Water in the West - Session 3 - Jesse Roach

635 views
550 views

Published on

Responding to Projected Water Resource Scarcity in the Upper Rio Grande Basin

Published in: Technology, Travel
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
635
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
332
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • To provide sufficient flow to Elephant Butte, must reduce consumption.
  • To provide sufficient flow to Elephant Butte, must reduce consumption.
  • Water in the West - Session 3 - Jesse Roach

    1. 1. e n e r g y. s a n d i a . g o v Responding to Projected Water Resource Scarcity in the Upper Rio Grande Basin Jesse Roach PhD Dagmar Llewellyn Sandia National Laboratories U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-program laboratory managed and operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000
    2. 2. Outline  The Upper Rio Grande Basin  Stresses to the System  Population Growth  Ecological Needs  Climate change  Climate change analysis with CMIP3->VIC -> URGSiM  Projected water scarcity  Supply reductions  Demand increases  System responses  Transformational solutions  Use a combination of strategies to “ease the pain” 2 http://wilderness.org/blog/rio-grande-gorge-bill-may-benefit-migratory-birds
    3. 3. The Upper Rio Grande  Snowmelt dominated  ~500,000 acres agriculture served by Rio Grande & Conejos systems in Colorado (San Luis Valley)  ~70,000 acres agriculture served by Rio Grande, Rio Chama, and Rio Jemez systems in New Mexico  Inter-basin transfer from Colorado River (San Juan – Chama project)  Reservoir storage concentrated on Chama system (Heron, El Vado and Abiquiu) and at the bottom of the system (Elephant Butte & Caballo)  Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Alamosa, and many other cities and towns utilize Rio Grande water directly, or via recharge to GW system. 3
    4. 4. Stresses to the System  Population Growth: potential new demands http://www.centerwest.org/futures/archive/people/population_nm.html
    5. 5. Stresses to the System  Population Growth: http://www.centerwest.org/futures/archive/people/population_nm.html potential new demands  Ecological Water Needs: “new” demands http://www.fws.gov/endangered/about/silvery_minnow.html http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1381/ 5
    6. 6. Stresses to the System  Population Growth: http://www.centerwest.org/futures/archive/people/population_nm.html potential new demands  Ecological Water Needs: “new” demands http://www.fws.gov/endangered/about/silvery_minnow.html http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1381/  Climate Change: increased demands and potential reduced supplies 6
    7. 7. Climate Change Analysis: CMIP3 -> VIC -> URGSiM 1. Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 3 (CMIP3)  16 different GCMs run for 3 different greenhouse gas emission scenarios with a variety of boundary conditions  112 model runs from 1950-2099 that generate global Temperature and Precipitation time series. Emissions Scenarios Climate Models: bccr_bcm2_0 cccma_cgcm3_1 cnrm_cm3 csiro_mk3_0 gfdl_cm2_0 gfdl_cm2_1 giss_model_e_r inmcm3_0 ipsl_cm4 miroc3_2_medres miub_echo_g mpi_echam5 mri_cgcm2_3_2a ncar_ccsm3_0 ncar_pcm1 ukmo_hadcm3 A1b A2 1 2 B1 40 3 4 5 6 41 76 42 43 44 45 77 7 46 8 47 9 48 80 81 84 49 79 83 10 78 82 85 50 86 13 11 12 51 87 14 52 88 15 16 17 53 54 55 89 90 91 18 19 20 56 57 58 92 93 94 21 22 23 59 60 61 95 96 97 24 25 26 62 63 64 65 98 99 100 101 102 29 30 31 67 68 69 70 103 104 105 106 107 35 36 37 71 72 73 74 110 111 39 27 28 32 38 33 34 75 66 112 108 109 7
    8. 8. Climate Change Analysis: CMIP3 -> VIC -> URGSiM 1. Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 3 (CMIP3) 2. Spatial downscaling of CMIP3 results to a 1/8th degree grid Ensemble projections for Rio Grande Basin: 8
    9. 9. Climate Change Analysis: CMIP3 -> VIC -> URGSiM 3. 4. Temperature and Precipitation at 1/8th degree drive Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) model. “Bias corrected” VIC hydrographs used to drive the Upper Rio Grande Simulation Model (URGSiM) 9
    10. 10. URGSiM  Monthly timestep operations model of the Upper Rio Grande hydrologic system developed at Sandia National Laboratories with support from Reclamation and USACE  Gaged flow inputs at 21 locations  Includes regional groundwater models dynamically connected to river system.  Includes agricultural and municipal/industrial demand, consumption, and return flows.  Models storage and operations at 9 reservoirs 10
    11. 11. Projected Supply Reductions  Colorado headwaters: ~ 33% median decrease, most of which occurs in June through August 11
    12. 12. Projected Supply Reductions  Colorado State-Line Deliveries to New Mexico: ~ 50% median decrease, most of which occurs in June through August 12
    13. 13. Projected Supply Reductions  Major tributaries in New Mexico: ~ 33% median decrease, most of which occurs in May and June 13
    14. 14. Projected Supply Reductions  Other tributaries in New Mexico: ~ 33% median decrease, most of which occurs in May and June 14
    15. 15. Projected Supply Reductions  Imported water (San Juan – Chama Project). ~15% reduction 15
