The statement “Climate stationarity is dead” by Milly et al. 2008 stresses the need to evaluate and when necessary, to incorporate nonstationary hydroclimatic changes into water resources and infrastructure planning and engineering. Variations of this theme echo in several other recent editorials by Rogers 2008 , Lettenmaier 2008 , and Werick and Palmer 2008 . The gravity of this topic was firmly felt among participants at a recent USEPA expert and stakeholder workshop on water infrastructure adaptation to climate change USEPA 2009 . Two questions remain at the core: 1 Is climate change “tangible” for consideration in water engineering and planning? and 2 if so, how can we develop “actionable science” for adaptation? In other words, can adaptation practice define the rate of hydroclimatic changes at local scales that are “tangible” and commensurate with other traditional engineering and planning variables? For “tangible” changes, how do we manage the risk arising from hydroclimatic projection uncertainties and justify the adaptation actions to the public and stakeholders? In this editorial, I will answer a “yes” to the first question and then argue for redefining the adaptation in the context of “how.” The adaptation need is laid out in many studies that have defined the magnitude and frequency of hydroclimatic changes using climate model simulations or statistical analysis of historical observations or both, although accurate future projections at a local scale remain elusive IPCC 2007; Bader et al. 2008; Fowler et al. 2007; Mearns et al. 2003 . According to the studies described in IPCC 2007 and references therein, global climate change has resulted in substantial warming of atmospheric temperature and a shifting of precipitation regimes in space and time. Such changes will accelerate in this century: a rise of 0.7°C 1.4°F in temperature over the past 100 years as compared to a greater projected increase of more than 4.0°C 2.4–6.4°C , or 7.2°F 4.3–11.5°F by 2100 in the worst-case A1F1 emission scenario Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC 2007 . The impacts of these changes on water infrastructures and programs are apparent in several ways. Changes in hydrologic fluxes, water quantity, and quality of surface water and groundwater can affect the service functions of a water infrastructure that was designed and built under the assumption of climate stationarity. This compromise can occur in a nonstationary climate where the rate of future hydroclimatic change exceeds the statistical bounds of historical observations. An ongoing EPA study shows the precipitation in the contiguous United States has changed in the past century at a rate comparable to those of population changes; the latter is a traditional variable in the infrastructure planning and engineering. The two principal variables are often mismatched in spatial distribution, resulting in the imbalance of water demand
Read full abstract