Comparing Flood Projection Approaches Across Hydro‐Climatologically Diverse United States River Basins

Abstract

AbstractThe challenge of estimating design flood magnitude under climate change has led to the development of multiple approaches to long‐term flood projection: stationarity, informed‐parameter (composed of both trend informed and climate informed), and hydrologic simulation. This is the first study to compare these approaches across a large set of hydro‐climatologically diverse basins located throughout the contiguous United States, grouped into distinct clusters based on catchment and flood characteristics. The comparison is achieved using a split‐sample test conducted over the historic period; the climate (specifically, precipitation) informed and hydrologic simulation (specifically, Sacramento Soil Moisture Accounting model) approaches are forced with observations and downscaled general circulation model (GCM) simulations. The results provide a quantitative perspective on key long‐term flood projection issues. The precipitation informed approach can be informative for projections of regional change; the hydrologic simulation approach can be informative for direction of change for a single basin. When forced with GCM outputs, precipitation informed is both more accurate and more precise than hydrologic simulation, after accounting for model error. For hydrologic simulation, forcing with GCMs will add positive bias for basins in the Rocky Mountains and Southwest and will add negative bias with large uncertainty across GCMs for basins in the lower Midwest, the South, and the mid‐Atlantic seaboard. The results illustrate the need for continued improvement in long‐term flood projection approaches and for design paradigms incorporating uncertainty.