    16. 16. Projected Demand Increases Abiquiu Evaporation Rate  Evaporative Demands rise with temperature:  Reservoir evaporation  Agricultural evapotranspiration  Riparian evapotranspiration Annual average rate [in/mo] 5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 1950 Reference ET, Los Lunas 5.5 2000 2050 Elephant Butte Evaporation Rate 2100 8.5 50% (5yr ave) min to max 10% to 90% 25% to 75% 8 Annual average rate [ft/yr] Annual average rate [ft/yr] 6 50% (5yr ave) min to max 10% to 90% 25% to 75% 5 4.5 50% (5yr ave) min to max 10% to 90% 25% to 75% 7.5 7 6.5 16 4 1950 2000 2050 2100 6 1950 2000 2050 2100
    17. 17. System response – Reservoir Storage 17
    18. 18. System response – River flows Rio Grande at Otowi Monthly averages 4000 Annual average flow [cfs] 3000 50% (5yr ave) min to max 10% to 90% 25% to 75% 3500 Monthly average flow [cfs]  Otowi: 3500 4000 2500 2000 1500 1000 3000 1951 to 1999 2020 to 2029 2050 to 2059 2090 to 2099 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 500 1950  Flow into Elephant Butte: 2000 2050 0 Oct NovDec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul AugSep Month 2100 Elephant Butte Inflows Elephant Butte Inflows 3000 4000 3000 50% (5yr ave) min to max 10% to 90% 25% to 75% 2500 Monthly average flow [cfs] Annual average flow [cfs] 3500 2500 2000 1500 1000 1951 to 1999 2020 to 2029 2050 to 2059 2090 to 2099 2000 1500 1000 500 500 1950 18 2000 2050 2100 0 Oct NovDec Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul AugSep Month
    19. 19. Reduced agricultural area MRG Irrigated Ag Annual average Area [1000 acres] 60 50 40 30 20 50% (5yr ave) min to max 10% to 90% 25% to 75% 10 1950 2000 2050 2100 Annual average potential demand not met %  Ag area and stress (% of potential demand not met) Ag Stress 40 30 50% (5yr ave) min to max 10% to 90% 25% to 75% 20 10 0 1950 2000 2050 2100  Riparian area and stress (% of potential demand not met) Riparian Vegetation Area Riparian Stress 55 Percent of potential demand not met % Area [1000 acres] 56 50% (5yr ave) min to max 10% to 90% 25% to 75% 54 53 52 1950 2000 2050 2100 40 35 30 50% (5yr ave) min to max 10% to 90% 25% to 75% 25 20 19 15 1950 2000 2050 2100
    20. 20. Reduced riparian area MRG Irrigated Ag Area Annual average Area [1000 acres] 60 59 50% (5yr ave) min to max 10% to 90% 25% to 75% 58 57 56 55 1950 2000 2050 2100 Annual average potential demand not met [%]  Ag area and stress (% of potential demand not met) Ag Stress 40 35 30 25 50% (5yr ave) min to max 10% to 90% 25% to 75% 20 15 10 5 0 1950 2000 2050 2100 Annual average Area [1000 acres] Riparian Vegetation Area 50 40 30 20 1950 50% (5yr ave) min to max 10% to 90% 25% to 75% 2000 2050 2100 Annual average potential demand not met [%]  Riparian area and stress (% of potential demand not met) Riparian Stress 40 35 30 50% (5yr ave) min to max 10% to 90% 25% to 75% 25 20 20 15 1950 2000 2050 2100
    21. 21.  No change to agricultural and riparian areas  But stress increases for agriculture and especially for riparian vegetation  And, do we really want to cement the river? Annual average potential demand not met [%] River lining Ag Stress 40 35 30 25 50% (5yr ave) min to max 10% to 90% 25% to 75% 20 15 10 5 0 1950 2000 2050 2100 100 % Lined [%] 80 50% (5yr ave) min to max 10% to 90% 25% to 75% 60 40 20 0 1950 2000 2050 2100 Annual average potential demand not met [%] Percent of Rio Grande Lined from Cochtiti to Elephant Butte Riparian Stress 40 35 30 25 50% (5yr ave) min to max 10% to 90% 25% to 75% 20 15 1950 2000 2050 21 2100
    22. 22. Combined Approach: Reduce agricultural & riparian area, and line a portion of the river 50 45 35 16 30 14 20 15 1950 50% (5yr ave) min to max 10% to 90% 25% to 75% 2000 12 2050 2100 Riparian Vegetation Area 10 8 4 Annual average Area [1000 acres] 55 2 50 0 1950 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 1950 50% (5yr ave) min to max 10% to 90% 25% to 75% 35 30 50% (5yr ave) min to max 10% to 90% 25% to 75% 2000 2050 2100 20 50% (5yr ave) 15 min to max 10% to 90% 10 25% to 75% 5 0 1950 2000 2050 2100 6 Annual average potential demand not met [%] 25 Ag Stress 40 25 Percent of Rio Grande Lined from Cochiti to Elephant Butte 40 % Lined [%] Annual average Area [1000 acres] 55 Annual average potential demand not met [%] MRG Irrigated Ag Area 60 Riparian Stress 40 35 30 50% (5yr ave) min to max 10% to 90% 2050 2000 25% to 75% 2100 25 20 15 1950 22 2000 2050 2100
    23. 23. Summary  Supply reductions based on current best-available climatechange scenarios are, on average, on the order of 25% to 33% of inflows.  Largest declines in inflow are anticipated during the spring snowmelt runoff, in May and June.  Modified reductions are greater for Colorado deliveries (~50%) due to legal structure of delivery requirements.  Modified reductions are less for San Juan – Chama project (~15%) due to engineered diversion of a portion of available flows  EVAPORATIVE Demand within the system projected to rise ~15%  To maintain required downstream deliveries, potential consumption must be reduced.  A combination of strategies helps “spread the pain”. 28

    ×