A global poleward shift of atmospheric rivers

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) | October 11th, 2024

A Guide for Using the Transient Ground-Water Flow Model of the Death Valley Regional Ground-Water Flow System, Nevada and California

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | November 4th, 2006

This report is a guide for executing numerical simulations with the transient ground-water flow model of the Death Valley regional ground-water flow system, Nevada and Ca

This report is a guide for executing numerical simulations with the transient ground-water flow model of the Death Valley regional ground-water flow system, Nevada and California using the U.S. Geological Survey modular finite-difference ground-water flow model, MODFLOW-2000. Model inputs, including observations of hydraulic head, discharge, and boundary flows, are summarized. Modification of the DVRFS transient ground-water model is discussed for two common uses of the Death Valley regional ground-water flow system model: predictive pumping scenarios that extend beyond the end of the model simulation period (1998), and model simulations with only steady-state conditions.

A Guide to Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Delineation for Non-Perennial Streams in the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region of the United States

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) | August 14th, 2014

Federal regulations define the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) as “that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical cha

Federal regulations define the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) as “that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas” (U.S. Congress 1986). Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the OHWM defines the lateral extent of federal jurisdiction in non-tidal waters of the United States (WoUS) in the absence of adjacent wetlands (U.S. Congress 1977). Thus, accurate and consistent OHWM delineation practices are essential for proper implementation of the CWA. The dynamic nature of stream systems and fluvial processes presents challenges for OHWM delineation. Natural sources of variability in river and stream systems (e.g., climate, sediment supply, landscape position, etc.) are compounded by direct and indirect anthropogenic sources of variability (e.g., watershed alteration, dam emplacement and removal, climate change, etc.). Thus, it is challenging to impose a consistent measure of “ordinary” high flow conditions across systems in which the hydrology and geomorphology can vary greatly in both space and time. OHWM delineation in non-perennial (i.e., intermittent and ephemeral) streams can be especially challenging. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) defines intermittent streams as having “flowing water during certain times of the year, when groundwater provides water for stream flow. During dry periods, intermittent streams may not have flowing water. Runoff from rainfall is a supplemental source of water for stream flow” (USACE 2012). Ephemeral streams have “flowing water only during, and for a short duration after, precipitation events in a typical year. Ephemeral stream beds are located above the water table year-round. Groundwater is not a source of water for the stream,” and “[r]unoff from rainfall is the primary source of water for stream flow” (USACE 2012). In contrast to both intermittent and ephemeral streams, perennial streams have “flowing water year-round during a typical year. The water table is located above the stream bed for most of the year,” and “[g]roundwater is the primary source of water for stream flow” (USACE 2012). Given the less persistent streamflow regimes characteristic of non- perennial streams, particularly ephemeral systems, the characterization of ordinary high water flows is perhaps more challenging than in perennially flowing systems. Moreover, depending on climate, vegetation, and other related factors, the appearance of some OHWM indicators may vary greatly between wet and dry seasons or between relatively infrequent flow events, more so than in many perennial streams. Mountainous terrain can present additional challenges to OHWM delineation. For instance, the relatively steep and confined valleys in which mountain streams commonly flow can restrict the development of some alluvial features (e.g., flood-plains, bankfull benches, etc.) that are typical of low-gradient systems and that may help to identify the OHWM. Thus, in non-perennial mountain streams, it is often difficult to determine what constitutes ordinary high water and to interpret the physical and biological indicators established and maintained by ordinary high water flows. Challenges and inconsistencies pertaining to OHWM delineation practices are becoming increasingly relevant in mountainous parts of the western U.S. in light of expanding development. This increased pressure on fluvial systems highlights the need for accurate, consistent, and repeatable OHWM delineation practices in this region. These factors, combined with the particular challenges of OHWM delineation in non-perennial mountain streams, provided the impetus for developing this delineation guide. This guide presents the concepts, field indicators, and methods for assessing, delineating, and documenting the OHWM in non-perennial streams in the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast (WMVC) Region of the United States (Figure 1). The information presented here is based on the findings of Mersel et al. (2014) (discussed in Section 1.5) and on years of field observations and data gathering in the WMVC Region and in other regions of the U.S. by the authors and other contributing experts. The remainder of Section 1 provides background information regarding the concept of the OHWM and pertaining to stream hydrology and geomorphology in general. Section 2 discusses and provides examples of the specific field indicators used to identify the OHWM in non-perennial streams in the WMVC Region. Section 3 discusses field methods for delineating the OHWM and addresses additional techniques and lines of evidence that may help in problematic delineation scenarios. The information presented here is technical guidance and does not define, amend, or replace any existing regulations, laws, or legal guidance related to the OHWM or to the regulation of WoUS. Furthermore, determining whether any stream is a jurisdictional WoUS is beyond the scope of this document and involves further assessment in accordance with regulations, case law, and clarifying guidance. This guide pertains to non-perennial streams in the WMVC Region of the U.S., and while the information presented here may have a wider applicability to other regions or to perennial rivers within the WMVC Region, this has not been tested or validated. This manual serves as a companion to A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (Lichvar and McColley 2008) as these two regions—the WMVC and the Arid West—are interspersed with one another. Best professional judgment is required to determine which manual is most appropriate for any given location within these two regions. The technical guidance presented here aims to provide an informed and consistent approach to OHWM delineation within the WMVC Region; however, OHWM delineation is not a precise practice. The OHWM can take on a variety of appearances and characteristics and may change over time due to natural or anthropogenic causes. Best professional judgment and consideration of the unique characteristics of each project site are always required.

