The assessments and analyses described above are intended to inform selection of
adaptation strategies to reduce regional vulnerabilities. However, it is useful to recognize that in addition to such studies, IRWM regions must also consider other factors to identify feasible and appropriate strategies. Literature on approaches to adaptation planning typically point to a range of factors, including: co-‐benefits in terms of the region’s water management objectives, costs of undertaking the strategies, and potential adverse impacts to particular groups (NRC, 2010b, p. 138). Planning grant proposals indicate that regions are considering such factors, with reference to relative costs and benefits (Santa Cruz), possible partnerships (Bay Area, Greater Monterey), and considering views of stakeholders (Upper Pit Watershed). The North Coast’s proposal indicates specific priorities aligned with their objectives, seeking “climate adaptation strategies that integrate ecosystem resiliency with human community resiliency & DACs” (Workplan, p. 30). The preference for “low-‐regrets” strategies, emphasized in the Guidelines and in many proposals, addresses the costs and benefits issue by focusing on steps that can be justified for other purposes while also supporting adaptation.
A criterion often emphasized in studies of adaptation for water management and other sectors is that strategies be “robust” in that they perform well under a range of possible future conditions (Brekke et al., 2009). Given the still considerable uncertainties associated with understanding climate impacts at regional and local levels, this criterion may be particularly important for IRWM regions (Dessai et al., 2009). Research on robust
adaptation strategies often relies heavily on statistical analysis of model outputs (Lempert and Collins, 2007, Groves et al., 2008b). The climate change study referenced in SAWPA’s 2010 IRWM Plan sought to assess the robustness of water allocation strategies (Groves et al., 2008a). These sorts of analyses may not be appropriate for all IRWM regions, but the larger aim of seeking robust strategies is. Perhaps an effective vulnerability assessment covering a range of possible impacts, combined with targeted quantitative analysis of critical risks, can at least help ensure that regions are considering a wide range of possible future conditions in identifying adaptation strategies.
Finally, IRWM regions, as well as DWR and other state agencies, need ways to evaluate adaptation efforts, and monitor progress toward addressing vulnerabilities within an adaptive management framework. This is a considerable challenge for resource managers around the world, and at this stage there are few clear answers (Preston et al., 2009). The Guidelines call for IRWM regions to establish “performance measures” for adaptation in future grant solicitations (Guidelines, Table 7, p. 74), and Section 6 of the Climate Change Handbook lays out an approach to developing performance metrics and approaches to evaluating how project portfolios are contributing to adaptation. However, a process will need to be in place at the regional level to identify such metrics, assess progress toward addressing key vulnerabilities, and update knowledge about those vulnerabilities over time.
41 Accomplishing this will likely require a working group or other coordinating mechanism within a region to undertake these activities and ensure learning over time.
Evaluation of progress on adaptation is also important at the state level. This requires a means of identifying those projects in IRWM regions that address regional vulnerabilities. One way to do this is to narrow the Climate Change Statewide Priority to include only those projects that address regional vulnerabilities that have been prioritized by IRWM regions, as laid out in the draft language for a revised climate change standard. This would provide a starting point for the analysis of the statewide portfolio of climate change adaptation projects, and could help encourage IRWM regions to link project priorities with vulnerability assessments.
8.3. Summary
Managing regional water resources for an uncertain climate requires an adaptive management approach that integrates the study of climate change risks with decisions regarding project priorities and design, and builds in opportunities for learning over time. As required in the December 2011 draft language for a revised climate change standard, a critical first step is identifying and prioritizing key vulnerabilities. IRWM regions appear to be using one or more of three strategies for this: considering how climate change may affect central water management objectives, conducting a broad review of potential vulnerabilities to regional water resources, and engaging stakeholders. All of these elements are valuable, but in particular, conducting a periodic, broad vulnerability assessment may play an important role in an adaptive management approach since it can promote awareness over time of emerging risks. This approach matches recommendations in adaptation and risk assessment literature regarding the need for an iterative process that incorporates stakeholder participation.
At least 14 IRWM regions are making use of downscaled climate model outputs in their analyses of climate impacts. These analyses are primarily focused on impacts to water supply and demand, and use model outputs from one of three sources: the Climate Action Team’s scenarios, the DOI/LLNL dataset, and Cal-‐Adapt. Some regions have developed partnerships with government agencies and universities to conduct these analyses. Some have expressed concern about future requirements for quantitative analysis, which can involve significant time, resources and expertise. Adaptation and risk management literature suggests that to ensure that such studies are valuable, it is important to clearly identify the set of decisions they are intended to inform. While quantitative analysis at the regional level is useful in many cases, existing studies conducted at a larger scale may be sufficient for some decisions. Some IRWM regions will likely need technical support for identifying what approaches are appropriate, which the Climate Change Handbook can help to provide. Certain risks, such as flooding and ecosystem impacts, may need particular attention since quantitative methods may be less well established, or less accessible. Consideration may be needed as to whether DWR should provide specific guidance regarding the use of particular climate models and scenarios in assessing future impacts.
The selection of adaptation strategies requires not only an understanding of vulnerabilities and estimates of potential impacts, but also consideration of costs, benefits, partnerships,
42 and other factors. IRWM regions appear to be taking some of these issues into account already. The criterion of “robustness” for adaptation strategies may be useful to consider. This means that to inform planning, studies of climate change risks should seek to identify the range of possible future conditions that regions may face. Finally, on-‐going evaluation of adaptation strategies at regional and state levels will require clear identification of projects that are intended to help reduce regional vulnerabilities, and metrics for assessing progress. This could be facilitated by developing working groups or other coordinating mechanisms at the regional level, and by defining the Climate Change Statewide Priority to include those projects that address the vulnerabilities prioritized by each IRWM region.