Scope and limitations of drought management within complex human–natural systems

Abstract

Growing evidence suggests that drought risk is increasing due to climate change. Evaluation of potential policy responses involves understanding complex economic tradeoffs, hydrologic and social feedbacks, and recognizing how combinations of interventions may have complementary or conflicting effects. This paper explores the potential that coupled human–natural system models have to address these questions. We employ a detailed model of the Willamette River Basin, Oregon, to evaluate the effectiveness of a variety of potential drought policy interventions to conserve or reallocate water during a simulated near-term drought year. The drought year is characterized by early-season low flows that make it impossible to meet water demands. The results indicate that while the policies are effective at conserving water, they have limited ability to mitigate the shortages because the timing and location of conservation responses do not match the timing and location of the shortages.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: The Willamette Basin WRB covers 29,730 km2 (11,480 square miles), approximately 12% of Oregon’s land area.
Fig. 2: Diagram of the Willamette River Basin model.
Fig. 3: Hydrographs of Willamette River flows.
Fig. 4: Conservation and mitigation potential of policies.
Fig. 5: Hydrographs of drought mitigation.

Data availability

Details of the Willamette Envision models and scenarios used for the analysis described in this paper can be found at http://inr.oregonstate.edu/ww2100/data.

References

  1. 1.

    Diffenbaugh, N. S., Swain, D. L. & Touma, D. Anthropogenic warming has increased drought risk in California. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 3931–3936 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    IPCC Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

  3. 3.

    Van Loon, A. F. et al. Drought in the Anthropocene. Nat. Geosci. 9, 89 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Chang, H. & Jung, I.-W. Spatial and temporal changes in runoff caused by climate change in a complex large river basin in Oregon. J. Hydrol. 388, 186–207 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Jaeger, W. K. et al. Finding water scarcity amid abundance using human–natural system models. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11884–11889 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Amos, A. L. Developing the law of the river: the integration of law and policy into hydrologic and socio-economic modeling efforts in the Willamette River Basin. Univ. Kans. Law Rev. 62, 1091 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Levin, S. et al. Social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems: modeling and policy implications. Environ. Dev. Econ. 18, 111–132 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Cai, X., McKinney, D. C. & Lasdon, L. S. Integrated hydrologic-agronomic-economic model for river basin management. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manage. 129, 4–17 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Bateman, I. et al. Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making: land use in the United Kingdom. Science 341, 45–50 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Rabotyagov, S. S. et al. Cost-effective targeting of conservation investments to reduce the northern Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 18530–18535 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    IPCC Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (eds Field, C. B. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

  12. 12.

    Turner, D. P., Conklin, D. R. & Bolte, J. P. Projected climate change impacts on forest land cover and land use over the Willamette River Basin, Oregon, USA. Clim. Change 133, 335–348 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Bigelow, D. P., Plantinga, A. J., Lewis, D. J. & Langpap, C. How does urbanization affect water withdrawals?Insights from an econometric-based landscape simulation. Land Econ. 93, 413–436 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Lewis, D. J., Plantinga, A. J., Nelson, E. & Polasky, S. The efficiency of voluntary incentive policies for preventing biodiversity loss. Resour. Energy Econ. 33, 192–211 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Kalinin, A. V. Right as Rain? The Value of Water in Willamette Valley Agriculture (Oregon State Univ., 2013).

  16. 16.

    Seibert, J. Estimation of parameter uncertainty in the HBV model. Nord. Hydrol. 28, 247–262 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Turner, D. P. et al. Assessing mechanisms of climate change impact on the upland forest water balance of the Willamette River Basin, Oregon. Ecohydrology 10, e1776 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Allen, R. G. & Robison, C. W. Evapotranspiration and Consumptive Irrigation Water Requirements for Idaho (Univ. of Idaho Research and Extension, 2007).

  19. 19.

    Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D. & Smith, M. Crop Evapotranspiration – Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements. Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56 (FAO, 1998).

  20. 20.

    Seibert, J. HBV Light Version 2. User’s Manual (Stockholm Univ., 2005).

  21. 21.

    Abatzoglou, J. T. Development of gridded surface meteorological data for ecological applications and modelling. Int. J. Climatol. 33, 121–131 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Rupp, D. E., Abatzoglou, J. T., Hegewisch, K. C. & Mote, P. W. Evaluation of CMIP5 20th century climate simulations for the Pacific Northwest USA. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 118, 10,884–10,906 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Vano, J. A., Kim, J. B., Rupp, D. E. & Mote, P. W. Selecting climate change scenarios using impact-relevant sensitivities. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 5516–5525 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Wilhite, D. A. Drought policy in the U.S. and Australia: a comparative analysis. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 22, 425–438 (1986).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Drought Management and Its Impact on Public Water Systems (National Research Council, 1986).