A Guide to Water Quality Requirements under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act

Stanford University | April 17th, 2019

California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) develop Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) that ach

California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) develop Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) that achieve sustainability within twenty years of Plan adoption. Meeting this goal requires GSAs to avoid causing any of the six undesirable results that are central to SGMA, including undesirable result number 4 (UR No. 4) – “significant and unreasonable degraded water quality” throughout the basin. Unlike most other undesirable results, UR No. 4 is the subject of robust federal, state and local regulatory regimes carried out by a number of different entities. While the State and Regional Water Resources Control Boards have the broadest responsibilities to protect groundwater quality, many other agencies also have relevant responsibilities. The other distinctive feature of UR No. 4 is that groundwater management that prevents chronic lowering of groundwater levels may be insufficient to prevent significant and unreasonable degradation of groundwater quality. For example, significant changes in groundwater pumping can potentially mobilize naturally occurring constituents or cause migration or expansion of contaminant plumes even when the extracted amount is within the basin’s sustainable yield. This Guide is intended to assist GSAs along with other agencies and stakeholders in understanding the meaning of UR No. 4, and to provide insights into how GSAs can successfully fulfill their legal responsibilities regarding groundwater quality. To avoid UR No. 4 under SGMA, this Guide recommends that GSAs do the following: 1. Understand the existing regulatory regime for groundwater quality and, as necessary, confer with entities that have regulatory authority over groundwater quality in their basins. (See Section 3 of this Guide). 2. Consider existing federal, state and local groundwater quality standards when developing groundwater quality minimum thresholds in their basins. Federal, state or local regulatory requirements were established after careful scientific study, legal review and procedural steps mandated by law. They are designed to protect public health and welfare, and they provide the clearest indication of the point beyond which there is a real risk of an undesirable result. (See Section 3.1). 3. Work closely with their Regional Water Quality Control Boards to address all groundwater quality issues. GSAs working in the Central Valley are especially encouraged to work with the Central Valley Regional Board to address salt and nutrient groundwater contamination. Programs in this region are continuing to evolve and will require that GSAs remain aware of changing regulatory requirements. Additionally, there are many groundwater quality monitoring efforts in this region that are generating a lot of groundwater quality data. These efforts should be aligned with any groundwater monitoring efforts being undertaken by GSAs. (See Sections 3.4.2 and 4.3.2). 4. Use existing groundwater quality data and information to (1) assess and prioritize groundwater quality issues in their basins, (2) meet requirements that GSPs include a description of current and historical groundwater conditions within the basin and (3) serve as either the basis for or a complement to local groundwater quality monitoring programs developed by GSAs. 5. Consider the following approach (discussed in Section 3.2) if they identify groundwater quality problems that either arose or were exacerbated after January 1, 2015: • Where there is a significant groundwater quality problem that is clearly under the purview of another agency, confer with that agency and seek to confirm a reasonable plan to address the groundwater quality problem. If such a plan exists, the water quality problem and the plan should be referenced in the GSP. Section 3 and Table 1 in the Guide provide information on existing regulatory programs and the agencies responsible for their enforcement. • Where a significant groundwater quality problem is not clearly under the purview of another agency, or the responsible agency is unable to confirm a reasonable plan to address the problem, confer with Regional or State Board staff, and perhaps affected parties, to identify a reasonable plan to address the problem. If no reasonable plan is identified, and remediating the problem is impractical, excessively wasteful of resources or otherwise infeasible, the GSA should include in the Plan an explanation of the problem and the reasons why remediation is impractical or infeasible. 6. Consider the following approach (discussed in Section 5) if they are planning projects or actions that may affect groundwater quality: • Assess the potential impacts that the projects or actions are likely to have on groundwater quality over time. If the GSA concludes that the proposed project or action could have unacceptable adverse impacts on water quality, GSAs should consider options such as revising the project to avoid or mitigate the project’s impacts or developing alternative projects that avoid water quality problems. • Ensure regulatory compliance for any GSP management actions (e.g., recharge projects, water banking) that have the potential to negatively impact water quality in their basins or adjacent basins. (Sections 3 and 5 provide information on regulatory requirements and considerations associated with groundwater recharge and active basin management, respectively.) 7. Develop supplemental groundwater monitoring networks where necessary. Many basins being managed under SGMA have significant water quality data gaps. Thus, GSAs in many basins will likely need to develop or expand local groundwater quality monitoring networks. Decisions to do so should be informed by (1) the extent and quality of existing groundwater quality in the region, (2) the level of groundwater development, (3) the severity of existing groundwater quality issues and their proximity to domestic or irrigation wells, public water supply sources or other vulnerable users, (4) current or proposed groundwater management actions or projects, (5) local resources, and (6) the hydrogeologic complexity of the basin. GSAs are not responsible for enforcing existing water quality standards or collecting data to support existing water quality programs. However, they are responsible for avoiding “significant and unreasonable” degradation of water quality in their basins. Working with federal, state and local water quality monitoring and enforcement entities will help GSAs understand groundwater quality issues in their basins, enabling them to develop GSPs that avoid UR No. 4.

