Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin,British Columbia

FINAL REPORT

Edited bySTEWART COHEN AND TINA NEALE

Adaptation & Impacts Research Division,Environment Canada

This report may be cited as:

Cohen, S., and T. Neale, eds. 2006. Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management andClimate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia. Vancouver: Environment Canada andUniversity of British Columbia.

Individual chapters may be cited by the chapter authors. For example,

Langsdale, S., A. Beall, J. Carmichael, S. Cohen, and C. Forster. 2006. Exploring Water ResourcesFutures with a System Dynamics Model. In Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Managementand Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia, edited by S. Cohen and T. Neale.Vancouver: Environment Canada and University of British Columbia.

An electronic version of this report is available at the following web site:

http://www.ires.ubc.ca/aird/

ISBN No.: 0-662-41999-5

Cat. No.: En56-209/2006E

Cover Photo Captions

Clockwise from top left:

1. Drip irrigation and mulching, Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre, Summerland, BC (Tina Neale)

2. Installation of water intake at Okanagan Lake, Penticton BC. (Bob Hrasko)

3. Systems model output screen, Okanagan Lake stage scenarios (see Figure F.17).

4. View across Okanagan Lake near Ellison Provincial Park (Wendy Merritt).

Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin,British Columbia

FINAL REPORT

Edited bySTEWART COHEN AND TINA NEALE

NOTICE TO READERS

Previous reports published in this research series are:

Cohen, S., and T. Kulkarni, eds. 2001. Water Management & Climate Change in the OkanaganBasin. Vancouver: Environment Canada & University of British Columbia.

Cohen, S., and T. Neale, eds. 2003. Expanding the Dialogue on Climate Change & WaterManagement in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia. Interim Report, January 1, 2002 toMarch 31, 2003. Vancouver: Environment Canada and University of British Columbia.

Cohen, S., D. Neilsen, and R. Welbourn, eds. 2004. Expanding the Dialogue on ClimateChange & Water Management in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia. Final Report,January 1, 2002-June 30, 2004. Vancouver: Environment Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada & University of British Columbia.

Several manuscripts from the 2004 study have been published in refereed journals, or arein press. These are:

Cohen, S.J., D. Neilsen, S. Smith, T. Neale, B. Taylor, M. Barton, W. Merritt, Y. Alila, P.Shepherd, R. McNeill, J. Tansey, and J. Carmichael. 2006. Learning with local help:Expanding the dialogue on climate change and water management in the Okanaganregion, British Columbia, Canada. Climatic Change. 75:331-358.

Merritt W., Y. Alila, M. Barton, B. Taylor, S. Cohen and D. Neilsen. 2006. Hydrologicresponse to scenarios of climate change in subwatersheds of the Okanagan Basin, BritishColumbia. Journal of Hydrology. 326, 79-108.

Neilsen, D., Smith, C. A. S., Frank, G., Koch, W., Alila, Y., Merritt, W., Taylor, W. G., Barton,M., Hall, J. W. and Cohen, S. J. 2006. Potential impacts of climate change on wateravailability for crops in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of SoilScience. 86:921-936.

Shepherd, P., J. Tansey, and H. Dowlatabadi. 2006. Context matters: the political landscape ofadaptation in the Okanagan. Climatic Change. 78:31-62.

Papers from the 2006 study are still in preparation, and will be submitted for review later this year.

Opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and not necessarily those of EnvironmentCanada, University of British Columbia, Natural Resources Canada, or any collaborating agencies.

STUDY TEAM

NAME AFFILIATION

Allyson Beall Program in Environmental Science and Regional Planning, Washington State University

Jeff Carmichael Institute for Resources, Environment & Sustainability, University of British Columbia

Stewart Cohen (P.I.) Adaptation & Impacts Research Division, Environment Canada

Institute for Resources, Environment & Sustainability, University of British Columbia

Craig Forster College of Architecture & Planning, University of Utah

Bob Hrasko Agua Consulting Inc.

Stacy Langsdale Institute for Resources, Environment & Sustainability, University of British Columbia

Roger McNeill Environment Canada, Pacific and Yukon Region

Tina Neale Adaptation & Impacts Research Division, Environment Canada

Institute for Resources, Environment & Sustainability, University of British Columbia

Natasha Schorb School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia

Jodie Siu Smart Growth on the Ground, Smart Growth British Columbia

James Tansey Institute for Resources, Environment & Sustainability, University of British Columbia

For further information, please contact

Stewart Cohen at stewart.cohen@ec.gc.ca

Stacy Langsdale (left) facilitating model building break-out group at

the second model building workshop, April 15, 2005, Kelowna BC.

FINAL REPORT | g

Table of Contents

Notice to Readers dStudy Team eTable of Contents g

List of Figures kList of Tables pList of Boxes q

Acknowledgements rExecutive Summary iSommaire Executif viii

1.0 Introduction 11.1 Project History and Need for Further Research 11.2 Study Objectives and Structure of this Report 4

2.0 Urban Water Futures: Exploring Development, Management and Climate Change Impacts on Urban Water Demand 72.1 Case studies 82.2 Methodology 8

2.2.1 Scenario Inputs 102.3 Results 16

2.3.1 Climate Change, Dwelling and DSM Scenarios 162.3.2 Supply – Demand Comparison 31

2.4 Conclusions and Recommendations 342.4.1 Population Growth 342.4.2 Housing Patterns 342.4.3 Climate Change 342.4.4 Demand Side Management 352.4.5 Data Gaps and Quality 352.4.6 Other Research and Future Directions 35

3.0 Costs of Adaptation Measures 373.1 Supply Side Options for Adaptation 37

3.1.1 Groundwater Development 373.1.2 Upstream Storage (Watershed Development) 403.1.3 Mainstem Pumping 413.1.4 Impact of Water Treatment on Costs 423.1.5 Demand Side Adaptation Options 42

3.2 Impact of Water Treatment on Costs 443.3 Summary of Case Studies for Water Adaptation 46

h | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

3.4 Local Water Management versus Okanagan Wide Adaptation Strategies 46

4.0 Shared Learning through Group Model Building 494.1 Introduction 49

4.1.1 Objectives 494.1.2 Previous work 49

4.2 Methodology 504.2.1 Participatory Integrated Assessment 504.2.2 System Dynamics 504.2.3 Related Work 51

4.3 The Group Model Building Process 514.3.1 Workshop 1 524.3.2 Workshop 2 544.3.3 Workshop 3 564.3.4 Round of Meetings 574.3.5 Workshop 4 574.3.6 Workshop 5 58

4.4 Results 584.5 Discussion 63

4.5.1 Lessons Learned 634.5.2 Did This Process Make a Difference? 64

5.0 A System Dynamics Model for Exploring Water Resources Futures 655.1 Introduction 655.2 Project History 655.3 Methodology 66

5.3.1 Participatory Modelling 665.3.2 System Dynamics 66

5.4 Description of the Model and the Actual System 665.4.1 Model Components 675.4.2 Dynamics of the System 69

5.5 Results 725.5.1 Adaptation 79

5.6 Discussion 795.7 Conclusions and Remarks 80

6.0 Residential Policy, Planning and Design – Incorporating Climate Change into Long-Term Sustainability in Oliver 816.1 Introduction to the Partnership 816.2 Incorporating Climate Change into Smart Growth on the

Ground in Oliver 826.3 Results of the Work 83

6.3.1 The Charrette 836.3.2 Charrette Team Recommendations 836.3.3 Listing of Web Sites on Oliver Design Process 84

7.0 Agricultural Policy 857.1 Study Aim & Rationale 857.2 Origins of Multiple Risk 85

7.2.1 Early History of the Wine Industry 85

FINAL REPORT | i

7.2.2 Land Pressures 867.2.3 Trade Liberalization 867.2.4 State of the Industry 86

7.3 The Climate Change Adaptation Process 877.3.1 Autonomous Adaptation to Risk 877.3.2 Risk Perception 877.3.3 Adaptive Capacity in a Multiple Risk Environment 877.3.4 Support for Policy Intervention 88

7.4 Methods 887.4.1 Survey Instrument Choice and Design 887.4.2 Subject Recruitment and Success 887.4.3 Interview Structure and Analysis 90

7.5 Results 907.5.1 Demographic and Business Characteristics of

Study Participants 907.5.2 Water Source & Management Profile 927.5.3 Balancing Multiple Risks in Pursuit of Profitability 967.5.4 Perceptions of Water Shortage Risk 977.5.5 Policy Development 100

7.6 Analysis 1027.6.1 Risk Perception: Implications for Adaptation 1027.6.2 Managing Multiple Risks 1037.6.3 Implications for Water Management 105

7.7 Policy Considerations 1067.7.1 Policy Recommendations 1067.7.2 Institutional Change 107

7.8 Future Uncertainty 1077.8.1 Need for a Cautionary Approach 108

7.9 Conclusions 1088.0 Lessons Learned and Moving On 109

Bibliography 113

Appendix A. Groundwater Development 119A.1 Introduction 119A.2 Groundwater Opportunities 119

A.2.1 Role of Groundwater 119A.3 Water Use and System Integration 120A.4 Groundwater Risks 121A.5 Regulatory Issues - Approvals 122A.6 Typical Steps for Groundwater Development 123A.7 Costing Considerations 124

A.7.1 Drilling Costs 125A.7.2 Pumping Costs 127

Appendix B. Case Study Detail Project Sheets 131

Appendix C. Model Process 133C.1 Okanagan Timeline Created by Workshop 1 Participants on

February 22, 2005 133C.2 Diagrams Created by Participants in Workshop 2, April 15, 2005 136

j | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

C.3 Worksheet: Setting the Course Discussion Guide 138C.4 Pre and Post Evaluation Form, Workshop 5 139

C.4.1 Workshop 5 Pre-Evaluation 139C.4.2 Workshop 5 Post-Evaluation 140

Appendix D. Model Quick User Guide 141

Appendix E. Model Level Documentation 143E.1 Water Supply Sources 143

E.1.1 Climate Change Scenarios 143E.1.2 Hydrologic Scenarios 143E.1.3 Diversions from Adjacent Basins 144E.1.4 Groundwater 145E.1.5 Return Flows to Uplands 145

E.2 Water Demands 145E.2.1 Population Growth Calculations 145E.2.2 Converting Regional District Populations to Populations

Using Each Water Source 147E.2.3 Calculating Residential Water Use 149E.2.4 Residential Demand Side Management Strategies 150E.2.5 Agricultural Demand 150E.2.6 Conservation Flow Requirements in Tributaries to

Okanagan Lake 153E.2.7 Fish Flow Requirements in South End 155

E.3 Water Balance Calculations 155E.3.1 Uplands Hydrology Sector 155E.3.2 Upland Storage Outflow Calculations Sector 157E.3.3 Uplands Demand Reductions for Shortages Sector 159E.3.4 Uplands Demand Allocations Sector 161E.3.5 Uplands Allocation Summary Sector 161E.3.6 Valley Hydrology Sector 162E.3.7 Okanagan Lake Condition Sector 162E.3.8 Valley Diversion Tracker Sector 162E.3.9 Okanagan Lake Dam Operation Sector 162E.3.10 South End Hydrology Sector 163

Appendix F. Model Output 165F.1 Summary of Base Case, 1961-1990 165F.2 Summary of Two Scenarios without Adaptation, 2010-2039 and

2040-2069 165F.3 Demand Side Management (DSM) and Urban Densification

Portfolio 169F.4 Supplemental Use of Okanagan Lake 172F.5 Managing for Sockeye 177F.6 Combinations of Response Options 177

FINAL REPORT | k

List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Evolution of Okanagan Study Framework. 2Figure 1.2: Projected changes in annual flow and crop water demand for Trout Creek (Neilsen et al.,

2004, 2006). The vertical and horizontal lines indicate existing supply and demand thresholds. The HadCM3-A2 scenario represents projected changes in climate simulated by theHadCM3 global climate model using the A2 scenario of rapid growth in global emissions of greenhouse gases obtained from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see Taylor and Barton, 2004). 4

Figure 2.1: Daily domestic water use for the City of Penticton 1998 to 2003. 10Figure 2.2: Monthly domestic water use for the City of Penticton vs. mean maximum daily temperature

for temperatures above and below the threshold temperature of 12°C. 11Figure 2.3: Relationship between mean monthly maximum daily temperature and monthly outdoor water

use per dwelling in Penticton during the irrigation season 1998-2003. 13Figure 2.4: Annual water demand for the City of Kelowna with current preferences, current DSM and

medium population growth for the 2001-2069 period. The figure shows demand without climate change and with six climate change scenarios. 17

Figure 2.5: Comparison of annual water use for current preferences (CP) and smart growth (SG) scenarios for the City of Kelowna for all population growth scenarios with current DSM andCGCM2-A2. 18

Figure 2.6: Impact of demand side management on annual water use for the City of Kelowna in the current preferences medium population growth scenario and CGCM2-A2 climate change. 19

Figure 2.7: City of Kelowna annual water use in the “best-case” (smart growth, combined demand side management, CGCM2-B2) and “worst-case” (current preferences, current demand side management and HadCM3-A21) scenarios for all population growth scenarios. 19

Figure 2.8: Contributions of DSM, smart growth and climate change to the difference between the best- and worst-case high population growth scenarios for two sets of intermediate scenarios for the City of Kelowna. The specific scenarios (best-case, worst-case and two intermediate scenarios) represented by each of the numbered lines are presented in Table 2.7. Note that this does notinclude comparison with base case climate (i.e. no climate change). 20

Figure 2.9: Percentage contributions to the difference between the high growth best- and worst-case scenarios of DSM, smart growth and climate change for two sets of intermediate scenarios in 2069 for the City of Kelowna. Note that this does not include comparison with base case climate (i.e. no climate change). 21

Figure 2.10: Annual water demand for the City of Penticton with current preferences, current DSM and medium population growth for the 2001 to 2069 period. The figure shows demand without climate change and with six climate change scenarios. 22

Figure 2.11: Comparison of annual water use for current preferences and smart growth dwelling scenarios for the City of Penticton for all population growth scenarios, CGCM2-A2 climate change and current DSM. 23

Figure 2.12: Impact of demand side management on annual water use for the City of Penticton in the current preferences medium population growth scenario and CGCM2-A2 climate change. 24

Figure 2.13: City of Penticton annual water use in the “best-case” (smart growth, combined demand side management, CGCM2-B2) and “worst-case” (current preferences, current demand side management and HadCM3-A22) scenarios for all population growth scenarios. 25

Figure 2.14: Contributions of DSM, smart growth and climate change to the difference between the best- and worst-case high population growth scenarios for two sets of intermediate scenarios for the City of Penticton. The specific scenarios (best-case, worst-case and two intermediate scenarios) represented by each of the numbered lines are presented in Table 2.7. Note that this does notinclude comparison with base case climate (i.e. no climate change). 25

l | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

Figure 2.15: Percentage contributions to the difference between the high growth best- and worst-case scenarios of DSM, smart growth and climate change for two sets of intermediate scenarios in 2069 for the City of Penticton. Note that this does not include comparison with base case climate (i.e. no climate change). 26

Figure 2.16: Annual water demand for the Town of Oliver with current preferences, current DSM and medium population growth for the 2001-2069 period. The figure shows demand without climate change and with six climate change scenarios. 27

Figure 2.17: Comparison of annual water use for current preferences and smart growth dwelling scenarios for the Town of Oliver for all population growth scenarios with current DSM and CGCM2-A2. 28

Figure 2.18: Impact of demand side management options on annual water use for the Town of Oliver. 29Figure 2.19: Town of Oliver annual water use in the “best-case” (smart growth, combined demand side

management, CGCM2-B2) and “worst-case” (current preferences, current demand side management and HadCM3-A21) scenarios for all population growth scenarios. 29

Figure 2.20: Contributions of DSM, smart growth and climate change to the difference between the best- and worst-case high population growth scenarios for two sets of intermediate scenarios for the Town of Oliver. The specific scenarios (best-case, worst-case and two intermediate scenarios) represented by each of the numbered lines are presented in Table 2.7. Note that this does notinclude comparison with base case climate (i.e. no climate change). 30

Figure 2.21: Percentage contributions to the difference between the high growth best- and worst-case scenarios of DSM, smart growth and climate change for two sets of intermediate scenarios in 2069 for the Town of Oliver. Note that this does not include comparison with base case climate (i.e. no climate change). 30

Figure 2.22: City of Kelowna annual licensed domestic and ICI allocation and demand comparison for best- (low population growth, CGCM2-B2, smart growth housing and combined DSM) and worst-case (high population growth, HadCM3-A2, current preferences housing and current DSM) scenarios. 31

Figure 2.23: City of Penticton annual licensed domestic and agricultural allocation and demand comparison for best- (low population growth, CGCM2-B2, smart growth housing and combined DSM) and worst-case (high population growth, HadCM3-A2, current preferences housing and current DSM) scenarios. Historic demand includes 2001 domestic demand and average 1961 to 1990 modeled crop water demand. 32

Figure 4.1: Initial representation of Okanagan water resources in STELLA™, used to motivate discussion in Workshop 2. This image was printed in the centre of poster sized sheets for the group work. 54

Figure 4.2: Comparison of responses by event to the evaluation question: Do you feel this model is alegitimate and relevant tool to explore long-term water management in the Okanagan? 60

Figure 4.3: Percent attendance of all participants at all six events, categorized by affiliation. Plotted as (a) total number of people, and (b) weighted by the number of events each person attended. 61

Figure 4.4: Percent attendance of all participants at all six events, categorized by role in Okanagan. Plotted as (a) total number of people, and (b) weighted by the number of events each personattended. 61

Figure 4.5: Percent attendance of those people who attended three or more of the six events, categorized by affiliation. Plotted as (a) total number of people, and (b) weighted by the number of events each person attended. 62

Figure 4.6: Percent attendance of those people who attended three or more of the six events, categorized by role in the Okanagan. Plotted as (a) total number of people, and (b) weighted by the number of events each person attended. 62

Figure 4.7: Distribution of attendance throughout process according to role in the Okanagan, as shown for each event. 63

FINAL REPORT | m

Figure 5.1: Okanagan Basin Map, showing location in British Columbia in inset. From (Cohen et al. 2006). 67Figure 5.2: Upland, Valley and South End areas are outlined. 68Figure 5.3: Causal Loop Diagram of Okanagan Basin water resources system, showing which components

are not included in the model, and those that are only present through user-selected options. 71Figure 5.4: Population in Okanagan by Regional District, with major events that increased growth rates

indicated. 73Figure 5.5: Average year inflow to Okanagan Lake compared to total demand with (yellow) and without

(orange) residential adaptation for historic, 2020s and 2050s periods and with Hadley A2 climate change. The lower boundaries of the shaded areas represent low population growth and the upper boundaries represent rapid population growth. 73

Figure 5.6: Okanagan basin demand profile under Hadley A2 climate change scenario and rapid population growth. 30-year average. 74

Figure 5.7: Okanagan basin demand profile under Hadley A2 climate change scenario and slow population growth. 30-year average. 74

Figure 5.8: Dry year inflow to Okanagan Lake (average of the 10 driest years) compared to total demand with (yellow) and without (orange) residential adaptation for historic, 2020s and 2050s periods and with Hadley A2 climate change. The lower boundaries of the shaded areas represent low population growth and the upper boundaries represent rapid population growth. 75

Figure 5.9: Okanagan basin demand profile under Hadley A2 climate change scenario and rapid population growth. Average of 10 driest years in each 30-year period. 75

Figure 5.10: Okanagan basin demand profile under Hadley A2 climate change scenario and slow population growth. Average of 10 driest years in each 30-year period. 76

Figure 5.11: 30-year average annual supply-demand hydrographs for the Historic/Base Case (1961-1990). 76Figure 5.12: 30-year average annual supply-demand hydrographs for the 2020s simulation. 77Figure 5.13: 30-year average annual supply-demand hydrographs for the 2050s simulation. 77Figure 5.14: Okanagan basin demand profile under Hadley A2 climate change scenario and rapid

population growth with residential adaptation (corresponding to Figure 5.6). 30-year average. 78Figure 5.15: Okanagan basin demand profile under Hadley A2 climate change scenario and slow

population growth with adaptation (corresponding to Figures 5.7). 30-year average. 78Figure 7.1: Number of years that the respondent’s family has been farming in the Okanagan. 91Figure 7.2: Pros of overhead irrigation identified by its practitioners. 93Figure 7.3: Cons of overhead irrigation identified by its practitioners. 94Figure 7.4: Pros and cons of drip irrigation identified by its practitioners. 94Figure 7.5: What is the trade-off associated with investing in water efficiency? 95Figure 7.6: Responses to the question: Through my current system of water provision, I have enough

water to irrigate during peak times and whenever I need it during the growing season. 98Figure 7.7: Perceptions of the change in volume of water in the basin’s hydrological system and its

availability for personal supply between 2006 and 2031. 99Figure 7.8: Distribution of responses to the question: Are there any external/policy incentives for you

to conserve water on your property? 99Figure 7.9: Distribution of respondents’ preferences for the agency or partnership they most strongly

support to lead development and implementation of an agricultural water conservation policy. 100Figure A.1: Groundwater Drilling Cost Curves. 125Figure A.2: Pump and Motor Cost Curve. 128Figure A.3: Operational Pumping Costs. 128Figure C.1: Sketch created by Group 1. 136Figure C.2: Sketch created by Group 2. 137Figure C.3: Sketch created by Group 3. 138

n | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

Figure E.1: Two year hydrograph of aggregated flow in upland streams, showing shift from base case (1981-82), to a decreased, earlier peak in Hadley A2 – 2020’s (2030-31) and Hadley A2 – 2050’s (2060-61). 144

Figure E.2: STELLA component for treatment of groundwater in the Upland sector. 145Figure E.3: Exponential growth in the STELLA language. 147Figure E.4: Comparison of crop water demand [m] for seven major water purveyors in the Uplands

during the first two years of the historic scenario (1961-62). 151Figure E.5: Comparison of crop water demand [m] for the three different water source types. Note the

increasing trend from Uplands down to the warmer South End. 151Figure E.6: Comparison of crop water demand rates [m] for the four categories of crops in the Uplands. 152Figure E.7: Comparison of Pasture crop water demand scenarios. Note increasing trend from historic

base case to 2020’s and 2050’s. 152Figure E.8: Modeled standard conservation targets shown with five years of varying hydrologic

conditions (1978 – flood; 1979-80 – drought; 1981-82 – average). 154Figure E.9: Conservation targets with modifications. Conservation target is no more than 50% of inflows.

Greatest reductions are in drought years (1979-80). 154Figure E.10: Instream flow targets for Sockeye in Okanagan River near Oliver over a 12-month

period (Jan – Dec). 155Figure E.11: Main components of the Uplands Hydrology Sector, where the water balance for this

region is calculated. 156Figure E.12: UL Reservoir Storage Target ranges as a percentage of the total capacity. These targets

help direct management decisions for releasing (summer) and filling (during spring freshet). 157Figure E.13: Spill Rules Factor rule curve. 158Figure E.14: UL Cutoff Rules Factor, as a function of the UL Cutoff Ratio. 158Figure E.15: Residential Outdoor Restrictions Factor defined as a function of the UL Supply Demand

Balance Ratio. 159Figure E.16: Residential Indoor Restrictions Factor defined as a function of the UL Supply Demand

Balance Ratio. 160Figure E.17: Agriculture Restrictions Factor defined as a function of the UL Supply Demand Balance Ratio. 160Figure E.18: Supply and Demand balance calculation for the Valley Sector. 162Figure E.19: Supply Demand Balance calculation for the South End Region. 163Figure F.1: 1961-1990 base case summary of basin population, inflow, water demand and Okanagan

Lake stage. 166Figure F.2: Basin summary for 2010-2039 scenario with no adaptation (same indicators as in Figure F.1). 166Figure F.3: Upland agricultural supply-demand balance, 2010-2039 (red), no adaptation, compared

with 1961-1990 base case (blue). 167Figure F.4: Uplands residential outdoor supply-demand balance, 2010-2039 scenario (red) compared

with 1961-1990 base case (blue). 167Figure F.5: Uplands residential indoor supply-demand balance, 2010-2039 scenario (red) compared

with 1961-1990 base case (blue). Similar format as in Figure E.4. 168Figure F.6: Basin summary for 2040-2069 scenario (same indicators as in Figure F.1). 168Figure F.7: Upland agricultural supply-demand balance, 2040-2069 (red), no adaptation, compared

with 1961-1990 base case (blue). 169Figure F.8: Uplands residential outdoor supply-demand balance, 2040-2069 scenario (red) compared

with 1961-1990 base case (blue). 170Figure F.9: Uplands residential indoor supply-demand balance, 2040-2069 scenario (red) compared

with 1961-1990 base case (blue). 170Figure F.10: Uplands agricultural supply-demand balance, 2010-2039 scenario with DSM portfolio (red)

compared with 2010-2039 no-adaptation case (blue). 171

FINAL REPORT | o

Figure F.11: Uplands residential outdoor supply-demand balance, 2010-2039 scenario with DSM portfolio (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 171

Figure F.12: Uplands residential indoor supply-demand balance, 2010-2039 scenario with DSM portfolio (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 172

Figure F.13: Uplands agricultural supply-demand balance, 2040-2069 scenario with DSM portfolio (red) compared with 2040-2069 no-adaptation case (blue). 173

Figure F.14: Uplands residential outdoor supply-demand balance, 2040-2069 scenario with DSM portfolio (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 173

Figure F.15: Uplands residential indoor supply-demand balance, 2040-2069 scenario with DSM portfolio (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 174

Figure F.16: Okanagan Lake stage, 2010-2039 scenario with supplemental withdrawals from Okanagan Lake (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 174

Figure F.17: Okanagan Lake stage, 2040-2069 scenario with supplemental withdrawals from Okanagan Lake (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 175

Figure F.18: Valley outflow, 2040-2069 scenario with supplemental withdrawals from Okanagan Lake (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 175

Figure F.19: Upland residential indoor supply-demand balance, 2040-2069 scenario with supplemental withdrawals from Okanagan Lake (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 176

Figure F.20: Upland instream needs supply-demand balance, 2040-2069 scenario with supplemental withdrawals from Okanagan Lake (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 176

Figure F.21: Valley outflows, 2010-2039 scenario with system managed for sockeye (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 178

Figure F.22: Okanagan Lake stage, 2010-2039 scenario with system managed for sockeye (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 178

Figure F.23: Valley outflows, 2040-2069 scenario with system managed for sockeye (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 179

Figure F.24: Okanagan Lake stage, 2040-2069 scenario with system managed for sockeye (red) comparedwith no-adaptation case (blue). 179

Figure F.25: Uplands agriculture supply-demand balance, 2010-2039, with system managed for sockeye AND Okanagan Lake supplemental use (red) compared with no-adaptation (blue). 180

Figure F.26: Okanagan Lake stage, 2010-2039 with system managed for sockeye AND Okanagan Lake supplemental use (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 180

Figure F.27: Okanagan Lake stage, 2040-2069 with system managed for sockeye AND Okanagan Lake supplemental use (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 181

Figure F.28: Upland in-stream flow needs, 2040-2069 with system managed for sockeye AND Okanagan Lake supplemental use (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 181

Figure F.29: South End outflow, 2040-2069 with system managed for sockeye AND Okanagan Lake supplemental use (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 182

Figure F.30: Uplands residential indoor supply-demand balance, 2010-2039, with DSM AND Okanagan Lake supplemental use (red) compared with no-adaptation (blue). 182

Figure F.31: Uplands residential outdoor supply-demand balance, 2040-2069, with DSM AND Okanagan Lake supplemental use (red) compared with no-adaptation (blue). 183

Figure F.32: Okanagan Lake stage, 2040-2069 with DSM AND Okanagan Lake supplemental use (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 183

Figure F.33: Uplands in-stream needs, 2040-2069 with DSM AND Okanagan Lake supplemental use (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 184

Figure F.34: Valley outflows, 2040-2069 with DSM AND Okanagan Lake supplemental use (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 184

p | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

Figure F.35: Uplands agricultural supply-demand balance, 2040-2069 with DSM AND sockeye management (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 185

Figure F.36: Uplands residential indoor supply-demand balance, 2040-2069 with DSM AND sockeye management (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 185

Figure F.37: Okanagan Lake stage, 2040-2069 with DSM AND sockeye management (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 186

Figure F.38: Uplands in-stream needs, 2040-2069 with DSM AND sockeye management (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 186

Figure F.39: Valley outflow, 2040-2069 with DSM AND sockeye management (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue). 187

List of Tables

Table 2.1: Case study attributes. 8Table 2.2: Case study population growth scenarios comparing 2069 population to the 2001 Census

population. 11Table 2.3: Number of dwellings in 2069 in smart growth and current preferences dwelling scenarios

for all three population growth scenarios for each case study. 12Table 2.4: Annual indoor and outdoor water use per dwelling type and per capita and regression

statistics for mean maximum daily temperature and outdoor water use per dwelling. 14Table 2.5: Indoor and outdoor water savings used in DSM scenarios. 16Table 2.6: Comparison of per capita and per dwelling water use projections for the City of Kelowna.

Water use is presented in ML. 17Table 2.7: Progression from best-case to worst-case for orders 1 and 2 shown in Figures 4.5, 4.11 and 4.17. 21Table 2.8: Comparison of per capita and per dwelling water use projections for Penticton. 23Table 2.9: Comparison of per capita and per dwelling water use projections for the Town of Oliver. 27Table 2.10: Domestic water demand scenarios and number of scenarios exceeding the City of Penticton’s

licensed domestic allocation of 14,485.25ML. 33Table 3.1: Water Sources for Major Water Utilities. 38Table 3.2: Typical Wells for Major Utilities in the Okanagan Basin. 39Table 3.3: Parameters Related to Reservoir Storage Water Quality. 40Table 3.4: Summary of reservoir storage costs. 41Table 3.5: Mainstem pumping projects. 41Table 3.6: Water Treatment Process Costs. 42Table 3.7: Conservation project summary. 43Table 3.8: Domestic water rates. SFE = Single Family Equivalent. 44Table 3.9: Water treatment process costs (repeated from Table 3.6). 44Table 3.10: Recent and proposed projects for water supply, water conservation and water treatment. 45Table 4.1: Summary of Events in Group Model Building Process. 51Table 4.2: Description of Workshop 1. 52Table 4.3: Description of Workshop 2. 54Table 4.4: Research questions that participants want the model to be able to answer. 55Table 4.5: Description of Workshop 3. 56Table 4.6: Description of the Round of Meetings and Workshop 4. 57Table 4.7: Description of Workshop 5. 58Table 4.8: Number of responses to the post-workshop evaluation question “Have your perceptions

of future water availability in the basin changed due to this exercise? 60Table 4.9: Average values of responses on pre- and post-evaluations, for the question: “How well do

you understand the model’s structure?” 60Table 5.1: Adaptation and policy options included in the model on the user interface. 70

FINAL REPORT | q

Table 7.1: Interview recruitment success rates in each of the study communities. 90Table 7.2: Participant distribution by business type and location. 90Table 7.3: Land-use before establishment of the current vineyard. 91Table 7.4: Summary of water consumption trends (per acre) since 1996. 92Table 7.5: Types of irrigation systems in place. 92Table 7.6: Decisions growers can make to mitigate the impact of these risks. 97Table 7.7: Pros and cons of water metering as identified by producers. 101Table A.1: Drilling Costs. 126Table A.2: Well Development Qualifiers. 127Table A.3: Pumping and Water Treatment Operational Cost Summary. 129Table E.1: Current population data for Regional Districts, and the portion of the population served

by Okanagan Basin water sources. 146Table E.2: Comparison of historic populations and those simulated by the model using calculated

growth rates from the historic to the present. 147Table E.3: Historic and Projected Annual Population Growth Rates [%] by Regional District. 147Table E.4: Division of residential water use according to water source. 148Table E.5: Linear relation parameters correlating outdoor water use to daily max temperature. 149Table E.6: Reprint of Table 3.3 from Neale (2005), p 47. Also Table 2.5 this text, Chapter 2. 150Table E.7: Conservation flow target structure. 153

List of Boxes

Box 4.1: The following list was generated by participants at Workshop 1, February 2005. 53Box 7.1: The process of autonomous adaptation to risk. 89Box 7.2: Risks and challenges that affect growers’ ability to maintain the profitability of

their businesses. 96Box 7.3: The interactions of producer-identified risks and their implications for water demand. 104

r | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

Acknowledgements

This study is a follow-up to earlier research projects, cited as Cohen and Kulkarni (2001)and Cohen et al.(2004) (see Chapter 1.0). The authors of this report are members of a

collaborative research team, some of whom also contributed to these earlier publications.

This project was made possible with financial support from the Government of Canada’sClimate Change Impacts and Adaptation Program (Project A846). The authors would alsolike to acknowledge support and cooperation from: Environment Canada, Smart Growth onthe Ground, University of British Columbia, and BC Ministry of Environment. We wouldalso like to thank Denise Neilsen and Grace Frank from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada,and Wendy Merritt from Australian National University, who assisted with data transfer fromtheir components (see Cohen et al. 2004) to this study.

The group-based model building process, led by Stacy Langsdale, was a crucial component ofthis research effort. We would like to express our appreciation to Jeff Carmichael, CraigForster, Brian Symonds, Allyson Beall, Barbara Lence and Jessica Durfee, for their advice andparticipation in the design of this year-long process of interactive workshops and dialogue.We would like to acknowledge and thank the following individuals who participated in thisprocess, and helped to shape the structure and content of the model: Diana Allen, DesAnderson, Greg Armour, Darryl Arsenault, Jeptha Ball, Lorraine Bennest, Vicki Carmichael,Kristi Carter, Al Cotsworth, Corui Davis, Anne Davidson, Don Degan, Shannon Denny, RodDrennen, Phil Epp, Don Guild, Brian Guy, Leah Hartley, Rob Hawes, Robert Hobson, BobHrasko, Nelson Jatel, Mary Jane Jojic, Stephen Juch, Jessica Klein, Steve Losso, JamesMacDonald, Deana Machin, Lloyd Manchester, Wenda Mason, Don McKee, Rick McKelvey,Siobhan Murphy, Denise Neilsen, Tim Palmer, Toby Pike, Barbara Pryce, Steve Rowe, GordShandler, Tom Siddon, John Slater, Ron Smith, Mike Stamhuis, Brian Symonds, Sonia Talwar,Jillian Tamblyn, Ted van der Gulik, Peter Waterman, Mark Watt, Adam Wei, Bruce Wilson,and Howie Wright.

The study on agricultural practices, contributed by Natasha Schorb, benefited from theparticipation of growers from the Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen. We would liketo thank James Tansey and Tim McDaniels for their advice, and to acknowledge the growersfor generously giving their time and effort to be interviewed.

The study on residential water demand, contributed by Tina Neale, required detailed wateruse data from a number of communities. We would like to thank the staff of the City ofKelowna water utility, City of Penticton and Town of Oliver for providing this data andassisting with its interpretation and use for this research.

The authors would like to thank the reviewer, Jim Bruce, for his thoughtful comments on this report.

FINAL REPORT | i

Executive Summary

This is the final report of the study, “Participatory Integrated Assessment of WaterManagement and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia.” This study

was made possible with financial support from the Government of Canada’s Climate ChangeImpacts and Adaptation Program (project A846). The research activity described in thisreport is a collaborative, interdisciplinary effort involving researchers from EnvironmentCanada, Smart Growth on the Ground, the University of British Columbia, and the BCMinistry of Environment, as well as many local partners and researchers from Agriculture andAgri-Food Canada and Australian National University, who participated in our 2002-2004study.

Previous research on climate change and Okanagan water resources since 1997 has provided apotential damage report. Impacts on water supply and water demand have been described,and a dialogue on adaptation options and challenges has been initiated. This study offers aparticipatory integrated assessment (PIA) of the Okanagan water system’s response to climatechange. The goal of the PIA is to expand the dialogue on implications of adaptation choicesfor water management to include domestic and agriculture uses and in-stream conservationflows, for the basin as a whole as well as for particular sub-regions. This has beenaccomplished through collaboration with ongoing studies in these areas, and builds on theresults of earlier work.

The major components of this study are:

1. Residential water demand: developing future demand scenarios for residential users,factoring in population growth and adaptation options;

2. Adaptation costs: expanding the inventory of various supply and demand managementmeasures and incorporating water treatment costs;

3. Decision support model: building a system model, using a group-based process with localexperts, which enables learning on impacts of climate and population changes, and theeffects of implementation of various adaptation measures;

4. Adaptation policy – residential design: bringing climate change into community designthrough Smart Growth on the Ground’s process for creating a water-smart community planin the Town of Oliver and surrounding area;

5. Adaptation policy – agricultural water use: exploring growers’ views on regional waterpolicy.

Residential Water Demand

Previous studies in the Okanagan Basin have found that average daily residential water use inthe region is highly variable, ranging from approximately 470 to 789 litres per capita per day(Lpcd). Drought year residential water use in the Lakeview Irrigation District has been

ii | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

estimated as high as 1,370 Lpcd. When compared tomunicipal water use across Canada, water use in theOkanagan is relatively high.

The Okanagan has experienced dramatic populationgrowth, from approximately 210,000 in 1986 to310,000 in 2001. The population is expected tocontinue to grow, reaching nearly 450,000 by 2031.This increase in population and associated developmentwill result in increased municipal water demands.Planning for future municipal water demands must takeinto account not only the future population of theregion, but also urban development patterns, andchanges in water demand resulting from a warmingclimate.

Building on earlier work reported in the 2004 study,three case studies were chosen for this research: theTown of Oliver, City of Penticton and City of Kelownawater utility. This study was a multi-attribute analysisthat used scenarios, constructed with available data, toexplore the combined impacts of population growth,residential form, climate change and demand sidemanagement on municipal water demand. Thescenarios approach aimed to create depictions of futurewater demand that were plausible given a range ofdevelopment, climate change and water managementtrends that could occur in the future. Scenarios offuture water demand for each case study werecalculated in a spreadsheet model at annual time stepsfor the period 2001 to 2069, corresponding with the2020s and 2050s periods typical of climate changescenarios.

Three scenarios of population growth (low, mediumand high) were defined for each case study based onpopulation growth projections published in availableplanning documents. “Current preferences” and “smartgrowth” housing scenarios were defined as lower andhigher density development patterns. The six climatechange scenarios developed in the 2004 study wereapplied to determine the impacts of climate change onoutdoor residential water use. A literature search wasconducted to compile a list of residential demand sidemanagement (DSM) options along with their expectedwater savings. The information was then used to defineseven DSM options for testing in the water demandscenarios. DSM options were selected to reflect a rangeof possible water savings approaches includingeconomic incentives, educational programs, andmechanical or technological solutions.

For Kelowna, population and dwelling demand growthin the current preferences scenario accounted foraverage increases in water use by 41-99% in the 2020s

and 115-360% in the 2050s. The maximum increase inwater use determined in the current preferenceshousing scenarios, without the impacts of climatechange or additional DSM, ranged from 163% in thelow growth scenario to 570% in the high growthscenario.

The climate change impact on water use in the 2020sranged from approximately 6% to 10%. The climatechange impact became more pronounced in the 2050sincreasing water use by 10 to 19%. When combinedwith population and current preferences dwellinggrowth, the climate change impact on water use wasmagnified. This is due to the increased number ofground-oriented dwellings and hence, increasedoutdoor water use. In the high population growthscenario, the combined effects of climate change andpopulation growth increased water use between 111and 119% in the 2020s and 407 to 446% in the 2050sover the 2001 baseline. This was 12 to 21% more thanpopulation growth alone in the 2020s and 45 to 86%more in the 2050s.

The implication for climate change in watermanagement planning is that annual water demandspredicted without climate change occur several yearsearlier in the climate change scenarios. For example, inthe 2030 to 2039 period, annual water demand with“average” climate change occurred approximately fouryears earlier than in the no climate change scenario. Inthe 2040 to 2059 period, this increased to an average ofsix years earlier.

A combined DSM portfolio, including public education,metering with increasing block rate tariffs, xeriscapingand high-efficiency appliances, was assessed in severalscenarios. For climate change scenarios, residentialwater use increased by only 2 to 5% in the 2020s and81 to 92% in the 2050s, compared with 2001. Withlow population growth, 2020s water use was actuallyreduced below 2001 levels by 10 to 13% in the 2020sand increased only 24 to 32% in the 2050s. With highpopulation growth, 2020s average water use increasedby 20 to 24% and 2050s use by 165 to 182%. Similarsavings were reported for the Penticton and Oliver casestudies.

The untapped potential of demand side management inthe Okanagan region offers significant flexibility indealing with changing supply and demand regimeswithout impacting quality of life for water users. In thescenarios, DSM resulted in dramatic reductions in wateruse, even in the cases where demand managementprograms were already in place. Water metering cansignificantly reduce demand, but the combined effects

FINAL REPORT | iii

of full retrofits and xeriscaping would reduce water usefar more than metering.

It is also important to note that DSM measures havebenefits beyond water use efficiency to the overallsustainability of the Okanagan. Demand managementreduces the sensitivity of water management systems toexternal influences such as climate change anddevelopment patterns. Regardless of what the futurebrings in terms of climate change and populationgrowth, demand management is relevant to the presentand represents a “no regrets” option for dealing with avariety of concerns.

Adaptation Costs

The focus of this component was on measures thatindividual utilities could undertake to adapt to thechanging hydrology of the basin and to increased waterdemands due to climate warming. These measures,aimed at increasing the reliability of the system’s watersupply to meet its needs, are not conceptually new andthe engineering and management issues are wellunderstood.

Historically, developers of new water supply have reliedon surface water in the Okanagan, concentrating firston gravity fed systems from upstream storage andsubsequently on pumped water from the mainstemsystem when tributary storage was not adequate.Groundwater development followed, but mostly as asecondary or small local source of supply. All of themajor communities, with the exception of Osoyoos relyprimarily on surface water as their main supply.

Groundwater development costs can be relatively lowcompared to other alternatives. A recent developmentby the Glenmore-Ellison Improvement Districtillustrates the cost effectiveness of groundwater. Thewell, currently under construction, has an estimatedcapital cost of $258,000 with an annual supply of 1200megalitres (ML), resulting in a per-unit cost of $206 /ML.This represents an extremely low cost compared toother options. However, problems exist that will affectthe use of this option in the future.

Upstream storage is another supply option. Costs aredependant on site specific factors and vary considerablyfrom project to project. Dam height is particularlyimportant, resulting in more stringent constructionrequirements and higher costs. Costs of recent storageprojects range from $418/ML to $4988/ML.

Mainstem pumping, including pumping from OkanaganLake, has a probable cost range of about $800 to

$3200 per ML depending on the height required forpumping, the length of intake pump required and theability to use existing balancing reservoirs versus newconstruction. In this study, some newer projects costs’have been determined, and these range from $114/MLto $1375/ML, however, the lower cost projects onlypresent costs for the lake intake pipe portion and donot include conveyance costs, and none of these studiesinclude reservoir or water treatment costs. Since thequality of mainstem water is often better than thequality upstream, water treatment costs can also belower. Given the possibility of significant new mainstem pumping developments, it is worthconsidering some of the micro and macro scale issues. For example, if service is required more than130 metres above the lake, an additional pumpingstation may be required.

When calculating the costs of any supply sideadaptation options, the costs of water treatment shouldalso be considered. In most supply options, the costsof treating the water are at least as great as the costs of developing the supply. The various filtrationtechnologies, often required to meet regulatorystandards, range from $2,700 to over $5,000 per MLtreated. UV disinfection and clarification have a muchlower cost range. As a result, water treatment costsbecome even more important in adaptation decisions.

Previous work on DSM options outlined the range of costs of a number of options including publiceducation, irrigation scheduling, high efficiencyirrigation systems, leak detection and domestic watermetering. Irrigation scheduling ($400 – 700 per ML)and public education ($700 per ML) were the twolowest cost options. Leak detection and high efficiencyirrigation systems were in the $1200 to $1400 costrange, while costs of domestic metering ranged from$1500 to $2200 per ML saved. Costs for each of thevarious measures varied based on assumptions aboutthe size and location of the system.

Data from recent conservation case examples isavailable for the central Okanagan including the BlackMountain Irrigation District (BMID), the South EastKelowna Irrigation District (SEKID) and the City ofKelowna. The cost of the meters in SEKID is about$450 per ML. A proposed domestic metering programby SEKID would have a higher cost of about $2500 perML saved. At BMID, the cost per ML saved is estimatedto be approximately $600 for the agricultural metering.The City of Kelowna implemented a domestic meteringprogram in 1996-97 which included a public educationcomponent. This program resulted in a 20 percent

iv | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

reduction in water use by domestic users. The costsper ML saved are approximately $2000.

Water conservation will often be a first choice optionfor individual utilities given its cost advantages,particularly when considering the cost of watertreatment for new supply sources. Despite the costadvantages, conservation efforts by individual utilitiesmay not be sufficient to meet the joint challenges ofpopulation growth and climate change. The potential20-30% water savings from conservation by municipalitiesmay represent only a few years of growth in demandfrom increasing population. The larger absolute gainsachievable through agricultural metering will takelonger to implement. Utilities are thus forced to look at options for developing new supplies.

There are a few upstream storage developments in theproposal stage, which are advantageous from both abasin wide and an individual utility’s perspective. Themore cost effective upstream storage sites have alreadybeen developed, limiting further development bymunicipalities and irrigation districts. Given the costadvantages, utilities will be looking to developgroundwater supplies where feasible.

Decision Support Model

The purpose of this component was to assist theOkanagan water resources community in incorporatingclimate change in their planning and policydevelopment and to evaluate their water resources in asystem context. This was done through a ParticipatoryIntegrated Assessment (PIA) process centered on thedevelopment of a System Dynamics model. The studydid not only focus on climate change, but on a widerange of issues co-defined by the participants andresearchers. The products of this process are: (1) Ashared learning experience for the participants and theresearch team; and (2) The resulting simulation model,a decision support tool for increasing knowledge aboutthe system, and for exploring plausible future scenariosand adaptation opportunities.

Participants in the group model building process wererecruited by invitation, with the intention of achievinga diverse and balanced representation of the variousorganizations and responsibilities related to waterresources management in the Okanagan Basin.Affiliations included First Nations, Federal, Provincial(BC), Regional District, and Local Governments;Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations;Academia; Irrigation Districts; Agricultural Association(BC Fruit Growers Association); Consultancy; andLocal Initiative (The Okanagan Partnership).

Participants provided a wealth of ideas about theOkanagan system, particularly in the areas of hydrology,imported water, instream flow, water quality, land use(Agricultural Land Reserve), forestry, population &urban , development, residential water use, and cropwater demand.

The software used in the construction of this modelwas the stock and flow STELLA™ software.Participants became familiar with STELLA™ through ayear-long series of workshops and individual sessions.Previous research conducted on climate change andhydrologic scenarios, and crop water demand andresidential demand, served as an important foundationfor the model. However, the participants provided theinformation to link what these scenarios mean to theOkanagan context. The software became the mediumfor expressing these linkages. Because the participantsdid not actually create the model code themselves,generating a feeling of ownership and trust in themodel was challenging. The workshops provided thebest opportunity for education about the modelthrough hands-on interaction and dialogue with themodeling team.

The long-term significance of this participatorymodeling process to policy development cannot bemeasured during the timeframe of this phase of theproject. Since we do not have a control group, we maynever be able to measure what changed as a result ofour efforts. Regardless, we are optimistic that theprocess did make a difference to the participants, whowere quite positive about the experience. Throughoutthe process, participants recommended that this workbe shared with a wider community, particularly toelected officials and the public.

Only one climate scenario was tested in this version ofthe model: Hadley A2. Of the six scenarios evaluatedin the 2004 study, Hadley A2 is a moderate to worstclimate scenario depending on the evaluation criteriaand the period of interest. Based on this climatescenario, and a range of regional population growthscenarios, model results show that without interventions,regional water demands will not be met in the future.Demand will exceed supply by the 2050s, and as earlyas the 2020s in relatively dry years. Aggressiveimplementation of residential conservation measurescould reduce total demand in the 2050’s by about 8-12% (low growth and high population growthscenarios, respectively). In any event, this is notenough on its own to offset the supply-demand gap.

The components of supply and demand responddifferently to the stressors of population growth and

FINAL REPORT | v

climate change. According to the Hadley A2 scenariothat was built into the model, natural flow into thebasin from precipitation will decrease from historicrates, more gradually in the 2020’s by about 5%, thenmore drastically in the 2050’s, by about 21%. At thesame time, agricultural demand across the basin willincrease with climate change. Residential demand willincrease with climate change as well; however,residential demand appears to be more sensitive togrowth rate than climate change, within the range ofgrowth rates tested. Instream ecosystem demand ratesare more challenging to define. In this work, they arebased on established policies. Since these policiesallow adjustments to the requirement during low flowyears, the instream flow demand level appears todecrease with climate change. This is a result of theincreased incidence of low flow years, and does notreflect the actual needs of the ecosystem in warmerclimates.

Aggregating these three needs, the total averagedemand is 79-82% of total inflow in the 2020’s, and 82-113% of total inflow in the 2050’s. Low values inthe range correspond to slow residential growth and theupper values correspond to rapid population growth.Aggressive implementation of residential adaptationmeasures can at least partially compensate for theincrease in demand due to the population expansion.Additional conservation measures in the agriculturalsector will also help to offset the increase in demanddue to climate change; however, the combination of allof these conservation policies may not be sufficient tomaintain the level of system reliability that wasexperienced in the 1961-1990 simulation period.

Supplemental use of Okanagan Lake would be ofbenefit to meeting future agricultural and residentialuser demands. However, system performance formeeting future instream flow requirements significantlydeteriorates, and Okanagan Lake levels would decline.This indicates that on its own, additional withdrawalfrom Okanagan Lake would lead to mining of the lakeand increased risks to aquatic ecosystems. This doesnot mean that supplemental use of the lake should berejected as a possible adaptation option. If used inconjunction with DSM, overall system performancecould improve.

Adaptation—residential design

One approach to design and implementation ofadaptation responses, within the context of local andregional development, is a process known as “SmartGrowth”, being promoted by Smart Growth on theGround (SGOG). Smart Growth on the Ground

(SGOG) is a unique initiative, helping BC communitiesto plan and implement more sustainable forms of urbangrowth.

In 2005/2006, the Oliver BC region was the focus ofSGOG work. The SGOG partners formed links withthe Participatory Integrated Assessment team to gainexperience in connecting climate change research andurban design within an ongoing SGOG design processtaking place in Oliver.

A key activity in the SGOG process is a DesignCharrette. A charrette is an intensive, multi-stakeholder design event. Citizens, elected officials,government staff, and other experts are broughttogether with professional designers. In a collaborativeatmosphere, charrette team members undertake an“illustrated brainstorm.” The team created land use,transportation, urban design, and other design plans for the particular geographic area under study. Thedesign brief included a target of a 38% reduction inresidential water use by 2041. The team was alsoencouraged to explore “greener” building standards toconserve water. The charrette team made a number of recommendations on water management and actions to address climate change, including “thickening”(increasing residential density), xeriscaping, greening of streets and buildings, and expanded use of residentialwater saving devices.

Adaptation – agriculture

The goal of this component was to improveunderstanding of both the process of autonomousadaptation to climate change and the factors that mustbe considered in the development of agricultural waterpolicy in the Okanagan. To accomplish this goal, thisstudy explored the ways in which Okanagan wine-grapegrowers use water and are likely to respond to futurescarcity. Understanding how grape-growers makedecisions to manage multiple risks and how actionstaken to mitigate one risk affect exposure to others isan integral part of understanding the types ofadaptations farmers do and will make, and the policyinitiatives they are willing to support.

Information on growers’ views on current and futurewater use were obtained through interviews in theSouth Okanagan. Previous research has indicated thatwine-grape growers in the South Okanagan are morevulnerable to climate change and more dependent onwater to manage risk than those in the central ornorthern parts of the region. Growers were interviewedin January 2006 using a semi-structured questionnairewith a mix of open and closed questions, designed to

vi | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

facilitate comparison between responses and providegrowers with the flexibility to answer unpredictably.

Examination of operators’ choice of irrigationtechnology indicates that there is a preference forirrigation systems which allow the grower to strictlycontrol water application to the vines. A majority usedrip, or drip in combination with overhead sprinklers.Overhead irrigation is generally perceived to be lesswater efficient than other technologies. The mostwidely perceived benefit of using a drip system is theability to grow a very high quality grape. Deficitirrigation is easy to practice because the system ishighly controlled. A majority of respondentscommented that the most effective way to increaseprofit margins is to focus on grape quality throughdeficit irrigation.

Warmer summer and winter temperatures are perceivedas an advantage from an industry perspective becausethey are associated with a northward shift in thegeographic extent of grape-growing in the valley. Warmerwinter temperatures might also be a benefit if theincidence of ‘extreme’ cold events (below -30 Celsius)decreases because this would minimize vine damage.However, growers in this study expressed concernabout increased temperature variability because in theautumn and spring, vines are very sensitive to frostevents immediately preceded by mild temperatures.Warmer temperatures were also associated withdeclining snowpack but growers were uncertain if this would be offset by greater precipitation at othertimes of year.

Other risks identified by producers include decision-making by local, provincial and federal governments,selling through the liquor distribution branch,increasing regulation of wineries, escalating urban-ruralconflict, and local land development planning. Someindividuals mentioned climate extremes and variabilityas a big risk they face. These risks are associated withextreme cold, mild weather that increases vulnerabilityto spring and fall frost, excess moisture and pests. Risksassociated with climate change and water shortage wereidentified by only a small number of respondents.