  26. 26.

    Willamette River Basin Project Biological Opinion (NMFS, 2008).

  27. 27.

    Moore, K. M. Optimizing Reservoir Operations to Adapt to 21st Century Expectations of Climate and Social Change in the Willamette River Basin, Oregon (Oregon State Univ., 2015).

  28. 28.

    Harrison, J. Warm Water Blamed for Huge Columbia River Sockeye Die-off (Northwest Power and Conservation Council, 2015).

  29. 29.

    Faulkner, J. R., Widener, D. L., Smith, S. G., Marsh, T. M. & Zabel, R. W. Survival Estimates for the Passage of Spring-Migrating Juvenile Salmonids through Snake and Columbia River Dams and Reservoirs, 2015 (National Marine Fisheries Service for the Bonneville Power Administration, 2016).

  30. 30.

    Statistical Report for Fiscal year 2016–2017 (Portland Water Bureau, 2017).

  31. 31.

    US Community Water System Survey 2000 Vol. 1: Overview (EPA, 2002); www.epa.gov/safewater

  32. 32.

    U. S. Water Supply and Use in the United States 2008 (EPA, 2008); www.epa.gov/watersense

  33. 33.

    Wichman, C. J., Taylor, L. O. & von Haefen, R. H. Conservation policies: who responds to price and who responds to prescription? J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 79, 114–134 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Mini, C., Hogue, T. S. & Pincetl, S. The effectiveness of water conservation measures on summer residential water use in Los Angeles, California. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 94, 136–145 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Bland, A. Californians are struggling to pay for rising water rates—water deeply. NewsDeeply https://www.newsdeeply.com/water/articles/2018/02/27/californians-are-struggling-to-pay-for-rising-water-rates (2018).

  36. 36.

    Postel, S. L., Daily, G. C. & Ehrlich, P. R. Human appropriation of renewable fresh water. Science 271, 785–788 (1996).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Scheierling, S. M., Loomis, J. B. & Young, R. A. Irrigation water demand: a meta-analysis of price elasticities. Water Resour. Res. 42, W01411 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Huffaker, R. & Whittlesey, N. A theoretical analysis of economic incentive policies encouraging agricultural water conservation. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 19, 37–53 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Kelley, A. K. & Beck, R. E. Waters and Water Rights (LexisNexis, 2009).

  40. 40.

    National Hydrography Dataset (US Geological Survey (USGS), accessed 21 September 2018); http://www.horizon-systems.com/NHDPlus/NHDPlusV2_home.php

  41. 41.

    Bennear, L. S., Lee, J. M. & Taylor, L. O. Municipal rebate programs for environmental retrofits: an evaluation of additionality and cost-effectiveness. J. Policy Anal. Manage. 32, 350–372 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Mansur, E. T. & Olmstead, S. M. The value of scarce water: measuring the inefficiency of municipal regulations. J. Urban Econ. 71, 332–346 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Brent, D. A., Cook, J. H. & Olsen, S. Social comparisons, household water use, and participation in utility conservation programs: evidence from three randomized trials. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2, 597–627 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Olmstead, S. M. The economics of managing scarce water resources. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 4, 179–198 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Biological Opinion on the Continued Operation and Maintenance of the Willamette River Basin Project and Effects to Oregon Chub, Bull Trout, and Bull Trout Critical Habitat Designated Under the Endangered Species Act (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008).

  46. 46.

    Amos, A. Freshwater conservation in the context of energy and climate policy: assessing progress and identifying challenges in Oregon and the Western United States. Univ. Denv. Water Law Rev. 12, 1–22 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Getches, D., Zellmer, S. & Amos, A. Water Law in a Nutshell 5th edn (West Academic, 2015).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project was supported by the National Science Foundation (grant Nos. 1039192 (Oregon State University), 1038925 (Portland State University) and 1038899 (University of Oregon)). We also acknowledge support from NOAA’s Climate Program Office under cooperative agreement No. NA15OAR4310145.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors contributed equally.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William K. Jaeger.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Methods, References 1–26, Tables 1–7 and Figs. 1–4.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jaeger, W.K., Amos, A., Conklin, D.R. et al. Scope and limitations of drought management within complex human–natural systems. Nat Sustain 2, 710–717 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0326-y

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing