Conjunctive surface water and groundwater management under climate change

Abstract

Climate change can result in significant impacts on regional and global surface water and groundwater resources. Using groundwater as a complimentary source of water has provided an effective means to satisfy the ever-increasing water demands and deal with surface water shortages problems due to robust capability of groundwater in responding to climate change. Conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater is crucial for integrated water resources management. It is helpful to reduce vulnerabilities of water supply systems and mitigate the water supply stress in responding to climate change. Some critical challenges and perspectives are discussed to help decision/policy makers develop more effective management and adaptation strategies for conjunctive water resources use in facing climate change under complex uncertainties.

Deeper waters are changing less consistently than surface waters in a global analysis of 102 lakes

“…In high-elevation alpine lakes, climate warming may also increase the supply from glacier-fed inflows resulting in cooler overall lake temperatures during summer 55,56 . Some lakes may respond to changes in groundwater flux or temperatures 57 particularly in their deepwater temperatures, though groundwater responses to climate change tend to be mild relative to surface waters 58 . Changes in land-use, precipitation, and storm events can increase the runoff of dissolved and particulate inputs into lakes, leading to changes in water transparency that alter vertical light and heat distribution 2,23,[59][60][61] .…”

High Resolution SnowModel Simulations Reveal Future Elevation‐Dependent Snow Loss and Earlier, Flashier Surface Water Input for the Upper Colorado River Basin

“…Hedging in reservoirs, the practice of storing more water during the spring to meet the widening gap between inflows and outflow demand during the summer low flow period, may be needed to respond to shifting seasonal reservoir inflows (Jones & Hammond, 2020). Other potential adaptations to shifting SWI timing and magnitude for downstream water availability include the construction of new surface water reservoirs or the enhancement of existing infrastructure (Perry et al., 2017; Reclamation, 2021), the adjustment of current reservoir management strategies (Delaney et al., 2020; Reclamation, 2021; Sumargo et al., 2020), and recharging groundwater during periods of excess (Scanlon et al., 2016; Zhang, 2015), and according to Kellner and Brunner (2021) immediate action is required to plan for balanced upstream‐downstream water availability in water infrastructure and management decision making. Over the past several decades, earlier snowmelt occurrence and reduced peak SWE have corresponded with increased wildfire activity and wildfire severity (Westerling, 2016; Westerling et al., 2006) as well as with increasing solar forcing on snow in the western U.S (Gleason et al., 2019).…”

Designing a Flood Storage Option on Agricultural Land: What Can Flood Risk Managers Learn from Drought Management?

“…The frequency of flood outcomes avoided might be challenging to model and to explain to those paying for an option; however, here, the visible component to the option, i.e., flooded fields, is an advantage. Evaluating co-benefits, such as biodiversity provisioned by 'popup' habitats [42] and enhanced conjunctive water management delivering improved crop choice flexibility and drought resilience [46,87,88], might be important to the agreement.…”