Growers’ perceptions of the future of their personalwater source and that of the basin system are widelyvariable. Notably, individuals’ perceptions of theirpersonal water security are less related to theirphilosophies about hydrologic change than to theirlevel of personal control over their water supply. Manyof those with greater than ten years in the valleycommented that snowpack has decreased steadily in thelast ten to fifteen years and climate is warmer, more

variable, and prone to extremes. Growers voiced mixedopinions about the implications of climate variabilityfor basin supply. Four individuals suggested thatclimate patterns are cyclical and that today’s warmingtrend will have cooled somewhat by 2031. In thisscenario, water supply will remain the same in thefuture. Others believe that a diminished snowpack isindicative of climate warming, either on a short-term ora long-term scale, and will probably reduce basinsupply further by 2031.

Agricultural adaptation research indicates thatadaptation to climate change occurs in an environmentcharacterized by multiple stressors, and farmersconfront difficult trade-offs in their attempt tomaximize diverse objectives. Since climate change isonly one of numerous challenges managed by farmers,anticipatory adaptation policy should address existingproblems without compromising the ability of farmersto manage other risks.

Lessons and Moving On

As the Okanagan grapples with its water resourcechallenges, there will be important questions regardingfuture demands and how these demands may be shapedby various forces. Our quantitative research has focusedon climate change itself, and has included populationgrowth scenarios, but we have not explicitly considered(or modeled) alternative development pathways. Ourqualitative dialogue-based studies have offered someinsights into the interplay between recent climateexperiences and responses by individuals andinstitutions. We conclude, not surprisingly, that futureclimate change can expose some vulnerability,exacerbate existing risks, and possibly create new risksas well as new opportunities. However, we also need toask questions about the potential effects ofdevelopment paths themselves.

Moving beyond the climate change “damage report”requires an approach that explicitly integrates climatechange response and sustainable developmentinitiatives. Our study may have originated as anassessment of climate change impacts on waterresources, but impacts on water supply and demandhave considerable implications for regionaldevelopment. In addition, this is not a one-way street.Development choices will also affect the water supply-demand balance. Some development choices couldexacerbate climate-related water problems, while otherscould ameliorate them. But what are the practicalaspects of a long-term sustainable developmentpathway for the Okanagan? How would this pathway

FINAL REPORT | vii

incorporate potential climate change impacts andadaptation without inadvertently creating newvulnerabilities?

The Adaptation and Impacts Research Division ofEnvironment Canada and the Institute for Resources,Environment and Sustainability at the University ofBritish Columbia are collaborating to propose aresearch strategy to address the linkages between globalclimate change and regional sustainable development.The project, referred to as AMSD (Adaptation-Mitigation-Sustainable Development), employs anintegrative approach in which the focus is on potentialsynergies of response measures, and on defining theresponse capacity of regions to address thesechallenges. The niche of the proposed OkanaganAMSD case study would be the explicit linkage ofclimate change response measures and regionaldevelopment actions. The study would be looking forsynergies that would be mutually beneficial toachieving both objectives of enhancing sustainabilityand reducing climate-related vulnerability. TheOkanagan case study would begin with water resourceissues, building on past and ongoing research, but withthe goal of extending this to the exploration of alternatedevelopment paths already being considered within the region.

viii | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

Sommaire Executif

Le présent document est le rapport final de l’étude « Participatory Integrated Assessment ofWater Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia ». Cette

étude a pu être réalisée grâce à l’aide financière accordée par le Programme sur les impacts etl’adaptation liés aux changements climatiques du gouvernement du Canada (projet A846). Lesactivités de recherche décrites dans le rapport résultent de travaux interdisciplinaires réalisésen collaboration par des chercheurs d’Environnement Canada, de Smart Growth on theGround, de l’Université de la Colombie-Britannique et du ministère de l’Environnement de laColombie-Britannique ainsi que par de nombreux partenaires locaux et des chercheursd’Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada et de l’Université nationale d’Australie qui ontparticipé à notre étude de 2002 - 2004.

Des recherches antérieures sur les changements climatiques et les ressources en eau du bassinde l’Okanagan depuis 1997 ont permis d’obtenir un rapport des dommages possibles. On y adécrit les incidences sur l’approvisionnement et la demande en eau et amorcé un dialogue surles options et les défis de l’adaptation. La présente étude constitue une évaluation participativeintégrée (EPI) de la réaction du réseau hydrographique de l’Okanagan aux changementsclimatiques. Cette EPI a pour objet d’élargir le dialogue sur les incidences des choix enmatière d’adaptation pour la gestion de l’eau afin d’y inclure les consommations résidentielleset agricoles et les débits de conservation des cours d’eau, cela pour l’ensemble du bassin etcertaines sous-régions. Pour ce faire, on a collaboré à des études en cours dans ces régions etutilisé les résultats de travaux antérieurs.

L’étude a pour éléments principaux :

1. Demande en eau résidentielle : élaboration de scénarios de la demande résidentielle futuretenant compte de la croissance démographique et d’options d’adaptation;

2. Coûts d’adaptation : élargissement de la gamme des diverses mesures de gestion del’approvisionnement et de la demande et incorporation des coûts de traitement de l’eau;

3. Modèle d’aide à la décision : élaboration d’un modèle du système fondé sur un processusaxé sur les groupes et faisant intervenir des experts locaux afin de mieux connaître lesincidences des changements climatiques et de la démographie et les effets de la mise enœuvre de diverses mesures d’adaptation;

4. Politique d’adaptation – conception résidentielle : intégration des changementsclimatiques à la conception des collectivités par l’application du processus de l’initiativeSmart Growth on the Ground pour l’élaboration d’un plan d’urbanisme axé sur l’utilisation « intelligente » de l’eau pour la ville d’Oliver et la région avoisinante;

5. Politique d’adaptation – consommation agricole de l’eau : examen des vues desagriculteurs sur une politique régionale de l’eau.

FINAL REPORT | ix

Demande en eau résidentielle

Des études antérieures portant sur le bassin del’Okanagan ont montré que la consommationquotidienne moyenne d’eau résidentielle était fortementvariable dans cette région, se situant entre 470 et 789 litres environ par personne et par jour (Lpj). Dansle district d’irrigation de Lakeview, la consommationestimée allait jusqu’à 1 370 Lpj au cours d’une année desécheresse. La consommation d’eau dans le bassin del’Okanagan est relativement élevée lorsqu’on la compareà la consommation municipale ailleurs au Canada.

Le bassin de l’Okanagan a subi une croissancedémographique extrêmement élevée, sa populationpassant de quelque 210 000 personnes en 1986 à 310 000 personnes en 2001. On s’attend à ce que cettetendance se maintienne et que la population atteigneprès de 450 000 personnes en 2031. Une telleaugmentation et les aménagements connexes setraduiront par un accroissement de la demande en eaudes municipalités. La planification de la demandemunicipale en eau devra tenir compte non seulementde la population dans la région mais aussi destendances de la croissance urbaine et de la variation dela demande en eau qui résultera d’un climat plus chaud.

Se fondant sur des travaux antérieurs signalés dansl’étude de 2004, trois études de cas ont été choisiespour la présente recherche : ce sont celles des servicesd’alimentation en eau des villes d’Oliver, de Penticton etde Kelowna. L’étude est du type analyse à attributsmultiples dans laquelle des scénarios, fondés sur lesdonnées disponibles, servent à examiner les effetscombinés de la croissance démographique, du typerésidentiel, des changements climatiques et de lagestion de la demande sur la demande municipale eneau. Cette démarche par scénarios visait à obtenir desdescriptions de la future demande en eau qui soientplausibles pour une gamme de tendancesd’aménagement, de changements climatiques et degestion de l’eau qui pourraient se produire. Desscénarios de la demande future en eau ont été calculéspour chaque étude de cas en utilisant un modèle parchiffrier électronique à intervalles d’une année pour lapériode allant de 2001 à 2069, ce qui correspond auxpériodes des décennies 2020 et 2050 typiques desscénarios de changements climatiques.

Trois scénarios de croissance démographique (faible,moyenne et élevée) ont été définis pour chaque étudede cas à partir des prévisions de croissancedémographique publiées dans les documents deplanification disponibles. Des scénarios de constructiondomiciliaire de types « préférences actuelles » et

« croissance intelligente » ont été définis pour destendances de développement à faible ou à hautedensité. Les six scénarios de changements climatiquesélaborés pour l’étude de 2004 ont été appliqués afin dedéterminer les incidences des changements climatiquessur la consommation de l’eau résidentielle à l’extérieurdes habitations. Une recherche des publications a étéréalisée pour dresser une liste des options de la gestionde la demande résidentielle (GDR) et leurs économiesd’eau correspondantes. Ces renseignements ont ensuiteservi à définir sept options de GDR pour l’essai desscénarios de la demande en eau. Des options de GDRont été choisies pour refléter une gamme de démarchesd’économies d’eau comportant notamment des incitatifséconomiques, des programmes éducatifs et dessolutions d’ordre mécanique ou technique.

Dans le cas de Kelowna, la croissance de la populationet de la demande d’habitations du scénario despréférences actuelles représentait des augmentationsmoyennes de la consommation d’eau de 41 à 99 % aucours des années 2020 et de 115 à 360 % au cours desannées 2050. L’augmentation maximale de laconsommation déterminée par les scénarios deconstruction domiciliaire des préférences actuelles, enl’absence d’effets des changements climatiques et deGDR, se situait entre 163 %, pour le scénario decroissance faible, et 570 %, pour le scénario decroissance élevée.

L’effet des changements climatiques sur la consommationde l’eau au cours des années 2020 variait de 6 % à 10 %environ. Cet effet devenait plus prononcé au cours desannées 2050, atteignant de 10 à 19 %. L’effet deschangements climatiques était accru si on le combinaità la croissance de la population et à celle de laconstruction domiciliaire correspondant au scénario despréférences actuelles. Cela s’explique par le nombreaccru d’habitations occupant de plus grands terrains et,par conséquent, par l’augmentation de la consommationd’eau à l’extérieur. Dans le scénario de croissance élevéede la population, les effets combinés des changementsclimatiques et de la croissance démographique donnentlieu à une augmentation de la consommation de l’eau sesituant entre 111 et 119 % au cours des années 2020 etentre 407 et 446 % au cours des années 2050, parrapport à l’année de référence 2001. Cela correspond àde 12 à 21 % de plus que la valeur s’expliquant par laseule croissance démographique au cours des années2020 et à de 45 à 86 % de plus au cours des années2050.

Les incidences des changements climatiques sur laplanification de la gestion de l’eau donnent lieu à un

x | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

devancement des demandes annuelles prévues qui seproduisent plusieurs années plus tôt dans les scénariosde changements climatiques. Par exemple, au cours de la période de 2030 à 2039, la demande annuelle eneau correspondant à des changements climatiques « moyens » se produit quatre ans environ plus tôt comparativement au scénario d’absence dechangements climatiques. Pour la période 2040 à 2059, cette augmentation se produit en moyenne six ans plus tôt.

Un programme de GDR mixte, comportant l’éducationde la population, l’utilisation de compteurs et d’unetarification progressive par tranches, le xéropaysagismeet l’utilisation d’électroménagers de haute efficacité aété évalué, à l’aide de divers scénarios. Dans le cas desscénarios de changements climatiques et parcomparaison à l’année 2001, la consommation d’eaurésidentielle n’augmentait que de 2 à 5 % au cours desannées 2020, mais de 81 à 92 % au cours des années2050. Avec une croissance démographique faible, laconsommation d’eau au cours des années 2020 étaitmême inférieure de 10 à 13 % à celle de 2001 au coursdes années 2020 et n’augmentait que de 24 à 32 % aucours des années 2050. Avec une croissancedémographique élevée, la consommation moyenned’eau augmentait de 20 à 24 % au cours des années2020 et de 165 à 182 % au cours des années 2050. Deséconomies semblables ont été signalées pour les étudesde cas des villes de Penticton et d’Oliver.

Le potentiel non utilisé de la gestion de la demandedans la région de l’Okanagan offre une latitudeappréciable pour gérer des régimes variablesd’approvisionnement et de demande sans nuire à laqualité de vie des utilisateurs. Dans le cas de cesscénarios, la GDR donne lieu à des réductionsextrêmement importantes de la consommation d’eau,même lorsque des programmes de gestion de lademande sont déjà en place. La mesure de laconsommation peut permettre de réduire la demandede façon appréciable, mais l’adoption complèted’appareils économisant l’eau combinée auxéropaysagisme permettrait d’obtenir une réduction de la consommation beaucoup plus importante quela seule utilisation de compteurs d’eau.

Il est aussi important de noter que la GDR présente desavantages pour le caractère durable général del’Okanagan qui débordent largement de l’efficacité del’utilisation de l’eau. La gestion de la demande réduit lasensibilité des systèmes de gestion de l’eau auxinfluences externes, comme les changementsclimatiques et les tendances de l’aménagement.

Indépendamment de ce que réserve l’avenir des pointsde vue des changements climatiques et de la croissancedémographique, la gestion de la demande demeurepertinente aux conditions actuelles et constitue uneoption « sans regret » pour traiter de toute une gammede préoccupations.

Coûts de l’adaptation

Cet élément met l’accent sur les mesures pouvant êtreprises par des services publics pour s’adapter àl’hydrologie changeante du bassin et à l’augmentationde la demande en eau découlant du réchauffement duclimat. Ces mesures, qui visent à accroître la fiabilité del’approvisionnement du réseau pour satisfaire à sesbesoins ne font pas appel à des concepts nouveaux etleurs caractéristiques de génie et de gestion sont bienconnues.

Par le passé, les constructeurs de nouveaux réseauxd’alimentation ont utilisé les eaux de surface du bassinde l’Okanagan. Ils ont tout d’abord utilisé des systèmesd’alimentation par gravité à partir de réservoirs situésen amont et ensuite pompé l’eau du cours principallorsque les réservoirs des tributaires se sont avérésinsuffisants. On a ensuite utilisé l’eau souterraine, maissurtout comme source d’approvisionnement secondaireou limitée localement à de petits volumes. Àl’exception d’Osoyoos, les eaux de surface constituentla principale source d’approvisionnement des grandescollectivités.

Les coûts d’obtention de l’eau souterraine peuvent êtrerelativement faibles comparativement à ceux d’autressources. Des travaux récemment réalisés par leGlenmore-Ellison Improvement District illustrent bienla rentabilité de la consommation de l’eau souterraine.Le puits, actuellement en construction, nécessitera desinvestissements estimés à 258 000 $ pour uneproduction annuelle de 1 200 mégalitres (ML), ce quicorrespond à un coût unitaire de 206 $ par ML. Cecoût est extrêmement faible comparé à celui d’autressolutions, mais il existe des problèmes qui nuiront àcette utilisation.

Le stockage en amont représente une autre solutiond’alimentation en eau. Les coûts de cette option sontfonction de facteurs particuliers au lieu et varientconsidérablement entre les installations. La hauteur dubarrage est particulièrement importante et sonaccroissement donne lieu à des exigences deconstruction plus sévères et à une augmentation descoûts. Les coûts d’installations de stockage récentesvarient entre 418 et 4 988 $ par ML.

FINAL REPORT | xi

Les coûts du pompage à partir du cours principal, ycompris le lac Okanagan, se situent probablement entre800 et 3 200 $ par ML, tout dépendant de la hauteurde pompage, de la longueur de la conduite de pompageet de la possibilité d’utiliser des réservoirs d’équilibrageexistant déjà. Les coûts de certaines installationsnouvelles ont été déterminés dans le cadre de la présenteétude et ceux-ci se situent entre 114 et 1 375 $ parML, mais la valeur inférieure ne représente que lescoûts de la conduite de prise d’eau du lac à l’exclusionde ceux du transport et aucune des études ne tientcompte des coûts des réservoirs et du traitement del’eau. Mais comme la qualité de l’eau du cours principalest souvent meilleure que celle de l’eau d’amont, lescoûts de traitement peuvent aussi être inférieurs. Étantdonné la possibilité de mise en place d’installations depompage nouvelles importantes à partir du coursprincipal, il est justifié d’examiner certains des élémentsà petite et à grande échelle. Par exemple, le fait defournir une alimentation en eau à une altitudesupérieure à 130 mètres de celle du lac peut exiger unposte de pompage supplémentaire.

Les coûts du traitement de l’eau devraient être pris encompte au moment du calcul des options d’adaptationde l’approvisionnement. Dans la plupart de ces options,les coûts du traitement sont au moins aussi élevés queceux de la mise en œuvre de l’approvisionnement. Lecoût des diverses technologies de filtration, souventexigées par la réglementation, varie de 2 700 $ à plusde 5 000 $ par ML d’eau traitée. La gamme des coûtsde la désinfection UV et de la clarification est debeaucoup inférieure. Les coûts du traitement de l’eauprennent donc encore plus d’importance dans le cas desdécisions d’adaptation.

Des travaux antérieurs sur des options de DGR ontpermis de connaître la gamme des coûts de diversesoptions, notamment l’éducation de la population, lescalendriers d’irrigation, les systèmes d’irrigation à hauteefficacité, la détection des fuites et l’utilisation decompteurs pour l’eau résidentielle. Les calendriersd’irrigation (400 – 700 $ par ML) et l’éducation de lapopulation (700 $ par ML) étaient les deux options lesmoins coûteuses. La gamme des coûts de la détectiondes fuites et des systèmes d’irrigation à haute efficacitése situait entre 1 200 $ et 1 400 $ et celle del’utilisation de compteurs était de 1 500 $ à 2 200 $par ML économisé. Le coût de chacune de ces mesuresvariait en fonction des hypothèses formulées pour lataille et l’emplacement du système.

Des données tirées d’exemples récents de mesures deconservation existent pour le centre du bassin de

l’Okanagan notamment pour les districts d’irrigation deBlack Mountain (DIBM) et de South East Kelowna(DISEK) ainsi que pour la ville de Kelowna. Le coût descompteurs dans le DISEK est de 450 $ environ par ML.Un programme proposé d’utilisation de compteursrésidentiels par le DISEK a un coût supérieur quiatteint 2 500 $ environ par ML économisé. Dans le casdu DIBM, le coût par ML économisé est estimé à 600 $environ pour l’utilisation de compteurs agricoles. Laville de Kelowna a appliqué un programme decompteurs résidentiels en 1996-1997 qui comportait unvolet éducation de la population. Ce programme apermis d’obtenir une réduction de 20 pour 100 de laconsommation d’eau à des fins résidentielles. Le coûtpar ML économisé est de 2 000 $ environ.

La conservation de l’eau sera souvent l’option préféréedes services publics étant donné ses avantagesmonétaires, surtout dans le contexte du coût dutraitement de l’eau de nouvelles sourcesd’approvisionnement. Mais en dépit de ces avantages,les mesures de conservation prises par ces servicespourront s’avérer insuffisantes pour relever les défisconjoints que sont la croissance démographique et leschangements climatiques. Les économies d’eaupossibles de 20 à 30 % obtenues par les mesures deconservation des municipalités pourront ne représenterque quelques années de la croissance de la demandedécoulant de l’augmentation de la population. Les gainsabsolus, plus importants, réalisés par l’utilisation decompteurs agricoles seront plus longs à obtenir. Lesservices publics sont donc obligés de chercher denouvelles sources d’approvisionnement.

Quelques propositions de réservoirs en amontprésentent des avantages tant pour l’ensemble du bassinque pour des services publics particuliers. Les lieux destockage en amont les plus rentables ont déjà été misen valeur, ce qui restreint tout autre aménagement de lapart des municipalités et des districts d’irrigation. Étantdonné les avantages financiers, les services publicss’intéresseront à la mise en valeur des sources d’eausouterraine lorsque cela sera possible.

Modèle d’aide à la décision

Cet élément avait pour objet d’aider les gestionnairesdes ressources en eau de l’Okanagan à intégrer leschangements climatiques à leur planification et à leurélaboration de politiques et à évaluer leurs ressourcesen eau dans un contexte systémique. Cela a été fait parl’application d’un processus d’évaluation participativeintégrée (EPI) axé sur l’élaboration d’un modèle dedynamique des systèmes. L’étude n’a pas été limitée aux

xii | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

changements climatiques, elle a aussi porté sur un largeéventail d’enjeux définis conjointement par lesparticipants et les chercheurs. Les résultats duprocessus ont été : 1) une activité communed’acquisition de connaissances de la part desparticipants et de l’équipe de recherche et 2) l’obtentiond’un modèle de simulation, qui est un outil d’aide à ladécision pour l’accroissement de la connaissance dusystème et l’examen de scénarios plausibles et depossibilités d’adaptation.

Les membres du groupe d’élaboration du modèle ontété recrutés par invitation, cela afin d’obtenir unereprésentation diversifiée et équilibrée des diversorganismes et responsables dans le domaine de lagestion des ressources en eau du bassin de l’Okanagan.Des représentants des Premières Nations, desgouvernements fédéral et provincial (C.-B), des districtsrégionaux, des administrations locales, d’organisationsenvironnementales non gouvernementales,d’institutions du savoir, des districts d’irrigation, d’uneassociation agricole (BC Fruit Growers Association), degroupes-conseils et d’un groupe d’initiatives locales(The Okanagan Partnership) y ont participé. Ils ontcommuniqué une grande quantité d’idées sur le réseaude l’Okanagan, notamment dans les domaines del’hydrologie, de l’eau importée de l’extérieur, du débitdes cours d’eau, de la qualité de l’eau et de l’utilisationdes terres (Agricultural Land Reserve), de la foresterie,de la croissance démographique et du développementurbain, de la consommation résidentielle de l’eau et dela demande d’eau à des fins agricoles.

Le logiciel utilisé pour l’élaboration du modèle était lelogiciel des stocks et des flux STELLA™. Lesparticipants ont appris à connaître le logiciel au moyend’une série d’ateliers et de séances individuelles qui aduré une année. Des recherches antérieures portant surdes scénarios de changements climatiques et surl’hydrologie ainsi que sur la demande en eau à des finsagricoles et résidentielles ont été des bases importantespour l’élaboration du modèle. Les participants ontfourni l’information nécessaire pour établir des liensentre l’objet de ces scénarios et le contexte du bassin del’Okanagan. Le logiciel a été le moyen utilisé pourexprimer ces relations. Comme les participants n’ontpas eux-mêmes créé le code du modèle, l’obtentiond’un sentiment de propriété et de confiance envers lemodèle a constitué un défi. Les ateliers étaient lesmeilleures occasions de faire connaître le modèle pardes interactions directes et des échanges avec l’équipede modélisation.

L’importance à long terme de ce processus demodélisation participative pour l’élaboration de

stratégies ne peut être déterminée au cours de cetteétape du projet. Étant donné l’absence de groupestémoins, il ne sera peut-être jamais possible de mesurerles changements résultant de nos travaux. Nouscroyons cependant que le processus a été utile auxparticipants qui ont été passablement satisfaits de cetteexpérience. Tout au long du processus, ils ontrecommandé que ces travaux soient communiquésà un plus grand nombre d’intéressés, particulièrementaux élus et à la population.

Un seul scénario climatique a été mis à l’essai à l’aide decette version du modèle : le Hadley A2. L’un des sixscénarios évalués au cours de l’étude de 2004, le HadleyA2 est un scénario climatique dont les résultats vont demodérés à ceux du pire cas selon des critèresd’évaluation et des périodes utilisés. En appliquant cescénario climatique et une gamme de scénarios de lacroissance démographique régionale, le modèleindiquait, qu’en l’absence d’interventions, les demandesrégionales en eau ne seraient pas satisfaites à l’avenir.La demande sera supérieure à l’approvisionnement aucours des années 2050 et dès les années 2020 aumoment d’années relativement sèches. Une mise enœuvre vigoureuse de mesures de conservation de l’eaurésidentielle pourrait permettre de réduire la demandetotale de 8 à 12 % au cours des années 2050(respectivement pour une croissance démographiquefaible ou importante). De toute façon, ces mesures sontinsuffisantes pour combler à elles seules l’écart entrel’approvisionnement et la demande.

Les éléments de l’approvisionnement et de la demanderéagissent différemment aux contraintes de lacroissance démographique et des changementsclimatiques. Selon le scénario Hadley A2 intégré aumodèle, le débit naturel dans le bassin résultant desprécipitations diminuera, par rapport aux valeurshistoriques, de façon plutôt graduelle, de 5 % environ,au cours des années 2020 et de façon très importante,de 21 % environ, au cours des années 2050. Au mêmemoment, la demande à des fins agricoles augmenteradans l’ensemble du bassin avec les changementsclimatiques. La demande résidentielle augmenteraaussi, mais cette dernière semble plus sensible au tauxde croissance qu’aux changements climatiques, celadans la gamme des taux de croissance utilisés. Les tauxde la demande de l’écosystème du cours d’eau sont plusdifficiles à définir. Pour la présente étude, ils ont étéfondés sur les politiques établies, mais comme cespolitiques autorisent de corriger les besoins au coursdes années de faibles débits, la demande du débitsemble décroître avec les changements climatiques.Cela s’explique par une incidence accrue d’années de

FINAL REPORT | xiii

faibles débits et ne reflète pas nécessairement lesbesoins réels de l’écosystème sous des climats pluschauds.

La somme de ces trois besoins se traduit par unedemande moyenne totale correspondant à de 79 à 82 %du débit total au cours des années 2020 et à de 82 à113 % du débit total au cours des années 2050. Lesvaleurs inférieures de la gamme correspondent à unecroissance résidentielle lente et les valeurs supérieures àune croissance démographique rapide. Une applicationrigoureuse de mesures d’adaptation résidentielles peutcompenser en partie la demande accrue résultant del’accroissement de la population. Des mesures deconservation supplémentaires dans le secteur agricoleaideraient aussi à compenser l’augmentation de lademande due aux changements climatiques, mais lasomme de toutes ces politiques de conservationpourrait s’avérer insuffisante pour assurer le maintiendu niveau de stabilité du système noté pour la périodede simulation de 1961 à 1990.

Une utilisation accrue du lac Okanagan permettrait demieux satisfaire aux futures demandes des secteursagricole et résidentiel. Mais la capacité du système àsatisfaire aux besoins de débit futurs du cours d’eau sedétériore de façon appréciable et le niveau du lacOkanagan s’abaisserait. Cela montre qu’un prélèvementsupplémentaire des eaux du lac Okanagan minerait àlui seul la capacité du lac et accroitrait le risque pourles écosystèmes aquatiques. Cela ne signifie cependantpas qu’une utilisation accrue du lac devrait être rejetéeà titre d’option d’adaptation possible. Si cela était fait depair avec la GDR, le rendement général du systèmepourrait être amélioré.

Adaptation – conception résidentielle

L’une des démarches à la conception et à la mise enœuvre de mesures d’adaptation, dans le contexte dudéveloppement local et régional, est représentée par leprocessus de la « croissance intelligente », ou SmartGrowth, mis de l’avant par l’organisme Smart Growthon the Ground (SGOG) dont le programme uniqueconsiste à aider les collectivités de la Colombie-Britannique à planifier et à mettre en œuvre des formesde croissance urbaine plus durables.

En 2005 - 2006, les travaux de la SGOG ont été axéssur la région d’Oliver, en Colombie-Britannique. Lespartenaires de la SGOG ont établi des liens avecl’équipe de l’évaluation participative intégrée afin demieux connaître la façon d’allier la recherche sur leschangements climatiques à la conception urbaine dansle contexte du processus de conception de la SGOG encours à Oliver.

L’une des activités clés du processus de la SGOG est la « charrette de conception » qui est une réunion deconception intensive regroupant divers intervenants.Des citoyens, des élus, des fonctionnaires et d’autresexperts sont réunis en présence de concepteursprofessionnels. Dans une atmosphère de collaboration,les membres de la charrette participent à un « remue-méninges illustré ». L’équipe crée des conceptsd’utilisation des terres, de transport, d’urbanisme etd’autres plans de conception pour la zone géographiqueà l’étude. Le résumé de conception prévoyait uneréduction cible de 38 % de la consommation d’eaurésidentielle d’ici 2041. L’équipe était aussi incitée àexaminer des normes du bâtiment plus « vertes »visant la conservation de l’eau. L’équipe a formulédiverses recommandations sur la gestion de l’eau et desmesures pour lutter contre les changements climatiques,notamment l’augmentation de la densité résidentielle, lexéropaysagisme, des rues et des édifices plus « verts »et une utilisation accrue des dispositifs d’économie del’eau résidentielle.

Adaptation – agriculture

Cet élément avait pour objectif d’accroître laconnaissance du processus de l’adaptation autonomeaux changements climatiques et des facteurs à prendreen compte pour l’élaboration d’une politique de l’eaudestinée à l’agriculture dans le bassin de l’Okanagan.Pour y parvenir, les auteurs de l’étude ont examiné lesmodes d’utilisation de l’eau par les viticulteurs del’Okanagan et la façon dont ils réagiront probablementà une pénurie d’eau. La connaissance de la façon dontles viticulteurs prennent des décisions en matière degestion de risques multiples et de la façon dont desmesures prises par un particulier pour réduire lesrisques influent sur l’exposition des autres fait partieintégrante de la connaissance des types de mesuresd’adaptation qui sont ou seront prises par lesagriculteurs et des mesures stratégiques qu’ilsaccepteront d’appuyer.

De l’information sur les points de vue des agriculteursen ce qui touche l’utilisation actuelle et future de l’eau aété obtenue au moyen d’entrevues réalisées dans larégion de South Okanagan. Des travaux antérieursavaient indiqué que les viticulteurs de cette régionétaient plus vulnérables aux changements climatiqueset plus dépendants de l’eau pour la gestion des risquesque ceux du centre et du nord. Les agriculteurs ont étéconsultés en janvier 2006 à l’aide d’un questionnairesemi-structuré comportant un mélange de questions àréponses limitées ou non et conçu de façon à faciliter lacomparaison des réponses et à permettre de donner desréponses non prévues.

xiv | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

L’examen des choix des exploitants en matière detechnologie d’irrigation indique une préférence pour lessystèmes d’irrigation permettant une régie stricte del’irrigation des vignes. La plupart des agriculteursutilisaient le goutte-à-goutte ou une combinaison dugoutte-à-goutte et de l’aspersion. L’arrosage paraspersion est généralement perçu comme la technologied’irrigation la moins économe en eau. L’avantage dugoutte-à-goutte le plus couramment indiqué réside dansla possibilité de produire un raisin de très hautequalité. L’irrigation fondée sur le déficit en eau est facileà réaliser car ce système est régi de façon stricte. Lamajorité des répondants ont indiqué que la meilleurefaçon d’accroître les marges de profits consistait àmettre l’accent sur la qualité du raisin en utilisantl’irrigation fondée sur le déficit en eau.

Du point de vue de l’industrie, des étés et des hiversplus chauds constituent un avantage car ils donnentlieu à un prolongement vers le nord de la zone viticoledans la vallée. Des hivers plus chauds pourraient aussis’avérer bénéfiques si l’incidence des gels « extrêmes »(moins de -30o Celsius) diminuait, car les vignesseraient moins endommagées. Les agriculteursconsultés se sont cependant dits préoccupés par unevariabilité accrue des températures car, au printemps età l’automne, les vignes sont très sensibles aux gelsimmédiatement précédés d’un temps doux. Lestempératures plus élevées sont aussi associées à unamincissement de la couverture de neige, mais lesviticulteurs ne pouvaient prévoir si cela seraitcompensé par des précipitations accrues à d’autresmoments de l’année.

Les autres risques indiqués par les producteurs avaienttrait aux décisions prises par les administrationslocales, provinciales et fédérales, à la vente parl’entremise des services de distribution des alcools, àune réglementation accrue des vignobles, à l’escaladedes conflits urbains-ruraux et à la planification del’aménagement local des terres. Certains ont indiqué,comme risques importants, les extrêmes et la variabilitédu climat. Ces risques sont associés au froid extrême etau temps doux qui augmentent la vulnérabilité aux gelsde printemps et d’automne, à la présence d’eau en excèset aux ravageurs. Les risques liés aux changementsclimatiques et à la pénurie d’eau n’ont été mentionnésque par un petit nombre des répondants.

Les perceptions des agriculteurs à l’égard de l’avenir deleur approvisionnement en eau et de celui du bassinhydrographique varient de façon marquée. Il est à noterque celles des particuliers quant à la sécurité de leurapprovisionnement sont moins fonction de leurs vues

sur les changements hydrologiques que du contrôlequ’ils exercent sur leur propre approvisionnement eneau. Bon nombre de ceux qui étaient présents depuisplus de dix ans dans la vallée ont indiqué que lacouverture de neige avait diminué de façon constanteau cours des dix à quinze dernières années et que leclimat était plus chaud, plus variable et plus sujet à desextrêmes. Les opinions des agriculteurs sur l’incidencede la variabilité du climat sur l’approvisionnement eneau du bassin étaient partagées. Quatre ont indiqué queles régimes climatiques étaient cycliques et que latendance actuelle au réchauffement devrait s’atténuerquelque peu d’ici 2031. Dans un tel scénario,l’alimentation en eau demeurera la même. D’autresétaient d’avis que l’amincissement de la couverture deneige indiquait un réchauffement du climat, à court ouà long terme, et que cela réduira sans doute encore plusl’alimentation en eau du bassin d’ici 2031.

Les recherches sur l’adaptation agricole montrent quel’adaptation aux changements climatiques se produitdans un contexte caractérisé par de multiplescontraintes et que les agriculteurs doivent faire descompromis difficiles pour maximiser l’atteinted’objectifs diversifiés. Les changements climatiquesn’étant qu’un des nombreux défis gérés par lesagriculteurs, une politique d’adaptation préventivedevrait s’attaquer aux problèmes actuels sanscompromettre la capacité des agriculteurs à gérerd’autres risques.

Expérience acquise et voie à suivre

À mesure que le bassin de l’Okanagan subira uneréduction de ses ressources en eau, d’importantesquestions seront soulevées quant aux futures demandeset à la façon dont elles seront façonnées par les diversesforces agissantes. Notre recherche quantitative a misl’accent sur les changements climatiques eux-mêmes eta comporté l’utilisation de scénarios de croissancedémographique, mais nous n’avons pas explicitementexaminé (ou modélisé) des voies de développement deremplacement. Nos études qualitatives fondées sur ledialogue ont donné quelques aperçus des relationsentre les événements climatiques récents et les réactionsdes particuliers et des organismes. Nous concluons,comme cela était prévisible, que les changementsclimatiques à venir pourront faire ressortir une certainevulnérabilité, exacerber des risques existant déjà et,peut-être, créer de nouveaux risques ainsi que denouvelles possibilités. Nous devons aussi nousinterroger sur les effets possibles des modes dedéveloppement eux-mêmes.

FINAL REPORT | xv

Le dépassement de l’étape du « compte rendu desdommages » des changements climatiques exige unedémarche qui intègre explicitement la réaction auxchangements climatiques et les mesures dudéveloppement durable. Bien que notre étude ait pudébuter comme une évaluation des incidences deschangements climatiques sur les ressources en eau, iln’en demeure pas moins que les incidences surl’approvisionnement et la demande en eau ont uneinfluence considérable sur le développement régional.En outre, il ne s’agit pas d’une question à sens unique.Les choix en matière de développement influeront aussisur l’équilibre entre l’approvisionnement et la demandeen eau. Certains choix de développement pourraientexacerber les problèmes d’approvisionnement liés auxchangements climatiques tandis que d’autres pourraientles amenuiser. Mais quels sont les aspects pratiquesd’un mode de développement durable à long termepour le bassin de l’Okanagan? Comment ce mode dedéveloppement pourrait-il tenir compte des incidencespossibles des changements climatiques et del’adaptation sans créer involontairement de nouvellesvulnérabilités?

La Division de recherches sur les impacts et l’adaptationd’Environnement Canada et l’Institute for Resources,Environment and Sustainability situé à l’Université de laColombie-Britannique collaborent dans le but deproposer une stratégie de recherche pour l’étude desliens entre les changements climatiques mondiaux et ledéveloppement durable régional. Ce projet surl’adaptation, l’atténuation et le développement durable(Adaptation-Mitigation-Sustainable Development) faitappel à une démarche intégrative qui met l’accent surles synergies possibles des mesures d’intervention et surla définition d’une capacité d’intervention des régionspour relever ces défis. Le créneau de l’étude de casproposée dans le cadre du projet pour le bassin del’Okanagan est le lien explicite entre les mesuresd’intervention en réaction aux changements climatiqueset les mesures de développement régional. L’étudeporterait sur la recherche de synergies permettantd’atteindre à la fois les objectifs d’une augmentation ducaractère durable et d’une réduction de la vulnérabilitéaux changements climatiques. L’étude de cas del’Okanagan débuterait par les enjeux relatifs auxressources en eau en se fondant sur les recherchesantérieures et actuelles, mais en ayant pour but d’élargirces travaux à l’examen des modes de développement deremplacement déjà envisagés dans la région.

xvi | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

FINAL REPORT | 1

Introduction

Stewart Cohen

This is the final report of the study,“Participatory Integrated Assessment ofWater Management and Climate Change

in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia.” Thisstudy was made possible with financial supportfrom the Government of Canada’s ClimateChange Impacts and Adaptation Program(project A846).

Climate change has been a topic of research interestand public curiosity for many years. The recent effortto understand the implications of increasingatmospheric concentrations of Greenhouse Gases(GHG) has led to a broadening of the dialogue beyondthe natural sciences to include social sciences and theperspectives of local knowledge holders. As moreinformation on potential impacts of climate changebecomes available, the issue of climate change begins totake on a more local character. No longer is itrestricted to the world of global scale climate andenergy models. Although there is a clear need forcontinued work to resolve scientific uncertainties at theglobal scale, the translation of global scale climatechange scenarios to regional scale impacts scenarios hasled to increased engagement of regional scale interestsin the planning, management, and development ofclimate-sensitive resources. People, and theircommunities and governments, want to know therelevance of global climate change to them.

Moser (2006) describes the challenge of connectingglobal climate change with local policy interests byfocusing on three particular aspects: salience,credibility and legitimacy. Salience is about connectingglobal climate change to the domains of other issues(such as local economic development). There are manyopportunities for shared learning, but this can behampered by technical difficulties in knowledge

transfer, and by inflexibility in institutional mandates toconsider a cross-cutting issue like this. Credibilityrefers to the relationship between message andmessenger, expert and decision maker. Part of this isthe need to build trust between experts working atdifferent scales and within different disciplines.Legitimacy is perhaps the most difficult challenge, sinceit is about more than scientific “truth.” It depends onthe level of involvement in the construction of the“narrative” around local dimensions of climate change,and how such narratives may support or clash withexisting visions of the future.

As climate change moves from an issue defined bynatural science to one that has multiple dimensions, theneed to broaden the learning effort becomes even moreimportant. The interdisciplinary nature of climatechange impacts, and responses to these projectedimpacts, is both a challenge and an opportunity. Thechallenge is to translate global climate change scenariosinto local risk scenarios. Adaptation strategies canemerge from this process, but only if they fit within thelocal societal context. A methodology is thereforeneeded that can offer both the inter-scale translation ofclimate change, and the testing of local adaptationmeasures within the context of future localdevelopment paths.

1.1 Project History and Need for Further Research

Climate variability and change is known to have asignificant influence on freshwater systems. This hasbeen acknowledged on a global scale for both supplyand demand (e.g., Arnell 2004; Döll 2002; Kabat andvan Schaik 2003; Vörösmarty et al. 2000). There havebeen many regional and basin-scale case studies inNorth America and elsewhere (e.g.,Beuhler 2003;Christensen et al. 2004; Hurd et al. 2004; Kirshen et al.2005; Lofgren et al. 2002). The topic of climate changeadaptation specifically related to water resources in

chapter

1

2 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

Canada has also received increased attention (e.g., deLoe et al. 2001; Schertzer et al. 2004).

The Columbia Basin has been the subject of somedetailed case studies (Miles et al. 2000; Mote et al.2003; Payne et al. 2004), and this has been animportant factor in influencing the genesis andcontinued growth in research efforts in the Okanagan.Initial discussions in the late 1990s (Cohen et al. 2000)identified the nature of climate-related concerns forwater resources on the Canadian side of the ColumbiaBasin, particularly the implications for balancing watermanagement objectives in the face of changing resourceavailability and potential changes in demand.

This led to a series of studies in the Okanagan (Cohenand Kulkarni 2001; Cohen and Neale 2003; Cohen etal. 2004; Neilsen et al. 2001) and follow-uppublications (Cohen et al. 2006; Merritt et al. 2006;Neale 2005; Neilsen et al. submitted; Shepherd et al.2006) which focused on developing regional impactscenarios of water supply and demand, exploringregional adaptive decision making, and initiating adialogue on future adaptation options. The study beingreported here on Participatory Integrated Assessment(PIA) builds on these earlier efforts (Figure 1.1).

Water resources in the Okanagan Basin are under stressdue to recent increases in population, intensification ofirrigated agriculture and recreational activities,extensive logging at higher elevations, and concerns

about water quality and fish habitat. Currently, around65-70% of water diverted for human use in the basin isused for agriculture. The ongoing regional consultationprocess arising from these concerns (e.g. OkanaganBasin Water Board) is an indication of the extensiveinvolvement of regional stakeholders in water issues.The drought experienced in the Okanagan region in2003, and the resulting conflict over water allocationsand restrictions in Summerland (Moorhouse 2003),illustrates the need for a more holistic assessment ofadaptation options that would address climate-relatedchanges in local and basin-scale water supply anddemand.

There are a number of operational issues associatedwith climate change and its impact on watermanagement policies and practices in the OkanaganBasin. These include potential changes to the operatingplan for the mainstem reservoirs such as OkanaganLake. The present operating plan stems from aconsensus-based desirable balance between the goals ofeconomic development, environmental quality andsocial betterment in the Okanagan. The impact ofclimate change may result in a change in the balance ofthese goals. For example, the economic desire toextend the current irrigation season later into the fall,may conflict with the environmental goal ofmaintaining current instream flows for spawningsockeye and kokanee. A better understanding of theimpacts of climate change on Okanagan water supplies

FIGURE 1.1:

Evolution of Okanagan Study Framework.

FINAL REPORT | 3

and demands may lead to changes in a broad range ofoperational interests such as water allocation andlicensing policies and practices, internationalagreements regarding transboundary water issues, forestdevelopment planning, and the preparation of OfficialCommunity Plans in flood prone or water short areas.An example of a change might be the requirement toencourage development in areas that can be serviced bywater extractions from the mainstem river and lakesrather than continuing the current practice ofdeveloping smaller tributary streams and uplandreservoirs as water sources.

Previous studies in this region (Cohen and Kulkarni2001; Neilsen et al. 2001) provided an initialopportunity to explore climate change scenarios in theOkanagan. This was followed by Cohen and Neale(2003) and Cohen et al.(2004) which included thecalibration of a hydrologic model for the OkanaganBasin, the application of this model to producehydrologic scenarios based on climate changeprojections (Merritt et al. 2006), the development ofcrop water demand models for various crops,preliminary estimates of adaptation costs, and anincreased understanding of regional institutions andrecent examples of adaptation to water stress. Dialoguewas initiated on adaptation options and theirimplementation.

The key results of this collection of studies provide ascenario damage report, and the beginning of adialogue on how to respond to climate change impactsin a proactive way. The damage report for the 2050sand 2080s has the following highlights:

• Annual Okanagan Lake inflows from all surfacesources are projected to decline by up to 30% bythe 2080s,

• Seasonal peak streamflow is projected to occurearlier, possibly by a month or more by the 2080s,due to earlier snowmelt,

• Crop water demand is projected to increase by upto 60% by the 2080s, due to a longer warmergrowing season, and

• Residential water demand is projected to increasedue to anticipated population growth, with climatechange accelerating this rate of increase.

This combination of reduced supply and increaseddemand is expected to lead to an increased frequency ofhigh risk years in which local supply and demandthresholds are exceeded. An example for Trout Creek isshown in Figure 1.2. In this particular scenario, the

frequency of high risk years is 1 in 6 by the 2050s, and1 in 3 by the 2080s. Note that this example does notinclude residential demand, nor does it specify in-streamconservation flow requirements. If all demands wouldbe included, the margin between supply and demandwithin this climate change scenario would actually besmaller than what is portrayed here.

The Okanagan region’s semi-arid climate and rapidlygrowing population has led to a heightened awarenessof the need to manage for water shortages, and this hasbeen demonstrated over the last several decades.Various examples of innovative strategies include:

• Metering and scheduling of irrigators in the SouthEast Kelowna Irrigation District (SEKID),

• Metering of urban users in Kelowna,

• Water reclamation in Vernon, and

• Utility amalgamation in the Vernon area, leading tothe creation of the Greater Vernon Water Utility.

A review of historic costs of various supply and demandoptions revealed a wide range, from $500 to $2700 peracre-foot saved or supplied. This review was based ona range of historic experiences and not developedwithin any particular climate change scenarios.

Although the scenarios appear to indicate a clearpicture of increasing risk of water shortage, it is notclear how these changes will affect operations for floodcontrol, reservoir releases for fish, opportunities andconstraints for irrigation, or other demands on theresource. Previous and ongoing studies did includesome exploration of adaptation alternatives, includingcosts, but there does not appear to be a single bestoption that will satisfy all water-related concerns.There is a need to provide more specifics on theeconomic and institutional aspects of adaptation and toexplore how various regional stakeholders’ preferencescould affect the selection of options for an adaptationportfolio for the region.

What is missing from this collection of research is away to evaluate the effectiveness of adaptation optionswithin the scenarios described above. This is acomplex challenge because of the many sources ofsupply and pressures for demand within the Okanaganwater system. Evaluation of the system requires amethod that offers a way to test various combinationsof adaptation measures within different scenarios ofclimate change and development. Such a methodwould not be an operational forecasting tool, but couldprovide insights into the sensitivities of the Okanagan

4 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

water system, thereby supporting the dialogue on long-term adaptive management.

The adaptation dialogue already emerging from the2004 study indicated differences between communitiesregarding local perceptions of future water needs. Thiscontributes to a relative lack of awareness of regionalbasin-scale water resource challenges. Participants inthe basin-scale dialogue event held as part of the 2004study indicated support for institutional andgovernance efforts to better integrate water and landuse planning, and to expand the mandate of basinwater authorities. The drought and fires of 2003contributed to this growing desire for basin-wide watergovernance, and this has led to an expanded mandategiven to the Okanagan Basin Water Board in 2006,including the establishment of the OkanaganWatershed Stewardship Council as an advisory body.

It is important to emphasize that there has been noattribution of the 2003 drought to climate change,either by local authorities or by the research team. Thedrought did raise awareness of the sensitivity and

vulnerability of the region to a climatic event that hascharacteristics similar to the scenarios of climatechange, and this has reinforced the need for furtherresearch on climate change adaptation.

1.2 Study Objectives and Structure of thisReport

The participatory integrated assessment framework(Figure 1.1) represents a merger of collaborativeresearch activities initiated in previous studies. Thegoal of the PIA is to expand the dialogue onimplications of adaptation choices for watermanagement to include domestic and agriculture uses,in-stream conservation flows, for the basin as a wholeas well as for particular sub-regions. This has beenaccomplished through collaboration with ongoingstudies in these areas, and to build on the results ofearlier work.

A major component of this project has been thedevelopment of a decision support tool, using a group-based participatory approach. Stacy Langsdale

FIGURE 1.2:

Projected changes in annual flow and crop water demand for Trout Creek (Neilsen et al., 2004, 2006). The verticaland horizontal lines indicate existing supply and demand thresholds. The HadCM3-A2 scenario represents projectedchanges in climate simulated by the HadCM3 global climate model using the A2 scenario of rapid growth in globalemissions of greenhouse gases obtained from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see Taylor andBarton, 2004).

FINAL REPORT | 5

(Chapters 4.0 and 5.0) describes both the tooldevelopment process and results for various systemindicators of different combinations of climate changescenarios, population growth scenarios, andmanagement decisions. In order for the model toreflect the interconnections between climate changeand the Okanagan water system, it has been importantfor the research team to have access to a wide range ofinformation to inform the modeling process. Inputsincluded scenarios from the Cohen et al.(2004) study,and contributed information from parallel studies andlocal experts.

Scenario estimates of residential water demand hadbeen initiated for Penticton within the 2004 study (seeCohen et al. 2004), but there was a need to expand thiseffort to include an assessment of the potentialeffectiveness of demand management options. TinaNeale (Chapter 2.0) presents results for several climateand population growth scenarios for severalcommunities. These were used as direct inputs to thedecision support tool.

The objective of the costing component by Bob Hraskoand Roger McNeill (Chapter 3.0) is to produceadaptation cost estimates for representative case studieswithin the Okanagan. This is meant to build on earliercost estimates by McNeill (2004) and Hrasko (2003).

Several study activities focused on a single communityin order to assess the opportunities and challenges ofimplementing climate change adaptation options at thecommunity level. Chapter 6.0 focuses on Oliver, withNeale’s analysis of residential water demand optionsbeing considered as part of a broader effort by Jodie Siuand Smart Growth on the Ground to design a water-smart community plan. Although the specific designobjectives of the Smart Growth activity are outside thescope of the PIA project, the opportunity to link withthis community design activity and to inject climatechange scenarios into this process was an importantlearning experience.

Another component focusing on Oliver was the studyon anticipatory adaptation policy by Natasha Schorb(Chapter 7.0). This has built on the institutionalanalysis undertaken by Shepherd et al. (2006) andprovides an assessment of adaptive capacity for grapegrowers in the Oliver area. The objective is to increaseour understanding of the decision making processundertaken by local growers when faced with waterstress.

The report concludes with a discussion on lessonslearned and a look ahead to next steps (Chapter 8.0).

6 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

FINAL REPORT | 7

Urban Water Futures: Exploring Development,Management and Climate Change Impacts onUrban Water Demand

Tina Neale, Jeff Carmichael, Stewart Cohen

Previous studies in the Okanagan Basinhave found that average daily residentialwater use in the region is highly variable,

ranging from approximately 470 litres percapita per day (Lpcd) in Greater Vernon(Associated Engineering (BC) Ltd. 2002) to 789 L in the Trepanier Landscape Unit (Guy2004). Drought year residential water use inthe Lakeview Irrigation District has beenestimated as high as 1,370 Lpcd (quoted in Guy2004). When compared to water use acrossCanada, water use in the Okanagan is relativelyhigh: daily per capita domestic water use inCanada’s ten largest cities ranges from a low of156 L in Charlottetown, PEI to a high of 659 Lin St. John’s, NF (Brandes and Fergasun 2003)

The region’s semi-arid climate and rural agrarianlandscape have long attracted visitors and new residentsalike. Over the past twenty years, the Okanagan hasexperienced dramatic population growth, fromapproximately 210,000 in 1986 to 310,000 in 2001.The population is expected to continue to grow,reaching nearly 450,000 by 2031. This increase inpopulation and associated development will result inincreased municipal water demands. Planning forfuture municipal water demands must take intoaccount not only the future population of the region,but also urban development patterns, and changes inwater demand resulting from a warming climate.

While the climate change community is payingincreasing attention to adaptation of human and naturalsystems to climate change impacts, planners andresource managers at the local level do not yet considerthese impacts as a matter of course. A survey of water

management plans in the Okanagan has indicated thatsome future pressures on water resources, such aspopulation increase, have been incorporated intoprojections of future water demand by some localauthorities. However, this is not the case for climatechange impacts. While climate change may beconsidered as a source of uncertainty by some waterutilities, allowances for the impacts of climate changeon water supply and demand have been incorporatedinto very few water management strategies in the region(for one example see Guy 2004). This is not surprisingconsidering that climate change is a relatively newthreat that has not yet caused changes in normalclimate variability detectable by water managers,planners and decision-makers. There is also a lack ofinformation on climate change impacts, particularly atthe scale of water management decision-making.

To make effective decisions about infrastructure,programs and technologies, practitioners will need toanalyse future water supplies and demands for theirjurisdictions in the context of climate change,development pressures and competing interests. In theOkanagan Basin, these decisions are generally made atthe utility level where water managers must balance theneeds of residential, agricultural and industrial usersand maintain the source for ecological and aestheticvalues. It is therefore at this level of decision-makingwhere the question “will there be enough water?” ismost important.

This research contributed to answering this question bycreating scenarios of future residential water demandintegrating population growth, climate change, housingtype and demand side management, and comparingthese demands to licensed supplies. The initial phaseof this work was published in Neilsen, Koch, Merritt etal (2004a). The complete account of this work can befound in Neale (2005).

chapter

2

8 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

2.1 Case studies

Three case studies were chosen for this research: theTown of Oliver, City of Penticton and City of Kelownawater utility. Several criteria were used to select casestudies in order to capture the variability between waterutilities in the region. Criteria included geographicdistribution, number of residential connections, typesof customers served (residential, institutional /commercial / industrial [ICI], agricultural), degree ofdemand side management implementation, types ofwater sources used and current mix of housing types.Geographic distribution within the basin is importantbecause of the variation of temperature, and thereforeclimate change impacts, with latitude in the region. Atransect of the Okanagan climate shows that meanmaximum and minimum temperatures are higher in thesouth and that mean annual rainfall is higher in thenorth (Brewer and Taylor 2001). Water utilities alsovary in the size of the population and irrigated areaserved as well as the relative numbers of residential, ICIand agricultural customers. These factors influence theamount of fees collected by the utility and therefore theresources available to deal with changes in supply anddemand. The demand side management (DSM)programs in place and the present mix of housing stockinfluence the adaptation options that are available tothe utility. The types of water sources already in use

could similarly impact vulnerability to climate changewith utilities using upland sources affected more bychanges in the timing and quantity of peak flows thanutilities that use groundwater or lake water.

The availability of water demand data was also animportant factor in the selection of case studies. Watersystem monitoring is not standardized across utilities inthe region and records that are kept vary significantlyin detail and quality. The most important feature in thewater demand data for the purposes of this researchwas the ability to separate the demand by residential,ICI and agricultural sectors. Demand data at a monthlytime-step was also required so that demand could becorrelated with average daily maximum temperatures.Table 2.1 presents a summary of case study attributes.

2.2 Methodology

This study was a multi-attribute analysis that usedscenarios, constructed with available data, to explorethe combined impacts of population growth, residentialform, climate change and demand side management onmunicipal water demand. The scenarios approachaimed to create depictions of future water demand thatwere plausible given a range of development, climatechange and water management trends that could occurin the future. Scenarios of future water demand for

Dwelling Types (2001)Latitude&Elevation

Population(2001)

typeno.dwellings %

DSMImplemented(2001)

MunicipalWater Sources

Data Obtained

49° 57’ 52,244 g.o. 15,875 68% Educationprogram

OkanaganLake

429.5m apt. 7,485 32% Metering withCUC

City ofKelownawaterutility

total 23,360

1999-2004 monthlywater meterreadings for allresidential and ICIaccounts

49° 27’ 32,000 g.o. 9,785 69% Educationprogram

PentictonCreek

344.1m apt. 4,465 31% Metering withCUC

OkanaganLake

City ofPenticton

total 14,250

1998-2003 monthlymunicipal demand

49° 10’ 4,335 g.o. 1,630 86% No substantialDSM

Ground water

297.2m apt. 265 14%

Town ofOliver

total 1,895

2000-2002 dailypumping stationrecords formunicipalgroundwatersources

TABLE 2.1:

Case study attributes.

Legend: g.o. = ground-oriented dwellings; apt. = apartment dwelling (individual units); CUC = constant unit charge;DSM measures refer to those examined in this analysis.

FINAL REPORT | 9

each case study were calculated in a spreadsheet modelat annual time steps for the period 2001 to 2069,corresponding with the 2020s and 2050s periodstypical of climate change scenarios. The model wasinitialized with population and dwelling type statisticsfor each case study obtained from the 2001 Census ofCanada. Monthly water use data was obtained fromeach utility in the form of residential meter readings(Kelowna), groundwater pumping station records(Oliver) or system flow measurements (Penticton). Inthe latter two cases, system losses and ICI water usewas also included in the analysis.

Simple residential water demand projections aretypically based on current per capita water use andestimates of future populations. Studies of future wateruse in the Okanagan basin have taken a similarapproach, in some cases compensating for uncertaintyabout the future by using high estimates of per capitawater use, such as those based on drought year data(Guy 2004; Hartley 2005). However, at least oneprevious study of urban water use scenarios showedthat in non-conservation oriented scenarios, the growthrate of water use exceeded population growth rate (Tate1986). In the Okanagan region, this phenomenon mayresult from the influence of population demographicson dwelling preference. Population projections for theOkanagan suggest that the future population over theage of 45 will grow while the under 45 population willdecline (BC Stats 2005), as a result of the ageingpopulation and migration of people in the older agegroups to the region. Given the strong preference inthe region for ground-oriented dwellings (primarilysingle-detached homes) and the ability of people to liveindependently into old age, the housing demand,particularly for single-detached dwellings, is expected togrow faster than the population (Global Frameworks Ltd.& Urban Futures Inc. 2003a, b, c).

The mix of housing types that the future Okanaganpopulation will occupy could have a significant impacton water consumption in the region. Since ground-oriented dwellings typically have lawns and gardensrequiring water during the summer months, growth indemand for this housing type will create additionalwater demand that would not be estimated whenconsidering population growth alone. Municipalplanning and zoning laws can therefore influence futurewater demand by controlling the future mix of housingtypes in the utility service area. The rapid populationgrowth projected for the Okanagan region thereforeprovides a real opportunity to combine watermanagement and planning objectives.

In this study, the dwelling was therefore considered thebase unit of residential water use in constructing thewater demand scenarios. This approach has twoadvantages over simple per-capita projections:

1. It allows demographic trends to be incorporated intothe analysis based on the housing preferences of thefuture population; and

2. It allows adaptation strategies based on dwellingtypes to be explored.

Records of daily or monthly water use for theresidential sector were provided by each case studyutility for at least three recent years, including the 2001census year. Because data on water use by housing typewas not available from the utilities, annual water use byhousing type was estimated from the water use recordsusing several assumptions:

• that ground oriented dwellings require both indoorand outdoor water use, whereas apartments onlyuse water indoors;

• that average per-dwelling indoor water use forapartments and ground-oriented dwellings is equal;

• that water use during the winter months isprimarily indoors while water use in the summermonths is a combination of indoor and outdooruse; and

• that indoor water use is independent of weatherconditions, whereas outdoor water use isinfluenced by weather conditions.

The first assumption is not strictly true, as apartmentcomplexes often do have outdoor landscaping thatrequires irrigation during the growing season; howeverthe amount of outdoor water use per unit is likely to besmall compared to outdoor water use for groundoriented dwellings. This assumption will therefore overestimate outdoor water demand for ground-orienteddwellings and underestimate that required forapartments. The second assumption will overestimateindoor water use for apartment dwellings and slightlyunderestimate that of ground-oriented dwellings. Thisis because apartments are likely to have smaller water-using appliances such as dishwashers and clotheswashers, if they are present at all. Because the casestudies are dominated by ground-oriented dwellings,specifically single-detached dwellings, the assumptionwill have a greater impact on over-estimating apartmentwater use than underestimating ground-orienteddwelling use.

10 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

The third assumption is supported by Figure 2.1showing daily domestic water use for the City ofPenticton plotted over an annual timeline. Water useremains relatively constant in the months of January toMarch and November and December, when themajority of residential water is used indoors forpurposes such as flushing toilets, washing clothes andbathing. The period of outdoor water use, or the“irrigation season”, can be observed in Figure 2.1 as theperiod of increased water use from approximately thebeginning of April to the end of October. During thesewarmer months, residential water demand forlandscaping, car washing, swimming pools and otheroutdoor uses increases.

Figure 2.2 further supports the assumption, plottingmonthly residential water use versus monthly meanmaximum daily temperature for the City of Pentictonfor 1999-2003. During the irrigation season (definedabove as April to October) when monthly mean dailymaximum temperatures are above 12°C, the correlationbetween water use and temperature is high (R2 = 0.94).During the winter months when monthly mean dailymaximum temperatures are below 12°C, there is no correlation between water use and temperature (R2 = 0.03). This also supports the fourth assumptionby suggesting that indoor water use is independent of

daily temperature, whereas outdoor water use isinfluenced by temperature.

It is important to note that in the Penticton and Olivercases, water use data provided was for municipal use,not residential use alone. Municipal use includesresidential (domestic) water use and ICI water use.The analysis of current and future water use in thesecases will therefore overestimate residential use.

2.2.1 Scenario Inputs

Four influences on residential water demand wereconsidered in this study: population growth anddemographic change, housing type, climate change anddemand side management. Data for the baseline year,assumed to be 2001, were collected for these factors.Indoor and outdoor water use in the baseline year wascalculated as the average of the annual indoor andoutdoor water use in the water use records supplied bythe water utilities. Future scenarios of each factor weredeveloped and used as input to the water demandmodel. These scenarios are described below.

Population Growth Projections

Low, medium and high population growth scenarioswere defined for each case study based on regional

FIGURE 2.1:

Daily domestic water use for the City of Penticton 1998 to 2003.

FINAL REPORT | 11

population growth projections and local planningdocuments (Table 2.2). The growth rates obtainedfrom these sources were developed for periods of 20-30years (e.g., 2001-2031). These rates were based onhistorical trends and the current demographics of thepopulation, and were intended to show the magnitudeof change during the projection period (GlobalFrameworks Ltd. & Urban Futures Inc. 2003a, b, c).In this research, the growth rates have been extended to

cover the period 2001-2069 to match the period of theclimate change scenarios used in this analysis. It isgenerally recognized that making projections of socio-economic variables this far into the future is highlyuncertain. The near-term scenarios generated by thisresearch, covering the period of the population growthprojections, will therefore be subject to less uncertaintythan the scenarios for the latter half of the 2001-2069period.

FIGURE 2.2:

Monthly domestic water use for the City of Penticton vs. mean maximum daily temperature for temperatures aboveand below the threshold temperature of 12°C.

TABLE 2.2:

Case study population growth scenarios comparing 2069 population to the 2001 Census population.

12 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

Housing Type Demand Projections

Current and future housing stock in each case studywas divided into two categories: apartments andground-oriented dwellings. Ground-oriented dwellingsinclude the Census categories: single-detached house,semi-detached house, apartment or flat in a detachedduplex, row house, other single-attached house, mobilehome and other movable dwelling. Apartments weredefined to include the remaining three Censuscategories: apartment in a building that has five ormore storeys, apartment with direct ground access in abuilding with five or fewer stories and apartmentwithout direct ground access in a building with five orfewer stories (Statistics Canada 2003).

Two scenarios of future dwellings were calculated foreach case study: a “current preferences” scenario basedon existing housing trends, and a “smart growth”scenario with an increased proportion of apartment, orhigh density, dwellings. Current preferences dwellingscenarios were based on the current dwelling types inthe case study area, obtained from the 2001 Census,projected rates of increase for different housing types,based on analysis by Global Frameworks Ltd. andUrban Futures Inc. (2003a; 2003b; 2003c) and the

three population growth scenarios. The “smart growth”scenario assumed that future development will feature ahigher proportion of high-density dwellings comparedto the current preferences scenario. The smart growthscenarios were created from the current preferencesscenario by shifting a portion of the dwellings from theground-oriented category to the apartment category,while maintaining the same total number of dwellingsin each scenario year. Growth rates and number ofdwellings for apartments and ground-orienteddwellings are listed in Table 2.3 for each case study.

Climate Change and Water Use

Scenarios of the climate change impact on residentialwater demand were based on the six climate changescenarios for the Okanagan Basin developed by Taylorand Barton (2004) and the relationship betweenhistoric monthly outdoor water use and monthly meandaily maximum temperatures. Taylor and Barton(2004) developed six downscaled climate changescenarios based on three global circulation models(CGCM2, CSIROMk and HadCM3) and the A2 and B2emissions scenarios from the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change’s Special Report on EmissionsScenarios.

TABLE 2.3:

Number of dwellings in 2069 in smart growth and current preferences dwelling scenarios for all three populationgrowth scenarios for each case study.

Legend: CP = Current preferences dwelling scenario; SG = Smart growth dwelling scenario

FINAL REPORT | 13

To calculate the climate change impact on residentialwater use, the relationship between monthly mean dailymaximum temperature and water use was determined.Outdoor residential water use during the growing(irrigation) season has been shown to be at leastpartially dependent on climate variables (Akuoko-Asibey et al. 1993; Cohen 1985; Dandy et al. 1997).Cohen (1987) investigated the impact of climatechange on residential water demand in the Great Lakesregion by performing linear regression analyses ofclimatic variables, such as evapotranspiration, andwater use in the Great Lakes region. Significantcorrelations existed between evapotranspiration anddomestic water demand. These relationships wereapplied to climate change scenarios to estimate futurewater demand under changing climatic conditions.

A similar approach was used in this research. Linearregressions were performed using monthly mean dailymaximum temperature and per dwelling mean monthlyoutdoor water use data for each case study (Figure 2.3below shows the Penticton example). Monthly outdoor

water use was derived from the water use recordssupplied by the water utilities. Corresponding monthlymean daily maximum temperatures for climate stationsin the case study areas were obtained from EnvironmentCanada’s online climate data archive (EnvironmentCanada 2005). R2 values of 0.92 to 0.94 were obtainedindicating that maximum monthly temperature andoutdoor residential water use are closely correlated inthe study areas. Because the Okanagan receives littlesignificant precipitation during the irrigation season, itis unlikely that other climatic variables, such asevapotranspiration, would result in a more significantrelationship to water use.

The slope of the linear regression (0.0049 in thePenticton example) represents the amount of outdoorwater used for every 1°C increase in monthly meandaily maximum temperature above the X-interceptthreshold temperature. The X-intercept represents the temperature at which outdoor water use begins(12.3°C in this example).

FIGURE 2.3:

Relationship between mean monthly maximum daily temperature and monthly outdoor water use per dwelling inPenticton during the irrigation season 1998-2003.

y = 0.0049x - 0.0603R2 = 0.9365

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Mean Maximum Temperature (°C)

Av

era

ge

Ou

tdo

or

Wa

ter

us

e p

er

Dw

ell

ing

(M

L)

14 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

To account for the lengthening growing seasonexpected with climate change (Neilsen et al. 2004b),the climate change scenarios created for each case studywere examined to determine if months outside thetraditional irrigation season of April to Octoberexceeded the X-intercept threshold temperature. Allclimate change scenarios contained years in which thethreshold temperature was exceeded in March, whereasnone of the scenarios contained years in whichNovember’s maximum temperature exceeded thethreshold. March was therefore added to the irrigationseason for calculations of outdoor residential water useunder climate change scenarios.

To calculate the influence of the climate changescenarios on outdoor residential water demand, theregression slope was multiplied by the differencebetween the April to October monthly mean dailymaximum temperatures in 2001 and in the climatechange scenarios created for each case study. Becausethere was no outdoor water use in March in the wateruse record supplied by the utilities, March was onlyincluded in the calculation in years where themaximum temperature exceeded the thresholdtemperature for each case study. In these cases, theslope was multiplied by the difference between thescenario maximum temperature and the thresholdtemperature. The total annual outdoor water use dueto climate change was then added to outdoor use in thebaseline year to derive the total outdoor water use foreach scenario year. Annual water use for each dwellingtype and growth scenario was calculated using the sameprocedure as the no climate change baseline scenario.A summary of water use by dwelling type and the

regression analyses for each case study is presented inTable 2.4.

While the proportion of indoor and outdoor water usewas very similar across all three case studies (46 to 48%indoor and 52 to 54% outdoor), there was significantvariation in per dwelling and per capita water use.Kelowna had the lowest water use overall, noting thatwater use does not include ICI use as in the other twocases. Kelowna was also the most northerly of the casestudies and has a well-established domestic watermetering and education program. Penticton’s perdwelling water use was approximately 39% higher thanKelowna’s. While Penticton also has water meteringand educational programs on water conservation, it isfarther south than Kelowna and experiences highermean monthly maximum temperatures. The Town ofOliver had the highest per dwelling water use of thethree case studies at 1.5ML per year: over three timesKelowna’s, and two and a half times Penticton’s perdwelling use. Oliver is also the farthest south of thethree utilities and did not have a water-meteringprogram in place during the 2000 to 2002 period.

Kelowna’s ICI Water Demand

Monthly ICI water use data from water billing recordswere obtained from the City of Kelowna water utilityfor the years 1999-2004. To calculate scenarios offuture ICI water demand, assumptions were testedabout the factors that influence ICI water use.Population, number of employed workers andhousehold income were plotted against total ICI wateruse; however no correlations were observed. This islikely due to the small sample size and limited range of

Indoor(ML)

Outdoor(ML)

Total(ML) 0T (°C)

Slope(ML)

R2

ground-oriented 0.192 0.220 0.412 11.3 0.0031 0.92apartment 0.192 0 0.192

Kelowna

per capita 0.085 0.062 0.149

ground-oriented 0.335 0.347 0.672 12.3 0.0049 0.94apartment 0.335 0 0.192

Penticton

per capita 0.146 0.098 0.244

ground-oriented 0.693 0.814 1.507 13.2 0.0111 0.91apartment 0.693 0 0.693

Oliver

per capita 0.305 0.283 0.588

TABLE 2.4:

Annual indoor and outdoor water use per dwelling type and per capita and regression statistics for mean maximumdaily temperature and outdoor water use per dwelling.

Legend: T0 = daily mean monthly maximum temperature at which outdoor water use begins; ML = mega litres or1,000,000 litres

FINAL REPORT | 15

data available. It is likely that a range of socio-economicfactors can be used to forecast ICI water demand;however, such analysis is beyond the scope of thisresearch. This more sophisticated approach to ICI waterdemand forecasting using such tools as IWR-MAIN hasbeen documented by several authors (Boland 1997;Steiner 1998). Others have suggested that commercialwater use should be aggregated with residential usebecause commercial use represents residential use that isdisplaced from the home (Headley 1963). Operating onthis assumption, per capita water use was used tocalculate future ICI water demand.

ICI water use per capita was calculated using mediumgrowth population estimates of the Kelowna utilityservice area for the years 1999-2004. The populationestimates were based on the regional district populationestimates for 1999-2004 from BC Stats multiplied bythe proportion of regional population living in theservice area in 2001 (34%). Average per capitacommercial water use was multiplied by the annualpopulations projected in the low, medium and highgrowth scenarios for the 2005 to 2069 period todetermine annual commercial water use.

Further analysis of the ICI demand data indicated asimilar monthly distribution pattern to residentialdemand. Indoor and outdoor ICI water use wasdetermined using the same procedure discussed inabove for the residential sector. A regression analysisof outdoor per capita ICI demand and mean monthlymaximum daily temperature for April to October wasperformed to determine the climate effect on ICI useand the threshold temperature at which outdoor ICIuse begins. Total indoor and outdoor water use forthe six climate change scenarios was determined usinga similar procedure as outlined above for residentialwater use. Indoor and outdoor use for the baselinescenario was based on the per capita ICI water useand population growth scenarios. Outdoor water usein the climate change scenarios was calculated byadding the climate change effect to the per capitacalculation.

Demand Side Management

Since climate change, population growth and otherfactors are likely to result in increased water demand inthe future, options for adapting to this increaseddemand must be considered in water managementplanning. Managing for increased demand can beaccomplished from either a supply side or demand sideperspective. In the Okanagan Basin, supply sidemanagement has historically been the dominantpractice, focusing on developing upland reservoirs and

drawing from the main stem lakes and rivers (seeMcNeill and Hrasko, this text Chapter 3.0). Whilesupply side management will undoubtedly play aprominent role in managing for future water demand, itwas beyond the scope of this research to conduct thenecessary technical assessments to determine what thatrole could be. Demand side management, on the otherhand, provides a variety of options, such as waterpricing, technological solutions and land use policies,which encourage more efficient use of water resources.DSM approaches have been implemented in theresidential sector by several of the larger water utilities,but are still lacking in many small- and medium-sizedcommunities. The cities of Vernon, Kelowna andPenticton, for example, have residential water meteringand education programs on water conservation (City ofKelowna 2005; City of Penticton 2004; Greater VernonWater 2003). Given the investment that already existsin residential DSM approaches and the acceptance ofsuch approaches in the region, it will be useful todetermine how much DSM can contribute to demandreduction in the future.

A literature search was conducted to compile a list ofresidential demand side management options alongwith their expected water savings and approximatecosts of implementation. The information was thenused to determine the options and water savings usedin the DSM scenarios. DSM options were selected toreflect a range of possible water savings approachesincluding economic incentives, educational programs,and mechanical or technological solutions. Theoptions defined for creating scenarios of water use withdemand side management are described in Table 2.5.The water savings presented in Table 2.5 are theamount of water saved from the “no DSM” case. It wasassumed that a public education program wouldaccompany all DSM options and that the savingsinvolved would include the effects of education and the measure itself.

The effects of DSM were introduced in the waterdemand model in 2010. A three-year implementationperiod was assumed for the water metering and publiceducation options. Water savings for the xeriscapingand high-efficiency fixtures & appliances andcombined options were applied to all new dwellingsbeginning in 2010. A 10% per year retrofit rate wasassumed for dwellings existing prior to 2010 such thatwater use for all dwellings was calculated using thereduced DSM rate by the year 2019. Where a DSMoption was already in place in a case study in 2001,the water savings resulting from that option were setto zero.

16 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

2.3 Results

2.3.1 Climate Change, Dwelling and DSM Scenarios

This section presents a selection of results intended toillustrate the influences of the four different scenariogroups (population growth, dwelling growth, demandside management and climate change) on residential/municipal water use in each case study. Results havebeen grouped as follows for each case study:

• Impacts of population growth scenarios onresidential water demand;

• Climate change impacts on water demand;

• Comparison of per capita and per dwellingestimates of future water demand;

• Comparison of water demand in currentpreferences and smart growth dwelling scenarios;

• Impacts of demand side management measures onwater demand; and

• Best- and worst-case scenarios for future waterdemand.

In all cases, population growth had the most impact onincreasing water use whereas demand side managementwas most effective at reducing overall water use.

City of Kelowna

Annual residential water use in the City of Kelownawater utility service area was approximately 7,976 MLin the base year 2001. When considering populationgrowth alone under the current preferences dwellingscenario, annual water use increased to an average of11,219 ML in the low growth scenario to 15,843 ML inthe high growth scenario for the 2020s. In the 2050s,the average range was 17,184 ML in the low growthscenario to 36,673 ML in the high growth scenario.Population and dwelling demand growth in the currentpreferences scenario therefore accounted for averageincreases in water use by 41-99% in the 2020s and 115-360% in the 2050s. The maximum increase in wateruse determined in the current preferences housingscenarios, without the impacts of climate change oradditional DSM, ranged from 163% in the low growthscenario to 570% in the high growth scenario.

Compared to population growth, the impact of climatechange on water use was minimal when examined in

TABLE 2.5:

Indoor and outdoor water savings used in DSM scenarios.

FINAL REPORT | 17

isolation. Assuming that water use stayed at 2001levels to 2069, the climate change impact on water usein the 2020s ranged from approximately 6% to 10%.The climate change impact became more pronouncedin the 2050s increasing water use by 10 to 19%. Whencombined with population and current preferencesdwelling growth, the climate change impact on wateruse was magnified. This is due to the increasednumber of ground-oriented dwellings and hence,increased outdoor water use. In the high populationgrowth scenario, the combined effects of climate changeand population growth increased water use between111 and 119% in the 2020s and 407 to 446% in the

2050s over the 2001 baseline. This was 12 to 21%more than population growth alone in the 2020s and45 to 86% more in the 2050s.

Figure 2.4 shows annual residential water demand forthe current preferences, medium population growthand current DSM scenario without climate change andunder the six climate change scenarios. Theimplication for climate change in water managementplanning is that annual water demands predictedwithout climate change occur several years earlier inthe climate change scenarios. For example, in the 2030to 2039 period, annual water demand with “average”

FIGURE 2.4:

Annual water demand for the City of Kelowna with current preferences, current DSM and medium populationgrowth for the 2001-2069 period. The figure shows demand without climate change and with six climate changescenarios.

TABLE 2.6:

Comparison of per capita and per dwelling water use projections for the City of Kelowna.Water use is presented in ML.

18 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

climate change occurred approximately four yearsearlier than in the no climate change scenario. In the2040 to 2059 period, this increased to an average of sixyears earlier.

One hypothesis of this research was that, due todemographic trends and the dwelling type preferencesof the current population, future residential water usewould be underestimated if based on present-day percapita use assuming all other factors remain equal. Acomparison of the per-capita method and the dwellingtype method used in this research supports thishypothesis. Table 2.6 illustrates that average annualwater use based on per-capita projections was 14%lower in all population growth projections in the 2020sand 29 to 30% lower in the 2050s.

A comparison of annual water use in the currentpreferences and smart growth dwelling type scenarios isshown in Figure 2.5. In the absence of additionaldemand side management efforts and under an“average” climate change scenario, water use in theSGM scenario was 4.6% lower in the 2020s and 10.5%lower in the 2050s than for current preferences.Differences between the current preferences and smart

growth scenarios were close to this range for all climatechange and population growth scenarios (Figure 2.5).

The potential of demand side management to reducewater use is demonstrated in Figure 2.6 for the CurrentPreferences Medium (CPM) population growth and“average” climate change scenario. In the CPMscenario and the combined DSM option, includingpublic education, metering with IBR, xeriscaping andhigh-efficiency appliances; residential water useincreased by only 2 to 5% in the 2020s and 81 to 92%in the 2050s for all climate change scenarios. With low population growth, 2020s water use was actuallyreduced below 2001 levels by 10 to 13% in the 2020sand increased only 24 to 32% in the 2050s. With high population growth, 2020s average water useincreased by 20 to 24% and 2050s use by 165 to 182%(Figure 2.6).

Figure 2.7 illustrates the “best-” and “worst-case”scenarios for future residential water use in Kelowna.The “best-case” consisted of smart growth, combineddemand side management and the CGCM2-B2 climatechange scenario. In the best-case, annual water use forthe low population growth scenario remained close to

FIGURE 2.5:

Comparison of annual water use for current preferences (CP) and smart growth (SG) scenarios for the City of Kelownafor all population growth scenarios with current DSM and CGCM2-A2.

FINAL REPORT | 19

FIGURE 2.6:

Impact of demand side management on annual water use for the City of Kelowna in the current preferences mediumpopulation growth scenario and CGCM2-A2 climate change.

FIGURE 2.7:

City of Kelowna annual water use in the “best-case” (smart growth, combined demand side management, CGCM2-B2) and “worst-case” (current preferences, current demand side management and HadCM3-A21) scenarios for allpopulation growth scenarios.

20 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

or below 2001 use for the duration of the scenarioperiod. With high population growth, water useremained within an average of 15% of present-daywater use in the 2020s, and increased an average of145% in the 2050s. By contrast, the “worst-case”scenario consisted of current preferences dwellinggrowth, current demand side management and theHadCM3-A22 climate change scenario. With lowpopulation growth, water use increased by an averageof 55% in the 2020s and 156% in the 2050s. In thehigh population growth scenario, 2020s average wateruse increased 119% and 2050s water use by 446% whencompared to 2001.

By their definitions in the scenarios, the effects ofdemand side management, smart growth and climatechange on residential water demand areinterdependent. For example, the impact of climatechange depended on the amount of water used in thebaseline year and the amount of outdoor water use infuture years, which in turn depended on the futureproportion of apartment vs. ground-oriented dwellingsand the degree of DSM employed. The contribution ofeach factor to the difference between the best- andworst-case scenarios therefore depended on whichintermediate scenarios were examined. Figure 2.8shows the contribution of each factor to the difference

between the best- and worst-case high populationgrowth scenarios for two sets or “orders” ofintermediate scenarios. In Order 1, it is evident thatthat the effects of smart growth and the climate changescenarios made up a greater proportion of the differencethan in Order 2.

Table 2.7 shows the progression of intermediatescenarios in the two “orders” depicted in Figure 2.8.In each scenario between the best- and worst-case, onebest-case factor was replaced by its correspondingworst-case so that the contribution of each factor couldbe observed. For example, in Order 1, thecontribution of DSM is seen by the difference betweenthe best-case scenario (line number 1) and the scenariorepresented by line number 2 where best-case DSM(combined DSM) was replaced with worst-case DSM(current DSM). Similarly, the contribution of thedwelling scenarios is seen by the difference betweenline 2, containing the smart growth scenario (best-case) and line 3 containing the current preferences orworst-case dwelling scenario. The final step in theprogression for Order 1 replaced the climate changescenario from the best- to worst-case such that line 4represents the overall worst-case scenario for waterdemand with high population growth. In Order 2, theprogression from the best- to worst-case scenario

FIGURE 2.8:

Contributions of DSM, smart growth and climate change to the difference between the best- and worst-case highpopulation growth scenarios for two sets of intermediate scenarios for the City of Kelowna. The specific scenarios(best-case, worst-case and two intermediate scenarios) represented by each of the numbered lines are presented inTable 2.7. Note that this does not include comparison with base case climate (i.e. no climate change).

FINAL REPORT | 21

began by replacing best-case climate change withworst-case climate change (line 2). The worst-casedwelling scenario was added in line 3 and in line 4, theoverall worst-case scenario, current DSM replacedcombined DSM.

Note that in this analysis, the dwelling and DSMscenarios were compared with current preferences, butthe climate change scenario was not compared withcurrent climate. This offers an indicator of thedifference between climate change scenarios, but islikely to underestimate the relative importance of

climate change compared with changes in dwellingsand DSM. Further analysis is needed in whichcomparison with base case climate (i.e. no climatechange) is undertaken.

The percentage of the difference that each factorcontributed in the year 2069 in each intermediatescenario order is shown in Figure 4.6. When the effectsof demand side management were removed from thebest-case in Order 1 and replaced with current DSM,the combined contributions of climate change andhousing patterns accounted for approximately 31% of

TABLE 2.7:

Progression from best-case to worst-case for orders 1 and 2 shown in Figures 4.5, 4.11 and 4.17. For each order,intermediate scenario number 2 contains two factors from the best-case scenario and one factor from the worst-casescenario. Scenario 3 contains one best-case factor and two worst-case factors.

FIGURE 2.9:

Percentage contributions to the difference between the high growth best- and worst-case scenarios of DSM, smartgrowth and climate change for two sets of intermediate scenarios in 2069 for the City of Kelowna. Note that thisdoes not include comparison with base case climate (i.e. no climate change).

22 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

the difference between the best- and worst-cases. Bycontrast, in the scenario set where combined DSMremained in the scenarios while smart growth andCGCM2-B2 climate change were replaced by theirworst-case counterparts, climate change anddevelopment patterns accounted for only 13.5% of thedifference. This analysis implies that the sensitivity ofwater demand to the impacts of climate change andhousing development patterns were reduced when per-dwelling demand was reduced. Intuitively, this makessense because of the interdependent nature of DSM,climate change and housing patterns discussed above.In the scenarios with combined DSM, less waterdemand existed for the worst-case climate change andcurrent preferences housing patterns to influence,therefore a smaller effect was seen. It also shows thatdemand side management had a much larger influenceon residential water demand compared to climatechange and housing patterns, indicating thatconsiderable flexibility exists within Kelowna’s watermanagement system to cope with changingenvironmental and socio-economic conditions.

City of Penticton

The City of Penticton’s annual municipal (residential +ICI) water use in the 2001 baseline year was 8,177 ML.

In the current preferences housing scenario, the effectof population growth in the absence of climate changeand additional demand side management was to increase2020s average water use to between 9,888 ML (lowgrowth) to 14,603 ML (high growth). This represented a21 to 79% increase over 2001. In the 2050s, averageannual water use increased to 12,571 ML in the lowgrowth scenario and 29,820 ML in the high growthscenario, representing a 54 to 265% increase over 2001.Maximum annual water use due to population growthalone (under the current preferences housing scenario)occurred in 2069 and ranged from 72% in the lowgrowth scenario to 405% with high growth.

As in the Kelowna case, the impact of climate changealone on annual water use was small when compared topopulation growth. Assuming no population growthfrom 2001-2069, climate change increased annual wateruse by 6 to 9% in the 2020s and 9 to 18% in the 2050s.The combined impacts of climate change and currentpreferences dwelling growth in the low populationgrowth scenario resulted in 2020s water use that was28 to 32% higher than the 2001 baseline and 2050swater use that was 68 to 80% higher. Climate changetherefore increased water use by an extra 7 to 11% in the2020s and 14 to 26% in the 2050s when compared topopulation growth alone. With high population growth,

FIGURE 2.10:

Annual water demand for the City of Penticton with current preferences, current DSM and medium populationgrowth for the 2001 to 2069 period. The figure shows demand without climate change and with six climate changescenarios.

FINAL REPORT | 23

average annual water use with climate change increasedby 88 to 95% in the 2020s and 298 to 327% in the2050s. This was 9 to 16% more than population growthalone for the 2020s and 34 to 62% more for the 2050s.

Figure 2.10 shows Penticton’s annual water use in theCPM, current DSM scenario without climate changeand with the six climate change scenarios. As withKelowna, annual water demands expected withpopulation growth alone occurred several years earlierwith climate change. In the 2030-2039 period, annualwater demands with climate change occurred anaverage of five years earlier. This increased to 10 yearsearlier in the 2040s decade and 8 years earlier in the2050s decade (Figure 2.10).

Table 2.8 summarizes the per-capita and per-dwellingaverage annual water use for the 2020s and 2050s.Comparing per-capita to per-dwelling water useestimates again revealed similar results as the Kelownacase for the current preferences housing scenario. Withno climate change and the current preferences housingscenario, per capita estimates of average annual wateruse in the 2020s were 13% lower than per-dwellingestimates for all population growth scenarios. In the2050s, the difference increased to 23 to 24% (Table 2.8).

Figure 2.11 demonstrates the impact of the smartgrowth and current preferences housing scenarios onaverage annual water use. The scenario represented inthe figure is for an “average” climate change scenario

TABLE 2.8:

Comparison of per capita and per dwelling water use projections for Penticton.

FIGURE 2.11:

Comparison of annual water use for current preferences and smart growth dwelling scenarios for the City ofPenticton for all population growth scenarios, CGCM2-A2 climate change and current DSM.

24 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

and assumes no additional demand managementmeasures than those operating in 2001. In this case,average annual water use in the smart growth scenariowas approximately 6% lower than current preferenceswater use in the 2020s and 13 to 14% lower in the2050s for all population growth and climate changescenarios (Figure 2.11).

Figure 2.12 illustrates the four demand sidemanagement scenarios in comparison to current DSMlevels and 2001 baseline water use. The combinedDSM option including public education, metering withIBR, xeriscaping and high-efficiency retrofits, resultedin average annual water use in the 2020s that was 18 to21% below 2001 water use for all climate changescenarios. In the 2050s, the water use increased by 7 to 14%. In the CPM “average” climate changescenario, water use with the combined DSM option was an average of 45% lower than water use in thecurrent DSM scenario for the 2020s and 51% lower inthe 2050s.

The “best-” and “worst-case” scenarios for the City ofPenticton are presented in Figure 2.13. As in the Cityof Kelowna case, the best-case scenario consisted ofsmart growth, the combined demand side managementscenario and the CGCM2-B2 climate change scenario.

In the best-case, average annual water use in the 2020sremained below 2001 water use in all populationgrowth scenarios. In the 2050s, water use onlyexceeded 2001 use in the high population growthscenario where it was an average of 71% above thebaseline. The worst-case scenario was defined ascurrent preferences dwelling growth, the currentdemand side management program and the HadCM3-A22 climate change scenario. Average annual water usein the low population growth scenario increased by32% in the 2020s and 80% in the 2050s over 2001water use. In the high growth scenario, water useincreased by 95% in the 2020s and 327% in the 2050s(Figure 2.13).

The contributions of DSM, smart growth and climatechange to the difference between the high populationgrowth best- and worst-case scenarios are illustrated inFigure 2.14 for the two sequences of intermediatescenarios described in Table 2.7 above. Like Kelowna,the order in which the three best-case factors werereplaced with their worst-case counterparts influencedthe relative magnitude of each factor’s contribution.The differences between CGCM2-B2 and HadCM3-A22climate change and smart growth and currentpreferences development patterns are greater in Order 1

FIGURE 2.12:

Impact of demand side management on annual water use for the City of Penticton in the current preferences mediumpopulation growth scenario and CGCM2-A2 climate change.

FINAL REPORT | 25

FIGURE 2.14:

Contributions of DSM, smart growth and climate change to the difference between the best- and worst-case highpopulation growth scenarios for two sets of intermediate scenarios for the City of Penticton. The specific scenarios(best-case, worst-case and two intermediate scenarios) represented by each of the numbered lines are presented inTable 2.7. Note that this does not include comparison with base case climate (i.e. no climate change).

FIGURE 2.13:

City of Penticton annual water use in the “best-case” (smart growth, combined demand side management, CGCM2-B2) and “worst-case” (current preferences, current demand side management and HadCM3-A22) scenarios for allpopulation growth scenarios.

26 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

FIGURE 2.15:

Percentage contributions to the difference between the high growth best- and worst-case scenarios of DSM, smartgrowth and climate change for two sets of intermediate scenarios in 2069 for the City of Penticton. Note that thisdoes not include comparison with base case climate (i.e. no climate change).

where combined DSM is replaced by current DSMbefore the other factors are adjusted (as in Figure 2.8).

Figure 2.15 shows that smart growth and climatechange accounted for 32.5% of the difference betweenthe best- and worst-case in Order 1, whereas theyaccounted for only 14% in Order 2. As with theKelowna case, DSM was the largest contributor to thedifference between the best- and worst-case scenariosand therefore offers significant opportunities foradapting to future increases in water demand.Penticton’s residential water demand was also lesssensitive to increases due to climate change andhousing patterns with reduced overall water use in thecombined DSM scenario (order 2 in Figure 2.14).

Town of Oliver

2001 domestic water use in the Town of Oliver wasapproximately 2,641 ML. With low population growthunder the current preferences dwelling demandscenario, average annual water use increased to 3,174ML in the 2020s and 4,004 ML in the 2050s. This wasan average 20% increase in water use in the 2020s and56% increase in the 2050s over the 2001 baseline. In

the high population growth scenario, average annualwater use was 4,043 ML in the 2020s and 6,864 ML inthe 2050s. This represented an increase over 2001levels of 53% for the 2020s and 160% for the 2050s.The maximum water use calculated in the populationgrowth scenarios occurred in the year 2069 and rangedfrom an increase of 72% over 2001 water use in the lowgrowth scenario, to a 232% increase in the high growthscenario.

As in the Penticton and Kelowna cases, the impact ofclimate change on domestic water use was small whenexamined in the absence of other factors. Assuming nopopulation growth, the climate change effect on totaldomestic water use was a 3 to 7% increase in the 2020sand a 7 to 17% increase in the 2050s. These ranges aresimilar, though slightly below those for the Pentictonand Kelowna cases, despite Oliver having the highestincremental increase in per dwelling water use perincrease in maximum temperature (see slope in Figure2.3). This is because Oliver has a much lowerpopulation and number of dwellings compared to theother two cases. When combined in the currentpreferences, no DSM scenario; low population growth

FINAL REPORT | 27

and climate change increased average annual domesticwater use by 23 to 29% in the 2020s and 62 to 77% inthe 2050s. The same scenario with high populationgrowth showed average annual water use increasing by57 to 64% in the 2020s and 178 to 203% in the 2050sfor all climate change scenarios. These ranges werebelow those predicted for the Penticton and Kelownacases due to Oliver’s expected lower rates of populationgrowth. With the low population growth scenario,climate change accounted for an additional 3 to 9%increase in average annual water use in the 2020s and10 to 25% in the 2050s. The additional contribution of

climate change increased to 4 to 11% in the 2020s and18 to 43% in the 2050s for the high population growthscenario.

Figure 2.16 illustrates the climate change effect onannual water use in the CPM, current DSM scenario.While there was significant annual variability in theclimate change scenarios, climate change did result indemands predicted without climate change to occurseveral years earlier in the three decades from 2030 to2059. In the 2030s, water demands with averageclimate change occurred approximately three years

FIGURE 2.16:

Annual water demand for the Town of Oliver with current preferences, current DSM and medium population growthfor the 2001-2069 period. The figure shows demand without climate change and with six climate change scenarios.

TABLE 2.9:

Comparison of per capita and per dwelling water use projections for the Town of Oliver.

28 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

earlier than in the no climate change scenario. Thisincreased to 11 years in the 2040s decade and eightyears in the 2050 to 2059 period.

As in the Kelowna and Penticton cases, a comparison ofper-capita and per-dwelling water use estimatesrevealed that per-capita estimates are smaller (Table2.9). In the current preferences housing scenario withno climate change, per-capita water use was estimatedto be approximately 11% lower in the 2020s and 20-21% lower in the 2050s than the dwelling-basedestimate for all population growth scenarios.

Figure 2.17 compares Oliver’s total annual water use inthe current preferences and smart growth dwellingscenarios. Average annual water use in the smartgrowth scenario was 6% lower in the 2020s than thecurrent preferences scenario. In the 2050s, water use inthe smart growth scenario was 13% below currentpreferences. Reductions of this magnitude were foundfor all climate change and population growth scenarios.

The potential for demand side management to reducethe Town of Oliver’s future water use is demonstrated inFigure 2.18 for the CPM “average” climate changescenario. Large reductions in water use were realized in

this analysis due to the absence of DSM programs inplace in the 2001 baseline year. Unlike the Kelownaand Penticton cases, the Oliver case study included allsix DSM options. The combined DSM option alsoincluded the full water-savings potentials of meteringwith IBR, xeriscaping and high-efficiency retrofits. Inthe current preferences scenario, annual water use withthe combined DSM option remained below 2001baseline use for the entire 2001-2069 period for bothlow and medium population growth in all climatechange scenarios. Average annual water use onlyexceeded the 2001 baseline with high populationgrowth. The increase ranged between 3 and 12% for allclimate change scenarios. This was 55% lower than thecurrent DSM scenario for the 2020s and 63% for the2050s.

The “best- and worst-case” scenarios shown in Figure2.19 illustrate the entire range of the climate change,dwelling demand, population growth and DSMscenarios in this exercise. As in the previous two cases,the best-case scenario was defined as smart growth,combined demand side management and the CGCM2-B2 climate change scenario. Average annual water usein the best-case was 47% below 2001 water use in the

FIGURE 2.17:

Comparison of annual water use for current preferences and smart growth dwelling scenarios for the Town of Oliverfor all population growth scenarios with current DSM and CGCM2-A2.

FINAL REPORT | 29

FIGURE 2.18:

Impact of demand side management options on annual water use for the Town of Oliver.

FIGURE 2.19:

Town of Oliver annual water use in the “best-case” (smart growth, combined demand side management, CGCM2-B2)and “worst-case” (current preferences, current demand side management and HadCM3-A21) scenarios for allpopulation growth scenarios.

30 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

FIGURE 2.20:

Contributions of DSM, smart growth and climate change to the difference between the best- and worst-case highpopulation growth scenarios for two sets of intermediate scenarios for the Town of Oliver. The specific scenarios(best-case, worst-case and two intermediate scenarios) represented by each of the numbered lines are presented inTable 2.7. Note that this does not include comparison with base case climate (i.e. no climate change).

FIGURE 2.21:

Percentage contributions to the difference between the high growth best- and worst-case scenarios of DSM, smartgrowth and climate change for two sets of intermediate scenarios in 2069 for the Town of Oliver. Note that this doesnot include comparison with base case climate (i.e. no climate change).

FINAL REPORT | 31

low population growth scenario in both the 2020s and2050s. With high population growth, average annualwater use was 34% below 2001 use in the 2020s and9% below in the 2020s. By comparison, the worst-casescenario, defined as current preferences, current DSMand the HadCM3-A22 climate change scenario, showedsignificant increases in water use for all populationgrowth scenarios. In the low-growth scenario, 2020swater use increased by 29% over 2001 levels and 2050suse by 77%. With high population growth, water useincreased by 64% and 203% for the 2020s and 2050s,respectively, over the 2001 baseline.

The contributions of DSM, smart growth and climatechange to the difference between the high growth best-and worst-case scenarios is shown in Figure 2.20.Once again, the interdependence of the climate change,housing development and DSM is evident. As wasobserved in the Kelowna and Penticton cases, whencombined DSM was replaced with current DSM inOrder 1, a greater portion of the difference between thebest- and worst-cases was occupied by climate changeand housing development. In Order 2, where the DSMfactor was adjusted in the last stage of the progressionfrom best- to worst-cases, climate change and smart

growth accounted for a much smaller portion of thedifference.

Figure 2.21 expresses the contributions of each factoras a percentage for each of the two intermediaryscenario orders. In Order 1, approximately 29% of thedifference was attributed to the combined effects ofclimate change and smart growth. This contributiondrops to 10% in Order 2 indicating that Oliver’sresidential water demand was less sensitive to climatechange and housing development patterns when overalldemand was reduced. As with the Kelowna andPenticton cases, the greatest contributor to thedifference between Oliver’s best- and worst-casescenarios was demand side management. BecauseOliver’s baseline per-dwelling water use was muchhigher than the other two cases, the potential for DSMto provide flexibility in adapting to future increases inwater demand are greater.

2.3.2 Supply – Demand Comparison

Comparisons of licensed supplies and modeled demandswere completed for the Kelowna and Penticton casestudies where surface water license records wereavailable. No supply-demand comparison was done

FIGURE 2.22:

City of Kelowna annual licensed domestic and ICI allocation and demand comparison for best- (low populationgrowth, CGCM2-B2, smart growth housing and combined DSM) and worst-case (high population growth, HadCM3-A2, current preferences housing and current DSM) scenarios.

32 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

for the Oliver case due to the lack of information onground and surface water sources at the time of writing.

City of Kelowna Supply – Demand Comparison

Figure 2.22 shows annual licensed water supply fromOkanagan Lake for the City of Kelowna compared toICI and residential demand calculated in the best-casescenario (CGCM2-B2, smart growth housing andcombined DSM) with low population growth and theworst-case scenario (HadCM3-A2, current preferenceshousing and current DSM) with high populationgrowth over the two intermediate timescales. Theintention of the figure is to illustrate the extreme rangesof the water demand scenarios. Average annualcombined residential and ICI demand did not exceedthe licensed allocation of 39,208 ML in any scenarios inthe 2020s or in the low growth scenarios in the 2050s.Combined demand exceeded licensed supply in all2050s high population growth scenarios except thosewith the combined DSM option (metering with IBR,xeriscaping and high-efficiency plumbing and fixtures).Average annual 2050s demand also exceeded thelicensed allocation in the current preferences mediumpopulation growth scenarios without additional DSMmeasures beyond those in place in 2001 (Figure 2.22).

City of Penticton Supply – Demand Comparison

The City of Penticton draws water from OkanaganLake, Penticton Creek and Ellis Creek for domestic andagricultural use. Okanagan Lake and Penticton Creeksupply the northern portion of the distribution systemserving the utility’s domestic customers and 465 ha ofirrigated land. Ellis Creek serves 56.7 ha of irrigatedagricultural land in the southern portion of the system(Neilsen et al. 2004a). Licensed allocation for thepurpose of “irrigation local authority” (agricultural) is7,974.5 ML and for “waterworks local authority”(domestic) is 14,485 ML (Land and Water BC 2002).Best- and worst-case modeled crop water demand anddomestic water demand scenarios are compared tolicensed supply in Figure 2.23. The best-case cropwater demand scenario was that of the CGCM2-B2climate change regime. Average annual crop waterdemand is 3740 ML in the 2020s and 4080 ML in the2050s (Neilsen et al. 2004a). The best-case domesticdemand scenario consists of low population growth,smart growth housing and the combined DSM optionunder the CGCM2-B2 climate change scenario. TheHadCM3-A2 climate change scenario was included in theworst-cases for both crop and domestic water demand.

FIGURE 2.23:

City of Penticton annual licensed domestic and agricultural allocation and demand comparison for best- (lowpopulation growth, CGCM2-B2, smart growth housing and combined DSM) and worst-case (high population growth,HadCM3-A2, current preferences housing and current DSM) scenarios. Historic demand includes 2001 domesticdemand and average 1961 to 1990 modeled crop water demand.

FINAL REPORT | 33

Worst-case crop water demand averaged 4090 ML peryear in the 2020s and 4860 ML annually in the 2050s(Neilsen et al. 2004a). The domestic demand worst-casescenario also consisted of high population growth,current preferences housing and current DSM. Thehistoric column consists of average 1961-1990 modeledcrop water demand and 2001 domestic water use.

While agricultural demand did not appear to exceedlicensed agricultural supply of 7,974 ML in any 2020sor 2050s scenarios, Neilsen et al. (2004a) foundincreasing risk of 2050s crop water demand exceedinghistorical demand and historical low flows in bothPenticton and Ellis Creeks. In several of the climatechange scenarios, modeled 2050s demand alsoexceeded modeled supply available in the two creeks.This implies that the Penticton utility will need to relyon Okanagan Lake to supplement the creek sources foragricultural water more frequently in the future.Penticton currently has no licensed allocation forirrigation on Okanagan Lake.

Table 2.10 provides a summary of the scenarios whereaverage annual domestic water demand exceeded thelicensed allocation for the City of Penticton in the2020s and 2050s. Domestic water demand was lessthan the licensed allocation for all low and mediumpopulation growth scenarios in the 2020s. Currentpreferences high growth scenarios with and withoutclimate change exceeded the allocation with the currentDSM option. Smart growth high growth scenariosexceeded licensed allocation under all climate changescenarios with the current DSM regime, but were belowthe allocation under all additional DSM scenarios(metering with IBR, xeriscaping, high-efficiencyplumbing and combined options). In the 2050s,average annual domestic demand exceeded licensedallocation in the low growth, current preferences,HadCM3 scenarios with no additional DSM. Withcurrent preferences medium population growth, 2050sdemand only remained below licensed supply in allclimate change scenarios with the combined DSMoptions. 2050s demand in high population growth

TABLE 2.10:

Domestic water demand scenarios and number of scenarios exceeding the City of Penticton’s licensed domesticallocation of 14,485.25ML. Each of the smart growth and current preferences housing scenarios has 147 scenarios ofclimate change, population growth and demand side management.

2020s 2050sDSM OptionCurrent Preferences Smart Growth Current Preferences Smart Growth

Current DSM High pop gr with allCC & no CC

High pop gr with allCC

Low pop gr withHadCM3-A2&B2 CCMed pop gr with all CC& no CCHigh pop gr with all CC& no CC

Med pop gr with all CC& no CCHigh pop gr with all CC& no CC

Metering with IBR None None Med pop gr with all CCHigh pop gr with all CC& no CC

Med pop gr withHadCM3-A2&B2 CCHigh pop gr with all CC& no CC

Xeriscaping None None Med pop gr withHadCM3-B2 CCHigh pop gr with all CC& no CC

High pop gr with all CC& no CC

High EfficiencyPlumbing

None None Med pop gr withCSIRO-B2, HadCM3-A2&B2 CCHigh pop gr with all CC& no CC

High pop gr with all CC& no CC

Combined None None High pop gr withall CC & no CC

High pop gr withHadCM3-A2&B2 CC

No. Scenarios >Allocation

7 6 54 39

Legend: CC = climate change; pop gr = population growth

34 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

scenarios exceeded supply in the combined DSMoption. As with agricultural water use, reliance onOkanagan Lake for domestic water supply will likelyincrease in the future. Accommodation of medium orhigh population growth in the future will clearlyrequire a combination of supply expansion andsignificant reductions in per-dwelling water usethrough demand side management and changes indevelopment patterns.

2.4 Conclusions and Recommendations

The bulk of evidence from this study and otherssuggests that the Okanagan region of British Columbiacan expect significant changes in water demand in thecoming decades. Population growth, developmentpatterns, climate change, management approaches andother factors will interact to determine future domestic,ICI and agricultural water demand. In general, thisscenario exercise concludes that in the absence ofchanges in development patterns or demandmanagement practices, the Okanagan will experience atleast a doubling of water demand from present-daylevels by 2069. In order to keep water demand atpresent-day levels, population growth would have to below and full implementation of DSM would be requiredas well as some increased dwelling density. Given pastexperience in the region, however, low growth does notseem likely.

Some conclusions pertaining to population growth,housing patterns, climate change and demand sidemanagement are presented below along withrecommendations for further research. These arefollowed by a brief discussion of some of the dataquality and availability issues that proved challengingwhen carrying out this research.

2.4.1 Population Growth

Clearly, population growth is the greatest single factorinfluencing domestic water demand in the Okanagan.It is also the most difficult to predict and control asevidenced by the rapid growth that occurred in the1980s and 1990s. By the year 2000, the Okanagan’spopulation had exceeded even the highest populationgrowth projection of the 1974 Canada-British ColumbiaOkanagan Basin Agreement report (Canada-BritishColumbia Consultative Board 1974). Migration to theregion is influenced by a host of factors includingeconomic conditions, housing prices, transportationcorridors, quality of life, etc., some of which can becontrolled by governments and some of which cannot.

This implies that sufficient flexibility must be built into the water management system in order toaccommodate unexpected changes in servicepopulations.

2.4.2 Housing Patterns

While population growth may be difficult to control,housing patterns are not. From the perspective ofwater management, housing patterns are intriguingbecause of their ability to be influenced by local zoningbylaws. Compared to other factors and at the levelsinvestigated, the water savings resulting from thedifferences between the smart growth and currentpreferences housing scenarios were small. However,given the multiple benefits of increased housing densityfrom a sustainability perspective, further investigationof how increased density influences water demand iswarranted. In particular, a more detailed examinationof existing housing patterns and potential fordensification in each case study would help to createmore realistic dwelling demand scenarios. A look atland available for housing expansion in each casewould also inform the scenarios due to potentialresidential development on irrigated agricultural land.Not only is this an ongoing concern in the region, butoverall water demand could also be affected due tochanges in irrigated area. Ongoing work to construct asystems model of factors influencing water supply anddemand in the Okanagan may address some of theseknowledge gaps (see Langsdale, this text, Chapters 4.0and 5.0).

2.4.3 Climate Change

As with housing patterns, climate change had arelatively small influence on scenarios of futureresidential water demand. The significance of climatechange is in the water management planning horizon.Depending on the population growth scenario, annualwater demands predicted without climate change mayoccur in excess of a decade earlier when climate changescenarios are factored in. This effect is magnified whenpopulation growth rates are lower due to the lowerslope of the population growth curve. According to thescenarios presented, particular attention will need to bepaid to climate change impacts when planning forresidential water demands in the 2040s and beyondwhen the climate effect becomes more pronounced.The influence of climate change on residential waterdemand points to the need for practical tools andconventions that planners, managers and otherpractitioners can use to incorporate climate change intowater demand forecasting analyses.

FINAL REPORT | 35

2.4.4 Demand Side Management

In one sense, it is fortunate that per capita municipalwater use in the Okanagan is high. The untappedpotential of demand side management in the regionoffers significant flexibility in dealing with changingsupply and demand regimes without impacting qualityof life for water users. In the scenarios, DSM resultedin dramatic reductions in water use, even in the caseswhere demand management programs were already inplace. While water utilities in the region appear to beadopting metering and volumetric rate structures asstandard DSM approaches in the residential andcommercial sectors, serious efforts have not yet beenmade with xeriscaping or high-efficiency fixtures andappliances. As demonstrated in the scenarios, watermetering can significantly reduce demand, but thecombined effects of full retrofits and xeriscaping wouldreduce water use far more than metering. Thechallenge involved in implementing these technologicalapproaches is that they require cooperation and buy-infrom many parties including property owners,developers, landscapers, builders and buildinginspectors as well as the municipal council and staff.Successful implementation would depend on howwilling these parties are to have local governmentsrestrict their freedom of choice for fixtures andlandscape design. In order to realize the increasedwater use efficiency these options offer, localgovernments will need to develop bylaws requiringthese techniques be used and provide the necessaryeducational and enforcement resources to ensure theirimplementation.

It is also important to note that DSM measures havebenefits beyond water use efficiency to the overallsustainability of the Okanagan. As the scenariosdemonstrated, demand management reduces thesensitivity of water management systems to externalinfluences such as climate change and developmentpatterns. Individual DSM measures also offer tangiblebenefits. Water metering with volumetric ratesimproves management of the water resource and utilityinfrastructure, and additionally provides improvedequity for water users. Water efficient fixtures andappliances also improve energy efficiency and reducewater and energy costs for utility customers.Xeriscaping, with a focus on native plant species, canreduce invasive species problems and enhance naturalhabitat in residential areas. Regardless of what thefuture brings in terms of climate change and populationgrowth, demand management is relevant to the presentand represents a “no regrets” option for dealing with avariety of concerns.

2.4.5 Data Gaps and Quality

A lack of monthly water use data by sector prohibitedinclusion of more case studies in this research. In thedata-gathering phase of this study, it also becameapparent that there is a lack of consistency in howwater use information is gathered and recorded fromone utility to another. Given the potential for demandmanagement approaches to deal with future pressureson water management systems, it would seemimportant in the future to characterize sectoral waterdemands at finer time scales. It is also increasinglyapparent that water resources in the Okanagan allbelong to the same resource “pool” whether supply isfrom groundwater, upland sources or lake/mainstem.The ability of resources managers to access demandinformation from the region’s water utilities could beimportant in the face of changing supply regimes underclimate change. This could be facilitated by guidelinesthat set minimum standards for data collection andavailability.

2.4.6 Other Research and Future Directions

In addition to the research needs mentioned in Sections2.4.1 to 2.4.5 above, further research into water demandin the institutional, commercial and industrial sectors isrequired to fully characterize the Okanagan’s present andfuture water demands. Tourism activities, golf courses,parks, manufacturing industries, resource industries andothers could significantly influence water demands inways that are not consistent with population- andhousing-based analyses. Given the expected increases inpopulation, the ICI sector is likely to expand andbecome a more significant water user in the future.Water pricing and other demand management initiativesmay also influence the future ability of Okanagancommunities to attract new businesses.

Many initiatives are currently underway to explore newapproaches to community development and watermanagement in the Okanagan. These include theOkanagan Partnership, Smart Growth on the Ground inOliver, implementation of an increasing block ratestructure in the City of Kelowna water utility,comprehensive water management planning in theTrepanier Landscape Unit, and others. While no oneapproach to water management will work for allcommunities in the region, there is much to be learnedfrom the experiences of communities and water utilitiesthat have taken unique approaches to water management(for example, see Shepherd 2004; Shepherd 2005). Aforum for sharing this information could benefit allwater utilities as they adapt to the many supply anddemand changes expected in the future.

36 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

FINAL REPORT | 37

Costs of Adaptation Measures

Bob Hrasko and Roger McNeill

Previous studies (Hrasko 2003b; McNeill2004) examined the costs of a range ofsupply and demand side options in the

Okanagan Basin for adapting to possiblechanges in water supply resulting from climatechange. In this chapter the previous analysis isexpanded to include a discussion ofgroundwater development and an analysis ofrecent case studies on the costs of upstreamstorage and lake pumping, the costs of meteringprograms and the costs of water treatment. Thechapter also looks at some of the other issuesand the planning processes that must beaddressed by local water utilities to augmentsupplies or reduce demand.

The focus of this chapter is on measures that individualutilities can undertake to adapt to the changinghydrology of the basin and to increased water demandsdue to climate warming. These measures, aimed atincreasing the reliability of the system’s water supply tomeet its needs, are not conceptually new and theengineering and management issues are wellunderstood. The need for municipal utilities to adjustto population growth over the last few decades hasprovided a wealth of engineering and planningexperience that is relevant to the emerging need toadapt to climate change. A primary objective of thispaper and its appendices is to provide a consolidatedreference for water system managers in the OkanaganBasin who must plan for the effects of climate change.A second objective is to provide a generalunderstanding to policy makers of the costs andprocesses of local adaptation to climate change. Thethird and final objective is to point out the need tointegrate local water system solutions and basin wideplanning.

The next sections of this chapter deal with supplymeasures that can improve the drought resiliency ofindividual systems including groundwater development,lake pumping, and increased upstream storage. Aseparate section is devoted to water treatment costs fornew water supply. The next section discusses demandmanagement options and the final section discussesbasin wide adaptation objectives that are not alwaysconsistent with the independent objectives of localwater suppliers. Further details about this work can befound in Agua Consulting (2006).

3.1 SUPPLY SIDE OPTIONS FOR ADAPTATION

The previous studies by Hrasko and McNeill discussedthe costs of supply side options including increasedupstream storage development and mainstem lakepumping. In this chapter additional information isprovided on groundwater development and watertreatment costs for new sources of supply. In additionrecent and proposed case studies of supply projects areexamined and their costs analyzed.

3.1.1 Groundwater Development

Historically, developers of new water supply have reliedon surface water in the Okanagan, concentrating firston gravity fed systems from upstream storage andsubsequently on pumped water from the mainstemsystem when tributary storage was not adequate.Groundwater development followed, but mostly as asecondary or small local source of supply. All of themajor communities, with the exception of Osoyoos relyprimarily on surface water as their main supply (seeTable 3.1).

Further groundwater development as a means toimprove resilience to climate change can beadvantageous for a number of reasons.

• Groundwater wells can often be integrated intocurrent systems as a supplementary supply to give agreater range of sources, thus improving the systemsability to meet requirements in drought years.

chapter

3

38 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

TABLE 3.1:

Water Sources for Major Water Utilities.

FINAL REPORT | 39

• Groundwater flows act as a natural storage andrelease system, with upslope recharge occurringduring the freshet followed by a steady movementinto lower regions.

• Sub surface strata contain much of the groundwaterat depths reachable by shallower wells.

• Groundwater has lower probability of protozoacontamination (Cryptosporidium and Giardia) thansurface water, although contamination is still possible.

• Development is often very cost effective in terms ofdollars per megalitre (ML) for supplementary wells.

Typical well depths of current systems are shown inTable 3.2. Maximum depths rarely surpass 300 feetwith the majority of wells in the 100 -300 foot range.Shallower infiltration wells in the Osoyoos region,which draw from saturated sands around the lake, are

about 30 feet in depth. Some screen plugging has beennoted with these wells.

Because of these favourable factors, groundwaterdevelopment costs can be relatively low compared toother alternatives. A recent development by theGlenmore-Ellison Improvement District illustrates thecost effectiveness of groundwater. The well, currentlyunder construction, has an estimated capital cost of$258,000 with an annual supply of 1200 ML, resultingin a per unit cost of $206 /ML. This represents anextremely low cost compared to other options. (SeeTable 3.10 for a complete cost comparison of recentcapital projects.)

Despite the relatively low cost of groundwaterdevelopment, problems exist that will affect the use ofthis option in the future. A major problem is thatgroundwater use is currently unlicensed. Without a

TABLE 3.2:

Typical Wells for Major Utilities in the Okanagan Basin.

40 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

system to allocate water from aquifers in the region,there is a very real danger of over use and conflictsbetween users, as in any unregulated common propertyresource. As groundwater becomes more important fordomestic water use, there is also an increased risk ofcontamination from current or historic land uses.Groundwater in the region often has naturallyoccurring high levels of minerals which can causeproblems with domestic water supply. Because of theseconsiderations, any supplier considering developmentof groundwater should only proceed after a thoroughexamination of these issues. Appendix A provides achecklist of the necessary steps to ensure safe andeffective groundwater development by local utilities.

3.1.2 Upstream Storage (Watershed Development)

Many of the issues concerning increased upstreamstorage were covered in the previous work by Hrasko

(2003b) and McNeill (2004). This chapter expands onsome of these issues, particularly with respect to waterquality, and gives costs of some recent and proposedcase examples.

Water purveyors initially developed upstream storagefor agricultural irrigation, basing site selection onaccessibility, ease of construction, capacity andreliability of re-fill. Increasing demands for domesticwater now result in higher water quality requirementsfrom existing and proposed reservoirs. Most of theaccessible and lower cost sites have already beendeveloped, resulting in higher costs for furtherdevelopment.

Water quality characteristics are more varied amongindividual tributaries and reservoirs which often havehigher organic loads than the main valley lakes. Manyreservoirs were constructed in wetlands or swampy

TABLE 3.3:

Parameters Related to Reservoir Storage Water Quality.

Legend: GCDWQ = Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality; AO = aesthetic objective; MAC = maximum acceptable concentration; THM = trihalomethanes; TOC = total organic carbon

regions resulting in lower water quality that wassuitable for the original intended use of irrigation butnot ideal for domestic water use. Lower altitudereservoirs can reach undesirably high temperatures,increasing biological activity. Table 3.3 gives a list ofwater quality parameters to be considered in reservoirdevelopment. When one or more of these parametersare at undesirable levels, higher water treatment costswill result.

Three storage projects dating from 1993 and fourproposed projects are shown in Table 3.4 below. Costsare dependant on site specific factors and the scope andvary considerable from project to project. Dam heightis particularly important, resulting in more stringentconstruction requirements and higher costs. The lasttwo projects in Table 3.4 have dams greater than 25meters in height and thus have high costs on a per MLbasis.

3.1.3 Mainstem Pumping

The previous reports (Hrasko 2003b; McNeill 2004)discussed some of the issues in mainstem pumping andpresented a probable cost range of about $800 to $3200per ML depending on the height required for pumping,the length of intake pump required and the ability to

use existing balancing reservoirs versus newconstruction. Some recent case studies of mainstempumping are presented below (Table 3.5).

The two latter projects only present costs for the lakeintake pipe portion and do not include conveyancecosts. None of the case studies includes reservoir orwater treatment costs. Note that the treatment costscan exceed the supply costs (see subsequent section onwater treatment costs). Because water quality frommainstem water is often better than water qualityupstream, water treatment costs can also be lower.

Mainstem pumping has some inherent advantages thatmay result in more development of this supply in thefuture. As mentioned, water quality is often superior toupstream sources, allowing for more cost efficientmethods of water treatment. Accessibility to themainstem is sometimes easier for large users thanupstream storage or groundwater. Finally, the largevolume of Okanagan Lake provides some droughtresistance and from an individual utility’s point of view,a large supply relative to increasing demands. Giventhe possibility of significant new mainstem pumpingdevelopments, it is worth discussing some of the microand macro scale issues in more detail.

FINAL REPORT | 41

TABLE 3.5:

Mainstem pumping projects.

TABLE 3.4:

Summary of reservoir storage costs.

TABLE 3.6:

Water treatment process costs.

42 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

From an individual utility’s micro perspective, severalengineering issues are of concern when developing newsources from the mainstem. The location of the intakeis critical, and development will only be feasible if itcan be located in a safe area away from human activitiesand stormwater run-off. Placement of the intake below30 metres in depth will provide stability for watertemperature and quality. If the water has good qualityand clarity then UV disinfection, reducing the risk ofprotozoa contamination, is possible. The elevation ofthe servicing area is also critical; if service is requiredmore than 130 metres above the lake, an additionalpumping station may be required.

3.1.4 Impact of Water Treatment on Costs

When calculating the costs of supply side adaptationoptions, the costs of water treatment should also beconsidered. In most supply options, the costs oftreating the water are at least as great as the costs ofdeveloping the supply. Table 3.6 below gives a range ofwater treatment process costs.

The various filtration technologies, often required tomeet regulatory standards, range from $2,700 to over$5,000 per ML treated. UV disinfection and clarificationhave a much lower cost range. It should be noted thatthe Interior Health Authority recently upgraded theturbidity standards for drinking water recommending aturbidity target of .10 NTU (nephelometer turbidityunit) with a reliable achievement of 1.0 NTU. Thesetargets will require full filtration, resulting in costs inthe higher range shown in Table 3.6. As a result, watertreatment costs become even more important inadaptation decisions.

3.1.5 Demand Side Adaptation Options

Previous work on adaptation costs (Hrasko 2003b;McNeill 2004) outlined the range of costs of a numberof options including public education, irrigationscheduling, high efficiency irrigation systems, leakdetections and domestic water metering. Irrigationscheduling, (cost of $400 – 700 per ML) and publiceducation ($700 per ML) were the two lowest costoptions. Leak detection and high efficiency irrigationsystems were in the $1200 to $1400 cost range, whilecosts of domestic metering ranged from $1500 to $2200per ML saved. Costs for each of the various measuresvaried based on assumptions about the size and locationof the system. This chapter discusses the general processfor successful water conservation programs, updatesprevious costing estimates using case examples foragricultural and domestic metering, and examines thegeneral price structure for water in the Okanagan.

Key conservation program components include:

1. Staff and Political Commitment – successfulprograms have had authority and direction fromcouncil and senior staff.

2. Water System Understanding – The major focus ofthis task is to determine the volume and significanceof unaccounted water which can be the result ofsystem leakage, recording/accounting errors, illegalconnections, reservoir leakage and overflow, and theftof water. Portable meters with data loggers can beused over time to estimate previously unaccountedfor water.

3. Dedicated Staff to Program – Dedicated staffincluding a public contact person is necessary forefficient conservation and response to publicinquiries.

FINAL REPORT | 43

4. Education of Water Users – A number of avenues areopen to utilities to improve public acceptance ofconservation measures.

5. Proactive Water Use Policies – Polices shouldconsider universal metering, education and incentivesfrom xeriscaping and low use irrigation systems.

6. Water Meters – Meters are a tool both to monitorand to educate rate payers, offering both fairness andaccountability. Federal funding is available forinstallation of agricultural meters.

7. Pricing Strategies – There is considerable opportunityto improve current pricing strategies to result inmore efficient water use and equitable charges to ratepayers.

Data from recent conservation case examples isavailable for the central Okanagan including the BlackMountain Irrigation District (BMID), the South EastKelowna Irrigation District (SEKID) and the City ofKelowna. Full details of these cost estimates are givenin Appendix B.

The SEKID example is well known in the province,demonstrating both the opposition to agriculturalmetering that can occur as well as the improvedefficiencies that result (Shepherd et al. 2006). Over 400agricultural water meters were installed in the mid 90’sand water consumption dropped by 10% based on aneducation program using data from the meters. Novolumetric pricing was included in the program until2004, when growers were required to pay a fee if theirwater use exceeded a pre-determined allotment. Thisfee structure resulted in an additional 17% reduction inaverage annual water use. The cost of the meters worksout to about $450 per ML. A proposed domesticmetering program by SEKID would have a higher costof about $2500 per ML saved.

The BMID agricultural metering program is underwaywith the installation of 482 water meters in 2006, 2007and early 2008. The technology for this programincludes underground vault installation and radiofrequency reads allowing for up to date information tobe relayed to the water users. BMID is also using the

same technology for domestic users within their utility,where metering has been required for new connectionssince 2005. Domestic metering installation costs haveworked out to $383 per household. Discussion istaking place about using a similar pricing system toSEKID with a fixed fee for an initial allotment and avolume based fee for overuse. The cost per ML saved isestimated to be approximately $600 for the agriculturalmetering.

The City of Kelowna implemented a domestic meteringprogram in 1996-97 which included a public educationcomponent (Shepherd et al. 2006). It is estimated thatthis program resulted in a 20 percent reduction in wateruse by domestic users. The costs per ML saved areapproximately $2000. Table 3.7 gives a summary ofthese recent case examples.

In summary, the examples of agricultural meteringillustrate that it is highly cost effective relative todomestic metering programs.

Current domestic pricing for water indicates that thereis potential to use pricing as a means for furtherconservation if supplies become limited by climatechange. Table 3.8 shows the average price per cubicmetre of water paid by domestic users in a number ofutilities in the Basin.

There is a substantial variation in rates, with a low of$190 per ML to a high of $1160 per ML. Note thatthese are annual rates as compared to the one timecapital costs of developing supply or conservation thathave been presented in the previous tables. The annualrevenue occurring to utilities from these prices seemsroughly adequate to pay the capital costs ofdevelopment, although this relationship is notexamined on a case by case basis. The rates aregenerally low and could be increased in the future ifmore expensive supply options become necessary giventhe combined effects of climate change and populationgrowth (see Chapter 2.0).

Rate structures can also be changed on a revenueneutral basis to promote further conservation of water

TABLE 3.7:

Conservation project summary.

during the peak summer demand months. In the past,the major communities have used a combination of afixed connection charge and a single volumetric pricefor use. An increasing block rate structure, with alower charge on the first block (for indoor use) and ahigher per unit charge for larger amounts (outdoor use)is consistent with marginal pricing principles and willreduce demands in the peak periods. Reducing peakperiod demands has the greatest effect on costs in thelong run and conserves water when it is most valuablein the system. The City of Kelowna has recentlyinstituted such a structure for domestic pricing. With

improved meter reading technology planned for othermunicipalities such as Penticton, increasing block ratesshould become more common.

3.2 IMPACT OF WATER TREATMENT ON COSTS

Previous work on adaptation costs (Hrasko 2003b;McNeill 2004) did not address the impact of watertreatment on developing new supply sources to adapt toclimate change. This section addresses the issue ofwater treatment costs citing recent case examples andproposed projects. Selection of the appropriate

44 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

TABLE 3.8:

Domestic water rates. SFE = Single Family Equivalent

TABLE 3.9:

Water treatment process costs (repeated from Table 3.6).

FINAL REPORT | 45

treatment technology will depend on local factors andthe standard of water quality that is required. As in thecase of water supply, water treatment costs are drivenby peak demands; in the hot summer months watertreatment plants service demands approximately threetimes the average annual demands. Table 3.9 listsrecent projects and proposals in the Okanagan.

The first two entries represent supplementary additionsto water supply, where full treatment is not required.The remaining projects, ranging in cost from about$2,800 to $5,700 per ML treated are more typical ofconventional treatment and filtration treatment.

Note that the Interior Health Authority recentlyupgraded reporting standards, requiring a publicadvisory when turbidity exceeds 1.0 NTU(nephelometer turbidity units) and a boil water

requirement when turbidity levels reach 5.0 NTU.These increased standards for turbidity will probablynot be achieved without the use of filtration technologythroughout the Okanagan.

In summary it can be seen that the cost of watertreatment is usually as great as or greater than the costof creating new water supplies through storagedevelopment, mainstem pumping or groundwaterdevelopment. In most cases, utilities will be planningto meet the needs of increased demands for higher cropwater requirements and population growth as well asadapting to reduced snowpacks, and additionalinvestments in water treatment would be required overthe long run. The effect of this cost requirement is tomake demand side options relatively more attractivethan supply side options, since no additional water

TABLE 3.10:

Recent and proposed projects for water supply, water conservation and water treatment.

46 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

treatment capacity is required for water saved throughconservation efforts.

3.3 SUMMARY OF CASE STUDIES FOR WATERADAPTATION

Table 3.10 shows a complete listing of recent andproposed capital projects in the valley, sorted by costper ML. Note however, that some of the projectsrepresent supplementary supply additions or watertreatment for current systems and may represent onlypartial solutions to meeting future water demands. Inmany cases the full cost of developing water supplywill be represented by the addition of the sourcedevelopment for the raw water and the watertreatment costs.

3.4 LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT VERSUSOKANAGAN WIDE ADAPTATIONSTRATEGIES

The costs of the various options presented in thepreceding sections are based on costs to the numerouslocal utilities that supply water for domestic andagricultural purposes in the area. The choices thatwater managers make concerning the best adaptationoptions will largely be based on cost effectiveness to theindividual utilities. This can lead to a divergence fromthe best mix of adaptation options defined from a basinwide perspective.

From a basin wide perspective an adaptation option hashigher value if it results in any of the following:

• Water is captured from the peak run-off period

• Water is stored as far upstream as possible

• Water is conserved in the basin rather than lostthrough evaporation.

Water captured and stored from peak run-off isavailable for use later in the season when supplies aremost scarce. In most years, the mainstem managersmust spill water out of the basin through the OkanaganRiver Channel and Osoyoos Lake to avoid flood risks.Upstream storage will save some of this surplus waterfor use in the high demand months that follow thefreshet. Even in periods of extended drought and poorsnow packs when spillage is not necessary, increasedupstream storage will help mitigate low lake levels bysupplying water during the high demand months.

Storage of water as far upstream as possible results ina greater potential for repeat use of the same water.

For example, a storage reservoir on a tributary canprovide instream flows necessary for resident andmigrating fish in the stream. Further downstream thesame flows can supply municipal needs. The returnflows from the municipality will then help to maintainlake levels required for recreation and lake spawningkokanee.

Water conservation will have greater value in the basinif it prevents loss of water through evaporation andatmospheric transport out of the watershed. Forexample efficient irrigation systems will preventevaporation losses as well as seepage to groundwater.The gains made through prevention of evaporation havea higher value than the gains from seepage sinceevaporation represents a net loss to the basin while theseepage will eventually make its way back to lowerreaches through return flows.

From an individual utility’s viewpoint, the access, costand security of supply are the important factors whenconfronted with options for meeting increasingdemands or dealing with decreasing supplies. Therewill sometimes be a convergence between the choices ofthe individual utilities and the priorities from a basinwide perspective, but in other cases the choices maydiverge from what is optimal for the basin.

Water conservation will often be a first choice optionfor individual utilities given its cost advantages,particularly when considering the cost of watertreatment for new supply sources. Conservation effortswill benefit both basin wide management as well as theindividual utility. Costs will be reduced for the utilityand some of the water saved will represent a net gain inusable supplies downstream. Despite the costadvantages, conservation efforts by individual utilitiesmay not be sufficient to meet the joint challenges ofpopulation growth and climate change. The potential20-30% water savings from conservation bymunicipalities may represent only a few years growth indemand from increasing population. The largerabsolute gains achievable through agricultural meteringwill take longer to implement, given the widespreadresistance in the area. Utilities are thus forced to lookat options for developing new supplies.

As discussed earlier, there are a few upstream storagedevelopments in the proposal stage, which areadvantageous from both a basin wide and an individualutility’s perspective. The more cost effective upstreamstorage sites have already been developed, limitingfurther development by municipalities and irrigationdistricts. Thus these agencies will be forced to turn to

FINAL REPORT | 47

other supply alternatives, which are not asadvantageous for basin wide management. Given thecost advantages, utilities will be looking to developgroundwater supplies where feasible. Developinggroundwater resources, however, often does not havethe same advantages to management of the valleysystem as development of upstream storage. Manywells will be close to the valley bottom, meaning thatthere will be less opportunity to re-use the watercompared to upstream storage supplies. Also users ofgroundwater are not usually capturing water that wouldhave otherwise been spilled from the system –untapped groundwater flows are already acting asnatural storage, capturing water from the peak andeventually releasing it on a delayed basis to themainstem.

Over the long run there will also likely be a move onthe part of utilities to augment their supplies throughpumping from the mainstem. The large storagecapacity of Okanagan Lake is a seemingly robust supplyrelative to an individual utility’s needs, allowing forlarge scale increases in demand, though there may belimits to how much of this source can be used (seeChapter 5.0, and Appendix F). The generally goodwater quality of the main valley lakes relative to thetributaries will also be an incentive for increased use ofmainstem water.

From an Okanagan valley macro perspective, otherissues must be addressed if mainstem pumpingcontinues to increase. Under future climate change,crop water demands will increase and snowpack willdecrease, and the effects of drought will be magnified.Low lake levels, such as experienced in 2003, willbecome more frequent. Thus, the provincialgovernment, as licensing authority, may restrict thenumber of new licences available for mainstempumping. After a certain point, no new licences maybe allowed without construction of offsetting tributarystorage.

Finally, the water quality of the main lakes is animportant issue in basin wide management that maynot be given sufficient importance by individualmunicipalities and utilities. The large capacity of thelake may seem sufficient to dilute run-off andwastewater from an individual system but thecumulative effects can be serious. The health effects ofcontaminants such as phenols and pharmaceuticals arepoorly understood. Atmospheric deposition into thewater shed from air pollution in the regions alsorequires more study. The slow turn over of OkanaganLake means that pollutants may stay in the system forup to 70 years, affecting lake water quality for currentand future generations.

48 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

FINAL REPORT | 49

Shared Learning Through GroupModel Building

Stacy Langsdale, Allyson Beall, Jeff Carmichael, Craig Forster,Stewart Cohen and Tina Neale

4.1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this research was to assist theOkanagan Basin, British Columbia, Canada waterresources community in incorporating climate changein their planning and policy development and toevaluate their water resources in a system context.This was done through a Participatory IntegratedAssessment process centered on the development of aSystem Dynamics model. The study did not only focuson climate change, but on a wide range of issues co-defined by the participants and researchers. Theproducts of this process are: (1) A shared learningexperience for both the participants and the researchteam; and (2) The resulting simulation model, adecision support tool for increasing knowledge aboutthe system, and for exploring plausible futurescenarios and adaptation opportunities. This chapterdescribes the Group Model Building process, whileChapter 5 provides more detail about the resultingmodel.

4.1.1 Objectives

The primary objective of this effort was to foster ashared learning experience between and among ourresearch team and the Okanagan water managementcommunity, related to the plausible impacts of climatechange, on the plausible effects on the integratedsupply-demand balance picture, and on the efficacy ofadaptive management strategies. Here, the emphasiswas on scoping, rather than on consensus-building anddecision-making. In the longer term, we hope that thiseffort will encourage the Okanagan community toincorporate climate change in their planning activities,and to encourage appropriate adaptation to reducefuture vulnerabilities.

The specific ways that we tried to create a sharedlearning experience were by:

1. Bringing together a diverse group of people thatdon't typically interact. The variety of experiences,

expertise and values that people bring enrich theexperience.

2. Actively engaging the participants throughout theprocess. Allowing their input to direct the processand incorporating their contributions in the model,integrating them with the research results.

3. Using the model as a tool to share research results ina context and medium that is appropriate for theaudience.

4. Keeping participants well-informed about themodel's assumptions and limitations, enabling themto interpret the results appropriately.

4.1.2 Previous work

All of the Okanagan research that preceded this two-year phase (Cohen and Kulkarni 2001; Cohen et al. 2004) provided the foundation that enabled us to conduct this process. The scientific research, that included the development of regional climatechange scenarios and their translation intohydrological, agricultural and residential impacts,provided a foundation of data for the model. Previousphases included activities with local stakeholders. In2001, focus groups generated a wide array of climatechange impacts and prioritized them (Cohen andKulkarni 2001). In 2003-2004 we conducted a series ofstakeholder meetings in which we discussed multiplefeasibility aspects of implementing climate changeadaptations at both local and basin-wide scales (Cohen et al. 2004). These activities provided theresearch team with some understanding of localconcern for climate change and attitudes about variousadaptation options, as well as the local political climate.Perhaps more importantly, through these previousactivities and collaborations, the research teamestablished relationships, and built a foundation of trust, with key water-related professionals andinterest representatives in the region.

Water is an issue that the Okanagan community takesvery seriously. By the most recent count, there are at

chapter

4

50 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

least 68 different governing bodies conducting water-related studies in the basin (Stephens 2006). Frominitial interaction with the community, there has been ashift in beliefs about climate change and about how tobest manage water resources. Prior to our efforts,climate change was not an issue being discussed.However, as the research team increased thecommunity's awareness of potential impacts of climatechange, interest increased. By the time the GroupModel Building project was initiated, climate changewas the issue that encouraged attendance.

4.2 METHODOLOGY

To meet our objectives, we needed to actively engagethe Okanagan community in the Integrated Assessmentprocess. System dynamics was selected as the modelingplatform because of its ability to integrate variousformats of information, its graphical, transparentmodeling language, and because of its capacity forbuilding user-friendly interfaces, ideal for non-technicalusers. Related projects that combine these twomethodologies for applications to climate change andresource management are reviewed.

4.2.1 Participatory Integrated Assessment

Integrated Assessment is a methodology that examinesa problem in the context of the entire system, ideallyincorporating all components that affect the criticalissue. Dowlatabadi and Morgan (1993) observed thatresearchers often only captured those componentswhere information was available. They proposed a newparadigm of integrating subjective, expert-basedknowledge with the better-known parts of the system.Engaging stakeholders in the assessment process is oneway of accomplishing this. Rotmans and van Asselt(2002) noted that effective Integrated Assessmentcannot be completed by scientific experts on their own,but only through collaboration with stakeholders anddecision-makers. Today, stakeholder participation inenvironmental resource planning and management iscommon practice.

Participatory modeling has several advantages:

• Participants learn the underlying model structure,not only the results. This fosters a higher level oflearning.

• The “black box effect” is reduced; assumptions anduncertainties are transparent.

• The presence of the model changes the focus awayfrom individual agendas and towards a systemperspective, increasing the productivity ofdiscussions and the opportunity for consensusbuilding.

• The model can be customized to the needs of the users, capturing critical issues andpresenting the information in a format that isclear to them.

• Participant knowledge of the system is a valuableinformation resource.

• Increases ownership and trust of the resultingmodel, and therefore the probability of continueduse.

Disadvantages of participatory modeling, as comparedwith conventional modeling, are the increasedrequirements of financial resources, time and logisticalplanning needed to engage the participants in theprocess.

4.2.2 System Dynamics

System dynamics was developed for the purpose ofcharacterizing complex, non-linear systems throughcapturing interrelations, feedback loops and delays.Modern system dynamics software packages(STELLA™, Vensim®) are ideal for use with aparticipant group of varying levels of technicalproficiency because of their graphically-based modellevel and user interface. These models can easilymanage both clearly-defined and poorly-definedcomponents in the same model. Similarly, they cancapture the quantitative, physically-based parts of thesystem, such as the hydrology, as well as thesubjective, intangible parts of the system, such aspolicies and human responses, so it is quiteappropriate for the purposes of Participatory Integrated Assessment.

System dynamics modeling has been used to addressenvironmental resource problems for at least 30 years,as exemplified by the seminal work, Limits to Growth(Meadows and Club of Rome 1972). Meadows and hercolleagues created a global-scale model that tracked thedynamics of population, food production, industrialoutput, natural resources and persistent pollution.Their simulations showed that the current trajectorieswould lead to overshooting the earth’s sustainablelimits. More recent studies confirm that this is now the case (Wackernagel et al. 2002).

FINAL REPORT | 51

4.2.3 Related Work

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Institute for WaterResources led some of the first initiatives ofparticipatory resource management using systemdynamics models. The earliest projects were “DroughtPreparedness Studies” (DPS) conducted in several U.S.cities. They involved stakeholders with various typesof expertise throughout the modeling process todevelop and implement water management strategies.Participants were empowered by the ability to directlyimpact the modeling process, by gaining a betterunderstanding of the system and an appreciation forother perspectives, by the ability to use the modelthemselves, and by their confidence in the results(Palmer et al. 1993). This work continues today as“Shared Vision Planning” (SVP) as described in Palmeret al. (submitted).

Six of the case study models were used after thestakeholder participation phase to evaluate climatechange. Most cases found climate change was not acritical issue. For example, in the Great Lakes study,investigators decided that the climate change issue wastoo uncertain and in the distant future to make anydecisions at that time, but that regular monitoring wasneeded (Institute for Water Resources 2005). Thisphilosophy may be sufficient for short-term operations,but is not appropriate for long-term investments, likeinfrastructure which is designed for 50 or 100-year timeframes.

This project is related to the SVP initiatives in that weare engaging stakeholders in investigating watermanagement options and policies through thedevelopment of an integrated watershed model.Whereas the focus of the SVP work is on fosteringconsensus and implementing water management plansrelated to the operation of U.S. Corps of Engineers’facilities for the short to medium term, the Okanaganresearch is a general scoping process, guidingstakeholders to explore long-term future scenarios andto evaluate the value of anticipatory adaptation inreducing future vulnerabilities.

4.3 THE GROUP MODEL BUILDING PROCESS

This section provides detail about the group modelbuilding process, with a focus on the objectives,activities, and products of each event. Participantswere recruited by invitation, with the intention ofachieving a diverse and balanced representation of thevarious organizations and responsibilities related towater resources management in the Okanagan Basin.The invitation list was compiled from the contacts wehad established in previous phases of the project, bytargeting key organizations and representatives, andthrough referrals. All participants were invited to eachevent shown in Table 4.1. Between sessions, the teamrevised and expanded the model based on thecontributions and guidance of the participants that wereceived at each event.

TABLE 4.1:

Summary of Events in Group Model Building Process.

52 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

4.3.1 Workshop 1

The main purpose of the first event was to establishobjectives for the model. Before exploring what themodel should include, we conducted activities thathelped people think more broadly about the system,beyond their individual interests. Workshop 1activities are summarized in Table 4.2.

First, we introduced systems thinking principlesthrough the interactive Ice Cream Game. Detailsabout this activity are provided in Durfee et al(submitted). Participants took on various rolesneeded for running an ice cream business, from thefactory to the store. Afterwards, participants reflectedon the experience and why they were making poordecisions. They noted that they had a very limitedview of the system, and that the inherent delays werenon-intuitive and challenging to accommodate.Participants suggested ways to improve management,such as increasing communications between all parties(more meetings!) as well as loosening constraints (buya second freezer!).

The second task was for participants to educate theresearch team, as well as each other, about thehistorical (and future!) context of the Okanagan,particularly as related to water resource management.This was conducted through the creation of a timeline.Timeline contributions provided insight into themanagement decisions and major events that helpedto define the basin as it is today, as well the localvalues and political pressures. Additional purposes ofthe timeline construction were to demonstrate thewealth of knowledge among the participants and toshow that we do value their contribution to theprocess. Indeed, at the end of this session, we were allimpressed by the volume and quality of theircontributions. A copy of the completed timeline isattached in Appendix C.

Once people were encouraged to think more broadly about the system, we were ready to discussobjectives for the model. First, we asked participantsto write down their visions for the model. These were used as a starting point for the plenarydiscussion about what the model needs to capture and be able to address. Contributions from both ofthese formats were consolidated into the list shown inBox 4.1.

TABLE 4.2:

Description of Workshop 1.

FINAL REPORT | 53

BOX 4.1:

The following list was generated by participants at Workshop 1, February 2005.

OKANAGAN MODEL OBJECTIVES

(A) Characterize Current System• Capture land use & water use interdependencies• Create a water budget (include surface water – groundwater interactions; distinguish tributary

and mainstem flows)• Determine economic values of water (both as a commodity and as part of natural

environment)• Capture economics of valley – employment in various sectors drives economy (ex: tourism,

agriculture, industries) – and these sectors are tied to water and land use• Water is a variable, finite resource; A change in resource can impacts lifestyles and have

associated dollar value• Capture water quality issues• Capture governance / political landscape• Capture and explore interdependencies between agriculture, fish and people.• Capture conflicting administrative jurisdictions

(B) Make Future Projections, Evaluate Impacts of Changes• Include Climate Change scenarios – explore climate-driven impacts on supply and demand

balance• Capture changes in runoff hydrograph (from climate change, and from land use changes)• Include Population Growth (determine growth limits associated with various housing

types/development densities). Population growth changes both land and water resource use.• Include Value Changes• Estimate changing (increasing) cost of water• Identify how growth/reduction of sectors will impact local economy• Consider short-term and long-term behaviours – context of different planning horizons; gov't

agendas are short-term, while public interest is for the long-term• Explore current OK lake release policies – is minimum flow appropriate?• Determine impacts on fish; flow requirements• Identify constraints in system

(C) Explore Management Options• Provide information for land use decisions• Develop picture of “Sustainable Landscape”; Determine how to sustain water supply• Learn from the past, identify areas to change behaviour to avoid future crises• Investigate variety of policies (Examples: penalty-based vs. incentive-based controls;

metering; paying for water; expansion of infrastructure; creation of 10-yr allowable sustainablewater withdrawals; increase efficiency in water delivery; Shuswap diversions; changinggovernance and OK Basin Agreement (would one governing water body imply changes inrules?)

• Explore future water distribution. There will be a change in balance of values over time andtherefore on the associated flow priorities. Who gets what? Will pop growth take water fromfish? Changes in economic, social, environmental, and First Nation values will result inchanges of water (distribution) for fish, pop growth, lake levels, tributary storage, and waterquality.

(D) Make Appropriate for End-Users• Final tool may be used for public education.

54 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

4.3.2 Workshop 2

The overall purpose of the second event was to haveparticipants define the scope of the model. To do this,we had the participants identify critical linkages thatimpact the system, as well as to revisit the modelobjectives in more detail. These help to identify thekey components as well as the appropriate scales andsystem boundaries. The main activities of theworkshop are summarized in Table 4.3.

We started the meeting with a presentation introducingthe stock and flow language and the capabilities ofSTELLA™ software. It was important to show thatSTELLA™ can capture both quantitative and qualitativeelements that influence the system, so participants neednot limit their suggestions by limitations of modelcapabilities. Next, using the STELLA™ language, weintroduced a very simple representation of the entireOkanagan's water resources (Figure 4.1). The purposeof this was simply to seed creativity, and it was very

TABLE 4.3:

Description of Workshop 2.

FIGURE 4.1:

Initial representation of Okanagan water resources in STELLA™, used to motivate discussion in Workshop 2. Thisimage was printed in the centre of poster sized sheets for the group work.

FINAL REPORT | 55

TABLE 4.4:

Research questions that participants want the model to be able to answer.

I. Characterize current system:A. What is the current water supply (annual and seasonal) and what is current use/demand? Characterize a

basin-wide water budget/water balance.

II. Characterize future system:A. What are the Sustainable Limits/Carrying Capacity/Limits to Growth in the Okanagan?

• How much Development/increased Population can the basin take? What is the sustainablepopulation?

• What are the Environmental consequences? Aquatic Ecosystem (upland & lowland) impacts? Whatis the habitat conservation/instream flow requirements?

• Social and Economic consequences? (Lake access, Ag & open space)• Is water the limiting factor?• Is Agriculture sustainable? How much more resources (water, money) are needed to grow crops?

Would increased costs (including rising prices for water) drive out agriculture? Can we maintain theability to feed the local population?

• Example: Is there enough water (domestic, all uses) for the next 20 years at 2.5% population growthrate?

B. What are ranges of possible Changes to Supply, Demand, and Water Quality due to:• Climate Change• Population growth and higher density• Drought• Land use impacts (development, forestry)

III. Test alternatives, make choices for future, recognise values:A. What Policy Levers are effective? How effective are management options?

• Meters• Landscaping (drip irrig, xeriscaping)• Price structures/water pricing• Water reclamation• Rainwater harvesting• Public education/social marketing (What is an acceptable per capita water use?)• New infrastructure• Modifying range of lake level fluctuation• Reducing outflow to U.S. (to increase supply)• Conservation (Residential, Industrial, Agricultural)• Public policy/regulation• Land Use Planning (by acknowledging water demands and the ability to meet these?) Can we

develop more resilient plans?B. What are the Trade-offs that we need to make in the future between competing demands? What uses

do we Value? (Agriculture, Recreation, Aquatic Habitat, Environment)C. Can we maintain the current Quality of Life (water quality, beautiful vistas, environmental balance of fish

and biological species – not limited to endangered species)? What is the threshold?

IV. Educate public and decision makers to make changes:A. Make results easily communicated & understandable so that the general population can and will

influence decision makers for proactive rather than reactive management.

56 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

effective, as several people immediately raised concernsabout information that it was missing.

Next, we assigned participants to three groups of fourto six members each. At each group's table, weprovided a large poster-sized sheet of paper thatcontained a small image of Figure 4.1 in the centre.With the support of a facilitator from our team, eachgroup created a more detailed representation of thelinkages and factors that influence the basin's waterbalance. The resulting diagrams are attached inAppendix C.

With the support of the worksheet attached inAppendix C, we asked participants to consider in moredetail what specific questions they wanted the modelto be able to answer, and then to identify what scalesare needed to answer these questions. We also askedthe participants to make their best guess at the answerto their questions, as an attempt to documentunderstanding before the modeling process. A wide variety of questions were generated, as shown in Table 4.4.

Suggestions for appropriate scales spanned wide ranges.Group 1 suggested dividing the basin into about nineregions to accommodate the wide range of precipitationand irrigation rates. Alternately, they discussed a basin-wide model, with a nested single watershed to capturemore detail. Group 1 recommended a seasonal time-step, with the model running to either 2020 or 2050.Group 2 was in agreement that the focus needs to be oncalculating a basin-wide water balance, and that thisneeds to be completed before pursuing any moredetailed work. Also, reliable, long-term basin-scalewater records are available, whereas records are poorwithin the basin. For these reasons, Group 2 desired abasin-scale model with an annual time-step. Group 3

did not reach consensus about the appropriategeographic and time scales needed. One member madea case that all 160 basins needed to be modeled becauseof the wide variances in hydrology and geography andthat this high level of detail is required to achieve aclear understanding of the current and future status ofthe basin. Other group members felt that a satisfactorymodel could be created with a much smallerbreakdown, in the order of 6-10 sub-divisions. Themodel should extend into the future long enough toevaluate long-term sustainability, perhaps 100 years andmonthly, seasonal, or annual increments would beappropriate.

4.3.3 Workshop 3

The main objective of this event was for participantsto evaluate a preliminary model and to provide ideasfor the next iteration of model development. Thepreliminary model was a very simple representationthat operated on an annual timestep. It simulated abasic water balance of inflows and demands for threegroupings of surface water sources: Uplandreservoirs, Okanagan Lake, and the Lower Lakes.Population Growth, Land Use and Crop WaterDemand were also represented. We first introducedthis model to the entire group. Then, we divided theparticipants into groups with a facilitator and aversion of the model on a laptop. In the morning,discussion focused on the structure of the model,while in the afternoon, it focused on the userinterface and communication of results. Workshop 3is summarized in Table 4.5.

Including the facilitators, each group had four to sixpeople sharing a single laptop. We selected groupsizes to create diverse and so that there were enoughpeople to foster productive dialogue within groups.

TABLE 4.5:

Description of Workshop 3.

FINAL REPORT | 57

We also felt it was important to assign facilitators toeach group, to help clarify the model and guideexploration. This reduced the amount of personalinteraction that each participant had with the model.However, at this stage the model was preliminary; itserved more as a means of generating discussion andclose scrutiny was not necessary. Interaction was mosteffective when the facilitator steered discussion byquestioning the accuracy of the rendition of particularelements of the model. In subsequent workshops,participants worked mostly in pairs, which allowedparticipants to evaluate the model more effectively.Because in later stages the model was more self-explanatory, facilitators could float around the room,allowing for more, smaller groupings.

Participants provided a wealth of ideas about theOkanagan system, particularly in the areas of:

• Hydrology

• Imported water

• Instream flow

• Water quality

• Land use (Agricultural Land Reserve)

• Forestry

• Population & Urban development

• Residential water use

• Crop water demand

4.3.4 Round of Meetings

The purpose of this event series was to updateparticipants on the significant model development thattook place over the summer, to prioritize tasks forfuture development, and to fill in data gaps. It wasparticularly important to verify the model structurewith the technical experts. Objectives of thesemeetings are summarized in Table 4.6.

Langsdale was the only facilitator that led thesesessions. The sessions were intentionally designed tobe small groups to allow more interaction with theparticipants. This gave more time to help themunderstand the model, and to ask specific questionsabout additional data required. The location of themeetings around the basin, in participants' offices alsomade it easier more people to attend. Several times,on-site co-workers who were curious about the process(but would likely not have made the time to travel to afull day meeting) joined the session. The sessionsprovided us with a wealth of information, which weincorporated into the model, to the extent possible,before the next session.

4.3.5 Workshop 4

The objective of this event was to test and calibrate themodel. We brought together the whole participantgroup again in December, after not meeting as a groupsince the 3rd workshop in June. This event issummarized in Table 4.6. At this point, the model hada complete Uplands sector with two hydrologicscenarios, four population growth scenarios, and a

TABLE 4.6:

Description of the Round of Meetings and Workshop 4.

58 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

number of adaptation strategies. It also contained afully functioning user interface. During the session,participants worked in pairs at laptop stations in theroom. Facilitators roamed to provide guidance asneeded. Pairs were more desirable than single usersbecause (1) pairs may generate more questions theywant to explore with the model; and (2) pairs providethe opportunity for discussion and debate about theresults.

Participant comments were documented by note-takersand facilitators roaming the room, through flip-chartsduring plenary sessions, and on video tape. Discussioncentred mostly on calibration and operational rules forthe Upland reservoirs, alternative management options,and the clarity and consistency of the user interface.Again, a vast amount of information was collected, andwe incorporated as much as we were able to before thefinal event.

4.3.6 Workshop 5

The objective of this last event in the series was forparticipants to run simulations and generate insightsfrom the model, as described in Table 4.7. Whenresults were surprising, we discussed why – is themodel wrong, or our perceptions of the system wrong?

At this point, the extensive list of scenario andadaptation options available to the user made the userinterface somewhat complex. A list of these options isincluded in Chapter 5.0. Therefore, we started themeeting by providing a guided “walk through” of theinterface using a projector in the front of the room.

The majority of the event was spent allowing pairs toexplore on their own at laptop stations. Facilitatorsroamed the room and provided support. As needed, we

interrupted them and used the screen in the front of theroom to answer questions for the group.

Finally, we held a plenary to share and discuss newinsights that people learned. Initially, we wanted thediscussion to focus on what stories they tested andwhat results they found surprising. We did capturesome, but the group also made severalrecommendations for further model improvements.The insights generated included:

• It is tough to manage the system when sockeye aregiven priority.

• If you move all of the Upland diversions to the lake(to leave water for the aquatic ecosystem) then thelake level drops significantly.

• Residential demand is a surprisingly smallcomponent.

4.4 RESULTS

As mentioned in the Introduction, there were severalways that we tried to create a shared learningexperience. In this section, we provide evidence as tohow well we accomplished each of these goals.

Objective 1: Bring together a diverse group of peoplewith a variety of experiences, expertise and values.

Figures 4.2 through 4.6 show the resulting participationthroughout the process. Participants are categorized bytheir affiliation and their major role in Okanagan watermanagement. Affiliations are categorized as: FirstNations, Federal, Provincial (BC), Regional District, orLocal Governments; Environmental Non-GovernmentalOrganizations; Academia; Irrigation Districts;Agricultural Association (BC Fruit Growers

TABLE 4.7:

Description of Workshop 5.

FINAL REPORT | 59

Association); Consultancy; or Local Initiative (TheOkanagan Partnership). Roles are categorized as:Elected officials; Community and resource planners;Practitioners in operations and water management;Technical scientists and engineers that provide supportfrom within an agency; Researchers; Advocates (forenvironment, business or agriculture); Administrativeor Communicative roles within an organization; andSenior Managers (who have technical expertise buthave advanced to management).

Figures 4.2 through 4.5 plot the number of participants(as a percent of the total) of each type as well as aweighted participation. The weighted participationfactors in the number of events that each personattended according to the following relations:

In the figures, both the numbers of participants and theweighted participation value are shown as percentagesso that the results can be more easily compared. Forthe categories where the weighted participation bar ishigher than the number of participants bar,participation from this group was higher than average.Thus, participation by the agricultural association (BCFruit Grower's Association) was higher than average,and the Provincial Government was slightly higher.Figure 4.5 and Figure 4.6 include only thoseparticipants who attended three or more (of the sixpossible) events. The intention is to identify thosegroups that had the greatest contribution in the modelbuilding process. As Figure 4.6 shows, Technical –Science & Engineers, and Advocacy groups had thegreatest presence at the events.

Figure 4.7 shows how participants in various roleschanged in participation throughout the process.Although we made an effort to avoid schedulingconflicts, we expected that all participants would not beable to attend all events. To keep participants whomissed sessions up-to-date, we communicated betweensessions using e-mail and a project web site.

Objective 2: Actively engage the participantsthroughout the process. Allow their input to direct theprocess and incorporate their contributions in themodel, integrating them with the research results.

There are two ways that the participant groupinfluenced the model building process. First, theydeveloped the objectives, research questions and scopeof the model. Secondly, they provided a wealth ofinformation about the details and management of theactual system.

The objectives, research questions and themesgenerated at the first two workshops provided directionthroughout the development of the model. At thesecond workshop, a range of scales was suggested.Although we did not reach consensus at that meeting,participants approved of the spatial scales selected forthe preliminary model. Furthermore, we collectivelydetermined that monthly timesteps were the mostfeasible.

The research conducted on climate change andhydrologic scenarios, and crop water demand andresidential demand, served as an important foundationfor the model. However, the participants provided theinformation to be able to link what these scenariosmean to the Okanagan context. How are the reservoirsmanaged through the year? Where do return flows go?How is water allocated in dry years when there areshortages? What populations are served by whatsources? What are the requirements for instream flow?What are the legal implications of not meeting instreamflow? What strategies are people talking about? Theparticipants, many of whom manage the system on adaily basis, were the best source of information forthese questions.

Objective 3: Create a shared learning experiencethrough development of the model and groupdiscussions.

Participants found both the process and the resultingmodel valuable. Participants assessed their ownlearning experience in the evaluations given in the finaltwo workshops, using a numerical scale and throughwritten comments. Numerical responses aresummarized in Table 4.8. Responses are combined forthe two events, which had very few participants whoattended both. Note that the mode was 3 (Somechange). The median value was 2.4. In the commentssection, several people noted that the process helpedthem clarify system linkages. One respondent notedthat the concept of limits to growth is tempered by ourability to manage and adapt. Five responses noted that

where,

i = affiliation type or role

n = total number of affiliations (11) or roles (8)

%100.

1

n

i

i

i

i

a

aionParticipatWeighted

i

iiiAttendedEventsNotParticipana ..

60 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

the results described a picture that was worse than theypreviously thought, while two responses noted it wasbetter than they previously thought.

Those with the least knowledge about the waterresource system experienced the most learning. AnNGO representative said the experience increased hislearning “[i]mmensely -- The whole scope of theexercise was mind expanding.” Several professionalswho started the process well-informed still benefited bygaining greater clarity in understanding therelationships between variables. Another participantnoted a better appreciation for the “challenges inherentin holistic management” and for the value of “drawingtogether varied aspects of water.”

TABLE 4.8:

Number of responses to the post-workshop evaluationquestion “Have your perceptions of future wateravailability in the basin changed due to this exercise?”

1 2 3 4 5No Some Major

Change Change Change

4 7 9 0 1

Objective 4: Foster ownership and trust with themodel by keeping the participants well-informed aboutthe model structure, assumptions and limitations.

Because the participants did not actually create themodel code themselves, generating a feeling ofownership and trust in the model was challenging. Theworkshops provided the best opportunity for educationabout the model through hands-on interaction anddialogue with the modeling team. Through theevaluation forms, we measured two parameters thatgive us insight as to how well we met this objective.The first related question was “How well do youunderstand the model's structure?” We asked this onboth the pre- and post-evaluation forms given at thebeginning and end of the events, respectively, andprovided a scale from 1 to 5. 1 was rated as “not atall,” 3 was “I know what issues are included,” and 5was “very well – I could teach it to someone else.”Responses ranged from 1 to 4, and the average values,along with the average increase from the pre- to post-evaluation, is shown in Table 4.9.

TABLE 4.9:

Average values of responses on pre- and post-evaluations, for the question: “How well do youunderstand the model's structure?” The response scaleranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very well).

Pre-Eval Post-Eval Change

Workshop 4 2.3 3.2 + 0.9

Workshop 5 2.5 3.1 + 0.6

Another evaluation question that can provide us insightas to how well the participants understand and trustthe model is the question, “Do you feel this model is alegitimate and relevant tool to explore long-term watermanagement in the Okanagan?” Fortunately, in bothworkshops, there were zero “no” responses. Severalresponded with “maybe” or “has potential” andcommented that it would depend on the user, or that itwould be after specified updates were made. As shownin Figure 4.2, people’s trust in the model increasedslightly from Workshop 4 to Workshop 5. This islogical because the model was more refined in the finalevent than in the previous one. Several of the peoplewho responded “yes” commented that it was a goodcommunication and/or education tool for visualizingthe future and discussing policy. This is in alignmentwith the purpose of the model.

FIGURE 4.2:

Comparison of responses by event to the evaluationquestion: Do you feel this model is a legitimate andrelevant tool to explore long-term water management inthe Okanagan?

FINAL REPORT | 61

FIGURE 4.3:

Percent attendance of all participants at all six events, categorized by affiliation. Plotted as (a) total number ofpeople, and (b) weighted by the number of events each person attended.

FIGURE 4.4:

Percent attendance of all participants at all six events, categorized by role in Okanagan. Plotted as (a) total numberof people, and (b) weighted by the number of events each person attended.

62 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

FIGURE 4.5:

Percent attendance of those people who attended three or more of the six events, categorized by affiliation. Plottedas (a) total number of people, and (b) weighted by the number of events each person attended.

FIGURE 4.6:

Percent attendance of those people who attended three or more of the six events, categorized by role in theOkanagan. Plotted as (a) total number of people, and (b) weighted by the number of events each person attended.

FINAL REPORT | 63

4.5 DISCUSSION

4.5.1 Lessons Learned

Bringing individuals into a volunteer process is alwayschallenging. In the Okanagan, there are currently manywater planning initiatives competing for the time ofwater professionals and related interests. We tried ourbest to accommodate everyone's schedules. Forexample, we intentionally did not meet over thesummer, when most people take vacations. However,the end of September conflicts with both the fruitharvest and salmon migration. Keeping incommunication with participants regarding schedulingcan avoid some of these conflicts. Regardless,participants have different motivations for attending, somay have varied levels of interest at different stages ofthe process. For example, we anticipated that theelected officials and environmental advocates would bemore interested in the early stages, when objectiveswere established, and the final stages, when resultswere generated and discussed; rather than during the“nuts and bolts” of the model construction. In fact,there was more participation from these two groupsearly and late in the process as shown in Figure 4.7.This figure also shows that technical experts dominatedparticipation at the September model review meetings,

although all participants were invited to attend. Thisoutcome was likely resulted from my need to meet withparticular knowledge-holders, combined withparticipant self-selection.

In this process, we chose to hold five full-day meetingsthroughout the year. We found this to be the minimumrequired to enable participants to follow and contributeto model development. More frequent, shortermeetings would have been more effective at keeping theparticipants updated on model progress, and wouldhave created more opportunities for people toparticipate. However, because our team needed totravel to the study area for each event, and becauseLangsdale was the primary person responsible for boththe model development and process design, our formatwas most feasible for our situation.

Better familiarity and ownership with the model couldhave been fostered without the long summer breakwhen the bulk of the model was assembled. During thesessions, participants raised many questions aboutmodel assumptions and requested modeldocumentation for their reference outside of thesessions. Providing model documentation to theparticipants before or at each session would have beenan asset. The documentation, now complete and

FIGURE 4.7:

Distribution of attendance throughout process according to role in the Okanagan, as shown for each event.

64 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

attached in Appendix D, will be made available to allparticipants for future reference.

Throughout the process, we encouraged theparticipants, rather than the project team, to define theprocess. The intention was to encourage them to takeownership of the model. This was effective for most ofthe process, but some ground rules are necessary tomake sure that everyone is “on the same page.” Betterclarification of the process will also help invitees knowwhat to expect, which will help their decision toparticipate. Some examples of ground rules that areimportant to determine and reiterate throughout theprocess are:

1. The resulting model will be used for explorationonly; it is not intended for operations.

2. The objective of this process is learning; we will notbe striving for consensus.

3. At this stage, our “model user” is the participantgroup. In the future, we could tailor the model forpolicy makers or the general public, but that isbeyond the scope of this project phase.

Through the evaluations and direct communication withthe participants, we heard that learning occurred throughmodel construction, but also simply from bringingtogether a diversity of experience and expertise.Through discussions, many participants gained anappreciation for the values of others. They also gainedinsight on the complexity of water management.Additionally, the single-disciplinary researchers whoparticipated gained new perspective from the relativelysimple, high-level, multi-disciplinary model.

Evaluations are critical to understanding the impact ofthe process. Although we did conduct some evaluationsalong the way, the evaluations could have been morestructured, in order to capture learning as well as theeffectiveness of the process and people's experiences.Ideally, evaluations given at the beginning and end ofthe process could measure learning about aspects of thesystem. However, it is challenging to know ahead oftime what the learning will be, so it is difficult to knowwhat to measure at the beginning of the process.

4.5.2 Did This Process Make a Difference?

The long-term significance of this participatorymodeling process to policy development cannot bemeasured during the timeframe of this phase of theproject. Decisions are complex, and not based onsingle factors. Since we do not have a control group,we may never be able to measure what changed as aresult of our efforts.

Regardless, we are optimistic that the process did makea difference to the participants, who were quite positiveabout the experience. Throughout the process,participants recommended that this work be shared witha wider community, particularly to elected officials andthe public. For example, several participants expressedinterest in collaborating with related initiatives in theregion, including Smart Growth on the Ground, anorganization that fosters sustainable community designand planning within communities, and the OkanaganQUEST model, a tool to explore urban futures.

FINAL REPORT | 65

A System Dynamics Model forExploring Water Resources Futures

Stacy Langsdale, Allyson Beall, Jeff Carmichael, Stewart Cohen,Craig Forster

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this research was to assist the OkanaganBasin’s, water resources community with the incorporationof climate change projections into their planning andpolicy development and to help them evaluate theirwater resources in a system context. This was donethrough a Participatory Integrated Assessment processcentered on the development of a System Dynamicsmodel. The products of this process were: (1) A sharedlearning experience for both the participants and theresearch team; and (2) A simulation model, which is atool for increasing knowledge about the system and for exploring plausible future scenarios and adaptationopportunities. The shared learning process is describedin Chapter 4.0, while this section describes thestructure of the system as modeled, and several results.

The purpose of this model, as defined through theparticipatory process, was to explore the water balancein the Okanagan, both historically and under a range offuture scenarios. More specifically, we wanted toinvestigate: (a) What is the historic and current stateof the system? (b) How might stressors, particularlyclimate change and population growth, impact thesystem? and (c) What role could adaptation measureshave in improving or maintaining water resourcesystem reliability despite increased stress from climatechange and population growth?

5.2 PROJECT HISTORY

Several of the preceding project phases that were alsofunded by the Government of Canada’s Climate ChangeImpacts and Adaptation Program (see Chapter 1.0)established a sound foundation upon which this workbuilds. Stakeholder dialogue activities identified andestablished relationships with key players in Okanaganwater management activities. The activities increasedthe awareness within the professional watermanagement community about potential climate

change impacts as well as adaptation opportunities(Cohen and Kulkarni 2001; Cohen et al. 2004; Cohenet al. 2006). The information presented to them and thedialogue that we started earlier about climate changeimpacts captured their interest, leaving them wanting toknow more. Current appreciation of the significance ofclimate change is evidenced through the recentincorporation of climate change scenarios into anOkanagan community's water management plan(Summit Environmental Consultants 2004).

Concurrently, research about physical aspects of thesystem helped characterize how climate change impactsmay both reduce water supply and increase waterdemand. Taylor and Barton (2004) created six basin-scale climate change scenarios, using the delta method,to define a range of plausible future climates for theOkanagan. These climate scenarios show meantemperature increases between 1.5 and 4 degreesCelsius throughout the year, and generally wetterwinters and dryer summers. Merritt and Alila (2004)incorporated these climate scenarios within simulationsby the UBC Watershed stream flow runoff model togenerate hydrologic scenarios. The results showsignificant changes to the annual hydrograph from thehistoric period (1961-90) to the period from 2010 to2100. All scenarios show a reduced snowpack, anearlier onset of the spring freshet by four to six weeks,and decreases in summer precipitation. Some scenariosalso show more intense spring freshets. Neilsen et al.(2004b) used the climate scenarios to model the impacton agricultural crop water demand. Highertemperatures increase both evapotranspiration and thelength of the growing season – two factors whichincrease crop water demand. As a result, crop waterdemand could increase from 12 to 61%, as climatechange intensifies through the decades. Furthermore,Neale (2005) correlated residential outdoor wateringwith temperature and detached dwellings for severalOkanagan communities, showing that water demand inthe residential sector will also increase under climate

chapter

5

66 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

change, in the absence of conservation measures. Eachof these results on its own tells us importantinformation, but only provides part of the picture. Byconsidering these impacts together - in the systemcontext - we can determine the increased risk to thewater resource system in the future.

5.3 METHODOLOGY

5.3.1 Participatory Modelling

Participatory modelling is a recently establishedapproach for conducting integrated assessment that hasbeen applied to a variety of fields such as policyanalysis and organizational learning, as well asenvironmental resource applications such as waterresources and land management.

Participatory modelling is founded in the belief thatpeople’s mental models of how a system behaves arebased on numerous unstated assumptions, and oftencontain gaps and inconsistencies. The process ofsharing these mental models identifies points ofagreement and points of conflict. The areas of conflictdraw attention to the underlying assumptions, and themodelling activity is a tool to make assumptionsexplicit so they can be clarified and challenged. Theprocess ideally results in a model that describes thestructural aspects of the system, while the modelsimulations provide information about systembehaviour (Forrester 1987; Vennix 1996). The modelcan then be used to explore a range of future conditionsor assumptions. Participants may engage directly in themodelling process, or the model may be developed inan iterative process with regular opportunities tocontribute (van Asselt and Rijkens-Klomp 2002).

Recent case studies where the approach was applied toenvironmental issues include: the Louisiana coastalwetlands, the South African fynbos ecosystems and thePatuxent River watershed in Maryland, USA (Costanzaand Ruth 1998); water resources management inSwitzerland, Senegal and Thailand, and vegetationmanagement in Zimbabwe (Hare et al. 2003); waterallocation issues in the Namoi River, Australia (Letcherand Jakeman 2003); transportation and air quality inLas Vegas, USA (Stave 2002); and Patagonia coastalzone management (van den Belt et al. 1998). Systemdynamics, described in the next section, was themodelling approach used in all of these cases.

5.3.2 System Dynamics

System dynamics was developed for the purpose ofcharacterizing complex, non-linear systems through

capturing interrelations, feedback loops and delays.Modern system dynamics software packages (such asSTELLA™ or Vensim®) are ideal for use with aparticipant group of varying levels of technicalproficiency because of their graphically-based modellevel and user interface. These models can easilymanage both clearly-defined and poorly-definedcomponents in the same model. Similarly, they cancapture the quantitative, physically-based parts of thesystem, such as the hydrology, as well as thesubjective, intangible parts of the system, such aspolicies and human responses, so it is quiteappropriate for the purposes of Participatory IntegratedAssessment.

5.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE MODEL AND THEACTUAL SYSTEM

Here, we provide detail about the model and the system which it describes. First, major features andcomponents of the model are described. Then,relationships between these components, which providemore insight into behaviour, are described through theuse of a Causal Loop Diagram.

In this text, the term “demand” refers to the volume ofwater requested by a user group for consumptive ornon-consumptive use. The amount is not equal towater rights, nor is it necessarily what they will beallocated. When shortages occur, users may not beallocated the total amount demanded. Instream andconservation demand is defined by a policy that isbased on percentages of the long-term mean annualdischarge. In dry years, when not enough water isavailable to standard policy, the amount requested forinstream and conservation demand compensates forthis. This is still not equal to the amount allocated toinstream and conservation requirements; theadjustment just provides a more realistic request basedon the current conditions.

Another term used in this text is “residential.” In theOkanagan, most out-of-stream water use is for eitheragriculture or residential applications. The term“municipal” or “urban” is not used because of thewater allocation structure in the Okanagan:municipalities frequently serve both residential andagricultural customers. In most cases, additional waterto support non-residential municipal use, such aswatering of parks or golf courses is either averagedinto per capita residential use values, or counted asagricultural use. Industrial use is very low in theregion, and therefore was not separated fromresidential use in this study.

FINAL REPORT | 67

5.4.1 Model Components

Spatial Scales

The model, constructed in STELLA™, describes nearlythe entire basin, from the northernmost extent to themouth of Osoyoos Lake (see Figure 5.1). OsoyoosLake was not included because: (1) The SimilkameenRiver also contributes to Osoyoos Lake; (2) OsoyoosLake levels are controlled on the U.S. side; (3) Theinternational agreement for management of OsoyoosLake has, to date, not imposed constraints on water usein the Okanagan; (4) The critical issue affecting healthof the Osoyoos Lake ecosystem is temperature, which isstrongly correlated to inflows from Okanagan River.Modeling the entire basin provides a large-scaleperspective that the community has expressed interestin acquiring since the early 1970's (Canada-BritishColumbia Consultative Board 1974), but has notachieved, and which is not obvious to most people whooperate at local and regional scales.

This area was divided into three major regionsaccording to water source type: tributaries to OkanaganLake (Uplands), Okanagan Lake (Valley), and sourcessouth of Penticton (South End) (Figure 5.2). Thesethree areas have distinct climates, topography, andwater use patterns. Tracking the three distinct areasalso helped us to capture repeated use of water as itmigrates from the Uplands, through the Valley, andthen to the South End.

Time Scales

Simulations use monthly timesteps in thirty-year blocksof either a historic period (based on 1961-90 data) orone of two future periods (2010-2039 and 2040-2069).Unfortunately, this created a gap between 1990 and2010. Participants were uncomfortable with thisbecause present-day data would have provided themwith an immediate frame of reference for evaluatingdata in the rest of the model. However, our reliance ondata from established climate models and previouswork limited our flexibility in choosing ideal

FIGURE 5.1:

Okanagan Basin Map, showing location in British Columbia in inset. From (Cohen et al. 2006).

68 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

simulation time periods. The future periods are the2020's and 2050's phases used by climate modelers, andthe historic years were chosen and used by researchersin the previous phases of the Okanagan projects (seeMerritt and Alila 2004; Taylor and Barton 2004).Monthly timesteps were chosen to capture the seasonalclimate shifts while maintaining simulation efficiencyand avoiding capacity limits.

Hydrology

The hydrologic streamflow scenarios (Merritt and Alila2004; Merritt et al. 2006) provided the foundation forthe model. These scenarios were developed using theUBC Watershed Model. Information about temperature

and precipitation shifts from the downscaled climatemodels were combined with site-specific historichydrologic data. Thus, future scenarios contain thehistoric climate pattern from 1961-1990, withadjustments derived from each climate scenario. Dueto time constraints, only the Hadley A2 scenario hasbeen incorporated into this version of the systemmodel. Other scenarios will be assessed in due course.

Calibration of the UBC Watershed model emphasizedmatching peak flows, rather than low flows, so theresults of this work may be more useful in describingthe extreme peak events rather then low flowconditions, such as for meeting instream flowrequirements.

FIGURE 5.2:

Upland, Valley and South End areas are outlined.

FINAL REPORT | 69

Additional water sources such as groundwater andsome minor diversions from adjacent river basins werealso included, as they are important water supplies. Aslittle technical information is currently available aboutthe groundwater resource, the groundwater “aquifers”in the model provide information about the relativestate (rather than the absolute state) of the groundwaterstock throughout the simulation. In the Okanagan,water is diverted from the adjacent Kettle, Shuswap(Duteax Creek), and Nicola (aka “Alocin”) basins.Diversions from the Kettle and Shuswap were includedin the model; however, Nicola is a relatively minorsource, so is not included.

Water Use - Agricultural

Agricultural water demand rates are based on Neilsen etal. (2004b). The model described in Neilsen et al.generated estimates for crop water demand for majorwater purveyors by relating demand to climatic andlocation-based factors. We aggregated this outputaccording to water source and normalized by area andby crop type. In the system model, each water sourceregion has a single average per land area irrigationdemand profile for each crop and each climate scenario.The normalization of the data allowed us to createoptions for users to simulate changes both in total landin production and in crop type mix.

Water Use – Residential

Residential demand is based on work by Neale (2005,also in this text, see Chapter 2.0). Incorporated fromthis work were the relations developed correlatingtemperature and outdoor water use, information aboutaverage numbers of residents per dwelling anddemographically-driven trends for multi-unit and singlefamily dwellings, and estimates of the efficacy of arange of demand side management strategies. Relationsand data for the City of Kelowna were used asrepresentative values and extrapolated to the entireUpland and Valley regions. Similarly, the informationfor Oliver was extrapolated to the entire South Endregion.

Water Use – Instream Flow/Ecosystem

Instream flow requirements are included in both thetributaries to Okanagan Lake and the mainstemlakes/river chain south of Penticton. Because water isdiverted out of the tributary streams, we assume thatinstream flow demands downstream cannot be satisfiedby water earmarked for diversion. Instead, instreamflow demands are exclusive from the out-of-streamdemands.

In the tributaries to Okanagan Lake, conservation flowtargets defined for several streams as monthlypercentages of mean annual discharge (NorthwestHydraulic Consultants 2001) were extrapolated to alltributaries. The ideal conservation flow target isautomatically modified in dry years, when not enoughwater is present in the system to satisfy the target. Theideal instream demand value remains constant becauseit is based on established policy parameters; however,the requested instream demand value adjusts to theclimate condition. The requested instream demand isthe value that the model uses during the simulation,and is also reported in the Results Section.

Adaptation and Policy Options

A variety of water conservation measures for theagricultural and residential sectors are included, such asmetering, xeriscaping, and technology upgrades. Policyoptions are provided for drought management, enablingthe user to select different priorities for waterallocations. Table 5.1 lists the policy options availableto the model user on the user interface.

5.4.2 Dynamics of the System

Here we describe the actual and modeled systemthrough key linkages that define the behaviour of theaspects of interest. Since our main objective is toexplore the balance between the supply and thedemands on the system, we characterize the aspectsthat will increase or decrease the supply and/or thedemand.

The Causal Loop Diagram

One tool for illustrating a complex system is a “CausalLoop Diagram” (CLD) (see Figure 5.3). CLD's areparticularly useful for identifying feedback loops andthus clarify the factors that control the system'sbehaviour. Since the purpose of the model was to gaina better understanding of the water balance under avariety of times and conditions, we chose Water Deficitas the indicator parameter and placed it in the center ofthe CLD. Water Deficit is defined by, and thus directlyinfluenced by the Water Available and the Total WaterNeed. The arrows that connect these elements showthe relationship, and the +/- signs indicate the directionof influence. For example, the positive link from TotalWater Need to Water Deficit means that as Total WaterNeed increases, Water Deficit will also increase. Thenegative link from Water Available to Water Deficitmeans that as the amount of Water Available increases,the Water Deficit decreases; there is an inverserelationship. Similarly, as the Water Deficit increases,Water Use is forced to decrease.

70 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

TABLE 5.1:

Adaptation and policy options included in the model on the user interface.

FINAL REPORT | 71

Water Deficit

The Water Deficit is the shortage in water relative towater demand (see Equation 5.1). In the CLD, theWater Deficit is aggregated for the whole basin. TheOkanagan is more often in a state of surplus than inshortage, which can be represented by a negative WaterDeficit. We are more interested in times of shortage, sowe represented the parameter with this in mind.

Water Available represents an aggregation of watersources available for use, both in and out of the stream.Sources include stream flow, groundwater, and waterdiverted from adjacent river basins. Both groundwaterpumping and water diversions may increase in times ofwater deficit.

Water Demand represents an aggregation of multiplepurposes. Most water use in the Okanagan can be

classified as agricultural, residential, or ecological.Recreation is also significant, but is not a consumptiveuse and overlaps with the instream ecological demands,so is not included here.

Balancing Feedback Loops

There are several balancing loops that work to reduceWater Deficit either by increasing supply or by reducingdemand. Supply is increased through additionalimports and/or groundwater pumping. It should benoted that, although groundwater pumping increasessupply in the short term, as indicated, it is probablethat surface water and groundwater are closely linked;therefore, groundwater pumping may reduce theamount of surface water available over the longer-term.

Mechanisms exist for reductions of water demand ineach of the three water use sectors in drought

FIGURE 5.3:

Causal Loop Diagram of Okanagan Basin water resources system, showing which components are not included in themodel, and those that are only present through user-selected options.

Water.Deficit = Water.Available – Water.Demand [Equation 5.1]

72 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

situations. Decisions about prioritizing water use andthus, implementation of these mechanisms, is decidedat the local scale, often by individual purveyors.Instream flow demands are defined by conservationflow targets (Northwest Hydraulic Consultants 2001) inthe tributaries to Okanagan Lake and flow thresholds inthe region downstream of Okanagan Lake. Thesetargets accommodate during drought years when it isnot feasible to meet the ideal conservation targets.

In the CLD, a linkage is included that implies thatincreases in temperature due to climate change couldincrease the amount of flow needed to support theaquatic ecosystem. This linkage is based on the need tomaintain water quality with sufficient flow to keep lakeand river waters cool. This relationship was notcaptured in the model, thus the model shows instreamdemand decreasing in the future climate scenarios withdecreased precipitation.

Residential water demand is affected by both short-termand long-term policies. Water use policies currentlyexist for managing drought. These are typicallyimplemented during the dry summers and limitoutdoor watering. Over the long term, residential andurban development decisions will affect water usepatterns. Densification of housing reduces outdoorwater demand by having less landscaping area perhousehold. New construction and renovations canincorporate low-flow fixtures. Xeriscaping can beencouraged or enforced with local by-laws. Increasingconcerns or experiences of water deficit may encouragewater conservation practices such as these.Mechanisms also exist for reducing agriculturalirrigation, including irrigation technologies, cropmanagement, and metering. As with the residentialsector, although there have been some early adopters(Shepherd et al. 2006), many consumers are waitinguntil water shortages are realized before responding(see Schorb, this text – Chapter 7.0).

A Reinforcing Loop

The amount of water available in the basin at any givenpoint in time is not a static volume. Instead, water isreused multiple times on its journey betweenprecipitating onto the ground and exiting to OsoyoosLake and the U.S. Border. This phenomenon iscaptured by a weak reinforcing loop. A portion ofwater used is returned to the system, either to surfacewater or groundwater, which contributes to the totalwater available in the same area or downstream.Several communities have water reclamation systems inplace, where treated water from residential sources isused for watering golf courses and municipal parks.

Similarly, this increases the total water available for useat any given snapshot in time. The increase inavailability reduces the water deficit, which allows forincreased water use. Additional water consumptionincreases the volume of water returned to the system.The reinforcing strength of this loop is highly limitedby exit pathways. A portion of irrigation water is lostfrom the system through evapotranspiration. Also,water not consumed or “lost” (i.e. to deep aquifers) onits journey through the Okanagan Basin is transporteddownstream and out of the system.

External Drivers – Climate and Population

Without external drivers, the system could remain indynamic equilibrium. However, the external factors ofclimate change and population growth have thepotential to cause significant disruption by moving thesystem towards increased water deficit. Climate changecould influence the water deficit through multiplelevers/points of influence – it may decrease annualprecipitation, and thus average river flows, and mayincrease temperatures, increasing irrigationrequirements. Furthermore, the warmer climate mayincrease flow requirements for aquatic ecosystems tokeep lake temperatures below thresholds.

In this analysis, we assume population is an exogenousdriver over which people have no control. However,this is not entirely accurate. Historical evidence of thelinkages between development and population exists inthe Okanagan. For example, Kelowna experienced twomajor population and development surges in the lastfifty years. (Figure 5.4) The first occurred justfollowing completion of the Okanagan Lake floatingbridge in 1958; the second corresponded to the openingof the Coquihalla Connector that linked the denselypopulated Lower Mainland with the Central Okanaganin 1990 (Central, 2006; Input/Output 1996). In theCLD, we assume that population will continue toincrease (not decrease) over time. Therefore, withoutwater reduction or conservation strategies, residentialwater demands will increase.

5.5 RESULTS

Model results are aggregated and reported as monthlyvalues, averaged over the 30-year period of simulation.In Figures 5.5 to 5.7, the three major demands (agricultural,residential, and instream) are summed to reveal a range oflevels of demand the basin could experience in the future,as compared with the amount of water entering the basinin an average year. Clearly, according to this plausibleclimate scenario, without interventions, water demandswill not be met in the future. It is important to remember

FINAL REPORT | 73

FIGURE 5.4:

Population in Okanagan by Regional District, with major events that increased growth rates indicated.

FIGURE 5.5:

Average year inflow to Okanagan Lake compared to total demand with (yellow) and without (orange) residentialadaptation for historic, 2020s and 2050s periods and with Hadley A2 climate change. The lower boundaries of theshaded areas represent low population growth and the upper boundaries represent rapid population growth.

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

Historic 2020's 2050's

Simulation Period

Flo

w [

mcm

per

mo

nth

]

Total Inflow

Total Demand (Ag + Res + Instream)

Total Demand with Residential Adaptation

74 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

FIGURE 5.6:

Okanagan basin demand profile under Hadley A2 climate change scenario and rapid population growth. 30-yearaverage.

FIGURE 5.7:

Okanagan basin demand profile under Hadley A2 climate change scenario and slow population growth. 30-yearaverage.

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

Historic 2020's 2050's

Simulation Period

Flo

w [m

illio

n cu

bic

met

res

per

mon

th]

Resid - Rapid

Instream

Agric

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

Historic 2020's 2050's

Simulation Period

Flo

w [m

illio

n cu

bic

met

res

per

mon

th]

.

Resid - Slow

Instream

Agric

FINAL REPORT | 75

FIGURE 5.8:

Dry year inflow to Okanagan Lake (average of the 10 driest years) compared to total demand with (yellow) andwithout (orange) residential adaptation for historic, 2020s and 2050s periods and with Hadley A2 climate change.The lower boundaries of the shaded areas represent low population growth and the upper boundaries representrapid population growth.

FIGURE 5.9:

Okanagan basin demand profile under Hadley A2 climate change scenario and rapid population growth. Average of10 driest years in each 30-year period.

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

Historic 2020's 2050's

Simulation Period

Flo

w [m

illio

n cu

bic

metre

s per

mont

h]

Resid - Rapid

Instream

Agric

76 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

FIGURE 5.10:

Okanagan basin demand profile under Hadley A2 climate change scenario and slow population growth. Average of10 driest years in each 30-year period.

FIGURE 5.11:

30-year average annual supply-demand hydrographs for the Historic/Base Case (1961-1990).

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

Historic 2020's 2050's

Simulation Period

Flo

w [m

illio

n cu

bic

me

tres

per

mo

nth

]

Resid - Slow

Instream

Agric

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Month

Flo

w/D

eman

d [

millio

n c

ub

ic m

etre

s]

Basin Inflow

Ag Demand

Res Demand

FINAL REPORT | 77

FIGURE 5.12:

30-year average annual supply-demand hydrographs for the 2020s simulation.

FIGURE 5.13:

30-year average annual supply-demand hydrographs for the 2050s simulation.

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Month

Flo

w/D

eman

d [

mil

lio

n c

ub

ic m

etre

s]

Basin Inflows

Ag Demand

Res Demand - Rapid

Res Demand - Slow

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Month

Flo

w/D

eman

d [

mil

lio

n c

ub

ic m

etre

s] Basin Inflows

Ag Demand

Res Demand - Rapid

Res Demand - Slow

78 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

FIGURE 5.14:

Okanagan basin demand profile under Hadley A2 climate change scenario and rapid population growth withresidential adaptation (corresponding to Figure 5.6). 30-year average.

FIGURE 5.15:

Okanagan basin demand profile under Hadley A2 climate change scenario and slow population growth withadaptation (corresponding to Figures 5.7). 30-year average.

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

Historic 2020's 2050's

Simulation Period

Flo

w [m

illio

n cu

bic

met

res

per m

ont

h]

Resid - Rapid

Instream

Agric

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

Historic 2020's 2050's

Simulation Period

Flo

w [m

illio

n c

ubic

met

res

per m

onth

]

Resid - Slow

Instream

Agric

FINAL REPORT | 79

that these graphs are averages, and do not capture eitherthe inter- or the intra-annual variability. Figures 5.8 to5.10 repeat these analyses for the 10 driest years out ofthe 30-year simulations, and Figures 5.11 to 5.13 showdemand on a monthly basis, for a typical year, based onthe simulation period.

Inflows are only influenced by climate (not population),and only one climate scenario was tested in this versionof the model: Hadley A2. Of the six combinations ofmodels and emissions scenarios evaluated in Taylor andBarton (2004), Hadley A2 is a moderate to worstclimate scenario depending on the evaluation criteriaand the period of interest. Instream flows areaggregated for the whole basin between the uplandsand the mouth of Osoyoos Lake. This is related to –but not equal to – total water availability, because aportion of the source water is reused and recycledmultiple times before exiting from the watershedsystem. This value does include sources in addition toprecipitation – groundwater and minor diversions fromDuteax and Kettle Creeks.

Instream demand reported in the figures aggregatesrequirements in all the Okanagan Lake tributaries;standards established for the twenty-one majortributaries were extrapolated to all the upland streams.Additional requirements in the Okanagan River were notincluded, since the use is not consumptive, adding bothwould have double-counted water demanded. The flowrequirement in the tributary streams is based on policy.The model contains a policy mechanism in whichreductions in the requirement are allowed duringdrought years when sufficient water is simply notavailable to meet the instream targets. Therefore,Figures 5.6, 5.7, 5.9, 5.10, 5.14 and 5.15 show instreamdemand declining slightly in the climate changescenario.

Agricultural demand represents the aggregated demandin the entire modeled basin area. In both of thesecases, the area of irrigated land and crop types are heldconstant. As shown in Figure 5.6, agricultural demandincreases significantly with climate change. This is dueto both higher temperatures and an extended growingseason (as shown in Figure 5.3 – the Causal LoopDiagram).

Residential demand also represents the aggregateddemand in the entire modeled basin area. Residentialdemand is dependent on both population and climate.Rapid and Slow growth under climate change scenariosare plotted on Figures 5.6 and 5.7

5.5.1 Adaptation

As described in Section 5.4.1, the model contains anarray of options for testing adaptation measures. InFigure 5.14 and Figure 5.15, all residential adaptationmeasures that are options in the model areimplemented, starting from the initial simulation year(2010). Aggressive implementation of residentialconservation measures could reduce total demand inthe 2050’s by about 8-12% (low growth and highpopulation growth scenarios, respectively). In anyevent, this is not enough on its own to offset thesupply-demand gap illustrated in Figures 5.5 and 5.8.Additional combinations of adaptation strategies arereported in output graphs in Appendix F. More detailedanalysis of a selection of adaptation strategies will beconducted and reported under separate publication.

5.6 DISCUSSION

Here we provide insight as to the answers to our threemain questions raised above. Information shown in theResults Section is synthesized to answer thesequestions.

(a) What is the historic and current state of the system?

During the period 1961-1990, overall demand(residential, agricultural and ecosystem combined) wasequal to 67% of the total inflow, when averaged overthe 30 years. When only the driest 10 years wereconsidered, this ratio increased to 93%. During thisperiod, residential demand comprised only a small partof the total demand profile. Instream demand is thelargest component of the three.

(b) How might stressors, particularly climate changeand population growth, impact the system?

The components of supply and demand responddifferently to the stressors of population growth andclimate change. According to the Hadley A2 scenariothat was built into the model, natural flow into thebasin from precipitation will decrease from historicrates, more gradually in the 2020's by about 5%, thenmore drastically in the 2050's, by about 21%. At thesame time, agricultural demand across the basin willincrease with climate change. Residential demand willincrease with climate change as well, as people usemore water for watering gardens and parks as thetemperature increases; however, residential demandappears to be more sensitive to growth rate thanclimate change, within the range of growth rates tested.Instream ecosystem demand rates are more challengingto define. In this work, they are based on established

80 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

policies. Since these policies allow adjustments to therequirement during low flow years, the instream flowdemand level appears to decrease with climate change.This is a result of the increased incidence of low flowyears, and does not reflect the actual needs of theecosystem in warmer climates.

Aggregating these three needs, the total averagedemand is 79-82% of total inflow in the 2020's, and 82-113% of total inflow in the 2050's. Low values in therange correspond to slow residential growth and theupper values correspond to rapid population growth.

(c) What role could adaptation measures have onimproving or maintaining water resource systemreliability despite increased stress from climate changeand population growth?

Figures 5.5, 5.8, 5.14 and 5.15 in this section includeone example of the influence that adaptation measurescould have on the system. In these figures, allresidential options (as described in Section 5.4.1 andNeale (Chapter 2.0)) are selected for the futuresimulation periods. Additional combinations ofadaptation measures and management options areshown in Appendix F. The results are consistent withNeale (Chapter 2.0) in that aggressive implementationof residential adaptation measures can at least partiallycompensate for the increase in demand due to thepopulation expansion. Additional conservationmeasures in the agricultural sector will also help tooffset the increase due to climate change; however, thecombination of all of these conservation policies maynot be sufficient to maintain the level of systemreliability that was experienced in the historicsimulation period.

5.7 CONCLUSIONS AND REMARKS

The development of the model has provided us withinformation about what the future might bring.Population growth will have considerable impacts tothe system, particularly if growth occurs at rapid rates;however, the combined impacts of climate change onboth supply and demand could be even morechallenging to manage. An array of adaptationstrategies are presented in the model. Certainly thesewill become more critical as the Okanagan waterresource becomes more challenging to manage.Conservation strategies that reduce dependence on theresource also reduce vulnerability to climate change.The Okanagan community will have challengingdecisions ahead as to how and when to implementadaptation. Now that the model is operational, it canbe used to support dialogue surrounding the selectionof a wide range of adaptation strategies. This dialoguecould engage a wider community than the originalparticipant group involved in the development phase.

FINAL REPORT | 81

Residential Policy, Planning and Design –Incorporating Climate Change into Long-term Sustainability in Oliver

Jodie Siu

As the climate change adaptationchallenge becomes better understood,our attention now turns to design and

implementation of adaptation responses, withinthe context of local and regional development.One approach to this is through a processknown as “Smart Growth”, being promoted bySmart Growth on the Ground (SGOG). SmartGrowth on the Ground (SGOG) is a uniqueinitiative, helping BC communities to plan andimplement more sustainable forms of urbangrowth.

In 2005/2006, the Oliver BC region was thefocus of SGOG work. The region is located inthe south end of the Okanagan Valley, in“Canada’s pocket desert.” The local economyincludes significant activity in the agricultureindustry, and a growing population. In light ofthe potential impacts of climate change onwater resources in the region, the SGOGpartners formed links with the ParticipatoryIntegrated Assessment team. This was seen asan important opportunity to gain experience inconnecting climate change research and urbandesign within an ongoing SGOG design processtaking place in Oliver.

This chapter outlines the activities andoutcomes of this process.

6.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE PARTNERSHIP

Three organizations form the Smart Growth on theGround partnership:

• The Design Centre for Sustainability (DCS) at theUniversity of British Columbia is an appliedresearch unit. DCS conveys research on sustainablecommunity design to real world communities, witha central focus on design as a tool to create positivechange.

• The Real Estate Institute of BC is a professionalorganization with a mission to advance the higheststandards of education, knowledge, professionaldevelopment and business practice in all sectors ofthe real estate industry.

• Smart Growth BC is a non-profit, non-governmentalagency that works with citizens and local governmentto promote fiscally, socially and environmentallyresponsible land use and development.

Smart Growth on the Ground receives funding from avariety of sources, including government (regional,provincial, and federal), foundations (e.g. the Walterand Duncan Gordon Foundation) and private (e.g.Valley First Credit Union). Each partner municipalityalso contributes in-kind resources in the form of stafftime and expertise.

The Smart Growth on the Ground process ishighlighted by the following elements:

• Extensive Public Outreach. Public education andmeaningful input are cornerstones of the SGOGprocess.

• A Design Charrette. A charrette is an intensive,multi-stakeholder design event. Citizens, electedofficials, government staff, and other experts arebrought together with professional designers. In acollaborative atmosphere, charrette team membersundertake an “illustrated brainstorm.” The teamcreates land use, transportation, urban design, and

chapter

6

82 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

other design plans for the particular geographicarea under study.

• Research. Before, during, and after the charretteevent, the SGOG process includes applied researchon issues of importance in the study area, includingbut not limited to economic analysis of theproposed design plans.

• Practical Action. Following the charrette, theSGOG team assists the local government toimplement the charrette team recommendations.Implementation may include changes to regulationsand policies, or built projects.

More information on the Smart Growth on the Groundinitiative can be found at www.sgog.bc.ca.

The three SGOG organizations work intensively withselected Smart Growth on the Ground partnercommunities. In 2005 and 2006, the SGOG teamworked with the Town of Oliver and the RegionalDistrict of Okanagan-Similkameen. This marked thefirst time that two levels of government were jointlyinvolved in an SGOG partnership. The study areaincluded the Town and “Area C” of the regional district(the rural area around Oliver).

6.2 INCORPORATING CLIMATE CHANGE INTOSMART GROWTH ON THE GROUND IN OLIVER

As mentioned above, public education is a keycomponent of Smart Growth on the Ground. To thatend, the SGOG team attempts to identify researcherswhose work would be of interest in SGOG partnercommunities. In turn, SGOG offers an opportunity forresearchers to disseminate their work to receptive localgovernment decision-makers and the general public.

In Oliver and the Okanagan, the SGOG teamrecognized the importance of water management andclimate change, and wanted to introduce relevantresearch on these topics to the public. TheParticipatory Integrated Assessment team was workingin the region, and so a relationship was formed.

The public outreach efforts began in fall 2005 with asurvey (by mail, at the opening event, and online) ofthe key issues of concern to residents. In response toan open-ended question about challenges to futuregrowth and development, “water resources” was thesecond-most frequent response. When asked about themost important external factor to consider whenplanning for growth, “water resources” was the topresponse.

In December 2005, a “learning event” was held. Basedon survey responses, 11 speakers were convened toprovide introductions to topics of interest. Eachspeaker presented brief introductions to their work, toprovide a useful baseline of information for members ofthe public who would then attend subsequent events.Among others, speakers included:

• Stewart Cohen, Participatory IntegratedAssessment team, on “Climate Change”

• Sonia Talwar, Natural Resources Canada, on“Water Resources”

• Oliver Brandes, POLIS Project, on “WaterSustainability”

Over 130 people attended the event, and digital videoand slides from each speaker were made availableonline: (http://www.sgog.bc.ca/content.asp?contentID=151#preparing).

In January and February 2006, a series of workshopswas held for town residents, rural residents, businessowners, developers, agriculturalists, environmentalists,youth, and people interested in social issues. At thefirst workshop for each group, voting exercises wereused to gauge the priorities of the participants(http://www.sgog.bc.ca/uplo/OlJan06worksheets.pdf).Residential water conservation was one of the resultingkey priorities.

At the second workshop for each group, participantswere given data on 12 priority indicators and asked to set targets (http://www.sgog.bc.ca/uplo/OlTargetWorksheetFeb06.pdf). One of the indicatorswas water conservation. Current usage data waspresented, along with a discussion of potential climatechange impacts. Participants were amazed thatresidential water use in Oliver was much higher than inother Okanagan communities, and recommended adecrease in the future.

Concurrently, the SGOG convened a series of meetingswith researchers and experts on various issues,including water. Experts were asked to contribute theirown recommendations on the same priority indicatorsthat had been reviewed by the public.

Following the public and expert input, and prior to the charrette, the SGOG complied a set of instructionsfor the charrette team. Called a “design brief”(http://www.sgog.bc.ca/content.asp?contentID=153),the instructions were created from four general sources:

FINAL REPORT | 83

• input from the public during the workshop phase

• best management practices for sustainabledevelopment

• existing policy at all levels of government

• relevant experts and organizations

The design brief included a target of a 38% reduction inresidential water use by 2041 (page 8). The team wasalso encouraged to explore “greener” building standards(page 29) to conserve water.

The design brief also included a series of researchbulletins (http://www.sgog.bc.ca/content.asp?contentID=154). Bulletin No. 1 examined “ClimateChange and Water Resources” and was yet anotheropportunity for the charrette team, and the generalpublic, to learn about climate change and its impactsupon water resources in the region.

6.3 RESULTS OF THE WORK

6.3.1 The Charrette

The public outreach and research phases culminated inthe May 2006 design charrette (http://www.sgog.bc.ca/content.asp?contentID=155). The charrette teamconsisted of the following members:

• 8 members of the public, elected at the Februaryworkshops

• 4 representatives of the Regional District ofOkanagan-Similkameen, including the electedRural Director and senior staff members

• 4 representatives of the Town of Oliver, includingthe Mayor, a Council representative, and seniorstaff members

• 6 representatives of external agencies

The charrette team was assisted by a set of professionalfacilitators, designers, and resource people convened bythe SGOG team. Over the course of four workdays, theteam worked together to generate land use, urbandesign, transportation and other designs for the townand surrounding rural area. Before, during, and afterthe team workdays, presentations of the evolving workwere made to the general public.

6.3.2 Charrette Team Recommendations

The charrette team made a number ofrecommendations on water management and actions toaddress climate change, including the following:

• Thickening. The concept of “thickening” wasused to describe the strategy of gradually increasingthe residential density in the Town of Oliver. By allowing property owners to add new housingunits on their existing residential and commercialproperties, much of the projected new populationgrowth could be accommodated within the existingfootprint of the Town. Higher density housingoften uses less water, particularly because there is less greenspace to maintain outdoors. To a lesser extent, smaller units also tend to have fewer water-using appliances and less area to clean.

• Provide Transportation Options. A number ofstrategies were recommended to reduce reliance onautomobiles, and promote mobility options thatreduce greenhouse gas emissions. Byaccommodating most new population growthwithin the existing town, many new residentswould be within walking or cycling distance ofdaily needs. Increased population density in thetown would also make transit more sustainable. Anumber of urban design recommendations weremade to increase the safety and attractiveness ofwalking and cycling.

• Use Drought Tolerant Landscaping. Throughoutthe charrette, the team focused on native and/ordrought tolerant species as a key component of alllandscaping recommendations. As part of thestrategy to improve the pedestrian atmosphere, thecharrette team recommended “greening” of streetsand buildings. New landscaping improves thevisual atmosphere, but also serves to shade andcool buildings (thus reduce energy use for coolingin summer). Xeriscaping (with local or droughttolerant plants) was also recommended for allcommercial and residential sites.

• Residential Water Conservation. The charretteteam made a number of recommendationsregarding residential water conservation(agricultural water management was not addressed,in light of ongoing work by other researchers andinitiatives). The residential recommendations wereintended to build upon the leadership that theTown is already taking in this area, including anongoing metering program. Water saving devicessuch as low flow toilets and showers wererecommended. The use of reclaimed water iswidespread and recommended to continue and/orexpand.

84 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

More information on these recommendations will beavailable in the Concept Plan. The Concept Plandocument will present:

• all the graphics produced at the charrette

• explanatory text

• additional detail

The Concept Plan will also contain an action plan, withrecommended policy changes, and will also outlineprojections of the reduction in residential water use.The Concept Plan should be available by Fall 2006 at:http://www.sgog.bc.ca/content.asp?contentID=156.

6.3.3 Listing of Web Sites on Oliver Design Process

Smart Growth on the Ground website: www.sgog.bc.ca

December 2005 Learning Event:www.sgog.bc.ca/content.asp?contentID=151#preparing

Oliver Design Brief:www.sgog.bc.ca/content.asp?contentID=153

Research Bulletins:www.sgog.bc.ca/content.asp?contentID=154

May 2006 Design Charrette:www.sgog.bc.ca/content.asp?contentID=155

Oliver Concept Plan:www.sgog.bc.ca/content.asp?contentID=156.

FINAL REPORT | 85

Agricultural Policy

Natasha Schorb

7.1 STUDY AIM & RATIONALE

The goal of this research is to improve understandingof both the process of autonomous adaptation toclimate change and the factors that must be consideredin the development of agricultural water policy in theOkanagan Basin of British Columbia. To accomplishthis goal, this study explores the ways in whichOkanagan wine-grape growers use water and are likelyto respond to future scarcity. It examines the factorswhich affect the willingness and ability of farmers toadapt to climate change and identifies the elements ofan adaptation policy growers would be likely tosupport. Prior research by Cohen et. al. (2006)suggests that water scarcity will be the most significantconsequence of climate change in the Okanagan, andthe stimuli to which adaptation will be required.Models indicate that in the future there will be a shiftin the timing and magnitude of precipitation eventsand within 100 years average water demand, underpresent land-use conditions, will be greater thanhistorical extremes (Cohen et al. 2006). Since between70-80% of water that is currently consumed in thevalley is for agricultural irrigation, understanding theway in which irrigation water is managed and could beused more efficiently is critical to the analysis ofclimate change impacts and development of adaptationmeasures in this region.

Previous research in the Okanagan has examinedagricultural producers’ perceptions of andvulnerability to climate change (Belliveau et al. 2006)and examined case studies of early adopters(Shepherd et al. 2006). These studies have revealedthat climate change is only one of numerous risksthat Canadian farmers confront. Yet, it is still unclearhow growers’ reliance on water to manage other risksaffects their vulnerability to climate-related watershortages. Since very little is currently known aboutthe way in which water is managed in the wine-grapeindustry, despite its rapid expansion over the last

decade, the wine industry has been chosen as thefocus of this research. In this context, understandinghow grape-growers make decisions to managemultiple risks and how actions taken to mitigate onerisk affect exposure to others is an integral part ofunderstanding the types of adaptations farmers doand will make and the policy initiatives they arewilling to support.

7.2 ORIGINS OF MULTIPLE RISK

Historical government policies have had a significantimpact on local land-use and development patterns inthe Okanagan. Policies in sectors as diverse asagricultural trade and regional planning have affectedthe size of individual properties, crop choices andbusiness profitability in every agricultural industry andthis has lead to both agricultural intensification andland-use conversion throughout the region. In thissection, the policies of greatest significance to the studyparticipants are introduced and discussed to establish aframework for understanding the nature of the risksthey confront.

7.2.1 Early History of the Wine Industry

The mild climate and fertile soil of the Okanagan havemade it a desirable location for horticultural agricultureever since Europeans first settled the area in the mid-nineteenth century. In response to the demands ofresident miners and with the support of a Canadiangovernment eager to expand settlement in its remotewestern territories, the province’s first commercialorchards were planted in the central and northern partsof the valley in the 1890s (Kerr et al. 1985). Thedevelopment of a quality wine industry lagged behindthe orchard industry because early field experimentsindicated that European grape varieties of the speciesvitis vinifera were unsuitable for the Okanagan’s climate(Canadian Vintners' Association 2005). Despite latertrials which indicated that viniferas could be grown

chapter

7

86 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

with irrigation in the South Okanagan, Okanaganvintners grew hardy, native hybrid grapes whichproduced strong, poor quality wine for localconsumption through the mid-1980s (CanadianVintners' Association 2005).

7.2.2 Land Pressures

Concurrent with the development of the agricultureindustry throughout the valley in the mid-twentiethcentury was rapid population growth and economicdiversification. Government programs to encourageregional development after the 1950s focused on theexpansion of tourism and light industrial sectors oftenat the expense of agriculture (Manning and Eddy1978). To combat the rapid conversion of land toother uses, the provincial government passed theEnvironment and Land Use Act on July 1, 1971 tofreeze development on all land with soil suitable for agriculture. They subsequently created theAgricultural Land Reserve (ALR) in 1973 (Kerr et al.1985).

Although the existence of the ALR has alleviatedpressure for conversion of agricultural land it has not eliminated it (Smith 1998). Subdivision andexclusion of land is permitted through an appealsprocess administered through the Agricultural LandCommission (ALC) and this has contributed to landspeculation and soaring land values across the region.Consequently, it is more and more difficult forfarming families to acquire agricultural land in theregion without accepting unprecedented levels ofdebt. The growing trend towards planting specialty,high-value crops in the region can be partiallyattributed to the high investment costs now requiredfor start-up or expansion of farm businesses (Farmer1 2005).

7.2.3 Trade Liberalization

The increasing inter-dependence of global economicsystems since the late 1980s has increased bothopportunities and challenges for agricultural producersin the Okanagan and also had a significant impact ontheir planting decisions (Farmer 1; Farmer 2 2005).With the establishment of the Canada-US Free TradeAgreement in 1988, BC-produced hybrid wines wereexposed to competition from higher quality importsand the industry was forced to transform in order toremain profitable. A government-sponsored tear-outprogram of all hybrid grapes was initiated in 1988 and

continued through the early 1990s. Growers were paidto clear their land of hybrids and then replant withvinifera varietals in order to establish a new BC industrybased on high quality wine (Farmer 2).

7.2.4 State of the Industry

In 2006 the BC wine industry is thriving, expanding itsmarkets and experimenting with new varieties. In 1989there were 1,100 acres planted to wine grapes. Nowthere are almost 6,000. As of March 2004 there were 90wineries, 229 independent vineyards and 139 winery-owned vineyards in BC. Eighty-nine percent of thewine-grapes grown in BC are grown in the OkanaganValley and approximately 60 of the 90 wineries listedby the Ministry of Agriculture in 2004 are also locatedthere.

Despite the rapid growth and expansion of the BC wineindustry over the past 15 years, established grape-growers in the region stress the importance ofmaintaining a high standard of quality for theirproduct. Despite the presence of measures to supportwine industry growth, alcohol production anddistribution is heavily regulated in BC and this has asignificant impact on the income of farmers and wineryowners (Farmer 2; Farmer 1).

The Liquor Control and Licensing & LiquorDistribution Branches (LDB) of the BC Governmentissue licenses for the production and sale of liquor andpossess the exclusive right to purchase and distributebeverage alcohol in BC (BC Liquor Stores 2005).However, many small wineries are reluctant to sell theirproducts through government liquor stores becausethey receive a lower proportion of the profits than ifthey sell directly to consumers. Small wineries alsohave difficulty meeting the minimum supplyrequirements of the LDB and are instead forced to sellon-site or through private Vintners’ Quality Alliance(VQA) stores and restaurants (Farmer 3). For thesesmall-volume producers quality is very importantbecause they rely upon repeat customers and word ofmouth instead of in-store visibility to maintain winesales. However, quality is also very important for largeOkanagan producers who need high-volume sales inliquor stores but cannot afford to compete in price withinexpensive imports from other ‘new world’ wineregions such as California and Australia (Farmer 1;Farmer 2).

FINAL REPORT | 87

7.3 THE CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATIONPROCESS

Adaptation is an adjustment to climate change byindividuals, groups or institutions that is adopted toreduce vulnerability to climate change impacts(McCarthy et al. 2001). It may be expressed as a shortor long-term change in farm management practices byan individual or take the form of institutional or policychange in which new technologies are adopted or lawsare altered. Farmers may make individual decisions toreduce their vulnerability by implementing tacticalstrategies such as watering more frequently duringdrought or strategic adaptations such as changing theirirrigation technologies. Structural adaptations, such aschanging institutional structures, are usuallyimplemented at the level of government, and are oflonger duration (Smit et al. 2000).

As the impacts of climate change are experienced on abroad, regional level, individuals and governments areboth likely to make choices to reduce vulnerability atdifferent scales (Smit and Skinner 2002). Humansystems tend to adapt incrementally to gradual changeand both the quality of personal resources andpresence of forces external to the climate system willhave an impact on individuals’ freedom to selectadaptation alternatives (Bryant et al. 2000). In thiscontext, planned adaptations at the policy level aremore likely to be effective and acceptable if theycomplement not compromise individual strategies (Smitet al. 2000). Once public-policy makers understand theprocess of independent adaptation in a local context,they are in a stronger position to assess the limitationsof these independent strategies for vulnerabilityreduction and develop sector-specific policies (Bryantet al. 2000).

7.3.1 Autonomous Adaptation to Risk

Individuals operating in an environment characterizedby multiple stressors usually make decisions thatattempt to balance various objectives. The willingnessand ability of individuals to make decisions tominimize their vulnerability to climate change isaffected by their perceptions of the risks they confrontand the trade-offs associated with risk managementdecisions, the personal resources at their disposal, andthe characteristics of their institutional and politicalenvironment.

7.3.2 Risk Perception

Research indicates that if the personal threat posed by ahazard is high, individuals will decide to take action

(O'Connor et al. 1999). However, the subjective natureof risk definition itself makes predicting a responsedifficult. While risk is traditionally defined by expertsas a measure of the degree of probability of an event’soccurrence multiplied by the magnitude of itsassociated consequences (Morgan et al. 2002; Slovic1987), the general public generally feels greater anxietyabout risks it fears, those that it does not understand,or over which it has little control, regardless ofstatistical estimates (Kunreuther and Slovic 1996).Stedman (2004) argues that perceived risk of climatechange, in the absence of direct personal experience, ismore significantly connected to an individual’s socialvalues than awareness of statistical estimates or expertopinion. Other research suggests that non-experts’perceptions of personal risk and willingness to takeaction is significantly affected by their level of trust inthe institution or agency responsible for providinginformation about or mitigating the risk (Frewer et al.1996; Grobe et al. 1999; Johnson and Scicchitano 2000;Kunreuther and Slovic 1996).

7.3.3 Adaptive Capacity in a Multiple RiskEnvironment

Ultimately, the potential or capability of a farmer toadapt to a threat is determined by the quality ofresources she has to inform her decision, her level offinancial security and the political, legal andinstitutional framework in place to support her (Bryantet al. 2000; Smit et al. 2000). Individual characteristicssuch as a farmer’s education level, property size andcrop diversity are usually positively correlated with abusiness’ profitability and ability to make investmentsthat buffer risk (Yohe and Tol 2002). Policy andinstitutional arrangements also have a significantimpact on adaptive capacity at the farm level throughtheir impact on business development and profitability.Changes to agricultural trade regulations, for example,have had a significant impact on farm revenues (Burtonand Lim 2005).

Farmers’ decision-making is typically driven less by theneed to minimize exposure to a single risk than tosimultaneously maximize multiple objectives (Bazzani2005). In this context, financial security is associatedwith the ability to make decisions in pursuit of diverseobjectives. If an individual has financial security thenshe usually has greater flexibility to choose analternative which satisfies multiple preferences becauseshe is less concerned with income maximization.Evidence from agricultural research in Canada supportsthis claim. It indicates that the willingness and abilityof farmers to adapt to climate change stressors is

88 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

significantly affected by the economic risk associatedwith these decisions (Belliveau et al. 2006; Bradshaw etal. 2004; Brklacich et al. 1997; Bryant et al. 2000;Burton and Lim 2005; Chiotti et al. 1997).

7.3.4 Support for Policy Intervention

One of the biggest hurdles politicians must overcomein policy implementation is public opposition tostrategies which concentrate costs on unified orvulnerable groups or compromise individuals’ freedomto achieve their goals (Howlett and Ramesh 2003). Inthis context, support for environmental policy-makingis most commonly affected by perceived need, or riskof inaction, and the technical nature of the issue inquestion (Gerber and Neeley 2005). Generally, highperceived risk associated with a hazard beyondindividual control produces support for more coercivegovernment action (Halfacre et al. 2000). Support forpolicy development is typically highest when causalrelationships are clearly defined and understood bythe general public and risk management policiesappear to address these linkages (Johnson andScicchitano 2000). However, in situations of scientificor technical uncertainty, citizens may be less confidentwith the effectiveness or suitability of decisionsbecause the existence of uncertainty requires policy-makers or politicians to make value-ladenassumptions about cause-and-effect phenomena(Halfacre et al. 2000).

This section argues that support for a policy tomitigate risk vulnerability is a function of both thepublic’s perception of the need for such a policy andthe instrument used to implant it. In the context ofadaptation to climate change risk, the most effectiveand acceptable policies are likely to be those whichare based on an understanding of how producersmake decisions within a multiple risk context andprovide them with the flexibility to respond to policieswithout compromising their financial and personalsecurity.

7.4 METHODS

7.4.1 Survey Instrument Choice and Design

The first step in the design of this study was to choosea survey instrument that would enable me to meet myresearch objectives. Since a critical component of thisresearch is defining the relationship betweenindividuals’ risk perceptions and their associatedpreferences, I chose to meet with participants one-on-

one rather than in a group setting. I then designed asemi-structured questionnaire with a mix of open andclosed questions, designed to facilitate comparisonbetween responses and provide growers with theflexibility to answer unpredictably.

7.4.2 Subject Recruitment and Success

The selection of participants in this study was driven bythe research need to understand in detail the attitudesand management practices of a defined studypopulation. Previous research (Belliveau et al. 2006)has indicated that wine-grape growers in the SouthOkanagan are more vulnerable to climate change andmore dependent on water to manage risk than those inthe central or northern parts of the region. Since adriver of this research is the need to understand theprocess of climate change adaptation and it is unclear ifgrowers in the central and northern areas confront andmanage risks in the same way as their southerncounterparts, I chose a purposive approach to subjectrecruitment. Growers were selected based upon 3primary criteria:

1. They reside and work in communities in theRegional District of Okanagan-Similkameen.

2. They understand both the practices of vineyard andbusiness management.

3. They hold professional positions which give themthe power and flexibility to take action to mitigatethese risks.

Based upon these criteria and my own understandingof the industry, I decided that winery owners andindependent vineyard owner/operators were the bestinterview candidates. I compiled a complete list of thewineries in the region using industry directories andwebsites and identified thirty-six different wineryowners in the region. Four independent growers, onenow retired, who had been involved with priorresearch and met the selection criteria were alsoincluded. Forty letters were sent, thirty-fourindividuals were reached by follow-up phone callsand nineteen interviews were set up. Recruitment wasmore successful in Summerland, Oliver and OkanaganFalls than Penticton or Naramata (Table 7.1).However, in general, interest in the study was highand only three individuals admitted that lack ofinterest was responsible for their refusal toparticipate.

FINAL REPORT | 89

BOX 7.1:

The process of autonomous adaptation to risk.

Co

- - -

90 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

7.4.3 Interview Structure and Analysis

Between January 23 and 27th, 2006, nineteeninterviews were conducted in the Okanagancommunities of Okanagan Falls, Oliver, Naramata,Summerland and Penticton. The interviews rangedfrom one to two hours in length and were held either atthe interviewee’s home or place of work. Oncecompleted, the interviews were transcribed andanalyzed using content analysis, a process in whichimportant themes are identified by examining thecontent in which comments are made and the wordschosen to discuss them (Ryan and Russell 2000). Afterthe raw data were compiled and tabulated, summarytables, diagrams and graphs were created to convey theinformation.

7.5 RESULTS

This section presents the most important researchfindings from interviews completed with the 19 wine-

grape growers who participated in this study. Thefollowing five sections divide, summarize and discussthe primary themes and results of the interviews.Section 7.5.1 surveys the demographic and professionalattributes of the individuals within the sample andSection 7.5.2 outlines the characteristics of their watersupply and management systems. Section 7.5.3 definesthe producers’ personal goals and emphasizes theirconnection to water management and individuals’ riskmanagement decision-making. The final two sectionsfocus more specifically on perceptions and policypreferences for mitigating potential water shortages inthe future.

7.5.1 Demographic and Business Characteristics ofStudy Participants

The individuals in this research sample are allCaucasian, English-speaking, adult male residents offive communities in the South Okanagan (Table 7.2).With the exception of one respondent from

TABLE 7.1:

Interview recruitment success rates in each of the study communities.

*The number in brackets refers to the number of independent or retired growers unaffiliated with a winery.

TABLE 7.2:

Participant distribution by business type and location.

* The number in brackets is the number of sampled wineries that is corporately owned, not owned by the respondent.

FINAL REPORT | 91

Summerland, all of the participants are residents of thecommunities in which they farm and the vineyard ofinterest is geographically close to, if not on the sameproperty as the associated winery.

Half of the participants interviewed have family roots inthe Okanagan and have been involved in farming in theregion for greater than 20 years (Figure 7.1). Oneindividual holds a family property dating back as far asthe 1930s while 5 individuals are newcomers to thearea and have worked in farming for less than 10 years.Six of the participants said that they were born or havelived in the Okanagan for almost all of their lives, 9 arefrom BC or other parts of Canada and the remainingfour represent Holland, Australia, Switzerland andEngland.

Changes in regional agricultural land-use patterns inthe past 30 years are reflected in the historical uses ofproperties farmed by study participants (Table 7.3).After the 1980s sponsored tear-out of hybrid grapevarieties and the subsequent vinifera replant program,land-ownership in the South Okanagan changedrapidly. Many people that had previously farmed left theregion and sold to newcomers. In Oliver, two of thecurrent vineyards were left vacant and sold after thehybrids were taken out and six of the current vineyardswere still virgin shrub-steppe and used only for grazing.One was a mix of both. The current vineyards that werepreviously orchards are located in the Okanagan Fallsarea and further north.

FIGURE 7.1:

Number of years that the respondent’s family has been farming in the Okanagan.

TABLE 7.3:

Land-use before establishment of the current vineyard.

92 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

7.5.2 Water Source & Management Profile

Although the types of systems which provide thesample vineyards with agricultural water are diverse,the options available to each property are often limited.Only 5 of the 18 vineyards have a secondary system inplace as a back up, although many study participantscommented that well-drilling is a possibility if theyneed it. The five primary methods of supplyingirrigation needs are: pumping from the Okanagan Rivermainstem; groundwater pumping from personal wells;agreements with urban purveyors and irrigationdistricts and distribution by a water user community.

Consumption Patterns

When questioned about the changes in their irrigationconsumption patterns, 16 respondents said that theyuse either the same amount of water or less per acrethan they did in 1996 (Table 7.4). They mostcommonly attribute this pattern to the stage of vinegrowth on their property. The five individuals who hadre-planted vinifera grapes throughout their vineyardbefore the early 90s had mature grapes with a constantannual water demand by 1996. Seven of the

respondents were in the process of replanting theirvineyards in the 1990s and said that they use less in2006 than in 1996 because the plants’ demand forwater has dropped. Only four individuals citedmanagement decisions as an explanation forconsumption changes. Two individuals do not know iftheir consumption has changed.

Irrigation Technology Choices

Examination of operators’ choice of irrigationtechnology indicates that there is a preference forirrigation systems which allow the grower to strictlycontrol water application to the vines (Table 7.5). Ofthe 10 individuals with drip as the lead technology intheir system, only 1 said that he had drip ‘because itwas here’. The other 9 specifically chose to make theinvestment, either when they bought the property, or astheir business income increased. Three growers arecurrently in the process of installing drip as part of adual system with the overhead they currently have inplace. In contrast, 4 of the 8 individuals with overheadas their principal technology said that they have it‘because it was here’ when they bought the propertyand two of the three with exclusively overhead

TABLE 7.4:

Summary of water consumption trends (per acre) since 1996.

TABLE 7.5:

Types of irrigation systems in place.

FINAL REPORT | 93

indicated that they have no plans to change theirirrigation system in the future. Although 10 individualsmentioned that drip in combination with a moredisperse system of watering is best, the three growerswith only drip indicated that they have no plans to putin a dual system. Two individuals that are switching toa drip-overhead system explained that at the time theirvineyards were established, overhead was the standardtechnology to use but that they wouldn’t put it in nowas their first choice.

Individuals with experience using overhead irrigationsystems were able to identify numerous benefits andcosts associated with its use (Figure 7.2 and Figure 7.3).Its benefits include the ability to regulate micro-climatethrough cooling, frost protection and saturation of theroot zone in preparation for winter. It is also considereda valuable tool in coarse soils, where overheadirrigation diffuses water across the surface and leads tothe establishment of ground cover crops. This growth

reduces erosion and permits harvesting tools to movebetween the rows without sinking.

Despite these benefits, overhead irrigation is generallyperceived to be less water efficient than othertechnologies. High evaporation rates in heat and inwind are associated with poor quality control; operatorsare unable to precisely regulate the flow of water toindividual vines and find it difficult to decide howmuch and for how long to water each block duringperiods of peak demand. Although under-watering istypically associated with high quality wine grapes,timing deficit irrigation using overhead technology ischallenging and over-watering can lead to problemssuch as excess growth and humidity-related disease. Itis also economically inefficient if the operator is payingto pump water that he does not effectively utilize.

In contrast to overhead technology, trickle-dripirrigation systems have much higher perceived benefitsthan costs (Figure 7.4). They use a low volume of water

FIGURE 7.2:

Pros of overhead irrigation identified by its practitioners.

94 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

FIGURE 7.3:

Cons of overhead irrigation identified by its practitioners.

FIGURE 7.4:

Pros and cons of drip irrigation identified by its practitioners.

FINAL REPORT | 95

because water is applied directly to individual plants,significantly reducing evaporative loss, loweringpumping costs, and effectively eliminating the threat ofhumidity-related disease. The most widely perceivedbenefit of using a drip system is the ability to grow avery high quality grape. Deficit irrigation is easy topractice because the system is highly controlled. Criticsof drip maintain that since it does not produce a covercrop, organic matter in the soil is depleted, reducingsoil structure and health in the long term. If used alone,it also lacks the climate-control benefits offered byoverhead. Although only one individual with dripirrigation mentioned its expense, others who do notcurrently have it mentioned cost as the single mostlimiting factor affecting their decision to install it.

When respondents were asked to identify the mostsignificant trade-off they confront when contemplatingan investment to increase water efficiency, twelve of 18 respondents asserted that a trade-off does not exist(Figure 7.5). Grape quality is directly connected to thegrower’s ability to control the volume of water providedto the vine and as such, the long-term financial benefitsof producing premium grapes greatly outweigh short-

term investment costs. The grower who has neverconsidered the trade-offs disagrees that drip irrigation isrequired to grow premium grapes and says that as hehas a secure surface source that he co-operativelymanages he has no incentive to change his technology.

Three growers mentioned that they come fromcountries where they have seen water crises in the pastand say that water is always a good investmentregardless of quality issues if you have the money. Twoof the three individuals who identified money as thelargest trade-off are either already on, or converting todrip technology because they believe that in the longterm the investment is worth it. The third individualhas been farming for less than 10 years and said that atthis time he needs to focus on more immediate, high-return investments, such as expanding his winerybefore making technological investments in waterefficiency. The individual who fears that an investmentto increase his water efficiency today may result inpressure to conserve even more in the future has beenfarming in the Oliver area for over 20 years andassociates agricultural water conservation withexpanding urban development.

FIGURE 7.5:

What is the trade-off associated with investing in water efficiency?

96 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

7.5.3 Balancing Multiple Risks in Pursuit ofProfitability

The producers in this sample all identify a relativelycommon goal that motivates them: they strive towardsthe development of a business which thrives or remainsprofitable throughout their lifetime, enables them toprovide for a family and maintain a way of life. The risksthat concern growers most are those that pose a threat tothe survival and prosperity of their business (Box 7.2).The most commonly stated challenge to farming grapesin the Okanagan is the price of agricultural land. Sixteenof 18 individuals commented that land and skilledlabour costs in the Okanagan are too high for grapes tobe produced at the economy of scale which allows forproduction of inexpensive, bulk wine. Consequently,with the exception of the (largest) land-holders whohave the financial flexibility to purchase land at over$100,000/acre, most farmers are trying to increase theirprofit margin with the land that they have.

There is a division of strategies for increasingprofitability (Table 7.6). Bigger producers that need tosell a large volume of wine generally focus on followingmarket trends and planting varieties in relation to theirpopularity. They typically plant many varieties and arewilling to take self-acknowledged ‘moderate’ or ‘big’risks with their planting decisions in relation to

climate, because they believe that the market payoff ofharvesting a successful crop is worth it. Medium-sizedwineries tend to plant a fewer number of varieties andare more likely to focus on those that they can do reallywell. Three people commented that they cannot competeglobally with red wines from other places and that therisk of a big freeze for reds is just too great. They preferto be more conservative in their planting decisionsbecause they believe that there will always be a marketfor world class whites. Since they do not have to sellthousands of cases of wine they are not worried aboutoccupying a niche market. Fifteen individualsrepresenting both large and small wineries commentedthat the most effective way to increase their profit marginis to focus on grape quality through deficit irrigation.

The potential impacts of climate change on theOkanagan wine grape industry have been discussed indetail by Belliveau, Smit and Bradshaw (2006) and werecorroborated by testimony from interviewees in thisstudy. Warmer summer and winter temperatures areperceived as an advantage from an industry perspectivebecause they are associated with a northward shift inthe geographic extent of grape-growing in the valley.Warmer winter temperatures might also be a benefit ifthe incidence of ‘extreme’ cold events (below -30Celsius) decreases because this would minimize vine

BOX 7.2:

Risks and challenges that affect growers’ ability to maintain the profitability of their businesses.

FINAL REPORT | 97

damage. However, growers in this study expressedconcern about increased temperature variability becausein the autumn and spring vines are very sensitive tofrost events immediately preceded by mildtemperatures. Warmer temperatures were alsoassociated with declining snowpack but growers wereuncertain if this would be offset by greater precipitationat other times of year.

Other risks identified by producers include policydecision-making by local, provincial and federalgovernments which threaten their land and waterresources and impose paperwork and extra costs (Box7.2). These challenges range from struggling to makemoney while selling through the liquor distributionbranch, increasing regulation of wineries, escalatingurban-rural conflict that is poorly mitigated by weakprovincial policies such as ‘right to farm, and local landdevelopment planning in Summerland and Oliver.Seven individuals mentioned climate extremes andvariability as a big risk they face. These risks areassociated with extreme cold, mild weather thatincreases vulnerability to spring and fall frost, excessmoisture and pests. Two people mentioned ‘global

warming’ as a source of potential extremes andunpredictability in the future that concerns them. Onlytwo individuals mentioned that the threat of a watershortage is a risk that concerns them today. One ofthese individuals attributed the water shortage risk toland development planning rather than climatic change.

7.5.4 Perceptions of Water Shortage Risk

Experience with Water Shortages

Although almost half of the growers surveyed in thisstudy have been farming in the Okanagan for over 20years, few of them have ever confronted a situation inwhich they did not have more than enough water tomeet their irrigation demands. The widely publicizeddrought of 2003 did not significantly impact any of thegrowers surveyed. Four individuals from Summerlandand Naramata mentioned that watering restrictions hadbeen placed on them in 2003, but that they had notbeen personally impacted because they have lowirrigation requirements in mid-summer. Since theybelieve that their vines are resilient to drought and thattheir irrigation purveyor is required to maintain at leastminimal flows to their properties, these growers are

TABLE 7.6:

Parameters Related to Reservoir Storage Water Quality.

98 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

confident that they will have sufficient water to meettheir needs during future droughts.

Perceptions of Current Supply

In general, the growers are complacent aboutmeasuring or monitoring their water consumption.Since purveyors charge for water on a flat rate perirrigated acre system which does not consider use orcrop type, growers are unconcerned aboutunderstanding what proportion of their annual or peakflow they actually consume. Growers’ relaxed attitudetowards measurement and monitoring extends to anoverwhelming satisfaction with their water sources andsystems of provision generally (Figure 7.6). Whenasked to comment on the flexibility and volumedelivery of their systems, only two individuals do not‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ that their systems satisfy theirdemands.

Perceptions of the Future: Basin System and Personal Source

Although growers’ perceptions of their current supplyare fairly uniform, their predictions about the future of

their personal source and that of the basin system arewidely variable (Figure 7.7). Notably, individuals’perceptions of their personal water security are lessrelated to their philosophies about hydrologic changethan to their level of personal control over their watersupply.

Individuals with less than ten years experience in thevalley were less likely to comment on changes inclimate than those with longer residency. Many of thosewith greater than ten years in the valley commentedthat snowpack has decreased steadily in the last ten tofifteen years and climate is warmer, more variable, andprone to extremes. Growers voiced mixed opinionsabout the implications of climate variability for basinsupply. Four individuals suggested that climate patternsare cyclical and that today’s warming trend will havecooled somewhat by 2031. In this scenario, watersupply will remain the same in the future. Othersbelieve that a diminished snowpack is indicative ofclimate warming, either on a short-term or a long-termscale, and will probably reduce basin supply further by2031.

FIGURE 7.6:

Responses to the question: Through my current system of water provision, I have enough water to irrigate duringpeak times and whenever I need it during the growing season.

FINAL REPORT | 99

FIGURE 7.7:

Perceptions of the change in volume of water in the basin’s hydrological system and its availability for personal supplybetween 2006 and 2031.

FIGURE 7.8:

Distribution of responses to the question: Are there any external/policy incentives for you to conserve water on yourproperty?

100 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

Growers believe that if they have control over theirsupply, usually through independent pumping, orwithdrawal from a creek with few licensed users, thatthey will have sufficient water for irrigation in thefuture. Three individuals disagree that they will havesufficient water in the future, despite their currentreliance on drip, because residential growth willconsume a lot of their water in the future. Eleven of the13 individuals who think their right to draw from theircurrent source will decrease ‘somewhat’ or ‘a lot’mentioned the fact that agriculture is not considered apriority in the Okanagan. Although many growersbelieve that secure water access is contingent uponresponsible urban use, they do not feel that their ownconsumption patterns have a broad impact on basinsupply and are not motivated to become more efficientin order to reduce their vulnerability to futureshortages.

7.5.5 Policy Development

Underlying growers’ views on the development of awater conservation policy for agriculture is thedominant philosophy that agriculture’s access to watershould be protected from urban demand. Many growersmentioned that associated with the decline ofagricultural profitability in the 1990s has been theongoing subdivision of agricultural land and its

conversion to hobby farms or release from the ALR.This change in land-use and ownership, typically fromfarm families to retired urbanites, has exposed growersto more competition for land and water resources andincreased urban-rural conflict.

The respondents recognize that urban development andpopulation growth are inevitable in the Okanagan.However, they emphasize that thought needs to begiven to sustainable urban planning beforedevelopment occurs. They perceive urban water use asthe most rapidly growing demand sector within thebasin and are concerned that domestic servicing will begiven priority in the future. Growers are concerned thattheir interests are not represented by municipalpoliticians because the growers perceive they are moreconcerned with attracting investment from wealthyland developers than maintaining agricultural viabilityin Okanagan communities. Examination of growers’perceptions of current policy indicates that externalincentives for responsible water use in agriculture arepoorly advertised, if at all (Figure 7.8).

In the latter part of the survey, participants were asked todefine elements of a ‘responsible water use’ policy thatwould inspire their support. This elicitation processexposed a distinction between those individuals thatidentify themselves as independent businesspeople or

FIGURE 7.9:

Distribution of respondents’ preferences for the agency or partnership they most strongly support to leaddevelopment and implementation of an agricultural water conservation policy.

FINAL REPORT | 101

members of the wine industry and those that are concernedwith protecting the interests of Okanagan agriculture ingeneral. Since the producers generally perceive theirpersonal water demand to be low, few feel financiallythreatened by a potential reform of pricing structures. If theyconsider only their own personal interest or the interests ofthe wine industry they are likely to support policy changesthat make water pricing related to consumption. In contrast,those individuals that consider the interests of agriculturemore broadly are less likely to support volume-based pricingbecause they believe it imposes concentrated costs onfarmers producing water-intensive crops. These growersargue that the price of agricultural produce is not related tohow much or how little the input costs are, and that thevalue of food should be of greater importance to societythan the block price of water.

Jurisdictional Control of Policy Development

Different growers perceive many advantages anddisadvantages of policy development and/orimplementation by each level of government (Figure7.9). Eleven growers support provincial involvement,via the Ministry of Agriculture & Lands, in policydevelopment and implementation at some level. TheMinistry of Agriculture & Lands is perceived to possessthe necessary expertise to develop policy, and also,more significantly, has the authority to enforce co-operation between municipalities and regional districts.Six individuals mentioned that the biggest problemwith developing a water conservation policy would beconflict between local jurisdictions.

Instrument Preferences

Growers’ opinions on the role of voluntary, regulatoryand economic-based policy instruments are discussedhere in the context of the policy developmentprocess.

i. Education & Best Management Practices

Six growers mentioned that deficit irrigationcould be considered a best management practicefor the wine-grape industry in BC but that manynew growers are ignorant of the connectionbetween grape quality and water management.These individuals believe that the first step ofany policy program should be effective growereducation. They are convinced that mostgrowers will independently choose to investtheir time and money in innovative irrigation,monitoring and scheduling practices if they areaware of the financial rewards. Site visits andconsulting by experienced vintners wererecommended as effective means to educate new producers.

ii. Economic Incentives

Although all of the growers believe that they shouldhave secure and guaranteed rights to minimum flowrates, eight individuals mentioned the need to improveagricultural water-efficiency through the use ofeconomic incentives.

TABLE 7.7:

Pros and cons of water metering as identified by producers.

102 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

iii. Regulation

There was general consensus among the respondentsthat metering water consumption is a necessaryprecursor to regulation. However, only half of therespondents (9/18) support agricultural metering.Three are ambivalent about its introduction and 6others believe that it is not necessary in the Okanagan.

Examination of the relationship between growers’personal characteristics and support for meteringindicates that those with less than 10 years experiencein the region are unlikely to oppose metering outrightwhile those with greater than 20 years tend to thinkthat it is unnecessary.

Those in support of agricultural metering believe thatmeters should be used in conjunction with educationalprograms first and that billing for water should bedelayed until users understand their own consumptionpatterns. After meters are well established then they canbe used to impose penalties on abusers or regulateindustries to BMP standards. One grower cautionedthat high billing rates for agriculture may lead to morewell drilling and significant groundwater withdrawals ifregulation of surface and groundwater is not integrated.

All of the individuals that support or are neutral aboutmetering in agriculture also support metering in othersectors as an equitable solution to reduce waste. Themajority of the growers see urban servicing as the mostrapidly expanding demand sector and associate futurewater supply shortages with population growth ratherthan agricultural consumption. Numerous growerscommented that agriculture has been labelled as awaster by the public as a consequence of theirresponsibility of a small proportion of growersprimarily in the tree-fruit sector. The pros and cons ofmetering identified by producers are listed in Table 7.7.

In contrast to growers’ mixed views about agriculturalmetering, fifteen people commented that they supportdomestic/commercial metering. Water metering isviewed by respondents as an effective way tounderstand the movement of flows throughout thesystem and set targets for use.

7.6 ANALYSIS

Through examination of the process of farm-level riskperception and management, this study informsadaptation policy development by providing decision-makers with an understanding of the ways in whichwater is used by grape-growers to manage market,climate and urban development risks and then

discussing the implications of these demands for waterconsumption. Although expert analysis suggests thatwater needs to be used more efficiently in theOkanagan to minimize human vulnerability to theimpacts of climate change, it is simplistic to suggestthat in the present climate change is the only, or themost important, threat to which adaptation is required.Agricultural adaptation research indicates thatadaptation to climate change occurs in an environmentcharacterized by multiple stressors and farmersconfront difficult trade-offs in their attempt tomaximize diverse objectives. Since climate change isonly one of numerous challenges managed by farmers,anticipatory adaptation policy should address existingproblems without compromising the ability of farmersto manage other risks.

The following section analyzes the results of thisresearch in the context of the adaptation theorydiscussed in Section 7.2 of this chapter. First, ithighlights the way in which producers perceive theirown vulnerability to water scarcity and the need tomake decisions to reduce it. It then defines the otherbusiness risks producers confront and examines howthe management of water to mitigate these risks affectsfarmers’ vulnerability to climate change. The chapterconcludes with an examination of growers’ preferencesfor government intervention and the implications ofthis analysis for adaptation policy.

7.6.1 Risk Perception: Implications for Adaptation

Results suggest that grape growers in the SouthOkanagan are unlikely to make decisions to adapt towater scarcity in the near future because they do notperceive a need to do so, they believe that they arecurrently efficient enough to buffer the impacts ofdrought and they do not think that their consumptionis significant enough to have an impact on the basinsystem generally.

Although most of the growers assume that in the basinin the future, no one will have the same consumptionrights as they do now, few are personally concernedabout the impact of access restrictions. At the moment,most growers have more than enough water to irrigateduring periods of peak demand and few keep records oftheir water consumption, although they acknowledgethat it would be relatively straightforward to do so.Only five of 18 individuals have bothered to spread therisk of shortage between two provision systems; theother thirteen do not regard it as necessary.

Complacency about monitoring current water use canin this case be attributed to growers’ perceptions that

FINAL REPORT | 103

their irrigation requirements are much lower per acrethan those of other agricultural crops in the Okanaganand that their historic rights prevent them from facingrestrictions beyond a threshold that they would defineas threatening. Several growers in the Naramata andPenticton area commented that they can go withoutwatering their vines for weeks at a time in mid-summerwithout detriment to their crops because their soilsretain moisture so well.

The individuals that are most concerned aboutrestricted water access are those who have lived inplaces where they were either personally affected bywater shortages or knew people that were affected. Theindividual who pumps out of a surface source fed bysnowmelt in Oliver said that he is increasingly aware ofhis vulnerability and the need to use water responsiblybecause he has observed the level of his irrigation ponddrop consistently in the last five years. Anotherindividual who pumps directly out of the river in Oliverechoes this sentiment. He remembers a year whenOkanagan River was so low his pump was almost out ofthe water. Both of these individuals, in addition toothers with similar experiences, do not have secondthoughts about making investments in water efficiency.

High risk perception is also associated with lack ofindividual control over water access and absence oftrust in the water purveyor. In Okanagan Falls, forexample, the growers all feel comfortable with theirsupply because they either personally control it or it iscontrolled by a small, agricultural purveyor. Thegrowers in this area have not suffered shortages in thepast and associate access with consistent snowpack andprecipitation. Growers close to Okanagan River in theOliver area generally perceive their supply to beplentiful and are not driven to conserve water as aresult of scarcity concerns. However, distrust of thepriorities of government officials in Oliver is linked tohigher risk perception. While growers in Summerlandand Naramata faced water restrictions during thesummer of 2003, these individuals feel secure abouttheir water access because they believe that agricultureis a priority to the local government and feel assured ofminimum flow provision during drought. This is notthe case in Oliver, where a few individuals on the townsystem believe that agriculture is not a priority andwater will be re-directed to other uses in the future.

It is apparent from these results that since waterscarcity is not currently an issue of concern for growersmost have not considered the need to reduce theirpersonal vulnerability to future shortages. Only a few

individuals mentioned that they had made investmentsto increase their water efficiency partly because ofsupply concerns. The three individuals who useoverhead irrigation technology exclusively have statedthat they are not planning to put in a drip systembecause the costs are not worth the benefits. Althoughtheir comments imply that they could make theinvestment if they really wanted to, in general, waterefficiency is not a priority for its own sake. Almost allthe growers are quite confident that they would be onlyminimally affected by supply reductions in the futurebecause they do not use much water as it is. Individualsthat have put in drip have typically made the decisionbased upon consideration of other drivers. Seven peoplesaid that their management practices do not have muchof an impact on water supply for others in their area.

7.6.2 Managing Multiple Risks

In the discussion of adaptive capacity in Section 7.3.3,financial capacity was identified as an importantcomponent of an individual’s ability to makeinvestments in response to business threats. Belliveau,Smit, and Bradshaw (2006) defines financial capacity asa function of a farmer’s access to credit, income andassets and argues that the desire to strengthen financialcapacity is a major driver of farmers’ managementchoices. Although a discussion of the details of creditaccess and crop insurance coverage is beyond the scopeof this study, understanding the ways in whichproducers are vulnerable to income loss and makedecisions to minimize it is relevant to theunderstanding of water consumption in this sector.Although water scarcity is not a pressing concern formost growers in 2006, they do face a number of otherrisks which represent a threat to the profitability oftheir businesses: government policy; urban growth,market demand; and climate. The nature of these risksis discussed in the following section and the interactionbetween them is highlighted in Box 7.3.

Government Policy

Policies at the international and national level affectgrowers through their impact on market access anddemand. Trade liberalization has both exposed theCanadian wine industry to greater competition andincreased its access to international markets.Government assistance during the hybrid tear-outprogram made it possible for an industry based onquality wine to expand and the subsequentdevelopment of the Vintners’ Quality Alliancecertification standard expanded consumer confidence

104 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

and had a positive effect on sales, particularly in BritishColumbia. However, the high price of BC wine makes ita luxury good and vulnerable to changes in the broadereconomic system, which affects tourism and sales.

Land-Use Planning

Government policies on land-use at the provincial andlocal level have an impact on growers because they donot sufficiently alleviate pressure for conversion ofagricultural land to other ‘higher value’ uses.Subdivision and sale of agricultural land and thesubsequent petition for its removal from theAgricultural Land Reserve frequently leads to itspurchase by land speculators and wealthy hobbyfarmers. This has decreased the availability andincreased the cost of agricultural land for use by full-time farmers across the region. It is now difficult fornew farmers to get into the business because they eithercannot afford the start-up costs or cannot find largeenough properties to buy. Many growers commentedthat they would be unable to enter the business nowbecause skyrocketing land values in the last five yearshave restricted purchase opportunities. They believe

that only the largest wineries and wealthy urbanmigrants now possess the capital to purchase thevineyard patches that come up for sale around theregion.

Market Demand

International competition for wine sales has affecteddemand for Okanagan wine and leads growers to focuson both product quality and marketing to increaserevenue without further land purchasing. Since landparcels are generally too small and expensive to focuson production of cheap, bulk wine, growers concentrateon the production of quality wine which can be sold ata higher mark-up. Growers also emphasize the need tomake grape variety choices based on a combination ofconsumer preference trends and site suitability criteria.

Big wineries tend to place more emphasis on a variety’spopularity than smaller wineries because they need tomove larger quantities through the liquor stores.However, they may actually be better able to cater toconsumer preferences because large properties mayexhibit considerable diversity in site characteristics and

BOX 7.3:

The interactions of product-identified risks and their implications for water demand.

FINAL REPORT | 105

give them the flexibility to move variety plantingsaround the vineyard. They may also have the financialcapital to buy or lease land to grow the grapes theywant or purchase them from independent growers.Contract purchasing is a useful adaptation to rapidshifts in public favour towards a particular grape varietybecause the lag between planting and harvest is 4-5years and if you can buy from a contractor who alreadygrows those varieties you may be able to produce thatwine more quickly. Although smaller wineries may havea more limited capacity to cater to consumerpreference, they survive by occupying a somewhatdifferent market niche.

They tend to be more restricted in the types of grapesthey can plant so they often place more emphasis ondoing what they can do best and build a reputation forthemselves by winning awards and attracting repeatcustomers.

Climate

The wineries that choose to focus on the varieties theydo best usually choose to grow varieties that are well-suited to the Okanagan’s climatic conditions and areless sensitive or difficult to manage than varieties whichare at the limit of their geographic range. TheOkanagan is a cool-climate wine region with a shortgrowing season and fewer growing degree days thanwine regions in Australia, California and SouthernEurope. As a result, many varieties of red grapes areunsuited to the Okanagan’s climate because they do notreceive enough heat during the growing season to ripenin time for fall harvest. Delaying their harvest is riskybecause entire crops can be wiped out by unpredictableautumn frosts. White grape varieties have lower heatrequirements than red varieties so they can usually beharvested before the weather turns cold. However,white varieties are sensitive to high temperatures anddo not photosynthesize or build fruit at hot sites atmid-day.

Consumer preference in Canada and overseas currentlyfavours the production of red wine. As a result, manyof the largest Okanagan wineries invest a lot ofresources growing and managing red grape varietiesthat are difficult to ripen in time for harvest. However,regardless of winery size, every participant surveyed inthis study was growing at least one red variety becausethey knew that if they could ripen it, they could sell it.One individual from a well-established small winerysaid that although it is possible to grow red grapes inthe Okanagan, only the best vineyard managers will beable to do it well enough to win awards, so from aquality perspective it is better to focus on growing and

producing world-class whites. Although big wineriesmay take more risks by planting popular red varietiesthey can spread their risk by buying grapes on contractfrom independent growers. Although there is a qualityissue associated with purchasing grapes that youyourself haven’t grown, this is a buffer against failedharvests.

7.6.3 Implications for Water Management

Examination of the forces driving farmers’ decision-making reveals that although farmers do not currentlyregard water as a scarce resource, most are cognizant ofits value and are motivated to use it in a veryresponsible manner. Wineries of all sizes are concernedwith producing quality grapes and regard careful watermanagement as a critical input in this process. Almostall of the growers interviewed in this studyacknowledge that it is easier to consistently producegood quality grapes with drip irrigation because thetechnology makes it possible to cater to the needs ofindividual plants instead of larger vineyard blocks.Those growers that pump their own water are alsomotivated to use water efficiently because if they pumpless their hydro costs are lower. In this case, decisionswhich represent good climate change adaptations areconcurrently adaptations to market and economic risk.

Although they are not as water efficient as drip,overhead systems also have many acknowledgedbenefits, particularly to do with the reduction ofclimate risk. Overhead sprinklers can be used to soakthe soil profile after harvest to protect vine roots fromfreezing during the winter and are also useful foroverhead cooling during hot periods and warming toalleviate frost risk.

Although many long-established grape growers areconverting to dual irrigation systems which allow themto combine the benefits of overhead and drip systems,two individuals with more than twenty years of grape-growing experience are reliant upon overhead systemsalone. These individuals argue that experience is morevaluable than technology and they use water veryefficiently to grow grapes of high quality using carefulscheduling and qualitative monitoring.

In this context, established grape-growers have anadaptive advantage because they possess the knowledgeand experience to make water management choicesbased on qualitative indicators such as sight and touch.They also have a better understanding of the uniquenature of their own property and the irrigationrequirements of vines on different soil types etc.Experience may also be associated with high income,

106 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

because experienced grape-growers and wine-makerscan usually produce wine of consistently high qualityand command high sale prices. The largest Okanaganwineries (which are also some of the oldest) also tendto use water more efficiently because they use moresophisticated (read: expensive) soil monitoringtechnology to tell them which parts of the vineyardneed to be watered.

7.7 POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

The irresponsible consumption of water as a tool toprotect agricultural water rights and restrict urbangrowth was not observed or documented in this study.All of the growers mentioned their respect for theOkanagan’s environment and expressed their desire touse soil and water carefully in order to preserve theresources for their farm and their family in the future.Half of the individuals surveyed had two or moregenerations of their family working the property andexpressly voiced the desire to pass along the farm totheir children. Because almost all of the individualsbelieve that they are using their water resources veryefficiently at the moment, many resent interferencefrom government (at any level) in their water or farmmanagement practices.

Growers’ mixed opinions on water metering are notassociated with fears of volume-based pricing. On thecontrary, many growers support metering because theybelieve that if they were metered they would actuallypay less and it would be more fair that the current flat-rate per acre system. Those that object to metering doso because of equity issues, concerns about reductionsin their rights, and mistrust of government regulation.

Lack of support for water metering is an expression ofgrowers’ unease with the politics of power and the lowvalue of agriculture to the government and populationin general. Although most grape-growers are confidentthat they could cope with the costs associated withmeter installation and water pricing, they do not thinkthat it is reasonable to impose extra costs on tree-fruitgrowers who have more intensive water demands butare yet unprofitable. The rapid expansion of golfcourses, single family homes and swimming poolsacross the region indicates to farmers that urban andland-development interests are a political priority andprotection of agricultural resources is not. Whileagriculture is expected to incur costs associated withefficiency, there are few incentives for domestic waterconservation.

Opposition to government regulation of waterconsumption is also a function of growers’ lack of

confidence and trust in government programs generally.Government policies are perceived by interviewees tobe poorly developed and bureaucratically managed andcreate additional paperwork and costs for growers atlittle individual or community benefit. Althoughgrowers commented that they are more supportive ofpolicy implementation at the local level, because localofficials understand how to tailor programs to the needsof the community, they do not trust pro-developmentcouncils to act in their interest or effectively addresscontroversial regional issues with other localgovernments.

7.7.1 Policy Recommendations

Although most wine-grape growers are alreadycommitted to efficient water use because of theiremphasis on quality grape production, individuals newto the industry and the Okanagan would benefit fromgreater guidance in vineyard management. Newcomersindicated that in their first few years of operation theydid not have the necessary expertise to make goodvineyard management decisions. In this context,education programs would be a highly effective meansto encourage efficient water use. Established growersare confident that the financial rewards associated withdeficit irrigation are such that growers would be willingto make voluntary investments if they were aware ofthe long-term benefits.

Growers’ lack of familiarity with current governmenteducation and incentives programs such as theEnvironmental Farm Planning Program suggests thatthe provincial government has not been particularlyeffective at marketing its services to individuals in thisindustry. Established growers commented in interviewsthat irrigation ‘scheduling’ as defined by the Ministry ofAgriculture & Lands is inappropriate for grapeirrigation and that many services are targeted at thetree-fruit industry because it is more familiar to andbetter understood by government. Education servicessuch as site visits and consulting would be betterconducted by established vintners from an inclusiveindustry organization.

Although the BC Wine Institute (BCWI) has been avaluable resource for its members since itsestablishment in 1990, it does not represent all growersand vintners are currently divided in membershipbetween three different industry organizations. Industryinsiders commented that the new BC Wine-GrapeGrowers’ Council which will be formed in 2006 will fillthis need because it will have free membership andfocus on research and development for the benefit ofthe industry. Definition of Best Management Practices

FINAL REPORT | 107

(BMPs) and development of education programs will bea priority of this new organization. Provincial programsand policies should be designed in consultation withthis organization in order to complement instead ofreplicate or replace its activities.

7.7.2 Institutional Change

The biggest barriers to implementation of watermetering programs in the wine-grape industry arepolitical and institutional. Unlike other industrieswhere additional costs may threaten farmers’profitability, grape-growers would be likely to supportmetering in their own industry if they felt that it wouldnot compromise their access to water in the future.Some growers are concerned that their waterconsumption rates may change in the future iftemperatures are more variable and precipitationpatterns change. They are wary of meteringconsumption for ‘education’ purposes because themaximum demand rates observed during the studyperiod may not accurately reflect the magnitude andtiming of future crop-water demand. If the governmentregulates growers’ consumption to a new maximum,based upon flow data from the monitoring period,growers are legitimately worried that their additionalrights may be removed, increasing their vulnerability tofuture scarcity.

Among various possible drought managementstrategies, one option is for agriculture to reduce itswater consumption so that water managers cancalculate the stock of unallocated water acting as abuffer against future drought. The interviewees holdthe view that this is unrealistic. Should futuredevelopment patterns in the Okanagan be orientedtowards urban sprawl (similar to the 2014 SunshineEclipse scenario mentioned in Chapter 8.0), it is likelythat water supply pressures will increase. Producersmay be correct to assume that increasing their waterefficiency will be associated with increased personalvulnerability if it means they will have reduced accessto water in the future. From an environmentalperspective, efficient water use should still beencouraged provided that it does not compromise theresilience of growers to future scarcity. However, abarrier to this goal is the ‘use it or lose it’ philosophyinstitutionalized by the beneficial use principle. Incontrast to this policy, in which growers only have aright to the amount of water they actually use, growerssupport a system of drought water allocation similar tothat developed for Trout Creek in Summerland, inwhich stakeholders themselves negotiated the plan andagriculture was guaranteed minimum flow rates.

7.8 FUTURE UNCERTAINTY

One of the greatest uncertainties associated with futurewater consumption in the Okanagan surrounds its useto mitigate climate risk for cooling and frost protection.Changing consumer preferences, warming temperaturesand shifts in precipitation patterns may haveunpredictable consequences for grape plantingdecisions and agricultural water consumption in thefuture. At present, grape-growers in the Oliver/Osoyoosarea are growing equal volumes of red and white grapesand use overhead irrigation to diffuse excess heat forwhites and the risk of frost for reds. The proportion ofwhite grapes being grown slowly increases towardsSummerland and Naramata, although even there theproportion of red grapes may be close to forty percentof the total acreage. As climate warms it is unclearwhether the frost risk for both varieties will increase asclimatic variability increases or decrease as red grapesare ready for harvest earlier and the first frost is pushedback towards November.

The uncertainties associated with climate change andmarket demand for future water consumption in thegrape industry are compounded by likely changes inland-use patterns and levels of agricultural adaptivecapacity in the future. Anecdotal evidence from thetree-fruit industry suggests that apple and cherrygrowers would be unable to afford more efficientirrigation technology, even if they had an interest inusing it. Intense competition from U.S. and overseasimports has made apple-growing particularlyunprofitable in the Okanagan and farm incomes in thissector are very low. The implications of such a trend foradaptive capacity in the wine industry are difficult topredict.

Three individuals who have been farming in theOkanagan since the 1970s said that they feel nervousabout the future of the wine industry in the Okanaganbecause they believe that it has grown to anunsustainable size. All three said that although thereare 6000 acres planted to grapes in the Okanagan Valleytoday, a much lower number will persist in the futuredue to site and climate unsuitability in the long-term.In the opinion of one of the independent growers landvalues in the Okanagan are currently so high that newgrowers are forced to charge unreasonably high pricesfor wine produced with grapes grown on poor qualityland. Although consumer confidence in the industry iscurrently high, it is bound to enter a bust cycle duringwhich many people will lose money and those who arenot committed to farming for the long-term will sellout. The future use of land that is unprofitable to farmis uncertain.

108 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

7.8.1 Need for a Cautionary Approach

Adaptation policies developed for the near term (i.e.,within the next ten years) should not compromise theflexibility of future generations to adapt to climatechange stimuli in an environment characterized bydifferent physical, political and economic variables.Near-term policies should be cautionary in nature andrepresent adaptations to existing conditions, be flexibleand reversible enough to respond to changing impactsand reduce adverse effects on natural systems as muchas possible. In this context, it is the author’s personalopinion that one of the most important goals for near-term policy in the Okanagan should be the retention ofland and water resources for agriculture so thatCanadians do not lose the ability to grow fresh food.Although food security is not explicitly addressed inthis component of the study, because wine-grapes arenot a food product per-se, the preservation of land forfood production is imperative as human societiesconfront the possibility that climate change mayincrease global desertification and further the loss ofarable land.

A present reality is that regardless of climate change,population growth and urban development willcontinue in the Okanagan for at least the near future.In this context, adaptation policies should address theneed for efficient use of water and land resources inboth agricultural and urban sectors (these are discussedin more detail in Schorb in progress).

Further research should also be undertaken toinvestigate regional water consumption rates by sectorand the temporal and geographic distribution of thesestocks and flows. Detailed studies of crop-water

demand across the region are already in progress by theMinistry of Agriculture & Lands and severalgovernment agencies are examining the interactionsbetween surface and groundwater sources in theOkanagan Basin. Further social science research shouldfocus on understanding how water consumption isrelated to risk mitigation in other agricultural sectorsand what types of incentive or education programswould effectively reduce water waste. The possibilitiesfor recycled wine-making water or other grey-water forirrigation should also be investigated.

Ultimately, this new research could be an importantcontribution to a region-wide dialogue on how best toco-ordinate climate change adaptation efforts within thecontext of long-term development (see Chapter 8.0).

7.9 CONCLUSIONS

Through examination of the process of farm-level riskperception and management, this study informsadaptation policy development by providing decision-makers with an understanding of the ways in whichwater is used by grape-growers to manage market,climate and urban development risks. This studyreveals that although growers do not perceive the needto use water efficiently for its own sake, their adoptionof deficit irrigation as an adaptation to market risk doeslead to low water consumption. Although growers’levels of regional knowledge, industry experience andincome do affect their willingness and ability to adapt,all of the growers surveyed in this study have thecapacity to reduce their exposure to water shortage ifthey regard it as necessary.

FINAL REPORT | 109

Lessons Learned and Moving On

Stewart Cohen

Learning about climate change, itsregional implications, and potentialsolutions, has been a lengthy journey.

What began almost 10 years ago as a dialogueabout a new hydrograph is now a much broaderdiscussion about the future of the Okanaganwatershed, and how managing for climatechange can become part of a long-termsustainable development path.

The study team started this particular set of researchactivities in 2004, building on earlier research to movethe dialogue on climate change beyond the damagereport, so that we could begin to consider options foradapting to climate change. Information on urbanwater demand (Neale, this volume—chapter 2.0),farmers’ perspectives (Schorb, this volume – chapter7.0), and adaptation costs (Hrasko and McNeill, thisvolume—chapter 3.0) add to the considerableknowledge base created from earlier studies onhydrology, agricultural water demand, regional waterbalance, and regional adaptation experiences. Thesystem model (Langsdale et al., this volume—chapters4.0 and 5.0) represents an important step in the processof increasing capacity to design and test adaptiveresponses within scenarios of climate change andpopulation growth.

This has been an interdisciplinary collaborative effort,in which researchers and local experts have combinedtheir knowledge, tools, data, and perspectives, to jointlyconstruct a picture of future climate change challengesand adaptation opportunities. The group-based processused in developing the system model is part of theparticipatory integrative approach that has been usedthroughout the various phases of this research. Besidesthe research publications that have been distributed bythe study team and its partners since 2000, includingthis report, a number of local and regional initiatives

have begun to integrate climate change into theirplanning processes. Examples include the TrepanierLandscape Unit Water Management Plan (SummitEnvironmental Consultants 2004), the Smart Growthon the Ground design process in Oliver (Siu, thisvolume—chapter 6.0), and recognition of climatechange in long term basin wide water management (BC Ministry of Environment 2006).

This accumulated body of research has described afuture scenario of water resources challenges emergingfrom the projected effects of climate change andpopulation growth. The main features of this impactsscenario are:

• Reductions in annual water supply with reducedstorage in snowpacks,

• Earlier peak flows in spring, but uncertaintyregarding changes in timing and magnitude, and

• Increases in residential and agricultural waterdemand.

This scenario would result in regional demand exceedingannual regional inflows by the 2050s in most years, andas early as the 2020s in relatively dry years!

Within the set of simulations presented by the systemmodel in this study, the main challenges andopportunities for adapting to these impacts are likely tobe as follows:

• Demand side management options, includingresidential and agricultural conservation measuresand urban densification, can reduce pressures onsupply and provide more time for planning, butthey may not be enough on their own to offset theimpacts scenario in the long term,

• Supplemental use of Okanagan Lake can be part ofa climate change adaptation portfolio, but onlywithin limits; care must be taken to avoid seriousreductions in Okanagan Lake stage and outflows,

chapter

8

110 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

• Combining demand side management with flowmanagement for sockeye, or supplemental use ofOkanagan Lake, can lead to some improvements inthe overall performance of the Okanagan watersystem, but the ‘perfect’ (or ‘best’) adaptationportfolio has not yet been identified.

Recent experiences with demand side management andsupply augmentation in various locations within theOkanagan have shown a wide range of costs per unit ofwater saved or stored. Water quality considerationsaffect these costs, thereby highlighting the need formore information on potential climate change effectson water quality. Opinions on climate changeadaptation also vary. Schorb’s study of grape growerssuggests that some of this range is a reflection of:

• the variability in environmental (climate,hydrology, soils, landscape, etc.) conditions withinthe region,

• previous personal experience with climate andwater resource variability (influenced by length oftime farming in the region),

• the specific contexts of economic markets faced bygrowers (and other businesses),

• variations of perception of risks of water scarcity,and

• attitudes regarding access to water by variousinterests.

In the search for the ‘best’ portfolio for the Okanaganwater system as a whole, the design process will needto consider both local and basin-scale dimensions, aswell as external drivers influencing individual andcommunity choices. This means that in order to adaptto climate change, planning for climate change willneed to be more closely integrated with long termcommunity and regional development planning.

As the Okanagan grapples with its water resourcechallenges, there will be important questions regardingfuture demands and how these demands may be shapedby various forces. Our quantitative research has focusedon climate change itself, and has included populationgrowth scenarios, but we have not explicitly considered(or modeled) alternative development pathways. Ourqualitative dialogue-based studies have offered someinsights into the interplay between recent climateexperiences and responses by individuals andinstitutions. We conclude, not surprisingly, that futureclimate change can expose some vulnerability,exacerbate existing risks, and possibly create new risks

as well as new opportunities. However, we also needto ask questions about the potential effects ofdevelopment paths themselves. What new risks andopportunities may emerge from these? The OkanaganPartnership has outlined two possible near-termscenarios: 2014 Sunshine Eclipse, and 2014Sustainable Prosperity (Okanagan Partnership 2005).The former includes urban sprawl. The latterenvisions protection of agriculture and environmentalsustainability. This is leading to a new initiative thatfocuses on a dialogue on future development, utilizing the Metro Quest visioning tool(http://www.envisiontools.com/index.aspx).

How then should climate change adaptation beintegrated with long-term sustainable development? Atthe international level, there has been growing interestin linking climate change response with sustainabledevelopment. The Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC) began to consider this in its ThirdAssessment Report (Smit et al. 2001), and it will bereceiving considerable attention in the upcomingFourth Assessment. As with other aspects of climatechange, however, there is still a need to translateinformation about climate change risks into responsestrategies that can be implemented within the localdevelopment context. Effective adaptation strategieswill need to take a holistic approach that includes inter-jurisdictional partnerships, a broader review ofregulations relevant to adaptation, and an accounting ofall the costs and benefits of policy changes rather thanfocusing on narrowly defined consequences (Roberts etal. 2006).

Moving beyond the climate change damage reportrequires an approach that explicitly integrates climatechange response and sustainable developmentinitiatives. Our study may have originated as anassessment of climate change impacts on waterresources, but impacts on water supply and demandhave considerable implications for regionaldevelopment. In addition, this is not a one-way street.Development choices will also affect the water supply-demand balance. Some development choices couldexacerbate climate-related water problems, while otherscould ameliorate them, as outlined in this study. Butwhat are the practical aspects of a long-term sustainabledevelopment pathway for the Okanagan? How wouldthis pathway incorporate potential climate changeimpacts and adaptation without inadvertently creatingnew vulnerabilities?

A research strategy is being proposed to address thelinkages between global climate change and regional

FINAL REPORT | 111

sustainable development. This is called AMSD(Adaptation-Mitigation-Sustainable Development).AMSD refers to an integrative approach in which thefocus is on potential synergies of response measures,and on defining the response capacity of regions toaddress these challenges.

A workshop was held in April 2006 to considerpossible AMSD case studies in British Columbia, andone of the candidates would be an Okanagan study(Bizikova and Cohen 2006). Discussions are still at apreliminary stage, but one of the main themes that maybe emerging is related to how the region should sharewater resources within future climate change anddevelopment scenarios. There would be manydimensions to this, including changes to the physicalresource, changing agricultural and ecological needs,and constraints and opportunities to realignmanagement and allocation of water resources.Development choices could open some options andconstrain others, so the relationship between water anddevelopment would be a key component of this study.

Another consideration would be to design the AMSD-Okanagan study to complement and learn fromongoing regional water studies and policy initiatives.Currently, there is a new water supply and demandstudy co-sponsored by the British Columbia Ministry ofEnvironment and the Okanagan Basin Water Board (BCMinistry of Environment 2006). There is also a majorresearch effort on groundwater led by Diana Allen ofSimon Fraser University (http://www.cwn-rce.ca/index.php?fuseaction=Research.myProject&project_id=39 ), an assessment of groundwater resources(known as GAOB) coordinated by the British ColumbiaMinistry of Environment and Natural Resources Canadahttp://ess.nrcan.gc.ca/2002_2006/gwp/p3/a5/index_e.php, and the “Waterbucket” website operated by theWater Sustainability Committee of the British ColumbiaWater and Waste Association(http://www.waterbucket.ca/waterbucket/index.asp).The Okanagan Partnership has outlined a RegionalWater Strategy which has led to the creation of theOkanagan Water Stewardship Council by the OkanaganBasin Water Board (see website listing below).

The niche of the AMSD study would be the explicitlinkage of climate change response measures andregional development actions. The study would belooking for synergies that would be mutually beneficialto achieving both objectives of enhancing sustainabilityand reducing climate-related vulnerability. TheOkanagan case study would begin with water resourceissues, building on past and ongoing research, but withthe goal of extending this to the exploration of alternatedevelopment paths already being considered within theregion.

