Okanagan Waterwise: Assessment of Water Management and Global Warming

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

FINAL REPORT

Edited by
STEWART 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 and
Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia. Vancouver: Environment Canada and
University 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 Resources
Futures with a System Dynamics Model. In Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water Management
and 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 by
STEWART 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 Okanagan
Basin. Vancouver: Environment Canada & University of British Columbia.
Cohen, S., and T. Neale, eds. 2003. Expanding the Dialogue on Climate Change & Water
Management in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia. Interim Report, January 1, 2002 to
March 31, 2003. Vancouver: Environment Canada and University of British Columbia.
Cohen, S., D. Neilsen, and R. Welbourn, eds. 2004. Expanding the Dialogue on Climate
Change & 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 are
in 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 Okanagan
region, British Columbia, Canada. Climatic Change. 75:331-358.
Merritt W., Y. Alila, M. Barton, B. Taylor, S. Cohen and D. Neilsen. 2006. Hydrologic
response to scenarios of climate change in subwatersheds of the Okanagan Basin, British
Columbia. 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 water
availability for crops in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Soil
Science. 86:921-936.

Shepherd, P J. Tansey, and H. Dowlatabadi. 2006. Context matters: the political landscape of
.,
adaptation 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 Environment
Canada, 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.

Table of Contents

Notice to Readers d
Study Team e
Table of Contents g
List of Figures k
List of Tables p
List of Boxes q
Acknowledgements r
Executive Summary i
Sommaire Executif viii

1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Project History and Need for Further Research 1
1.2 Study Objectives and Structure of this Report 4
2.0 Urban Water Futures: Exploring Development, Management and
Climate Change Impacts on Urban Water Demand 7
2.1 Case studies 8
2.2 Methodology 8
2.2.1 Scenario Inputs 10
2.3 Results 16
2.3.1 Climate Change, Dwelling and DSM Scenarios 16
2.3.2 Supply – Demand Comparison 31
2.4 Conclusions and Recommendations 34
2.4.1 Population Growth 34
2.4.2 Housing Patterns 34
2.4.3 Climate Change 34
2.4.4 Demand Side Management 35
2.4.5 Data Gaps and Quality 35
2.4.6 Other Research and Future Directions 35
3.0 Costs of Adaptation Measures 37
3.1 Supply Side Options for Adaptation 37
3.1.1 Groundwater Development 37
3.1.2 Upstream Storage (Watershed Development) 40
3.1.3 Mainstem Pumping 41
3.1.4 Impact of Water Treatment on Costs 42
3.1.5 Demand Side Adaptation Options 42
3.2 Impact of Water Treatment on Costs 44
3.3 Summary of Case Studies for Water Adaptation 46

FINAL REPORT | g

3.4 Local Water Management versus Okanagan Wide
Adaptation Strategies 46
4.0 Shared Learning through Group Model Building 49
4.1 Introduction 49
4.1.1 Objectives 49
4.1.2 Previous work 49
4.2 Methodology 50
4.2.1 Participatory Integrated Assessment 50
4.2.2 System Dynamics 50
4.2.3 Related Work 51
4.3 The Group Model Building Process 51
4.3.1 Workshop 1 52
4.3.2 Workshop 2 54
4.3.3 Workshop 3 56
4.3.4 Round of Meetings 57
4.3.5 Workshop 4 57
4.3.6 Workshop 5 58
4.4 Results 58
4.5 Discussion 63
4.5.1 Lessons Learned 63
4.5.2 Did This Process Make a Difference? 64
5.0 A System Dynamics Model for Exploring Water Resources Futures 65
5.1 Introduction 65
5.2 Project History 65
5.3 Methodology 66
5.3.1 Participatory Modelling 66
5.3.2 System Dynamics 66
5.4 Description of the Model and the Actual System 66
5.4.1 Model Components 67
5.4.2 Dynamics of the System 69
5.5 Results 72
5.5.1 Adaptation 79
5.6 Discussion 79
5.7 Conclusions and Remarks 80
6.0 Residential Policy, Planning and Design – Incorporating Climate
Change into Long-Term Sustainability in Oliver 81
6.1 Introduction to the Partnership 81
6.2 Incorporating Climate Change into Smart Growth on the
Ground in Oliver 82
6.3 Results of the Work 83
6.3.1 The Charrette 83
6.3.2 Charrette Team Recommendations 83
6.3.3 Listing of Web Sites on Oliver Design Process 84
7.0 Agricultural Policy 85
7.1 Study Aim & Rationale 85
7.2 Origins of Multiple Risk 85
7.2.1 Early History of the Wine Industry 85