A holistic stochastic model for precipitation events

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | February 7th, 2025

In the western United States, much of the annual precipitation falls during relatively few storm events. When precipitation is measured as daily (or hourly, etc.) accumul

In the western United States, much of the annual precipitation falls during relatively few storm events. When precipitation is measured as daily (or hourly, etc.) accumulations, these events appear as sequences of various durations. We describe a trivariate probability distribution and assert that it provides a natural description for the durations, magnitudes, and maximum intensities of such events. We show that this distribution, in its most straightforward application, indeed describes precipitation events composed of daily observations at most long-term weather stations across the western United States, allowing for a flexible assessment of specific event probabilities and return periods with respect to their three defining components. This characterization opens the door to further understanding of risk associated with out-of-sample meteorological events.

A hydrological simulation dataset of the Upper Colorado River Basin from 1983 to 2019

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | January 20th, 2022

The Upper Colorado River Basin (UCRB) is one of the most over-allocated basins in the world. It provides water for 40 million people in Colorado and downstream states of

The Upper Colorado River Basin (UCRB) is one of the most over-allocated basins in the world. It provides water for 40 million people in Colorado and downstream states of Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah. However, the UCRB water capacity is decreasing as a combined result of climate change and anthropogenic activities. Understanding the dynamic of the UCRB water cycle is crucial for long-term and short-term water resources management.

A low-to-no snow future and its impacts on water resources in the western United States

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | October 26th, 2021

Anthropogenic climate change is decreasing seasonal snowpacks globally, with potentially catastrophic consequences on water resources, given the long-held reliance on sno

Anthropogenic climate change is decreasing seasonal snowpacks globally, with potentially catastrophic consequences on water resources, given the long-held reliance on snowpack in water management. In this Review, we examine the changes and trickle-down impacts of snow loss in the western United States (WUS). Across the WUS, snow water equivalent declines of ~25% are expected by 2050, with losses comparable with contemporary historical trends. There is less consensus on the time horizon of snow disappearance, but model projections combined with a new low-to-no snow definition suggest ~35–60 years before low-to-no snow becomes persistent if greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated. Diminished and more ephemeral snowpacks that melt earlier will alter groundwater and streamflow dynamics. The direction of these changes are difficult to constrain given competing factors such as higher evapotranspiration, altered vegetation composition and changes in wildfire behaviour in a warmer world. These changes undermine conventional WUS water management practices, but through proactive implementation of soft and hard adaptation strategies, there is potential to build resilience to extreme, episodic and, eventually, persistent low-to-no snow conditions. Federal investments offer a timely opportunity to address these vulnerabilities, but they require a concerted portfolio of activities that cross historically siloed physical and disciplinary boundaries.

A Measure of Snow: A Report Based on Case Studies of The Snow Survey and Water Supply Forecasting Program

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) | November 1st, 2008

Snow depth and snow water content data have been collected and disseminated throughout the Western United States for over 100 years. Early snow survey and water s

Snow depth and snow water content data have been collected and disseminated throughout the Western United States for over 100 years. Early snow survey and water supply data were gathered through the efforts of university scientists, beginning with the work of Dr. James E. Church. In 1935, the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), now the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), established a formal cooperative Snow Survey and Water Supply Forecasting (SS-WSF) Program. The Agency was charged with responsibility for “conducting snow survey and water supply forecasts and the forecasting of irrigation water supplies.” The new Program would also develop consistent methods for measuring snow and reliable models for accurate water supply forecasting. Administered by NRCS, the SS-WSF Program has grown into a network of more than 1,200 manually-measured snow courses and over 750 automated Snowpack Telemetry (SNOTEL) weather stations in 13 Western States, including Alaska. (See map on page 4.) The SS-WSF Program provides manual snow course data collected by NRCS conservation professionals, automated SNOTEL data, and modeled water supply/streamflow volume data as well as issues streamflow forecasts for over 740 locations in the West. The data and the related reports and forecasts, are made available—in near real time for the automated SNOTEL sites—to private industry; to Federal, State, and local government entities; and to private citizens through an extensive Internet delivery system and other distribution channels. With 50-80 percent of the water supply in the West arriving in the form of snow, data on the snowpack provides critical information to decision-makers and water managers throughout the West. The basic data become even more valuable when used in concert with partner organizations to provide water supply forecasting tailored to meet end-user needs. According to researchers from multiple U.S. and international agencies, research centers, and academia, changes in the world’s climate have resulted in a loss of predictability in weather, precipitation, and water transport and accumulation patterns. It is anticipated that the value the SS-WSF Program provides to society will increase over time as climate variability increases. Recently a study was done to see who uses SS-WSF data, how the data are used, and the value of the data. Users of the data were interviewed and specific events and activities were analyzed. This publication is based on that study.

A Measure of Snow: Case Studies of the Snow Survey and Water Supply Forecasting Program

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) | September 1st, 2010

Snow depth and snow water content data have been collected and disseminated throughout the W estern United States for over 100 years. Early Snow Survey and Wate

Snow depth and snow water content data have been collected and disseminated throughout the W estern United States for over 100 years. Early Snow Survey and Water Supply Forecasting data were gathered through the efforts of university scientists. In 1935, the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was given $36,000 to establish a formal cooperative Snow Survey and Water Supply Forecasting (SSWSF) Program. The agency was charged with the responsibility for “conducting Snow Survey and Water Supply Forecast s and forecasting of irrigation water supplies.” The new program would also develop consistent methods for measuring snow and reliable models for water supply forecasting. Using a case study approach, this report assesses the various uses of data gathered and published by the SSWSF Program and estimates the value of those data in terms of both the market and non-market values of the information. Additionally, it evaluate s the relative merits of maintaining the program as a publicly funded program as opposed to privatizing the program. This study finds that the SSWSF Program is generating both market and non-market benefits to the U.S. economy and to U.S. society as a whole that are worth significantly more than the cost of the program. Should climate variability increase — as is expected by many of those interviewed in the course of completing this study, and as current climate research strongly suggests — the value of the information provided by the SSWSF Program will increase accordingly.

A Multidataset Assessment of Climatic Drivers and Uncertainties of Recent Trends in Evaporative Demand across the Continental United States

American Meteorological Society (AMS) | April 1st, 2022

Increased atmospheric evaporative demand has important implications for humans and ecosystems in water-scarce lands. While temperature plays a significant role in drivin

Increased atmospheric evaporative demand has important implications for humans and ecosystems in water-scarce lands. While temperature plays a significant role in driving evaporative demand and its trend, other climate variables are also influential and their contributions to recent trends in evaporative demand are unknown. We address this gap with an assessment of recent (1980–2020) trends in annual reference evapotranspiration (ETo) and its drivers across the continental United States based on five gridded datasets. In doing so, we characterize the structural uncertainty of ETo trends and decompose the relative influences of temperature, wind speed, solar radiation, and humidity. Results highlight large and robust changes in ETo across much of the western United States, centered on the Rio Grande region where ETo increased 135–235 mm during 1980–2020. The largest uncertainties in ETo trends are in the central and eastern United States and surrounding the Upper Colorado River. Trend decomposition highlights the strong and widespread influence of temperature, which contributes to 57% of observed ETo trends, on average. ETo increases are mitigated by increases in specific humidity in non-water-limited regions, while small decreases in specific humidity and increases in wind speed and solar radiation magnify ETo increases across the West. Our results show increases in ETo across the West that are already emerging outside the range of variability observed 20–40 years ago. Our results suggest that twenty-first-century land and water managers need to plan for an already increasing influence of evaporative demand on water availability and wildfire risks. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Increased atmospheric thirst due to climate warming has the potential to decrease water availability and increase wildfire risks in water-scarce regions. Here, we identified how much atmospheric thirst has changed across the continental United States over the past 40 years, what climate variables are driving the change, and how consistent these changes are among five data sources. We found that atmospheric thirst is consistently emerging outside the range experienced in the late twentieth century in some western regions with 57% of the change driven by temperature. Importantly, we demonstrate that increased atmospheric thirst has already become a persistent forcing of western landscapes and water supplies toward drought and will be an essential consideration for land and water management planning going forward.