AMSD is still at the concept stage. The Okanagan casewould be one of several to be initiated over the nextfew months. Each one would offer a learningopportunity to see how best to accomplish suchstudies. The next step is to construct research proposalsfor the Okanagan and other cases, identifying specifictasks that can directly address AMSD linkages. It ishoped that by the time this study report is released, theAMSD research proposals will be at a more advancedstage.

Websites

Groundwater study, Diana Allen -- http://www.cwn-rce.ca/index.php?fuseaction=Research.myProject&project_id=39

Groundwater assessment (GAOB) --http://ess.nrcan.gc.ca/2002_2006/gwp/p3/a5/index_e.php

MetroQuest –http://www.envisiontools.com/index.aspx

Okanagan Partnership –http://www.okanaganpartnership.ca/_pdf/Full%20briefing%20note%20Quest%20Modelling%20Initiative.pdf

Waterbucket --http://www.waterbucket.ca/waterbucket/index.asp

112 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

FINAL REPORT | 113

Bibliography

Agua Consulting Inc. 2006. Okanagan Water Supply -Adaptation Costs Report. Vancouver: Environment Canada.

Akuoko-Asibey, A., L.C. Nkemdirim, and D.L. Draper. 1993.The impacts of climatic variables on seasonal waterconsumption in Calgary, Alberta. Canadian Water ResourcesJournal 18 (2):107-116.

Alexander, C.A.D., B. Symonds, and K. Hyatt, eds. 2005. TheOkanagan Fish/Water Management Tool (v.1.0.001):Guidelines for Apprentice Water Managers. Kamloops, B.C.:Canadian Okanagan Basin Technical Working Group.

Arnell, N. 2004. Climate change and global water resources:SRES scenarios and socio-economic scenarios. GlobalEnvironmental Change 14:31-52.

Associated Engineering (BC) Ltd. 2002. Master Water Plan.Vernon: North Okanagan Water Authority, Regional Districtof North Okanagan.

Bazzani, G. 2005. A decision support for an integrated multi-scale analysis of irrigation: DSIRR. Journal of EnvironmentalManagement 77 (4):301-314.

BC Liquor Stores. 2005. BC Liquor Stores 2005 [cited July 25 2005]. Available fromhttp://www.bcliquorstores.com/en/about.

BC Ministry of Environment. 2006. Province supports$550,000 Okanagan water study. April 13.

BC Stats. 2005. Sub-Provincial Population Projections(P.E.O.P.L.E. 30). Government of British Columbia, Ministryof Labour and Citizens’ Services 2005 [cited July 3 2005].Available fromhttp://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/pop/pop/popproj.htm.

Belliveau, S., B. Smit, and B. Bradshaw. 2006. Multipleexposures and dynamic variability: Evidence from the grapeindustry in the Okanagan Valley, Canada. GlobalEnvironmental Change in press.

Beuhler, M. 2003. Potential impacts of global warming onwater resources in southern California. Water Science andTechnology 47 (7-8):165-168.

Bizikova, L., and S. Cohen. 2006. International Workshop:Climate Change Adaptation, Mitigation and Linkages withSustainable Development, April 19-21, 2006. Vancouver:

Adaptation and Impacts Research Division, EnvironmentCanada and Institute for Resources, Environment andSustainability, University of British Columbia.

Boland, J.J. 1997. Assessing urban water use and the role ofwater conservation measures under climate uncertainty.Climatic Change 37:157-176.

Bradshaw, B., H. Dolan, and B. Smit. 2004. Farm-leveladaptation to climatic variability and change: cropdiversification in the Canadian prairies. Climatic Change 67(1):119-141.

Brandes, O.M., and K. Fergasun. 2003. Flushing the Future?Examining Urban Water Use in Canada. Victoria: POLISProject on Ecological Governance, University of Victoria.

Brewer, R., and B. Taylor. 2001. Climate. In WaterManagement & Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin,edited by S. Cohen and T. Kulkarni. Vancouver:Environment Canada & University of British Columbia.

Brklacich, M., D. McNabb, C. Bryant, and J. Dumanski. 1997.Adaptability of agricultural systems to global climatechange: A Renfrew County, Ontario, Canada, pilot study. InAgricultural Restructuring and Sustainability, edited by B.Ilbery, Q. Chiotti and T. Richard. Wallingford: CABInternational.

Bryant, C., B. Smit, M. Brklacich, T. Johnston, J. Smithers, Q.Chiotti, and B. Singh. 2000. Adaptation in Canadianagriculture to climatic variability and change. ClimaticChange 45 (1):181-201.

Burton, I., and B. Lim. 2005. Achieving adequate adaptationin agriculture. Climatic Change 70 (1-2):191-200.

Canada-British Columbia Consultative Board. 1974. MainReport of the Consultative Board. In Canada-BC OkanaganBasin Agreement. Penticton: Office of the Study Director.

Canadian Vintners’ Association. 2005. Canadian Vintners’Association 2005 [cited July 28 2005]. Available fromhttp://www.canadianvintners.com/canadianwines/modernhistory.htm.

Chiotti, Q., T. Johnston, B. Smit, and B. Ebel. 1997.Agricultural responses to climate change: a preliminaryinvestigation of farm-level adaptation in southern Alberta.

114 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

In Agricultural Restructuring and Sustainability, edited by Q.Chiotti and T. Richard. Wallingford: CAB International.

Christensen, N.S., A.W. Wood, N. Voisin, D.P. Lettenmaier,and R.N. Palmer. 2004. The effects of climate change onthe hydrology and water resources of the Colorado Riverbasin. Climatic Change 62:337-363.

City of Kelowna. 2004. Get Water Smart. City of Kelowna2005 [cited October 29 2004]. Available fromhttp://www.getwatersmart.com/.

City of Penticton. 2004. Water. City of Penticton 2004 [citedOctober 29 2004]. Available fromhttp://www.penticton.ca/cityhall/public_works/water/default.asp.

Cohen, S. 1985. Effects of climatic variations on waterwithdrawals in Metropolitan Toronto. The CanadianGeographer 29 (2):113-122.

Cohen, S. 1987. Projected increases in municipal water use inthe Great Lakes due to C02-induced climatic change. WaterResources Bulletin 23 (1):91-101.

Cohen, S., K.A. Miller, A.F. Hamlet, and W. Avis. 2000.Climate change and resource management in the ColumbiaRiver Basin. Water International 25 (2):253-272.

Cohen, S., and T. Kulkarni, eds. 2001. Water Management &Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin. Vancouver:Environment Canada & University of British Columbia.

Cohen, S., and T. Neale, eds. 2003. Expanding the Dialogue onClimate Change & Water Management in the OkanaganBasin, British Columbia. Interim Report, January 1, 2002 toMarch 31, 2003. Vancouver: Environment Canada andUniversity of British Columbia.

Cohen, S., D. Neilsen, and R. Welbourn, eds. 2004. Expandingthe Dialogue on Climate Change & Water Management in theOkanagan Basin, British Columbia. Final Report, January 1,2002-June 30, 2004. Vancouver: Environment Canada,Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada & University of BritishColumbia.

Cohen, S., D. Neilsen, S. Smith, T. Neale, B. Taylor, M.Barton, W. Merritt, Y. Alila, P. Shepherd, R. McNeill, J.Tansey, and J. Carmichael. 2006. Learning with local help:Expanding the dialogue on climate change and watermanagement in the Okanagan region, British Columbia,Canada. Climatic Change 75:331-358.

Costanza, R., and M. Ruth. 1998. Using Dynamic Modeling toScope Environmental Problems and Build Consensus.Environmental Management 22 (2):183-195.

Dandy, G., T. Nguyen, and C. Davies. 1997. Estimatingresidential water demand in the presence of freeallowances. Land Economics 73 (1):125-139.

de Loe, R., R. Kreutzwiser, and L. Moraru. 2001. Adaptationoptions for the near term: climate change and the Canadianwater sector. Global Environmental Change 11 (3):231-245.

Döll, P. 2002. Impact of climate change and variability onirrigation requirements: a global perspective. ClimaticChange 54:269-293.

Dowlatabadi, H., and M.G. Morgan. 1993. IntegratedAssessment of Climate Change. Science 259:1813,1932.

Durfee, J.L., C.B. Forster, J.I. Mills, and T.R. Peterson.submitted. Teaching systems thinking skills for publicparticipation workshops: the Ice Cream Game. AppliedEnvironmental Education and Communication.

Environment Canada. 2005. Climate Data Online 2005 [citedJune 25 2005]. Available fromhttp://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climateData/canada_e.html.

Forrester, J.W. 1987. Lessons from system dynamicsmodeling. System Dynamics Review 3 (2):136-149.

Frewer, L., C. Howard, D. Hedderley, and R. Shepherd. 1996.What determines trust in information about food-relatedrisks? Risk Analysis 16 (4):473-486.

Gerber, B., and G. Neeley. 2005. Perceived risk and citizenpreferences for governmental management of routinehazards. The Policy Studies Journal 33 (3):395-418.

Global Frameworks Ltd. & Urban Futures Inc. 2003a.Population and Housing Demand for the North OkanaganRegional District 2001-2031. In Publication Series onHousing Demand in British Columbia 2001-2031. Vancouver:The Real Estate Foundation of BC & Land Centre.

Global Frameworks Ltd. & Urban Futures Inc. 2003b.Population and Housing Demand for the OkanaganSimilkameen Regional District 2001-2031. In PublicationSeries on Housing Demand in British Columbia 2001-2031.Vancouver: The Real Estate Foundation of BC & LandCentre.

Global Frameworks Ltd. & Urban Futures Inc. 2003c.Population and Housing Demand for the Central OkanaganRegional District 2001-2031. In Publication Series onHousing Demand in British Columbia 2001-2031. Vancouver:The Real Estate Foundation of BC & Land Centre.

Greater Vernon Water. 2004. Water Stewardship. GreaterVernon Water 2003 [cited October 29 2004]. Availablefrom http://greatervernonwater.ca/stewardship/index.php.

Grobe, D., R. Douthitt, and L. Zepeda. 1999. A model ofconsumers’ risk perceptions toward recombinant bovinegrowth hormone: the impact of risk characteristics. RiskAnalysis 19 (4):661-673.

Guy, B. 2004. Final Report - Volume 1: Trepanier LandscapeUnit Water Management Plan. Vernon: SummitEnvironmental Consultants Ltd.

Halfacre, A., A. Matheny, and W. Rosenbaum. 2000.Regulating contested local hazards: is constructive dialoguepossible among participants in community riskmanagement? The Policy Studies Journal 28 (3):648-667.

FINAL REPORT | 115

Hare, M., R.A. Letcher, and A.J. Jakeman. 2003. ParticipatoryModelling in Natural Resources Management: A Comparisonof Four Case Studies. Integrated Assessment 4 (2):62-72.

Hartley, L.G. 2005. Impacts of population growth onOkanagan water resources. Paper read at conference of theCanadian Water Resources Association, BC Branch: Water -Our Limiting Resource, Towards Sustainable WaterManagement in the Okanagan, at Kelowna, BC.

Headley, J.C. 1963. The relation of family income and use ofwater for residential and commercial purposes in the SanFransisco-Oakland metropolitan area. Land Economics 39(4):441-449.

Howlett, M., and M. Ramesh. 2003. Studying Public Policy:Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Toronto: OxfordUniversity Press.

Hrasko, R. 2003a. Environment Canada ConservationOptions Research Report. Kelowna: Earth Tech Canada Inc.

Hrasko, R. 2003b. Conservation Options Research Report.Prepared for Environment Canada Pacific & Yukon Regionand District of Summerland. Kelowna: Earth Tech Canada Inc.

Hurd, B., M. Callaway, J. Smith, and P. Kirshen. 2004.Climatic change and US water resources: From modelledwatershed impacts to national estimates. Journal of theAmerican Water Resources Association 40 (1):129-148.

Institute for Water Resources. 2005. The Shared VisionPlanning Website. US Army Corps of Engineers 2005 [cited2005]. Available fromhttp://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/iwr/svp/home.htm.

Johnson, R., and M. Scicchitano. 2000. Uncertainty, risk,trust, and information: public perceptions of environmentalissues and willingness to take action. The Policy StudiesJournal 28 (3):633-647.

Kabat, P., and H. van Schaik. 2003. Climate changes the waterrules: how water managers can cope with today’s climatevariability and tomorrow’s climate change. TheNetherlands: Dialogue on Water and Climate.

Kerr, M.A., E.W. Manning, J. Seguin, and L.J. Pelton. 1985.Okanagan Fruitlands: Lands Directorate, EnvironmentCanada.

Kirshen, P., M. McCluskey, R. Vogel, and K. Strzepek. 2005.Global analysis of changes in water supply yields and costsunder climate change: A case study in China. ClimateChange 68 (3):303-330.

Kunreuther, H., and P. Slovic. 1996. Science, values and risk.Annals of the American Academy of Political and SocialScience 545:116-125.

Land and Water BC. July 23. Water Licenses Query. British Columbia Ministry of Sustainable ResourceManagement 2002 [cited 2002 July 23]. Available fromhttp://www.elp.gov.bc.ca:8000/pls/wtrwhse/water_licences.input.

Letcher, R.A., and A.J. Jakeman. 2003. Application of anAdaptive Method for Integrated Assessment of WaterAllocation Issues in the Namoi River Catchment, Australia.Integrated Assessment 4 (2):73-89.

Lofgren, B., A. Clites, R. Assel, A. Eberhardt, and C.Luukkonen. 2002. Evaluation of potential impacts on GreatLakes water resources based on climate scenarios of twoGCMs. Journal of Great Lakes Research 28 (4):537-554.

Manning, E.W., and S.S. Eddy. 1978. Agricultural LandReserves of BC: An Impact Analysis: Lands Directorate,Environment Canada.

McCarthy, J.J., O.F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken, andK.S. White, eds. 2001. Climate Change 2001: ImpactsAdaptation & Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group IIto the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McNeill, R. 2004. Chapter 11. Costs of Adaptation Options.In Expanding the Dialogue on Climate Change & WaterManagement in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia. FinalReport, January 1, 2002-June 30, 2004, edited by S. Cohen,D. Neilsen and R. Welbourn. Vancouver: EnvironmentCanada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada & University ofBritish Columbia.

Meadows, D.H., and Club of Rome. 1972. Limits to growth; areport for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament ofmankind. New York: Universe Books.

Merritt, W., and Y. Alila. 2004. Chapter 7. Hydrology. InExpanding the Dialogue on Climate Change & WaterManagement in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia. FinalReport, January 1, 2002-June 30, 2004, edited by S. Cohen,D. Neilsen and R. Welbourn. Vancouver: EnvironmentCanada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada & University ofBritish Columbia.

Merritt, W., Y. Alila, M. Barton, B. Taylor, and S. Cohen. 2006.Hydrologic response to scenarios of climate change insubwatersheds of the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia.Journal of Hydrology 326:79-108.

Miles, E.L., A.F. Hamlet, A.K. Snover, B. Callahan, and D.Fluharty. 2000. Pacific Northwest regional assessment: theimpacts of climate variability and climate change on thewater resources of the Columbia River Basin. Journal of theAmerican Water Resources Association 36 (2):399-420.

Moorhouse, J. 2003. Water Crisis. Penticton Herald, July 31.

Morgan, M., B. Fischoff, A. Bostrom, and C. Atman. 2002.Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Moser, S. 2006. Communication and interaction at thescience-policy interface: lessons for transgressors. Paperread at Workshop on Climate Change Adaptation,Mitigation and Linkages with Sustainable Development,Environment Canada and University of British Columbia,April 19-21, 2006, at Vancouver.

116 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

Mote, P.W., E.A. Parson, A.F. Hamlet, W.S. Keeton, D.Lettenmaier, N. Mantua, E.L. Miles, D.W. Peterson, D.L.Peterson, R. Slaughter, and A.K. Snover. 2003. Preparingfor climatic change: The water, salmon, and forests of thePacific Northwest. Climatic Change 61 (1-2):45-88.

Neale, T. 2005. Impacts of Climate Change and PopulationGrowth on Residential Water Demand in the OkanaganBasin, British Columbia. Master of Arts Thesis inEnvironment and Management, School of Environment andSustainability, Royal Roads University, Victoria, BC.

Neilsen, D., S. Smith, W. Koch, G. Frank, J. Hall, and P.Parchomchuk. 2001. Impact of climate change on cropwater demand and crop suitability in the Okanagan Valley,BC. Technical Bulletin 01-15. Final report, Climate ChangeAction Fund Project A087 submitted to Natural ResourcesCanada, Ottawa. Summerland: Agriculture & Agri-FoodCanada.

Neilsen, D., W. Koch, W. Merritt, G. Frank, S. Smith, Y. Alila,J. Carmichael, T. Neale, and R. Welbourn. 2004a. Chapter9. Risk Assessment and Vulnerability - Case Studies ofWater Supply and Demand. In Expanding the Dialogue onClimate Change & Water Management in the OkanaganBasin, British Columbia. Final Report, January 1, 2002-June30, 2004, edited by S. Cohen, D. Neilsen and R. Welbourn.Vancouver: Environment Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada & University of British Columbia.

Neilsen, D., W. Koch, S. Smith, and G. Frank. 2004b. Chapter8. Crop Water Demand Scenarios for the Okanagan Basin.In Expanding the Dialogue on Climate Change & WaterManagement in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia. FinalReport, January 1, 2002-June 30, 2004, edited by S. Cohen,D. Neilsen and R. Welbourn. Vancouver: EnvironmentCanada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada & University ofBritish Columbia.

Neilsen, D., S. Smith, G. Frank, W. Koch, Y. Alila, W. Merritt,B. Taylor, M. Barton, and S.J. Cohen. 2006. Potentialimpacts of climate change on water availability for crops inthe Okanagan Basin, British Columbia. Canadian Journal ofSoil Science, 86:921-936.

Northwest Hydraulic Consultants. 2001. Hydrology, WaterUse and Conservation Flows for Kokanee Salmon andRainbow Trout in the Okanagan Lake Basin, B.C. Victoria:British Columbia Fisheries.

O’Connor, R., R. Bord, and A. Fisher. 1999. Risk perceptions,general environmental beliefs, and willingness to addressclimate change. Risk Analysis 19 (3):461-471.

Okanagan Partnership. 2006. Briefing Notes 2005 [cited2006]. Available fromhttp://www.okanaganpartnership.ca/_pdf/Full%20briefing%20note%20Quest%20Modelling%20Initiative.pdf.

Palmer, R.N., A.M. Keyes, and S. Fisher. 1993. EmpoweringStakeholders Through Simulation in Water ResourcesPlanning. Paper read at Water Management in the ‘90s:

proceedings of the 20th anniversary conference Water Res.Plng. & Mgt. Conference, 1-5 May 1993, at Seattle,Washington.

Palmer, R.N., H.E. Cardwell, M.A. Lorie, and W.J. Werick.submitted. Disciplined planning, structured participationand collaborative modeling: applying shared visioningplanning. Journal of Water Resources Planning andManagement.

Payne, J.T., A.W. Wood, A.F. Hamlet, R.N. Palmer, and D.P.Lettenmaier. 2004. Mitigating the effects of climate changeon the water resources of the Columbia River Basin.Climatic Change 62 (1-3):233-256.

Roberts, J., M. Iqbal, and J.L. Churchill. 2006. Adapting toClimate Change: Is Canada Ready? Ottawa: ConferenceBoard of Canada.

Rotmans, J., and M.B.A. van Asselt. 2002. IntegratedAssessment: Current Practices and Challenges for theFuture. In Implementing Sustainable Development, edited byH. Abaza and A. Baranzini. Cheltenham, UK: Edward ElgarPublishing Ltd.

Ryan, G., and H. Russell. 2000. Data management andanalysis methods. In Handbook of Qualitative Research (2ndEdition), edited by N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln. London: SagePublications.

Schertzer, W.M., W.R. Rouse, D.C.L. Lam, D. Bonin, and L.Mortsch. 2004. Climate Variability and Change-Lakes andReservoirs. In Threats to Water Resources in Canada:Environment Canada.

Schorb, N.C. in progress. Informing Agricultural AdaptationPolicy: Risk Management Insights from Wine-GrapeGrowers in the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia.Master of Science, School of Community and RegionalPlanning, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Shepherd, P. 2004. Chapter 10: Adaptation Experiences. InExpanding the Dialogue on Water Management and ClimateChange in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia, edited byS. Cohen, D. Neilsen and R. Welbourn. Vancouver:Environment Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canadaand University of British Columbia.

Shepherd, P. 2005. The Nature of Human Adaptation:Exploring Local Water Resource Management in theOkanagan Region. Masters thesis, Resource Managementand Environmental Studies Program, Institute forResources, Environment and Sustainability, University ofBritish Columbia, Vancouver.

Shepherd, P., J. Tansey, and H. Dowlatabadi. 2006. Contextmatters: the political landscape of adaptation in theOkanagan. Climatic Change, 78: 31-62.

Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236:280-285.

Smit, B., I. Burton, R. Klein, and J. Wandel. 2000. Ananatomy of adaptation to climate change and variability.Climatic Change 45 (1):223-251.

FINAL REPORT | 117

Smit, B., O. Pilifosova, I. Burton, S. Challenger, R. Huq, R.Klein, and G. Yohe. 2001. Adaptation to Climate Change inthe Context of Sustainable Development and Equity. InClimate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.Contribution of Working Group II to the Third AssessmentReport of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,edited by J. J. McCarthy, O. F. Canziani, N. A. Leary, D. J.Dokken and K. S. White. Cambridge, United Kingdom andNew York USA: Cambridge University Press.

Smit, B., and M. Skinner. 2002. Adaptation options inagriculture to climate change: a typology. Mitigation andAdaptation Strategies for Global Change 7:85-114.

Smith, B. 1998. Planning for Agriculture: Agricultural LandCommission.

Statistics Canada. 2004. 2001 Census Dictionary. Minister ofIndustry 2003 [cited December 29 2004]. Available fromhttp://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/Products/Reference/dict/appendices/92-378-XIE02002.pdf.

Stave, K.A. 2002. Using system dynamics to improve publicparticipation in environmental decisions. System DynamicsReview 18 (2):139-167.

Stedman, R. 2004. Risk and climate change: perceptions ofkey policy actors in Canada. Risk Analysis 24 (5):1395-1406.

Steiner, R.C. 1998. Climate Change and Municipal Water Use.Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education(112):51-54.

Stephens, K. 2006. email communication dated May 5.

Summit Environmental Consultants. 2004. TrepanierLandscape Unit Water Management Plan, Volume 1.Vernon: Regional District of Central Okanagan and B.C.Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management.

Tate, D.M. 1986. Canadian water use trends 1981-2011.Canadian Water Resources Journal 11 (3):1-10.

Taylor, B., and M. Barton. 2004. Chapter 5. Climate ChangeScenarios. In Expanding the Dialogue on Climate Change &Water Management in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia.Final Report, January 1, 2002-June 30, 2004, edited by S.Cohen, D. Neilsen and R. Welbourn. Vancouver:Environment Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada &University of British Columbia.

van Asselt, M.B.A., and N. Rijkens-Klomp. 2002. A look inthe mirror: reflection on participation in IntegratedAssessment from a methodological perspective. GlobalEnvironmental Change 12:167-184.

van den Belt, M., L. Deutsch, and A. Jansson. 1998. Aconsensus-based simulation model for management in thePatagonia coastal zone. Ecological Modeling 110:79-103.

Vennix, J.A.M. 1996. Group Model Building: Facilitating TeamLearning Using System Dynamics. Chichester: John Wiley.

Vörösmarty, C.J., P. Green, J. Salisbury, and R. Lammers. 2000.Global water resources: Vulnerability from climate changeand population growth. Science 289:284-288.

Wackernagel, M., N.B. Schulz, D. Deumling, A.C. Linares, M.Jenkins, V. Kapos, C. Monfreda, J. Loh, N. Myers, R.Norgaard, and J. Randers. 2002. Tracking the ecologicalovershoot of the human economy. Proceedings of theNational Academies of Science 99 (14):9266-9271.

Xeriscape Colorado Inc. 2005. [cited June 10 2005]. Availablefrom http://www.xeriscape.org/index.html.

Yohe, G., and R. Tol. 2002. Indicators for social and economiccoping capacity- moving towards a working definition ofadaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change 12:25-50.

118 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

FINAL REPORT | 119

Groundwater Development

A.1 INTRODUCTION

There are numerous issues to be considered prior todevelopment of groundwater. The development of agroundwater source has unique issues that differ fromthe other methods of water supply. We have groupedthe issues into primary categories of:

• system integration and water use;

• physical considerations such as availability ofservices;

• regulatory issues and approvals; and

• cost considerations.

These issues are discussed within Section 3. Theformat provided is set out in the form of a checklist sothat many of the possible issues facing a utility can beconsidered.

A.2 GROUNDWATER OPPORTUNITIES

Groundwater is used extensively within the OkanaganBasin. Many of the larger water utilities utilizegroundwater as a secondary source to meet their waterdemands as groundwater alone cannot meet their entirewater demands. The volume of water utilized withinthe Okanagan is significant due to the high summertemperatures and the large agricultural component ofland use. With the largest suppliers, groundwatertypically supplements creek and/or lake water sources.

The larger Okanagan suppliers have historicallydeveloped gravity feed systems from the watersheds anddams in the upper watersheds. These dams store waterfrom snowmelt every spring and the water is released tothe streams from late spring to early fall and collectedlower down on the creeks and used for irrigation. Thispractice has been common in the Okanagan since theearly 1900’s. The gravity fed systems are extremely costeffective to operate but are subject to the water qualityvariations, particularly during the spring runoff.

Recently, many of the suppliers have looked to agroundwater source for their systems for three reasons:

1. To add some redundancy and security to theirsupplies in times of drought or emergency;

2. To provide better quality water and have the abilityto reduce the flow from the creek during times ofpoorer creek quality;

3. To provide additional capacity to the water system interms of meeting annual demands.

Recent cases where additional development ofgroundwater has taken place include the communitiesof Summerland and the Glenmore-Ellison ImprovementDistrict. The cost per megalitre (ML) is typically one ofthe lowest sources of water to develop in comparisonwith a lake pumping system or development of dams inthe watershed.

A.2.1 Role of Groundwater

There is a significant role for groundwater in theOkanagan Valley in the upcoming years. The benefitsof groundwater supply are reduced biological risks frombacteria, viruses and protozoa such as Cryptosporidiumand Giardia and reduced risk of water supply loss dueto drought conditions.

The areas where groundwater provides the bestopportunity for supply are not detailed in this report.The Province is setting out an excellent web baseddatabase that shows the groundwater aquifers, existingwells and the logs of those existing wells. It is calledthe BC Water Atlas and is located in the Ministry ofSustainable Resources section of the Province web. Thedatabase is well underway constructed and already is avery useful tool in assessing groundwater potential inthe Okanagan.

The web address is:http://srmapps.gov.bc.ca/apps/wrbc/

appendix

A

120 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

A.3 WATER USE AND SYSTEM INTEGRATION

In the early stages of groundwater development, consideration should be given to factors such as what the waterwill ultimately be used for and what level of quality is required.

Water Usage What will the water ultimately be used for, industry, agriculture, domestic use and drinking water, or otherrequirements? Ultimate use of the water will affect the development decisions made for well development.

Quantity Volume required will have a major impact on cost. The larger the volume, the higher the cost. The largerthe well, the higher the possibility of a negative impact to adjacent wells.

Quality Are there wells in the same aquifer with water quality issues typical to groundwater, such as hardness or highlevels of iron and manganese?

Is testing of local water from the same aquifer possible?

Is high quality water required for domestic purposes from this well?

What are the expected water quality parameters of critical items such as hardness, pH, conductivity, specificmetals such as iron and manganese and special parameters such as radioactivity (in some areas of theOkanagan) or hydrocarbons (MTBE, BTEX)?

What is the zone of influence recharging the aquifer; are there industrial areas within the area?

Water Treatment If for domestic purposes, what form of treatment is required in order to meet the Guidelines for CanadianDrinking Water Quality and / or the BC regulations?

Is disinfection required? (assume yes in all cases)

Is additional treatment required in terms of water softening or iron/manganese removal?

Are the nitrates/nitrites within reasonable levels?

Are there hydrocarbons or any metals issues to be aware of within the aquifer?

What is the operational cost impact of treatment?

Duration Is the well for constant use, seasonal use, or back-up supply? What is the long term expected drawdown onthe aquifer?

FINAL REPORT | 121

A.4 GROUNDWATER RISKS

The development of any type of water source carries inherent risks. The major risks faced when developinggroundwater are set out in this section. The risks are identified on a general basis. The potential risks should beconsidered at the earliest stage of water source development.

Shallow Aquifers Shallow aquifers in some cases can also be described asgroundwater under the influence of surface water. Typicallythese sources have high capacity, but also a high risk ofcontamination. Riverbank filtration and/or collector wellsalso fall into this category. A collector well was recentlyinstalled in Kamloops to reduce the cost of their watertreatment requirements but the well was found to be highin metals.

There are still risks of bacteria and viruses although there isa measurable reduction of these and of Giardia andCryptosporidium with this method of accessing sourcewater.

Chemical Risks These include the risks of encountering natural problemssuch as high iron or manganese levels in the groundwater,radionuclides, or issues such as high metals, nitrates/nitrites,and hardness. In addition, there are the harder to measurenew emerging substances such as methyl tertiary butylether (MTBEs), hydrocarbons and industrial wastes that canleach into the groundwater supply.

Biological Risks Biological risks include bacteria, viruses, protozoa such asCryptosporidium and Giardia and other contaminants thatcan result from surface runoff. The higher the potential forthis contamination, the higher the source protection andwater treatment requirements for the source water.

Groundwater has a lower potential for contamination ofprotozoa than surface water, but the potential forcontamination should not be underestimated.

Dry well or A low yielding well can result from improper planninglow yield and/or improper development. For any well being

developed, the volume of water is subject to a number offactors. Screen size, well construction, aquifer influences,and pipe sizing all can affect the yield of a well.

Collector Well

122 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

A.5 REGULATORY ISSUES - APPROVALS

To develop a groundwater supply, approvals are required. To drill a private well does not require a water license inBC. Regulatory items to consider include the following:

Provincial Currently, for the delivery of safe water, each utility is obligated to meet the new Drinking Water ProtectionRegulations Regulation, BC Reg. 200/2003. This new regulation, deposited May 16th, 2003 sets out the standards for

water supply by public and private utilities in their supply of water to the residents of BC. The regulationdoes not set out stringent requirements for individual water quality parameters such as turbidity, colour, etc.,but leaves this to the discretion of the Drinking Water Officer. Requirements of the Drinking WaterProtection Regulation include the following items:

• Operating permits for all utilities with specific requirements for each;

• Qualification standards for personnel operating water systems;

• Emergency Response and Contingency Plans for utilities;

• Water quality monitoring requirements;

• Water Source and System Assessments, and;

• Drinking Water Protection Plans.

The development of a well must be integrated into the above requirements. The web page for theregulation is at http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/reg/D/200_2003.htm

Provincial Well Recently, the Province enacted new groundwater protection regulations. The regulation comes into full effectProtection on November 1, 2005. It is set out in three phases as described on the web page. The web page for theRegulations regulations is at the BC Government Groundwater homepage at: http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/wat/gws/

Well Head The objectives of the Well Protection Toolkit are:Protection Toolkit • To educate water suppliers about the benefits of ground water protection and to raise awareness and

encourage personal responsibility by providing information to the general public on well water protection.

• To outline a practical, step-by-step approach on how water suppliers can develop their own wellprotection plan.

• To encourage water suppliers to use the Toolkit to develop and implement a well protection plan for theircommunity well water source.

• To promote good water stewardship in communities where ground water is the principal water supply

The web page for the Well Head Protection Plan is at : http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/wat/gws/well_protection/wellprotect.html

EA If the well is to have a capacity larger than 75 L/s, an Environmental Assessment must be conducted toensure viability and sustainability of the well is achieved. The Act protects the environment. It also isresulting in the development of a higher number of lower capacities wells in order to avoid the requirementsof the Act.

Information on the requirements is available at the BC Environmental Assessment Office web page locatedat: http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/

Local Government Is the development of groundwater allowed within the land use area. Within the City of Kelowna boundaries,Bylaws the development of new groundwater wells is not permitted unless it is integrated into one of the five large

water utilities.

Land use and services are controlled by the municipal bylaws in many of the towns in the Okanagan.

Provincial Health The Interior Health Authority must approve all new water supply installations. Submission of two sealed Authority engineering drawings of the proposed improvements must be delivered to their offices with the proper forms

and documentation.

FINAL REPORT | 123

A.6 TYPICAL STEPS FOR GROUNDWATERDEVELOPMENT

Each well has different characteristics and constraintsto be considered during well development. A generalguideline is presented for the development of agroundwater well starting at the conceptual levelconsidering overall water supply, to obtainingapprovals, construction and commissioning. Much ofthe development work is typically carried out under thedirection of a qualified Professional Hydro-geologist.

1. Retain a water supply professional to provideguidance on the development of additional watersupply. The individual should consider the overallwater system, water system objectives, and potentialsources of water.

2. Determine the volume of water required to meet thewater demand. Consider the implementation ofwater saving devices as lower water usage will lowerthe well development costs and long term pumpingcosts.

3. When the water supply options are refined andgroundwater is the most cost effective option, retaina qualified hydro-geologist. Much of the initialinformation is readily available on the internet,including area mapping and records on existingwells in the subject aquifer.

4. Review local regulations to determine if well drillingis allowed within the local service zone. Checkrequirements of federal, provincial and localregulators.

5. Review provincial website to gain an understandingof the aquifers in the area, their capacity, and theinformation on local nearby wells, such as depth,diameter and capacity. Check the aquifer ratingsystem to determine the sensitivity of the aquifer topumping and existing level of use of the aquifer.

6. Hydro-geologist will determine the zone ofinfluence of the well to determine the upstreamrisks potential and the downstream impacts onexisting lower aquifer water users. Hydro-geologistto prepare recommendations on where to drill andhow much water to expect from the well. Soils

encountered to be tested for material type, grainsize, transmissivity, etc.

7. Hire qualified (and certified) well driller to carryout drilling under the direction of theHydrogeologist. If the well is to be large,consideration may be given to drilling a test well tominimize the costs in case the performance of thewell is in question.

8. Apply for permit to construct from IHA orProvincial Health Authority if the well is to be usedfor drinking water purposes.

9. After construction, test the well for flow, drawdownof the aquifer, and changes in capacity over time.The Hydro-geotechnical consultant should reviewand make recommendations on well capacity andpotential impact on existing users within the sameaquifer.

10. Test the well for water quality parameters includingboth metals and biological parameters.

11. Have the Hydrogeotechnical consultant develop asummary report that sets out the recommendeddevelopment program for the well and connectionto the water system grid. Issues such as pump size,building requirements, connections to the powergrid and water distribution system, andrequirements for disinfection are to be quantified.

12. Select a pump and motor for the well and retain aqualified person to install the well equipment.

13. Develop the building and controls for the wellpump and motor.

14. Construct disinfection and/or water treatmentequipment required.

15. Disinfect the components as per IHA requirementsand AWWA standard practices prior tocommissioning.

16. Ensure all approvals are in place prior toimplementation.

17. Make connections to the water distribution grid.

124 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

A.7 COSTING CONSIDERATIONS

Costs have been provided in more detail in Appendix A of Agua Consulting Inc. (2006). The development of awell should always consider the cost implications. If the raw water quality of the groundwater is good andtreatment is not required, groundwater is one of the most cost effective means of supplying potable water to acommunity.

Cost estimates are provided in this appendix are in year 2005 dollars. Goods and Services Tax is not included inthe cost estimates. Please note that Municipalities, Regional Districts and Improvement Districts are GST exempt.The cost estimates include an engineering and contingency allowance of 15% on the estimated capital cost.

It is noted that costs have escalated substantially in the Okanagan Valley in the last three years. The costs shouldbe reasonable for the current year and should be escalated upwards in the future to match the construction costindices for construction inflation.

A cost breakdown of the major components of a well are provided in Appendix C of Agua Consulting Inc. (2006).The major components include drilling and sealing the well head, the supply and installation of the well pumps,the interconnection cost to the existing water main grid, electrical grid extension and building construction.

Depth of Well The deeper the well, the higher the cost to construct.

From an operational viewpoint, the cost to treat groundwater is typically much higher than the cost to pumpgroundwater.

Operating If the static water levels are low, and the water system pressure at the well head is high ( > 100 psi), typicallyPressure the pumping costs will be higher. This cost is relatively small in comparison with treatment costs beyond

that of disinfection.

Treatment Is disinfection required? If so, a building is necessary to house the disinfection equipment. If not, a kioskcould be used to house controls, but a heated building is necessary to house chlorination equipment.

If softening or additional treatment is necessary, the building footprint expands significantly. The issue ofwater treatment residual handling and disposal also complicates this issue.

FINAL REPORT | 125

A.7.1 Drilling Costs

Figure A.1 illustrates the cost per metre to drill wells of different sizes and depths. The costs that result from TableA.1 do not include the external items such as well pumps and motors or building costs.

FIGURE A.1:

Groundwater Drilling Cost Curves.

126 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

Drilling cost details are provided on Table A.1. The costs are set out in year 2006 dollars for typical municipalwater supply system wells. Allowances are included for contingency and engineering in the amount of 15%.Actual costs may vary, depending on location and the degree of difficulty encountered at the site.

TABLE A.1:

Drilling Costs.

TABLE A.2:

Well Development Qualifiers.

A.7.2 Pumping Costs

For issues such as motor and pump pricing, the cost for supply and installation of a pump and motor is set out inFigure A.2. The costs provide an indication of the supply/installation cost for well pumps. If a variable frequencydrive is required for the well pump motor, this will add to the costs set out in Figure A.2.

FINAL REPORT | 127

Diameter Diameter is provided in inches from 6” to 16”. Well sizes below 6” require less engineering. Sizes greaterthan 16” are not common and the number of aquifers in the Okanagan Valley that could support a larger wellare limited.

Length Measurement from ground surface to bottom of well.

Drill Rate Rate per metre to drill and case the well. Includes drill rig and labour. Includes miscellaneous items with thedrill rig.

Drill/Casing Cost Cost is the product of drilling rate and depth of well.

Well Head Work Price includes sealing of the well head with 6 metre oversized section of casing pipe, installation of bentoniteseal and removal of the casing pipe. Work also includes sealing of the well head surface and set up ofdrainage away from the well.

Mobilization/ A lump sum amount is provided for mobilization of drill rig company for start-up and travel costs to and fromDemobilization the site. An allowance is also included in the numbers for out-of-town expenses

Controls Allowance is provided in the estimates for a kiosk. For larger pumps or where disinfection equipment isnecessary, a building should be constructed. Building costs should be budgeted at $150/ ft2.

Screens Estimate is based on the supply and installation of a 6m long stainless steel screen of the proper diameter forthe well casing. Includes K Packer, screen related items

Pump Testing Specialty service to test out the pump and aquifer for performance, drawdown of the water levels andestimation of well capacity.

Miscellaneous A percentage cost of 10% is included for miscellaneous costs include materials such as bentonite, polymer,Costs grout, stand and silica sand for well packing, the drive shoe, etc.

Contingency/ Allowance of 20% is provided for engineering (10%) and unknown issues that may arise. Engineering

TOTAL COST Cost in 2006 dollars (GST is excluded)

ADDITIONALITEMS

Power Source Power supply for any well over 5 horsepower will require 600 volt service for three phase power. If the areapower grid is not close to the site, then the cost to bring power to the site is in the range of $50,000 perkilometre for overhead lines and several times this cost for underground buried service.

Road Access Vehicle access must be possible for service vehicles to get to the site on a year round basis.

128 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

FIGURE A.2:

Pump and Motor Cost Curve.

FIGURE A.2:

Operational Pumping Costs.

FINAL REPORT | 129

TABLE A.3:

Pumping and Water Treatment Operational Cost Summary.

130 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

FINAL REPORT | 131

Case Study Detail Project Sheets

appendix

B

132 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

FINAL REPORT | 133

Model Process

appendix

C

Before 1900

1859 – Rules andRegulations for theWorking of GoldMines published forBC. This establishedbeneficial use andprior appropriationas basis for water law

late 1880’s – OKEconomy based onCattle Ranching andGrain Crops.

1890 – First waterlicense on Silver Star

1894 – Record flood

• OK fishery @ OKFalls and narrowsbetween Skaha andOK lakes

• Water rights withlarge landdevelopmentcompanies

• Built waterinfrastructure

• Development oforchards and waterinfrastructure

1900s

1904-1914 – 40,000acres of landirrigated betweenVernon and Osoyoos

1904 – Intensivedevelopment in BlackMountain District

1907 – 5 mile ditchconstructed to divertwater from Kelowna(Mill) Creek

1908 – Research Stweather records start

1909 – Survey of OKRiver between OKand Skaha L.

1921 – Hydrometricstations placed inOkanagan

• Rill irrigation watertransport by flumes

1910s

1914-15 – Firstexperimental dam onOK Lake forNavigation

1914-17 – Channel“improvements” OKRiver, Penticton

• Board/Commissionestablishes waterrights priorities

1920s

1920 – South OK LandsProject – Irrigationchannel in South OK(Oliver and Osoyoos)

1920 – McIntyre Dam –Fishway inoperable –decide not to fix dueto exotic concerns

1920 – 2nd Dam OKLake

1926 – Water supplyassociation formed –Water districtsformed

1927 – No legal councilfor First Nations law

1928 – Flood – inquiryby Public WorksCanada

1928-29 – 3rd dam onOK Lake – Change toSkaha L. outlet

1928-31 – 3 Yeardrought of record –lowest lake inflows inrecorded history

• Provincial govt tookover administrationof systems

1930s

1935 – First snowsurveys in BC, in OK(Trout Ck,Summerland Res,McCulloch, MissionCk, Aberdeen L)

1935 – Public worksCanada inquiry

1936 – Biologicalsurvey of OK L;completed byClemens et al

1939 – acknowledgesmost water lost toirrigation, suggestlake whitefish

1939 – Grand CouleeDam – loss of salmonhabitat in UpperColumbia

1939-43 – GrandCoulee fishmaintenance project– Upper ColumbiaSockeye only in OKand Wenatchee –extirpated othersalmon – OK sockeyeupper Columbiacomposite

• 18 independentwater districtsformed in Townshipof Spallumcheen

C.1 OKANAGAN TIMELINE CREATED BY WORKSHOP 1 PARTICIPANTS ON FEBRUARY 22, 2005

ABBREVIATIONS:

OK = Okanagan

L = Lake

Ck = Creek

Res = Reservoir

R = River

OBWB = OK BasinWater Board

134 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

1940s

1942 – Flood – Results inChannelization & Diking ofMission Ck & Penticton Ck;Board of Engineers (1946)

1946 – Joint Board of EngrsIssue Report

1946 – Veterans Land Act (10acres)

1946-1950s – VLAdevelopments

1948 – Flood – Decision forChannelization

1949 – Big freeze

1950s

1950 – Feds and Provincesign an agreement toconstruct OK flood controlsystem

1950-1958 – Channelizationof OK R. from PentictonSouth

1950s – 60s – Irrigationpressure systems /sprinklers – ag productiondoubles

1952 – Freeze affected treefruits

1954 – Another big freeze

1958 – OK Lake Bridge

• International JointCommission interventionon sockeye considerationsfor channelization project

• Fishways at new outletdams decide not tooperate due to exoticspecies concerns andpotential to divert waterfrom Shuswap

1960s

1960s-1980’s – ARDSA(Agricultural and RuralDevelopment SubsidiaryAgreement?) Programs –Water infrastructure(Pressurized)

1960’s – ARDA (AgriculturalRehabilitation andDevelopment Act) sharedcosts of pressurized watersystems between ID, Provand Fed govts.

1963 – Provision for waterlicences to apply togroundwater included inWater Act

1964 – Freeze

1968 – BAD Freeze

1969 – Feds and Provincesign an agreement toinitiate ComprehensiveFramework Plan fordevelopment and mgt ofwater resources in OK

• Okanagan/ShuswapDiversion proposed

1970s

1972 – Kelownaamalgamation – lettersprotest (Mission Ck)

1973 – ALR put in place

1974 – British Columbia OKBasin Report to deal withsewage waste, phosphorus,eutrophication, etc. –milfoil problem -- Studyrecommends one unifiedRegional District for theentire watershed, to unifywater mgt.

1974 – OK Basin AgreementFramework Plan Issued

1976 – Feds and Provincesign OK BasinImplementation Agreement

• Penticton sewer treatmentplant commissioned

• Solid set sprinklers overand under tree

• Flows set for sockeye andOK L. kokanee - majorkokanee fishery

FINAL REPORT | 135

1980s

1980 – Smith Alphonse Dam removedfrom Mission Ck

1980-1990 – OK Lake phosphorusplan

1980-present – BMID [Black Mtn IrrigDist] transitions from primarilyagriculture to a domestic watersupplier. Connections expand from1500 to 7100+

1981 – Est. of Regional Water Mgt,Ministry of Envt.

1982 – Bardenpho wastewatertreatment plant (City of Kelowna) –Lake discharge

1983+ – Rural-urban conflictsincreasing

mid 80’s – Beaver Fever outbreak inPenticton

1986 – Spraying of pesticidescurtailed in Mission Ck watershed

1986-87 – Zozel Dam (Osoyoos L.)reconstructed

1987 – OK L. declared a sensitiveecosystem

1987 – Giardia outbreak from MissionCk

1988 – 2,4D spraying stopped in OKL. (algae bloomed)

• Intensification of production withmicro-irrigation systems

• Grape pull out

• New varieties of tree fruits

• Replant program – increaseproduction – financial incentives forefficiency –vinifera grapes

• Expansion of grape production andwine industry

1950s

1990 – Heavy spring rains –widespread flooding

1991 – PAH’s (polycyclic aromatichydrocarbons) found in stormsewers

1993 – City of Kelowna storm sewerby-law

1994 – Attempt to merge allindependent water districts inSpallumcheen (It failed)

1995-1999 – Forestry RenewalPrograms

1995 – OLAP (OK L. Action Plan) –Kokanee fishery closed

1995 – ONA – Fisheries

1995 – Vernon Irrig Dist dissolvedand morphed into N. OK waterauthority, which combines Vernon& Coldstream electoral areas

1995 – Right to Farm legislation

1995 – Envt Canada went toautomated weather stations

1996 – Watershed education

1996 – OK-Shuswap LRMP [Land andResources Mgt Plan]

1996 – Cryptosporidium (Kelowna)

1997 – Basin Flood flows (200-yrestimate Mission Ck?) Highestannual inflow to OK Lake(Flooding)

1997 – Univ of Washington ClimateChange Impacts Study ofColumbia Basin

1997 – Fish Protection Act

1998? – Penticton Drinking WaterTreatment

1998 – 2000 IWAP (InteriorWatershed Assessment Procedure)Mission, Bear-Lambly, Mill

1999 – BMID Drinking watertreatment plant constructed

• Fertilization/Chemigation

• Water Conservation Programs –KJWC (Kelowna Joint WaterCommission)

• Groundwater consultation wentnowhere

1960s

2000-2003 – Regional Dist Growth Mgt Plans

2000 – Review of OK Water Stewardship (SummitEnvironmental)

2001 – Total Chance Harvest Planning – Riverside200-yr plan

• Enhanced watershed advisory committee forMission Ck (LRMP committee)

2001 – Watershed Mgt Program at OUC, UBC-O

2001 – Deep Lake limnology (City of Kelowna)

• Uncertainty with First Nations and water rights– No treaties defined by courts

2001-03 – COBTWG contractors developed themultidisciplinary OK Basin Fish Water Mgt ToolsModel. Operation began in the 2004-05 Season

2002-03 Drought – Summerland state ofemergency – Fish flows in Trout Ck for water

2003 – Sockeye back into Skaha

2003 – Groundwater assessment in OK Basin

2003 – FIRE

• Landscape Recovery Strategy

• Species at Risk Act

• Restoration of the OK R.

• Green Economy Sustainable Devt Initiative

Winter 2003-04 – OK L. at historic low lake level

2004 – Groundwater protection regulation

2004 – OK Climate Change and Water Mgt Study(Envt Canada, Ag Canada, UBC and localpartners)

2004 (May) – Report on Workshop to enhanceeffectiveness of water mgt activities (sub-committee report to Regional Dist’s and OBWB)

2004 (Nov-Dec) – Report of OK Partnership to 3Regional Dist’s with recommendations torestructure the OBWB into a more effectiveWater Mgt Agency

• Summerland Thirsk Dam expansion

2005 – City of Kelowna Poplar Point DrinkingWater Treatment upgrade

2005 – City of Kelowna Strategic Plan

2005 – Summerland system separation (irrigationfrom domestic)

2006 – Naramata UV Treatment going towarddual water systems

• Trepanier Landscape Water Mgt Plan

• Drinking Water Protection Act

2008 – New OK Bridge in Kelowna?

• OK Basin Study Commissioned (Complete by 2010)

136 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

2010s

2010 – Tourismincrease fromOlympics?

2013 – IJC ordersregarding Osoyoos L.expire

2016 – Final year ofSockeye reintroductionevaluation

• Less flows for fish?

• Fisheries Act?

• Water Trades andCredits established

2020s

• Projections ofsupply/demand fromTrepanier LandscapeUnit Water Mgt Plan

• One Local/Regionalgovt for whole valley

• OK R. restored(W.Q./Fisheries)

2030s

• 2nd OK Basinimplementation plancompleted?

• Healthy environment

2040s

• Population in Valleyreaches 1.7 million –New study sayswater demand mayhave reached its limit

• Shuswap-OkanaganDiversion

2050s

• Projections fromTrepanier LandscapeUnit Water Mgt Plan

• Water Crisis

FIGURE C.1:

Sketch created by Group 1.

C.2 DIAGRAMS CREATED BY PARTICIPANTS IN WORKSHOP 2, APRIL 15, 2005

FINAL REPORT | 137

FIGURE C.2:

Sketch created by Group 2.

138 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

C.3 WORKSHEET: SETTING THE COURSE DISCUSSION GUIDE

Research Questions

a. Individually, consider what purpose the Okanagan Systems Model could serve. Whatquestions would you like the model to answer and why? Take a few minutes to formulateyour own research questions and write them here:

b. For each of your research questions, illustrate your prediction for what the model might tellyou about the answer.

[For example, your question is: Will climate change and population growth increase demandabove available supply, and if so, when? For this, sketch a graph showing your predictedlevels of supply and demand over the next 50-100 years.]

c. Now share these with your small group. Decide on three top priority questions for yourgroup and write these on the flip-chart paper.

FIGURE C.3:

Sketch created by Group 3.

FINAL REPORT | 139

Model Content

Research questions drive decisions about what needs to be included in the model and how.Identify the critical aspects of the system that must be included in the model to answer yourgroup’s research questions and provide reasons why. When your group develops a consensus,write your results on the flip-chart paper.

a. System Components:

b. Geographic Scale:

• Range: Entire basin; Okanagan Lake; Single District; Single watershed; Town

• Divisions: 3 Regional Districts, Watersheds, Water Purveyor Areas; Drainage areas for eachlake.

c. Time scale:

• Span: From __________ to ___________

• Increment: Decades Years Seasons Months Weeks

C.4 PRE AND POST EVALUATION FORM, WORKSHOP 5

C.4.1 Workshop 5 Pre-Evaluation

1. How many previous events (workshops in Feb, April, June and Dec 2005, and meetings inSept/Oct 2005) have you attended (not including this event)?

0 1 2 3 4 5

2. What role do you play in water resource planning or management in the basin (watermanager / provincial govt / elected official / NGO / other)?

3. How well do you understand the model’s structure?

No knowledge I know which issues Very well – I couldof model are included teach it to others

1 2 3 4 5

4. Do you feel your participation in the sessions contributed to the development of the model?

■■ Yes ■■ No ■■ Undecided

a. If yes, what ideas or data were you able to contribute?

b. If no, what minimized your participation in the development of the model?

140 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

5. Has your participation in the sessions increased your knowledge and understanding of thestate of water resources in the Okanagan?

■■ Yes ■■ No ■■ Undecided

a. If yes, what have you learned through these sessions (either procedural, collegial, orsubstantive)?

C.4.2 Workshop 5 Post-Evaluation

1. How many previous events (workshops in Feb, April, June 2005 and meetings in Sept/Oct2005) have you attended (not including this event)?

0 1 2 3 4 5

2. What role do you play in water resource planning or management in the basin?

3. How well do you understand the model’s structure?

No knowledge I know which issues Very well – I couldof model are included teach it to others

1 2 3 4 5

4. Has your participation in the sessions increased your knowledge and understanding of thestate of water resources in the Okanagan?

a. If yes, what have you learned through these sessions (either procedural, collegial, orsubstantive)?

5. Have your perceptions of future water availability in the basin changed due to this exercise?

No change Some change Major changes1 2 3 4 5

a. Please explain.

6. Do you feel the model captures the major factors that influence water resources in theOkanagan, now and in the future?

No change Some change Major changes1 2 3 4 5

a. Can you identify important factors that are missing?

7. Do you feel this model is a legitimate and relevant tool to explore long-term watermanagement in the Okanagan? Briefly explain (use the back if necessary).

