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

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. 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. 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. Stresses to the System
 Population Growth:
potential new demands
http://www.centerwest.org/futures/archive/people/population_nm.html

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Projected Supply Reductions
 Colorado headwaters: ~ 33% median decrease, most of which
occurs in June through August
11

12. Projected Supply Reductions
 Colorado State-Line Deliveries to New Mexico: ~ 50% median
decrease, most of which occurs in June through August
12

13. Projected Supply Reductions
 Major tributaries in New Mexico: ~ 33% median decrease, most
of which occurs in May and June
13

14. Projected Supply Reductions
 Other tributaries in New Mexico: ~ 33% median decrease, most
of which occurs in May and June
14

15. Projected Supply Reductions
 Imported water (San Juan – Chama Project). ~15% reduction
15

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. System response – Reservoir Storage
17

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. 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. 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.  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. 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. 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