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

energy.sandia .gov

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

Jesse Roach PhD Sandia National LaboratoriesDagmar Llewellyn U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

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”

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.

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: potential new demands

Ecological Water Needs: “new” demands

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/about/silvery_minnow.html http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1381/

http://www.centerwest.org/futures/archive/people/population_nm.html

6

Stresses to the System Population Growth: potential new demands

Ecological Water Needs: “new” demands

Climate Change: increased demands and potential reduced supplies

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/about/silvery_minnow.html http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1381/

http://www.centerwest.org/futures/archive/people/population_nm.html

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: A1b A2 B1bccr_bcm2_0 1             40         76            

cccma_cgcm3_1 2 3 4 5 6     41 42 43 44 45 77 78 79 80 81    

cnrm_cm3 7             46         82            

csiro_mk3_0 8             47         83            

gfdl_cm2_0 9             48         84            

gfdl_cm2_1 10             49         85            

giss_model_e_r   11   12       50         86            

inmcm3_0 13             51         87            

ipsl_cm4 14             52         88            

miroc3_2_medres 15 16 17         53 54 55     89 90 91        

miub_echo_g 18 19 20         56 57 58     92 93 94        

mpi_echam5 21 22 23         59 60 61     95 96 97        

mri_cgcm2_3_2a 24 25 26 27 28     62 63 64 65 66 98 99 100 101 102    

ncar_ccsm3_0 29 30 31   32 33 34 67 68 69 70   103 104 105 106 107 108 109

ncar_pcm1 35 36 37 38       71 72 73 74     110 111        

ukmo_hadcm3 39             75         112            

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:

9

Climate Change Analysis: CMIP3 -> VIC -> URGSiM3. Temperature and Precipitation at 1/8th degree drive Variable Infiltration

Capacity (VIC) model.4. “Bias corrected” VIC hydrographs used to drive the Upper Rio Grande

Simulation Model (URGSiM)

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

11

Projected Supply Reductions Colorado headwaters: ~ 33% median decrease, most of which

occurs in June through August

12

Projected Supply Reductions Colorado State-Line Deliveries to New Mexico: ~ 50% median

decrease, most of which occurs in June through August

13

Projected Supply Reductions Major tributaries in New Mexico: ~ 33% median decrease, most

of which occurs in May and June

14

Projected Supply Reductions Other tributaries in New Mexico: ~ 33% median decrease, most

of which occurs in May and June

15

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

16

Projected Demand Increases

Evaporative Demands rise with temperature:

Reservoir evaporation Agricultural evapotranspiration Riparian evapotranspiration

Abiquiu Evaporation Rate

Ann

ual a

vera

ge r

ate

[in/m

o]

1950 2000 2050 21003.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

50% (5yr ave)

min to max10% to 90%

25% to 75%

Reference ET, Los Lunas

Ann

ual a

vera

ge r

ate

[ft/

yr]

1950 2000 2050 21004

4.5

5

5.5

6

50% (5yr ave)

min to max10% to 90%

25% to 75%

Elephant Butte Evaporation Rate

Ann

ual a

vera

ge r

ate

[ft/

yr]

1950 2000 2050 21006

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

50% (5yr ave)

min to max10% to 90%

25% to 75%

17

System response – Reservoir Storage

18

System response – River flows Otowi:

Flow into Elephant Butte:

Elephant Butte Inflows

Ann

ual a

vera

ge f

low

[cf

s]

1950 2000 2050 2100

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

50% (5yr ave)

min to max

10% to 90%

25% to 75%

Oct NovDec JanFeb MarAprMayJun Jul AugSep0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Month

Mon

thly

ave

rage

flo

w [

cfs]

Elephant Butte Inflows

1951 to 1999

2020 to 20292050 to 2059

2090 to 2099

Rio Grande at Otowi

Ann

ual a

vera

ge f

low

[cf

s]

1950 2000 2050 2100

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

50% (5yr ave)

min to max10% to 90%

25% to 75%

Oct NovDec Jan FebMar AprMayJun Jul AugSep0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Month