FINAL REPORT | 141

Model Quick User Guide

The Model Quick User Guide can be accessed online at http://www.ires.ubc.ca/aird/projects_completed.html

appendix

D

142 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

FINAL REPORT | 143

Model Level Documentation

E.1 Water Supply Sources

E.1.1 Climate Change Scenarios

The information in the model regarding climate changeis based on work by Taylor and Barton, whodownscaled global climate model output to theOkanagan scale. The climate scenarios are based on theresults of three global climate modeling teams, withtwo emissions types from each. Simulations aregenerated in thirty-year time blocks, identified as the2020’s (2010-2039) and the 2050’s (2040-2069). Datawas also generated for the 2080’s (2070-2099), but wasnot added to this model, as the participant group felt itwas unnecessary. Planning initiatives typically consider20-year projections, and occasionally 50-yearprojections. The participants expressed concern thatlonger projections would contain too much uncertaintyto be informative. The new climate condition is heldconstant over each thirty-year period. This version ofthe model only includes the Hadley A2 Scenario.Hadley A2 was the most severe case of the six moderatescenarios examined. Details about these climatescenarios can be found in Cohen et al.(2004).

The model does not include output directly from globalclimate models, but incorporates translations of theclimate scenarios into supply and demand impacts. Inthis way, the model captures the linkages from climatechange to hydrologic inflows (Section E.1.2) and to andagricultural water demand (Section E.2.5). In addition,residential outdoor use (Section E.2.3) is correlated tothe temperature component of climate change.

Temperature scenarios are also based on the 30-yearperiods, but the data was smoothed to create a gradualchange from the beginning to the end of the period.Smoothing was performed on the temperature shift dueto climate change only; monthly and annual variabilitywas maintained.

E.1.2 Hydrologic Scenarios

Hydrologic scenarios were generated for all of thesubwatersheds in the Okanagan Basin. Details on thiswork are published in Merritt and Alila (2004). Thesescenarios were based on the Climate Scenariosgenerated by Taylor and Barton (2004) and weregenerated using the UBC Watershed stream flow runoffmodel created by Michael Quick.

Climate scenarios produced information aboutprecipitation and temperature changes. Thisinformation was fed into the UBC Watershed model togenerate 30-year hydrographs for each watershed. Inmost of the watersheds, particularly those in the higherelevations that receive a significant portion ofprecipitation as snow, increased temperatures decreasesnowpack and induce an earlier spring melting(freshet).

The UBC Watershed model simulated naturalstreamflow, with no management of dams. In eachwatershed, the simulation was based on the location ofthe stream gage. No groundwater interaction wasmodeled. Calibration focused on matching peak flowsrather than minimum flows.

The watershed data sets are aggregated into threegroups: Uplands, Valley, and South End. Uplandsincludes all managed watersheds that are tributaries toOkanagan Lake. Valley includes a few smallunmanaged watersheds that are tributaries to OkanaganLake. South End includes all watersheds that feed intoOkanagan River and the mainstem lakes between theoutfall of Okanagan Lake and the inflow to OsoyoosLake (see Figure 5.2).

Most simulations were based on the historic period1961-1990. However, several watersheds did not havecomplete data records during this period. Mostcommonly, data was missing from 1961-1968. In thesecases, I correlated watersheds with missing data toadjacent watersheds of similar size. Because the use of

appendix

E

144 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

the data is in an aggregated state, the accuracy ofcalibration to each stream is less critical thenmaintaining the order of magnitude of the aggregatedtotal.

Okanagan water users depend on sources in addition tothe natural surface water supply. Diversions fromadjacent river basins and groundwater are alsoimportant water sources.

E.1.3 Diversions from Adjacent Basins

There are at least three sources from which water istransferred to streams in the Okanagan – Kettle,Shuswap (from Duteax Creek) and Alocin (from theNicola Basin). All of these are relatively minor. Kettleand Shuswap are captured in the model. Alocin isneglected because the participant/expert advisorycommittee suggested it was very minor. (The relativemagnitudes of the three diversions were not compared,however.)

Kelowna has water rights to divert up to 3780 acre-feet(4.66 million cubic metres) of water per year from the

Kettle River basin, and this water is taken during thespring and summer months. Detailed data about thediversion are not available, so in the model, we simplyassume that 500 acre-feet (0.62 million cubic metres)per month are imported to the Okanagan from Maythrough October, matching the months of peakdemand.

Diversions from the Shuswap River basin (taken fromDuteax Creek) are not recorded, however, we do havean estimate of the number of users on this source.Therefore, in the model we estimate the amount of thediversion according to the number of residentialcustomers that depend on the Shuswap transfer as theirwater source. However, the Shuswap also serves someAg customers, so the estimate is low. It is important tobe aware that this method assumes that the diversionwill increase as needed, without limits. However, thisis held in check by limiting increases in demand to theregional population growth rate and any per capitaincreases in use (due to climate change and otherfactors). Therefore, we do not add new users fromother sources that are limited.

FIGURE E.1:

Two year hydrograph of aggregated flow in upland streams, showing shift from base case (1981-82), to a decreased,earlier peak in Hadley A2 – 2020’s (2030-31) and Hadley A2 – 2050’s (2060-61).

Inflow Values for 2 Climate Scenarios (Base Case and Hadley A2) in million cubic meters per month

Page 2

00.46200.85200.25200.64200.042

Months

1:

1:

1:

2:

2:

2:

3:

3:

3:

0

250

500

1: Base Case Inflows[Upland Tribs] 2: Hadley A2 Inflows 2010 to 2039 mcmÖ 3: Hadley A2 Inflows 2040 to 2069 mcmÖ

1

1

1

1

2 2 22

3

3

3

3

FINAL REPORT | 145

E.1.4 Groundwater

Groundwater contributes to the total water available inthe Uplands. Since there is presently a lack ofinformation about the interaction between groundwaterand surface water, and about the sustainable yield ofthe aquifers, in the model we assume that groundwatersupplies can meet present and future demand. In thesame manner as the Shuswap diversion, future use isbased on current use, with selected population growthrates applied. The simulations assume thatgroundwater use will increase at the same rate as otherwater uses.

Groundwater is also an important water source in theSouth End. Here, however, the model does not mergegroundwater and surface water. Because almost allresidents are on groundwater and almost all other usersdepend on surface water, the sources are kept separate.This is not reflective of the physical reality of thesystem – in fact, we expect that there isgroundwater/surface water interaction; instead, it ismore a matter of accounting in the model.

E.1.5 Return Flows to Uplands

In the Okanagan, water is not only used once, butcycles through several uses before flowing south intoOsoyoos Lake and across the international border. Inthe Uplands, water is returned in two ways, bothactively and passively: (1) Domestic water is treatedand re-distributed for irrigation of golf courses, (2)Outdoor irrigation (agricultural and residentialapplications) drains to Upland surface water sources.

E.2 Water Demands

E.2.1 Population Growth Calculations

All population data in the model is based on recentpopulation statistics for each Regional District.Planning areas within each Regional District wereconsidered because the political boundary lines are notaligned with the watershed boundary, and someresidents do not depend on Okanagan water supplies.The identification of populations outside of theOkanagan was estimated using spatial maps as well asinformation from Al Cotworth. See Table E.1. Onlypopulations served by Okanagan water sources wereincluded in the model. Data was acquired through eachRegional District’s web sites.

The model calculates population for any year usingdata from a given year and the growth rate between thedata year to the initial simulation year. In the model,options for initial years are 1961, 2010, and 2040. Therecent population data is used to calculate initialpopulations using:

where Px = population at time x n = year of interesto = year of known value r = annual growth rate between time n and o.

FIGURE E.2:

STELLA component for treatment of groundwater in the Upland sector.

146 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

TABLE E.1:

Current population data for Regional Districts, and the portion of the population served by Okanagan Basin watersources.

For historic simulations, the initial populations werealso calculated using recent data, but growth rates foreach regional district were calculated to be approximately1.98% for NORD; 4.22% for CORD; and 1.80% forRDOS. These values are based on BC Stats data for1961 populations in each regional district. The 1961census data used to calculate the annual growth rateincludes the total RD population. For NORD andRDOS, this is not entirely compatible with thepopulation numbers that only include those within theOkanagan Basin, however, because census areas havechanged and the planning areas grew at different rates,this is a reasonable approximation.

TABLE E.2:

Comparison of historic populations and those simulatedby the model using calculated growth rates from thehistoric to the present. Error was introduced byrounding growth rates.

Annual population growth rates for future simulationsare the same as those used by Neale (2005), and arebased on BC Stats PEOPLE 27, Official CommunityPlans and other planning documents. These rates areshown in Table E.3 with historic rates shown forcomparison.

TABLE E.3:

Exponential population growth in the STELLA language.

Because the model simulates in monthly timesteps,these annual rates (Rannual) are converted to monthlygrowth rates (Rmonthly) using:

During simulations, populations increase according tothe selected growth rate using a classic exponentialgrowth relation. The relation is shown in Equationeee1, where n and o are in months rather than years,and n – o = 1. In STELLA language, population growthis expressed as shown in Table E.3.

E.2.2. Converting Regional District Populations toPopulations Using Each Water Source

The population values that we are interested in for themodel is populations grouped according to the threewater sources (Upland tribs, Okanagan Lake, SouthEnd). Rather than using these groupings at the start,we maintained the Regional District divisions for thepopulation growth calculations because the growthrates of the three Regional Districts vary considerably.

FINAL REPORT | 147

FIGURE E.3:

Exponential growth in the STELLA language.

148 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

Data regarding water sources for different communitieswas provided by the participant group, particularly AlCotsworth, Toby Pike and Andrew Reeder and Ministry

of Environment representatives.(Table E.4). Thesepercentages are multiplied by the population of eachplanning area and sorted into three water source areas.

TABLE E.4:

Division of residential water use according to water source.

where Usedwelling = cubic metres of water use per month per detached dwelling,Tmax = daily maximum temperature values averaged monthly, in degrees Celsius, and the values of a and bare defined in Table E.5.

Next, total outdoor water use for each area of interest [cubic metres per month] is determined by:

where SDD.Ratio = the ratio of ground-oriented, single detached dwellings to total dwellings,Occupancy.Rate = the average number of people per household.

At present, Regional Districts have been 2.3 and 2.5 occupants per household and 31% apartments (69% ground-oriented dwellings). Due to changing population demographics, these values are expected to change to 2.1-2.2occupants per dwelling in 2031, and apartments are expected to increase to 34%, decreasing SDDs to 66% by 2069.

FINAL REPORT | 149

E.2.3 Calculating Residential Water Use

Urban (“residential”) water use is based on Neale’s(2005) analysis of water use in the communities ofKelowna, Penticton, and Oliver. Indoor use is relativelyconstant throughout the year, while outdoor wateringtypically only occurs between April and October. Thesignificant summer population increases due to tourismalso increase water use during the summer months.This phenomenon can not be distinguished fromoutdoor use in the data, but it is captured in the valueof total water use since relations were developed fromactual data. Model users should take caution, however,in interpreting demand side management strategies,keeping in mind that it is not realistic for “outdoor”water use to be zero. (This result is possible with thescenario of 100% apartments and no single familydwellings – see section on outdoor water usecalculations.)

Indoor water use is calculated as a per capita rate. Thehistoric and default rate used is 400 L/day/personwhich captures all residential, municipal and industrialuse. The relation is simply:

Outdoor water use is slightly more complicated. Thereare two concepts that define how this is calculated.First, we assume that the majority of residential

outdoor water use is applied to lawns and landscapemaintenance. Thus, residents in condominiums andapartment buildings have no significant outdoor wateruse. Most apartment complexes do have somelandscaping, but this is minor when divided by thelarge number of residents. The other defining conceptis the correlation between water use and dailymaximum temperatures averaged monthly. This is animportant linkage when exploring climate changescenarios with increasing temperatures. Neale (2005)linearly correlated monthly averages of daily maximumtemperatures to the number of single detacheddwellings in each of the three study areas. I applied therelation for Kelowna to both the Uplands andOkanagan Lake water source areas, and applied therelation for Oliver to the South End. Neale’s relationsvaried widely between the three study areas, with useincreasing substantially from the northernmost location(Kelowna) to the drier, southernmost location (Oliver).Therefore, the extrapolations from single communitiesto entire regions should be reassessed as moreinformation becomes available; however, the centralproximity of Kelowna and Oliver to their associatedwater source areas makes the extrapolations reasonable.

The linear correlations from Neale (2005) for outdoorwater use per dwelling are:

TABLE E.5:

Linear relation parameters correlating outdoor water use to daily max temperature.

150 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

E.2.4 Residential Demand Side Management Strategies

Neale (2005) reviewed case studies in the literature to estimate the efficacy of a variety of demand sidemanagement strategies. The strategies evaluated and included in the model are listed in Table E.6 with theexpected reduction in water use.

TABLE E.6:

Reprint of Table 3.3 from Neale (2005), p 47. Also Table 2.5 this text, Chapter 2.

DSM Option Water Savings

Indoor Outdoor

DSM Option 1: PUBLIC EDUCATIONSustained public awareness program as described by Hrasko (2003a) including a part-time staff person and printed brochures etc. 10% 10%

DSM Option 2: METERING WITH CUCWater meter installation and volume-based billing. Water rate is a constant unit charge (CUC), or the same charge for each additional unit of water consumed. 20% 20%

DSM Option 3: METERING WITH IBRWater meter installation and billing with an increasing block rate structure (IBR). Volume-based water charges increase when water use exceeds pre-defined thresholds. 32% 32%

DSM Option 4: XERISCAPINGXeriscaping bylaws are implemented, similar to the landscape ordinances used in several US jurisdictions, requiring all new and renovated landscaping to conform to xeriscaping principles. 0% 50%

DSM Option 5: HIGH EFFICIENCY FIXTURES & APPLIANCESBylaws are implemented requiring water efficient appliances and fixtures to be installed in all new and renovated dwellings. 40% 0%

DSM Option 6: COMBINED METERING WITH IBR, XERISCAPING AND HIGH EFFICIENCY APPLIANCES & FIXTURESOptions 3-5 are implemented. Water savings for Xeriscaping and High Efficiency are reduced by the percentage water savings for Metering with IBR to account for voluntary adoption of these mechanisms under the metering program. 59% 66%

E.2.5 Agricultural Demand

Agricultural water demand is based on scenariosdeveloped by the Crop Water Demand (CWD) modelby Neilsen Koch, Smith et. al. (2004b). Neilsen Koch,Smith et. al. correlated crop water demand to a numberof factors:

• Crop type

• Solar radiation (function of latitude)

• Canopy development

• Length of growing season

• Maximum daily temperature

• Growing degree days (GDD)

The CWD model generated scenarios that correspondto the climate change scenarios. Output is given interms of total water required by each major water

purveyor per unit of time. Total land in productionand the crop type mix were based on currentconditions and assumed to be constant in both thehistoric and the future simulations (Cohen et al. 2004,p.91).

In the system model, we wanted to be able to vary thetotal land in production and the mix of crop types, sowe converted the CWD volumes to rates of applicationper land area and per crop type (Pasture, Vineyard, TreeFruits, and Other Crops). Rates were calculated for themajor water purveyors and extrapolated to the totalland in production by water source (Upland tribs,Okanagan Lake, South End). The variation of cropwater demand rates between purveyors is illustrated inFigure E.4. Note the rates are relatively consistent. Asub-set of the 50+ major water purveyors were carefullyselected to ensure diversity in geographic location andto ensure adequate representation of each crop type.Because the variation between major water purveyorsin each area was relatively minor, the additional effort

FINAL REPORT | 151

FIGURE E.4:

Comparison of crop water demand [m] for seven major water purveyors in the Uplands during the first two years ofthe historic scenario (1961-62).

FIGURE E.5:

Comparison of crop water demand [m] for the three different water source types. Note the increasing trend fromUplands down to the warmer South End.

152 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

FIGURE E.6:

Comparison of crop water demand rates [m] for the four categories of crops in the Uplands.

FIGURE E.7:

Comparison of Pasture crop water demand scenarios. Note increasing trend from historic base case to 2020’s and2050’s.

FINAL REPORT | 153

of testing each and every purveyor would not havechanged the value of the average significantly,particularly relative to the accuracy required for thismodeling exercise.

Crop water demand does vary considerably betweencrop types, as shown in Figure E.6. Although thetiming and magnitudes of “Pasture” and “Cropland” arenearly identical, “Tree Fruits” and “Vineyard” showvery different requirements. Because wine grapesrequire substantially less water, there has been muchdiscussion as to the merits of converting irrigated landto vineyards. However, this may not be socially oreconomically viable.

In the Okanagan System model, the appropriate cropwater demand scenario is selected according to thesimulation settings. Next, these values are used toestimate the agricultural water demand in each month.Multiplying the crop water demand rate [m] by the areaof land dedicated to that crop gives the total crop waterdemand in m3/month. However, this rate is theminimum required with 100% irrigation efficiency.Actual irrigation also includes watering for frostprotection and evaporative cooling. In South EastKelowna Irrigation District (SEKID) between 1976 and1990, which was prior to metering, actual agriculturaluse was 30% higher than crop water demand. Thisvalue is in agreement with expert judgment (van derGulik, Jan ‘06 meeting) and estimates for Oliver. Thisfactor, labeled “Ag demand above CWD” in the model,is applied to all four crops and all three water sourceareas.

E.2.6 Conservation Flow Requirements in Tributariesto Okanagan Lake

In the Okanagan, instream flow recommendations tosupport aquatic life have been made since the early1970’s, however, targets have not been enforced. TroutCreek, as a result of the 2003 drought, is one exception.

In 2001, B.C. Fisheries released a report that outlined“Conservation Flow Targets” for twenty-one1 tributariesto Okanagan Lake that support rainbow trout orKokanee salmon. These targets vary each month, andare based on a percent of Mean Annual Discharge(MAD). The MAD is calculated for each stream, basedon long-term average historic data. The target varieseach month according to the percentages shown in

Table E.7. The percentages are the same for each of the21 streams.

TABLE E.7:

Conservation flow target structure (Northwest HydraulicConsultants 2001, page 17).

“Conservation flows” are intended to be sufficient tosupport aquatic life. This is in contrast to “minimumflows” which are only the lower threshold of what isneeded to support aquatic life, and are in the order of10% of MAD.

In the model, we aggregated all upland tributaries intoone parameter. I calculated the MAD for thisaggregated flow using the 30 years of historic (1961-90)monthly data (with data gaps patched). The long termaverage flow worked out to be 65.1 million cubicmetres per month, or 24.77 cubic metres per second. (Ichecked this by calculating the MAD for individualcreeks and comparing with those reported in theNorthwest Hydraulic Consultants 2001 report.)

Keep in mind that if aquatic ecosystem requirementsare only applicable to 21 of the tributaries, theninstream flow needs are grossly over-estimated.However, the current structure captures the demandbalance experienced on each of the critical streams.Future revisions of the model should further investigatethis issue.

Applying the percentages to the MAD of 65.1 millioncubic metres per month gives us the target values asshown in Figure E.8. In model simulations, the MADvalue is held constant, even if climate change impacts thehydrologic regime. This reflects the reality thatrecalculating the MAD will be a result of a policydecision, not an automatic, annual effort. The figure

_______________________________________

1. There are forty-six named tributaries of Okanagan Lake.

154 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

FIGURE E.8:

Modeled standard conservation targets shown with five years of varying hydrologic conditions (1978 – flood; 1979-80– drought; 1981-82 – average).

FIGURE E.9:

Conservation targets with modifications. Conservation target is no more than 50% of inflows. Greatest reductionsare in drought years (1979-80).

FINAL REPORT | 155

shows conservation targets compared to upland streaminflows in five years (1978-82) with varying hydrologicconditions. As you can see, it may not be possible forwater managers to meet conservation targets in dryyears. In the model, “dry year” targets are calculatedbased on current flows as an alternative to the standardtargets. Default values are set at 50% of currentmonthly inflow for all months, however, model usersmay adjust this percentage for both the peak flowmonths (April – June) and the low flow months (July –March). In practice, as these targets are not enforced(except on Trout Creek), the magnitude of the reducedtargets is up to the discretion of water managers.

E.2.7 Fish Flow Requirements in South End

Fish flow requirements included in the model aredefined by the operational rules for management ofOkanagan Lake, as spelled out in the Fish WaterManagement Tools Documentation (Alexander et al.2005). The targets ranges are specified and are mostrestrictive between August and mid-October as shownin Figure E.10.

E.3 Water Balance Calculations

E.3.1. Uplands Hydrology Sector

UL Reservoirs stock represents the aggregate of the livestorage of all upland storage reservoirs and lakes, aswell as supplementary sources. The stock behaves likea single reservoir for the whole region, regardless of thefact that in the real system, many of these sources donot combine. The major relations in the sector areshown in Figure E.11.

Inflows to the UL Reservoirs stock, which are detailedabove, include the natural stream flow scenario (eitherthe base case or a climate scenario), labeled “ULNatural Inflow,” and the total additional flows(groundwater, Kettle and Shuswap), labeled “AdditionalSources.” The net inflow describes the stream flowafter land cover processes take effect, such as forestevapotranspiration. Here, a rule is applied that theadditional sources are cut off when the reservoirs arefull, or more specifically, when UL Emergency SpillRatio > 1. This is an actual policy for the diversions.

Outflows from the UL Reservoirs stock includeinfiltration to the aquifer, the sum of out of streamdiversions, and water that remains instream and flowsto Okanagan Lake. Each of these components isdefined in other sectors, and described above.

FIGURE E.10:

Instream flow targets for Sockeye in Okanagan River near Oliver over a 12-month period (Jan – Dec).

There are several assumptions related to this sector:• Streamflow losses can be significant, particularly in

dry years, such that what is released from storage isnot equal to what arrives at a destination pointdownstream. Loss rates vary between streamreaches, and with the current and pre-existinghydrologic condition. As stream reaches can beboth losing and gaining, not enough informationwas available to aggregate this phenomenon to thescale of the Uplands region, so it was neglected inthis version of the model. As additionalinformation becomes available, it could be added.

• Evaporation from storage areas is neglected, on BobHrasko’s recommendation, because the surface areaof the lakes is relatively small, and they are locatedin higher elevations at lower temperatures.

• The total capacity of storage reservoirs on thetributaries to Okanagan Lake was calculated byinformation provided by Don McKee. Assuming85% of licensed storage is actually built, there is280,000 ac-ft of storage in the tributaries.

• Instream flow requirements apply to the entirestream reach, which includes areas downstream ofdiversion points. Return flows may supplementinstream flow in the lower reaches of some streams,however this study did not examine the system atthis level of detail, so we simply assume thatinstream flow needs cannot be met by any of thewater that is diverted for agricultural and domesticuses.

156 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

FIGURE E.11:

Main components of the Uplands Hydrology Sector, where the water balance for this region is calculated.

E.3.2 Upland Storage Outflow Calculations Sector

Calculations for releases from the Upland Reservoirstock are based on operations for the upland reservoirs.Inflows and total demands are considered to determinewhat amount of water the managers would like torelease. Next, the state of the reservoir is considered.The upland reservoirs are not mandated to operate forflood control. Through the late fall and winter, storagemay be low, and releases are approximately equal to therate of inflow, maintaining instream flow. Thereservoirs may fill very gradually through these months,but do not fill significantly until the spring during thefreshet. At this time, all demands can be easilysatisfied, and the remainder is captured in thereservoirs. Water is stored in the reservoirs untilrequired late in the irrigation season, to supplement thediminishing surface water supplies.

The amount requested from the reservoirs is the “ULPre-release.” Between the months of Novemberthrough April, the pre-release is equal to the totalamount of water requested by agricultural, residential,and instream users. In the remaining months, the pre-release is equal to the maximum of the total amountrequested and the natural inflows.

The condition of the reservoir is defined by the maxand min storage targets shown in Figure E.12. Here,they are shown expressed as percentages, but areconverted to units of volume by using the value of thetotal storage capacity. The extra step permits the userto easily simulate a change in storage volume whilemaintaining the operational rules. These storage targetsare not absolute limits, but act as guides to help themodel to operate in a more realistic manner. Duringthe simulations, the stock may surpass these targets.

The actual value of the reservoir stock is thencompared with the values of the max and min targets(as units of volume) to determine if the reservoir needsto hold back water and fill or to release excess water.First the “UL Emergency Spill Ratio” is calculated bydividing the actual volume of the reservoir by themaximum reservoir target. The ratio is limited to aminimum value of 1. If the value exceeds 1, thenadditional water must be spilled. Rules for spilling aredefined in the “Spill Rules Factor,” as shown in FigureE.13. As the ratio increases, the intensity of spillingalso increases.

Similarly, the “UL Cutoff Ratio” is defined as the ratioof the actual volume of the reservoir to the minimum

FINAL REPORT | 157

FIGURE E.12:

UL Reservoir Storage Target ranges as a percentage of the total capacity. These targets help direct managementdecisions for releasing (summer) and filling (during spring freshet).

158 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

FIGURE E.13:

Spill Rules Factor rule curve.

FIGURE E.14:

UL Cutoff Rules Factor, as a function of the UL Cutoff Ratio.

FINAL REPORT | 159

target volume. This parameter is limited to a minimumvalue of 1. If the value falls below 1, then the reservoirvolume is low, and the amount of the water requestedfor release may be adjusted, according to the CutoffRules Factor, as illustrated by the graph in Figure E.14.As values fall below 1, the cutoff rules factor alsodecreases. When the ratio is zero, then the cutoff rulesfactor is also zero, such that no water will be releasedfrom the reservoir when it is empty.

Finally, the value of the “UL Managed Outflow” iscalculated simply as the UL Pre-release multiplied bythe two Rules Factors.

Also in this sector, the model calculates the value of the“UL Supply Demand Balance,” as:

By this definition, when the calculated ratio is equal tozero, then only enough water to satisfy all demands isavailable. Positive values indicate more than theminimum amount of water is available to satisfydemands, while negative values represent deficitconditions. This value is the important indicator fordetermining if allocations will be short of demands, andif restrictions must be implemented.

E.3.3 Uplands Demand Reductions for Shortages Sector

The main purpose of this sector is to implementestablished policies for reducing use during periods ofwater shortage. For example, today there areestablished policies for reducing residential use duringperiods of drought. This is a tiered structure, wherewatering is restricted to a certain number of days perweek. As shortages become more severe, the wateringrestrictions become more intense; watering is permittedon a fewer number of days per week. This policy

FIGURE E.15:

Residential Outdoor Restrictions Factor defined as a function of the UL Supply Demand Balance Ratio.

160 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

FIGURE E.16:

Residential Indoor Restrictions Factor defined as a function of the UL Supply Demand Balance Ratio.

FIGURE E.17:

Agriculture Restrictions Factor defined as a function of the UL Supply Demand Balance Ratio.

FINAL REPORT | 161

mechanism is captured in the Residential OutdoorRestrictions Factor as shown in Figure E.15. When theUL Supply Demand Ratio is low, the Restrictions Factortakes a value greater less than one. The factor ismultiplied directly against the original amount ofresidential outdoor water demanded, providing thevalue for “Res Outdoor Restricted.” More specifically,outdoor water restrictions are implemented whensupplies are only 30% above demands. This is moreprudent than waiting until you already have shortages(when the ratio = 0.0) to implement restrictions.

Residential Indoor Demand and Agricultural Demandhave parallel mechanisms for managing drought. Thethresholds and intensities of restrictions vary for eachuse. Residential Indoor restrictions are implementedlast, as shown in Figure E.16. Agricultural restrictionsare not implemented until the ratio is at -0.2, however,water is entirely cut off if the value drops as low as -0.8

The last step in this sector is to total the new reduceddemand. The restricted levels for agriculture andresidential uses are summed with the conservation flowtarget that has already adjusted for drought periods.This new level of demand that includes adjustmentsfrom drought policies is represented in the converter,“UL Total Reduced Demand.”

Note that there is an alternative management optionincluded in the model where, instead of restricting useduring low flow periods, all diversion demands can besatisfied by pumping water from Okanagan Lake. Thismechanism appears in the last Upland Sector, named,“UPLANDS ALLOCATION SUMMARY.”

E.3.4 Uplands Demand Allocations Sector

The purpose of this sector is to allocate water to thevarious users. The first step in this process is todetermine if the water shortage policies implemented inthe previous sector were sufficient to reduce the totaldemand level to the amount of supply available. In aformula that is very similar to the first supply demandratio calculated, we determine the new supply demandbalance as:

Keep in mind that these reductions are only relevant formonths when there are shortages. For the timestepsthat had sufficient water supplies to meet all demandsfrom the start, these adjustments will have no effect.

If the Adjusted Supply Demand Balance is negative(meaning that we still cannot satisfy all demands) thenwe have two options. The model user chooses to eitherhave the simulation stop, at which point they adjust thedrought policies, or have the model automaticallyreduce all demands by the percentage that the system isshort of meeting them. The default value is for themodel to reduce all demands. The “DroughtManagement Auto or Manual Mode Switch” is wherethe model user controls this setting. If manual mode isselected, the “UL Shortages Messenger” will be active.Otherwise, the model will continue on its merry waycutting the allocation to the required level. This isdone through the “UL Auto Demand Adjuster.” Thisconverter simply takes a value of the managed supplydivided by the reduced demand, but is restricted to amaximum value of 1. This adjuster is used todetermine the allocation levels of all of the uses,including conservation demand.

A final step conducted in this sector is to calculate the “UL Instream Flow Allocated.” In cases ofshortages, this instream flow will be equal to the “UL Cons Flow” so this step appears to be unnecessaryat first glance. However, in all of the timesteps withmore than sufficient water available, the actual amountof water retained in the stream will be greater than the conservation flow allocation. The formula is simply:

UL Instream Flow Allocated =

UL Managed Outflow – UL Total Div Allocated

E.3.5 Uplands Allocation Summary Sector

In this sector, final decisions are made regardingallocations. If the default setting is used, such thatwater diversions are reduced during deficit situations,then the allocations are equal to those calculated in theprevious sector. However, there is a user option whereany deficit in the Uplands can be satisfied with waterfrom Okanagan Lake. In this case, there are noreductions, and allocations are equal to what wasoriginally demanded. Converters with names thatinclude “Final Alloc” are used to include any and all ofthe reductions and policies described in other sectors.

162 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

E.3.6 Valley Hydrology Sector

Okanagan Lake is the water source labeled as “Valley.”Sources for Okanagan Lake include flows from theUplands region, additional natural inflows for theminor, unmanaged tributaries, some return flows fromresidential use, and groundwater recharge from theUplands. The value for inflows from the Uplands isequal to the instream flow allocated for the Uplands.

Lake outflows include simply diverted flows forresidential and agricultural use, and outflowdownstream to Okanagan River, representing releasesfrom Penticton dam.

E.3.7 Okanagan Lake Condition Sector

The purpose of this sector is to convert the volume ofOkanagan Lake into terms of stage. We assume thatthe surface area of the lake remains at a constant 341msm, and that at a volume of 26,000 mcm, the stage isat 341.9 m.

E.3.8 Valley Diversion Tracker Sector

In this sector, we make a significant assumption that alldemands can be met. The justification is that currentdiversions from Okanagan Lake for agricultural andresidential purposes are quite small, as compared withthe other regions. Furthermore, we assume that thediversions can be compensated through lakemanagement.

E.3.9 Okanagan Lake Dam Operation Sector

The information for this sector is based on informationprovided in The Okanagan Fish Water ManagementTool: Guidelines for Apprentice Water Managers(Alexander et al. 2005, p. 32). The lake is managed fora number of different purposes throughout the chain oflakes and rivers that connect them, with requirementsthat vary throughout the year. Purposes include floodcontrol, kokanee shore spawning and incubation,sockeye incubation, mitigation of the temperature-oxygen squeeze on sockeye juveniles, agricultural and

FIGURE E.18:

Supply and Demand balance calculation for the Valley Sector.

Okanagan Lake

mcm

V Return Flows

Selected Inf low Data

f or Climate Scenario

mcm per month

V Outf low

Natural Streamf lows to Okanagan L

mcm per month

GW discharging to OK Lake

UL Lower River Flow

mcm per month

UL to Okanagan Lake

mcm per month

GW f rom UL

mcm per month

WW to OK Lake

mcm per month

V Diverting

V Total Div Demands

mcm per month

Valley Outf low FINAL

mcm per month

FINAL REPORT | 163

FIGURE E.19:

Supply Demand Balance calculation for the South End Region.

domestic water intakes, recreational navigation andriver recreation.

Many of these needs can be accommodated by stagetargets. In the real system, forecasting plays asignificant role, particularly related to the snowpackand the expected volume and timing of the springfreshet. This version of the model does not have aforecasting component. The monthly timestep alsocreates challenges for imitating lake management,which in reality may be adjusted on an hourly basis.

Four things are considered to determine how muchwater to release from the lake at each timestep. First,net inflows are determined. Theoretically, releasing thesame volume would maintain lake levels. Next, lakestage and monthly targets are considered, and themodel calculates how much water needs to be releasedto achieve the target. Third, the minimum andmaximum outflow thresholds are incorporated and

adjust the outflow value if needed. Fourth, flow forsockeye is considered. Finally, the user must decidewhether the model will aim to meet the lake leveltargets or meet the sockeye flow targets. The usersetting will determine which value the model uses tocalculate releases from the lake, labeled, “ValleyOutflow FINAL.”

E.3.10 South End Hydrology Sector

The South End Hydrology Sector has a similar structureas the Uplands and Valley regions. Inflows are from theValley, from natural inflows (streams in the South End)and return flows. Outflows are diversions, which weassume can be met at each timestep. The stock ismaintained at a constant level, such that releasesdownstream are equal to the net inflows into the stock.

164 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

FINAL REPORT | 165

Model Output

Stewart Cohen and Stacy Langsdale

The Okanagan system model presented in

Chapters 4.0 and 5.0 includes options to

explore scenarios of climate change,

population growth, and a range of responses that

could be taken to adapt to climate change. These

options include water demand management by

agricultural and residential users, drought responses

(including supplementing reservoir storage with

direct withdrawals from Okanagan Lake), managing

for sockeye, altering reservoir operating rules, and

changing urban densities.

In this appendix, several model experiments arepresented to illustrate how different scenarios andresponse options lead to various impacts on theOkanagan water system. Note that this version of themodel partitions the watershed into 3 sub-regions:Uplands (tributaries to Okanagan Lake), Valley(primarily Okanagan Lake) and South End (extendingfrom Penticton to Oliver).

Several different climate change scenarios are availablefrom the 2004 study (Cohen et al. 2004). In this set ofexperiments, the climate change scenario being used isfrom the HadCM3 global climate model, and the highglobal scenario of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.The temperature increase in this scenario was near themid-point of the 6 scenarios assessed in the 2004 study.

F.1 Summary of Base Case, 1961-1990

A summary of basin inflows, basin population, basinagricultural and residential water demand, andOkanagan Lake stage, is shown in Figure F.1. The basecase shows that the mid-1970s was a relatively wetperiod, while the late 1980s was influenced by adrought. Basin population increased to around 190,000

by 1990. Okanagan Lake stage remained withinprescribed limits. Agricultural demand during theirrigation seasons fluctuated between 20 and 80 millionm3 and residential demand, while still very low, wasshowing an increasing trend due to population growth.

It is important to keep in mind that in the simulationsof future scenarios, changes in climate and populationare being superimposed on this base case, so the middleof the future 30-year simulation will be relatively wet,and the latter part will be relatively dry. One questionto be considered is whether the scenarios, and selectedresponses, offset or exacerbate either (or both) of theseextreme events.

F.2 Summary of Two Scenarios withoutAdaptation, 2010-2039 and 2040-2069

Using the same format as the above figure, twoscenarios of climate change and population growth arepresented. Figure F.2 shows 2010-2039 climate change,with a medium rate of population growth (averageannual rate of 1.7% in the Central Okanagan, 1.0-1.4 %elsewhere). Population reaches 500,000 by 2039,agricultural and residential demands increase, inflowsare marginally lower, but Okanagan Lake stage is stillmaintained within prescribed limits. It is important tonote, however, that there is a cost to maintaining thelake stage. Figures F.3 to F.5 show that Upland region’sagricultural and residential water demands, which arehigher because of the longer warmer growing season,are not met in most years. This indicator shows adiminished system performance compared to the 1961-1990 base case. A negative balance indicates thatsupply is insufficient to meet demand by the indicatedfraction (vertical axis).

Figure F.6 shows 2040-2069 climate change, with ahigh rate of population growth (average annual rate of2.4% in the Central Okanagan, 2.0% elsewhere).Population reaches 1.2 million by 2069, agriculturaland residential water demands increase, but again,

appendix

F

166 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

FIGURE F.1:

1961-1990 base case summary of basin population, inflow, water demand and Okanagan Lake stage.

FIGURE F.2:

Basin summary for 2010-2039 scenario with no adaptation (same indicators as in Figure F.1).

FINAL REPORT | 167

FIGURE F.3:

Upland agricultural supply-demand balance, 2010-2039 (red), no adaptation, compared with 1961-1990 basecase (blue).

FIGURE F.4:

Uplands residential outdoor supply-demand balance, 2010-2039 scenario (red) compared with 1961-1990 basecase (blue).

168 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

FIGURE F.5:

Uplands residential indoor supply-demand balance, 2010-2039 scenario (red) compared with 1961-1990 basecase (blue). Similar format as in Figure F.4.

FIGURE F.6:

Basin summary for 2040-2069 scenario (same indicators as in Figure F.1).

FINAL REPORT | 169

Okanagan Lake stage is maintained within prescribedlimits. However, Figures F.7 to F.9 show continueddeterioration in system performance in meetingagricultural and residential demands in the Uplandsregion. There are several years where it appears thatagricultural and outdoor residential demands are notmet at all.

In these scenarios, management response has beenassumed to remain static using current norms. Giventhat assumption, the model shows that there wouldneed to be some kind of response in order to meet atleast some agricultural and residential water demands.A selection of responses, and combinations ofresponses, are assessed below.

F.3 Demand Side Management (DSM) and UrbanDensification Portfolio

In the two scenarios described above, both agriculturaland residential supply-demand balances havedeteriorated. Demands are frequently not being met.

One alternative is to increase agricultural andresidential water use efficiency, and to increase urbandensification thereby further reducing per capitaresidential outdoor water demand. This may also

contribute to other urban development goals (such assupporting increased public transit, reducing urbansprawl and preserving agricultural land), but that isbeyond the scope of this study.

Specific residential DSM strategies included in thisversion of the system model are plumbing retrofit,xeriscaping, public education, and metering (eitherwith a constant unit price or an increasing block pricerate in which the unit price increases at higher levels ofconsumption). In the simulations presented here, all ofthese options are used together, including theincreasing block rate for metering.

The model offers the option of changing the populationdensity of urban areas. The current default value is 2.3people per dwelling. It is also possible to change theratio of apartments to total housing, which would alsocontribute to changes in density. The current defaultvalue is a ratio of 0.31 multi-unit dwellings(apartments) to total dwellings. Information onresidential water demand and adaptation strategies isbased on Neale’s study (see Chapter 2.0).

Agricultural water demand is represented by asensitivity indicator in which the model user canchoose an overall effectiveness level, rather than

FIGURE F.7:

Upland agricultural supply-demand balance, 2040-2069 (red), no adaptation, compared with 1961-1990 base case(blue).

170 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

FIGURE F.8:

Uplands residential outdoor supply-demand balance, 2040-2069 scenario (red) compared with 1961-1990 basecase (blue).

FIGURE F.9:

Uplands residential indoor supply-demand balance, 2040-2069 scenario (red) compared with 1961-1990 basecase (blue).

FINAL REPORT | 171

FIGURE F.10:

Uplands agricultural supply-demand balance, 2010-2039 scenario with DSM portfolio (red) compared with 2010-2039 no-adaptation case (blue).

FIGURE F.11:

Uplands residential outdoor supply-demand balance, 2010-2039 scenario with DSM portfolio (red) comparedwith no-adaptation case (blue).

172 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

specific actions such as type of irrigation delivery. Ifagricultural conservation strategies are turned on, thedefault effectiveness value is 50% of the total savingstheoretically possible. This value can be changedat the discretion of the model user. Information on agricultural water demand is from Neilsen et al.(2006).

Figures F.10 to F.12 show comparisons of Uplandssupply-demand balance for the 2010-2039 scenario,without and with the inclusion of an agricultural andresidential DSM portfolio, including intermediate levelof urban densification (3.0 people per dwelling,apartment ratio of 0.50). The residential supply-demand balance indicator shows some improvementparticularly during those years when the indicator forthe no-adaptation case is worse than -0.3. Theagricultural indicator shows improvement in mostyears.

The 2040-2069 no-adaptation scenario presents agreater challenge, since this includes both climatechange and a high population growth rate. For thisexample, the same portfolio of residential measures isused, plus a higher level of urban densification (3.5people per dwelling, apartment ratio of 0.75).Effectiveness of agricultural conservation measures is

assumed to be 100%, the maximum savingstheoretically possible.

Figures F.13 to F.15 show comparisons between the2040-2069 no-adaptation scenario and the DSMportfolio. There is some improvement in Uplandssupply-demand balance, but there are still a number ofyears when residential outdoor demand is not met at all.

F.4 Supplemental Use of Okanagan Lake

Within a climate change scenario, as illustrated inFigures F.3 and F.7, there could be years for which adrought that could have occurred naturally would beexacerbated by reduced flow volumes due to climatechange. Under such conditions, a drought managementstrategy could include additional withdrawals directlyfrom Okanagan Lake to supplement reservoir storagefrom upland areas. In this series of simulations, it isassumed that users are always allocated their fulldemand. Demand that cannot be met by the Uplandswater will be supplemented from Okanagan Lakewithout restriction by any threshold of demand orreduction in lake stage.

What could happen to Okanagan Lake stage in the2010-2039 and 2040-2069 scenarios, respectively, if this

FIGURE F.12:

Uplands residential indoor supply-demand balance, 2010-2039 scenario with DSM portfolio (red) compared withno-adaptation case (blue).

FINAL REPORT | 173

FIGURE F.13:

Uplands agricultural supply-demand balance, 2040-2069 scenario with DSM portfolio (red) compared with 2040-2069 no-adaptation case (blue).

FIGURE F.14:

Uplands residential outdoor supply-demand balance, 2040-2069 scenario with DSM portfolio (red) comparedwith no-adaptation case (blue).

174 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

FIGURE F.15:

Uplands residential indoor supply-demand balance, 2040-2069 scenario with DSM portfolio (red) compared withno-adaptation case (blue).

FIGURE F.16:

Okanagan Lake stage, 2010-2039 scenario with supplemental withdrawals from Okanagan Lake (red) comparedwith no-adaptation case (blue).

FINAL REPORT | 175

FIGURE F.17:

Okanagan Lake stage, 2040-2069 scenario with supplemental withdrawals from Okanagan Lake (red) comparedwith no-adaptation case (blue).

FIGURE F.18:

Valley outflow, 2040-2069 scenario with supplemental withdrawals from Okanagan Lake (red) compared withno-adaptation case (blue).

176 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

FIGURE F.19:

Upland residential indoor supply-demand balance, 2040-2069 scenario with supplemental withdrawals fromOkanagan Lake (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue).

FIGURE F.20:

Upland instream needs supply-demand balance, 2040-2069 scenario with supplemental withdrawals fromOkanagan Lake (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue).

FINAL REPORT | 177

strategy was to be employed without any otheradaptation measures? In the 2010-2039 scenario, thereappears to be little impact (Figure F.16). Indeed thelake stage results in this comparison appear to be nearlyidentical. However, in the 2040-2069 case, substantialreductions in lake stage appear (Figure F.17). This canalso be seen in substantial reductions in 2040-2069Valley outflows (Figure F.18). In some years, Valleyoutflow drops to zero.

The additional withdrawal does meet user demand,including all Uplands residential indoor demands in the2040-2069 scenario (Figure F.19). However, systemperformance for meeting 2040-2069 Uplands instreamflow requirements significantly deteriorates (FigureF.20). In some years, there is a shortfall of more than40 million m3. This indicates that on its own,additional withdrawal from Okanagan Lake would leadto mining of the lake and increased risks to aquaticecosystems.

This does not mean that supplemental use of the lakeshould be rejected as a possible adaptation option. Ifused in conjunction with DSM, overall systemperformance could improve. Combinations of responsemeasures are explored in Section F.6.

F.5 Managing for Sockeye

Reservoir storage and releases can be managed to meetthe needs of sockeye at various stages of its lifecycle.This can mean that during relatively wet years, watermay be held back in reservoir storage, or in OkanaganLake itself. In relatively dry (or drought) years,additional water may be released to support sockeyeeven at the risk of reducing available supply for otherusers. In a real system, operators constantly balancethe needs of various users. In the model, the coarsemonthly timestep and lack of forecasting limit theability of the model to accurately simulate the decisionsan operator would make. To compensate, the modeluser can select to give priority either to meeting thelake stage targets or to satisfying sockeye flow targets.In this series of simulations, the model explores howmanaging for sockeye, on its own, could affect theOkanagan system within the two scenarios of climatechange and population growth.

Figure F.21 shows Valley outflows for the 2010-2039scenario, with managing for sockeye assumed to be theonly option selected, without other adaptationmeasures. In this case, maximum seasonal outflowsdecrease in most years, while in some years, minimumseasonal outflows are slightly higher. Okanagan Lake

stage is elevated during some of the relatively wet yearsbut otherwise remains within prescribed limits (FigureF.22).

In the more severe 2040-2069 case, minimum andmaximum seasonal Valley outflows are reduced inaround half of the 30-year simulation. In some years,there is no outflow at all (Figure F.23). This wouldoffset any benefits that might be taking place in theUplands since the fish could not migrate during thoseyears. Okanagan Lake stage is elevated during the samewet years as in the 2010-2039 case, but a decrease inlake stage is seen during the relatively drier years nearthe end of the 30-year period (Figure F.24).

In this simulation, as with the other exercises describedabove, individual response measures, on their own, donot achieve improved performance for the Okanagansystem as a whole. The next section considerscombinations of measures.

F.6 Combinations of Response Options

Water systems are managed to meet multiple objectives,including the needs of urban users, agriculture, andecosystems, while at the same time, ensuring theintegrity and safety aspects of the system (e.g. floodprotection, water quality). In the regional context,adapting to climate change would need to be integratedwithin ongoing development requirements andmanagement capacities.

The model simulations presented above illustrate thechallenges of climate change and population growth forthe Okanagan water system. Individual adaptationmeasures, on their own, address only part of theproblem, and in some cases, create new problems forother parts of the water system.

In this section, we consider three possible combinationsof adaptation options that could become part of anadaptation portfolio for the Okanagan. The objective isto see which combinations of measures offerimprovements to a broad range of performanceindicators.

The first example is a portfolio of sockeye managementand supplemental use of Okanagan Lake. Figure F.25shows the 2010-2039 case for Uplands agriculture. Alldemands are met throughout the 30-year period, whichis a significant improvement over the no-adaptationcase. At the same time, however, Okanagan Lake stagefluctuates both above and below prescribed limits(Figure F.26). The high lake stage occurs during thewet period as some Valley outflows are held back in

178 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

FIGURE F.21:

Valley outflows, 2010-2039 scenario with system managed for sockeye (red) compared with no-adaptation case(blue).

FIGURE F.22:

Okanagan Lake stage, 2010-2039 scenario with system managed for sockeye (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue).

FINAL REPORT | 179

FIGURE F.23:

Valley outflows, 2040-2069 scenario with system managed for sockeye (red) compared with no-adaptation case(blue).

FIGURE F.24:

Okanagan Lake stage, 2040-2069 scenario with system managed for sockeye (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue).

180 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

FIGURE F.25:

Uplands agriculture supply-demand balance, 2010-2039, with system managed for sockeye AND Okanagan Lakesupplemental use (red) compared with no-adaptation (blue).

FIGURE F.26:

Okanagan Lake stage, 2010-2039 with system managed for sockeye AND Okanagan Lake supplemental use(red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue).

FINAL REPORT | 181

FIGURE F.27:

Okanagan Lake stage, 2040-2069 with system managed for sockeye AND Okanagan Lake supplemental use(red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue).

FIGURE F.28:

Upland in-stream flow needs, 2040-2069 with system managed for sockeye AND Okanagan Lakesupplemental use (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue).

182 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

FIGURE F.29:

South End outflow, 2040-2069 with system managed for sockeye AND Okanagan Lake supplemental use (red)compared with no-adaptation case (blue).

FIGURE F.30:

Uplands residential indoor supply-demand balance, 2010-2039, with DSM AND Okanagan Lake supplementaluse (red) compared with no-adaptation (blue).

FINAL REPORT | 183

FIGURE F.31:

Uplands residential outdoor supply-demand balance, 2040-2069, with DSM AND Okanagan Lake supplementaluse (red) compared with no-adaptation (blue).

FIGURE F.32:

Okanagan Lake stage, 2040-2069 with DSM AND Okanagan Lake supplemental use (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue).

184 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

FIGURE F.33:

Uplands in-stream needs, 2040-2069 with DSM AND Okanagan Lake supplemental use (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue).

FIGURE F.34:

Valley outflows, 2040-2069 with DSM AND Okanagan Lake supplemental use (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue).

FINAL REPORT | 185

FIGURE F.35:

Uplands agricultural supply-demand balance, 2040-2069 with DSM AND sockeye management (red) comparedwith no-adaptation case (blue).

FIGURE F.36:

Uplands residential indoor supply-demand balance, 2040-2069 with DSM AND sockeye management (red)compared with no-adaptation case (blue).

186 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

FIGURE F.37:

Okanagan Lake stage, 2040-2069 with DSM AND sockeye management (red) compared with no-adaptation case(blue).

FIGURE F.38:

Uplands in-stream needs, 2040-2069 with DSM AND sockeye management (red) compared with no-adaptation case (blue).

FINAL REPORT | 187

order to protect sockeye from too much flow, while thelow stage occurs during the dry period as water isreleased to support fish migration. This is similar tothe pattern shown in Figure F.22, but the fluctuationsare greater because of the supplemental use ofOkanagan Lake.

In the 2040-2069 case, the lake stage exhibitssubstantial reduction (Figure F.27), beyond what wasseen in Figure F.24. Lake stage is reduced substantiallyduring the dry period, but also during other years. Inaddition, there are shortfalls of as much as 50 millionm3 in meeting Uplands in-stream flow needs (FigureF.28). Outflows at South End (near Oliver) are affected,with substantial reductions in most years (Figure F.29).

Overall, this combination does not appear to providemuch improvement in the system beyond theindividual application of Okanagan Lake supplementaluse.

The second example is a portfolio of DSM andOkanagan Lake supplemental use. The DSM actionsinclude agricultural and residential conservationcombined with urban densification (see section F.3above). Figure F.30 shows that Uplands residential

indoor demands are met in all years in the 2010-2039case. This is due to the availability of additional supplyto complement the DSM activities. Similarly for the2040-2069 scenario, Upland residential outdoordemands are met in all years (Figure F.31).

Okanagan Lake stage is maintained within prescribedlimits in most years within the 2040-2069 scenario(Figure F.32). Some minor reductions are seen duringthe dry period at the end of the 30-year simulation.System performance is also improved for meetingUplands instream needs (Figure F.33). There is stillone year during the dry period with a large shortfall,but flow availability in other years is only marginallydecreased from the no-adaptation case. Also, duringthe dry period, Valley outflows are substantiallyreduced (Figure F.34).

Despite continuing difficulties with the dry period,overall system performance appears to be muchimproved within this adaptation portfolio whencompared with the combination of sockeyemanagement and Okanagan Lake supplemental use.

The third example is a combination of DSM andsockeye management. There is no additional supply

FIGURE F.39:

Valley outflow, 2040-2069 with DSM AND sockeye management (red) compared with no-adaptation case(blue).

188 | Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia

provided from Okanagan Lake in this case. Uplandsagricultural demands within the 2040-2069 scenario arenot met in about half the years, but supply-demandbalance is improved in most years compared with theno-adaptation case (Figure F.35). Similarimprovements are seen in Uplands residential 2040-2069 indoor supply-demand balance (Figure F.36).

Okanagan Lake stage during 2040-2069 is relativelystable because of the DSM actions, similar to whathappened in the DSM—supplemental lake useportfolio. There is an increase in lake stage during thewet period (Figure F.37) but prescribed levels aremaintained during the dry period at the end of the 30-year simulation. Uplands in-stream needs are generallymet (Figure F.38). Valley outflow follows the no-adaptation case, with somewhat smaller seasonal peakflows, but without any extended periods of zero flow(Figure F.39).

When considering overall system performance, thethree portfolios presented here offer mixed results. The first portfolio, sockeye management plus OkanaganLake supplemental use, enabled agricultural andresidential demands to be completely met in all years,but this created difficulties for maintaining flows,Okanagan Lake stage, and in-stream requirements.

The other two portfolios, both of which incorporatedDSM strategies, in combination with either sockeyemanagement or Okanagan Lake supplemental use,resulted in improved performance for in-stream needsand managing flows and levels, and did lead to someimprovements for agricultural and residential users, butsome shortfalls in user demands persisted. The ‘perfect’adaptation portfolio did not emerge from this exercise,but it is hoped that the model has provided some usefulinsights on climate change adaptation within thecontext of the Okanagan water system. Perhaps thiscould also be useful when considering alternatives forlong term regional development, thereby placingclimate change response within the suite of options thatcould be considered by planners and system managers,and their institutions and communities.

This version of the system model represents an earlystage in model development. Future versions wouldincorporate lessons from this experience. In themeantime, this version can be used to try otherexperiments. For example, it is possible to changereservoir storage operations and conservation targets,and other combinations of adaptation measures couldbe simulated. It is also possible to explore otherscenarios of population growth and urban densification.