes. Growers voiced mixedgrowers with the flexibility to answer unpredictably. opinions about the implications of climate variability for basin supply. Four individuals suggested thatExamination of operators’ choice of irrigation climate patterns are cyclical and that today’s warmingtechnology indicates that there is a preference for trend will have cooled somewhat by 2031. In thisirrigation systems which allow the grower to strictly scenario, water supply will remain the same in thecontrol water application to the vines. A majority use future. Others believe that a diminished snowpack isdrip, or drip in combination with overhead sprinklers. indicative of climate warming, either on a short-term orOverhead irrigation is generally perceived to be less a long-term scale, and will probably reduce basinwater efficient than other technologies. The most supply further by 2031.widely perceived benefit of using a drip system is theability to grow a very high quality grape. Deficit Agricultural adaptation research indicates thatirrigation is easy to practice because the system is adaptation to climate change occurs in an environmenthighly controlled. A majority of respondents characterized by multiple stressors, and farmerscommented that the most effective way to increase confront difficult trade-offs in their attempt toprofit margins is to focus on grape quality through maximize diverse objectives. Since climate change isdeficit irrigation. only one of numerous challenges managed by farmers, anticipatory adaptation policy should address existingWarmer summer and winter temperatures are perceived problems without compromising the ability of farmersas an advantage from an industry perspective because to manage other risks.they are associated with a northward shift in thegeographic extent of grape-growing in the valley. Warmerwinter temperatures might also be a benefit if the Lessons and Moving Onincidence of ‘extreme’ cold events (below -30 Celsius) As the Okanagan grapples with its water resourcedecreases because this would minimize vine damage. challenges, there will be important questions regardingHowever, growers in this study expressed concern future demands and how these demands may be shapedabout increased temperature variability because in the by various forces. Our quantitative research has focusedautumn and spring, vines are very sensitive to frost on climate change itself, and has included populationevents immediately preceded by mild temperatures. growth scenarios, but we have not explicitly consideredWarmer temperatures were also associated with (or modeled) alternative development pathways. Ourdeclining snowpack but growers were uncertain if qualitative dialogue-based studies have offered somethis would be offset by greater precipitation at other insights into the interplay between recent climatetimes of year. experiences and responses by individuals andOther risks identified by producers include decision- institutions. We conclude, not surprisingly, that futuremaking by local, provincial and federal governments, climate change can expose some vulnerability,selling through the liquor distribution branch, exacerbate existing risks, and possibly create new risksincreasing regulation of wineries, escalating urban-rural as well as new opportunities. However, we also need toconflict, and local land development planning. Some ask questions about the potential effects ofindividuals mentioned climate extremes and variability development paths themselves.as a big risk they face. These risks are associated with Moving beyond the climate change “damage report”extreme cold, mild weather that increases vulnerability requires an approach that explicitly integrates climateto spring and fall frost, excess moisture and pests. Risks change response and sustainable developmentassociated with climate change and water shortage were initiatives. Our study may have originated as anidentified by only a small number of respondents. assessment of climate change impacts on waterGrowers’ perceptions of the future of their personal resources, but impacts on water supply and demandwater source and that of the basin system are widely have considerable implications for regionalvariable. Notably, individuals’ perceptions of their development. In addition, this is not a one-way street.personal water security are less related to their Development choices will also affect the water supply-philosophies about hydrologic change than to their demand balance. Some development choices couldlevel of personal control over their water supply. Many exacerbate climate-related water problems, while othersof those with greater than ten years in the valley could ameliorate them. But what are the practicalcommented that snowpack has decreased steadily in the aspects of a long-term sustainable developmentlast ten to fifteen years and climate is warmer, more pathway for the Okanagan? How would this pathwayvi | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia
  24. 24. incorporate potential climate change impacts andadaptation without inadvertently creating newvulnerabilities?The Adaptation and Impacts Research Division ofEnvironment Canada and the Institute for Resources,Environment and Sustainability at the University ofBritish Columbia are collaborating to propose aresearch strategy to address the linkages between globalclimate change and regional sustainable development.The project, referred to as AMSD (Adaptation-Mitigation-Sustainable Development), employs anintegrative approach in which the focus is on potentialsynergies of response measures, and on defining theresponse capacity of regions to address thesechallenges. The niche of the proposed OkanaganAMSD case study would be the explicit linkage ofclimate change response measures and regionaldevelopment actions. The study would be looking forsynergies that would be mutually beneficial toachieving both objectives of enhancing sustainabilityand reducing climate-related vulnerability. TheOkanagan case study would begin with water resourceissues, building on past and ongoing research, but withthe goal of extending this to the exploration of alternatedevelopment paths already being considered withinthe region.FINAL REPORT | vii

×