Mon

thly

ave

rage

flo

w [

cfs]

Monthly averages

1951 to 1999

2020 to 20292050 to 2059

2090 to 2099

19

Reduced agricultural area Ag area and stress (% of potential demand not met)

Riparian area and stress (% of potential demand not met)

Ag Stress

Ann

ual a

vera

ge p

oten

tial d

eman

d no

t m

et %

1950 2000 2050 21000

10

20

30

40

50% (5yr ave)

min to max10% to 90%

25% to 75%

Riparian Stress

Per

cent

of

pote

ntia

l dem

and

not

met

%

1950 2000 2050 2100

15

20

25

30

35

4050% (5yr ave)

min to max10% to 90%

25% to 75%

MRG Irrigated Ag

Ann

ual a

vera

ge A

rea

[100

0 ac

res]

1950 2000 2050 2100

10

20

30

40

50

60

50% (5yr ave)

min to max10% to 90%

25% to 75%

Riparian Vegetation Area

Are

a [1

000

acre

s]

1950 2000 2050 210052

53

54

55

56

50% (5yr ave)

min to max10% to 90%

25% to 75%

20

Ag area and stress (% of potential demand not met)

Riparian area and stress (% of potential demand not met)

Reduced riparian area

Riparian Vegetation Area

Ann

ual a

vera

ge A

rea

[100

0 ac

res]

1950 2000 2050 2100

20

30

40

50

50% (5yr ave)

min to max10% to 90%

25% to 75%

MRG Irrigated Ag Area

Ann

ual a

vera

ge A

rea

[100

0 ac

res]

1950 2000 2050 210055

56

57

58

59

60

50% (5yr ave)

min to max10% to 90%

25% to 75%

Riparian Stress

Ann

ual a

vera

ge p

oten

tial d

eman

d no

t m

et [

%]

1950 2000 2050 2100

15

20

25

30

35

4050% (5yr ave)

min to max10% to 90%

25% to 75%

Ag Stress

Ann

ual a

vera

ge p

oten

tial d

eman

d no

t m

et [

%]

1950 2000 2050 21000

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

50% (5yr ave)

min to max10% to 90%

25% to 75%

21

River liningAg Stress

Ann

ual a

vera

ge p

oten

tial d

eman

d no

t m

et [

%]

1950 2000 2050 21000

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

50% (5yr ave)

min to max10% to 90%

25% to 75%

Riparian Stress

Ann

ual a

vera

ge p

oten

tial d

eman

d no

t m

et [

%]

1950 2000 2050 2100

15

20

25

30

35

40

50% (5yr ave)

min to max10% to 90%

25% to 75%

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?

Percent of Rio Grande Lined from Cochtiti to Elephant Butte

% L

ined

[%

]

1950 2000 2050 21000

20

40

60

80

10050% (5yr ave)

min to max10% to 90%

25% to 75%

22

Combined Approach: Reduce agricultural & riparian area, and line a portion of the river

Ag Stress

Annual avera

ge p

ote

ntial dem

and n

ot

met

[%]

1950 2000 2050 21000

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

50% (5yr ave)

min to max10% to 90%

25% to 75%

Riparian Stress

Ann

ual a

vera

ge p

oten

tial d

eman

d no

t m

et [

%]

1950 2000 2050 2100

15

20

25

30

35

40

50% (5yr ave)

min to max10% to 90%

25% to 75%

MRG Irrigated Ag Area

Annual avera

ge A

rea [

1000 a

cre

s]

1950 2000 2050 2100

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

50% (5yr ave)

min to max10% to 90%

25% to 75%

Riparian Vegetation Area

Ann

ual a

vera

ge A

rea

[100

0 ac

res]

1950 2000 2050 210015

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

50% (5yr ave)

min to max

10% to 90%

25% to 75%

Percent of Rio Grande Lined from Cochiti to Elephant Butte

% L

ined

[%

]

1950 2000 2050 21000

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1650% (5yr ave)

min to max10% to 90%

25% to 75%

28

Summary Supply reductions based on current best-available climate-

change 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”.