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

7.2.2 Land Pressures 86
7.2.3 Trade Liberalization 86
7.2.4 State of the Industry 86
7.3 The Climate Change Adaptation Process 87
7.3.1 Autonomous Adaptation to Risk 87
7.3.2 Risk Perception 87
7.3.3 Adaptive Capacity in a Multiple Risk Environment 87
7.3.4 Support for Policy Intervention 88
7.4 Methods 88
7.4.1 Survey Instrument Choice and Design 88
7.4.2 Subject Recruitment and Success 88
7.4.3 Interview Structure and Analysis 90
7.5 Results 90
7.5.1 Demographic and Business Characteristics of
Study Participants 90
7.5.2 Water Source & Management Profile 92
7.5.3 Balancing Multiple Risks in Pursuit of Profitability 96
7.5.4 Perceptions of Water Shortage Risk 97
7.5.5 Policy Development 100
7.6 Analysis 102
7.6.1 Risk Perception: Implications for Adaptation 102
7.6.2 Managing Multiple Risks 103
7.6.3 Implications for Water Management 105
7.7 Policy Considerations 106
7.7.1 Policy Recommendations 106
7.7.2 Institutional Change 107
7.8 Future Uncertainty 107
7.8.1 Need for a Cautionary Approach 108
7.9 Conclusions 108
8.0 Lessons Learned and Moving On 109
Bibliography 113
Appendix A. Groundwater Development 119
A.1 Introduction 119
A.2 Groundwater Opportunities 119
A.2.1 Role of Groundwater 119
A.3 Water Use and System Integration 120
A.4 Groundwater Risks 121
A.5 Regulatory Issues - Approvals 122
A.6 Typical Steps for Groundwater Development 123
A.7 Costing Considerations 124
A.7.1 Drilling Costs 125
A.7.2 Pumping Costs 127
Appendix B. Case Study Detail Project Sheets 131
Appendix C. Model Process 133
C.1 Okanagan Timeline Created by Workshop 1 Participants on
February 22, 2005 133
C.2 Diagrams Created by Participants in Workshop 2, April 15, 2005 136

FINAL REPORT | i

C.3 Worksheet: Setting the Course Discussion Guide 138
C.4 Pre and Post Evaluation Form, Workshop 5 139
C.4.1 Workshop 5 Pre-Evaluation 139
C.4.2 Workshop 5 Post-Evaluation 140
Appendix D. Model Quick User Guide 141
Appendix E. Model Level Documentation 143
E.1 Water Supply Sources 143
E.1.1 Climate Change Scenarios 143
E.1.2 Hydrologic Scenarios 143
E.1.3 Diversions from Adjacent Basins 144
E.1.4 Groundwater 145
E.1.5 Return Flows to Uplands 145
E.2 Water Demands 145
E.2.1 Population Growth Calculations 145
E.2.2 Converting Regional District Populations to Populations
Using Each Water Source 147
E.2.3 Calculating Residential Water Use 149
E.2.4 Residential Demand Side Management Strategies 150
E.2.5 Agricultural Demand 150
E.2.6 Conservation Flow Requirements in Tributaries to
Okanagan Lake 153
E.2.7 Fish Flow Requirements in South End 155
E.3 Water Balance Calculations 155
E.3.1 Uplands Hydrology Sector 155
E.3.2 Upland Storage Outflow Calculations Sector 157
E.3.3 Uplands Demand Reductions for Shortages Sector 159
E.3.4 Uplands Demand Allocations Sector 161
E.3.5 Uplands Allocation Summary Sector 161
E.3.6 Valley Hydrology Sector 162
E.3.7 Okanagan Lake Condition Sector 162
E.3.8 Valley Diversion Tracker Sector 162
E.3.9 Okanagan Lake Dam Operation Sector 162
E.3.10 South End Hydrology Sector 163
Appendix F Model Output
. 165
F.1 Summary of Base Case, 1961-1990 165
F.2 Summary of Two Scenarios without Adaptation, 2010-2039 and
2040-2069 165
F.3 Demand Side Management (DSM) and Urban Densification
Portfolio 169
F.4 Supplemental Use of Okanagan Lake 172
F.5 Managing for Sockeye 177
F.6 Combinations of Response Options 177

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

List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Evolution of Okanagan Study Framework. 2
Figure 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. 10
Figure 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. 11
Figure 2.3: Relationship between mean monthly maximum daily temperature and monthly outdoor water
use per dwelling in Penticton during the irrigation season 1998-2003. 13
Figure 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 and
CGCM2-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 not
include 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
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
City of Penticton. The specific scenarios (best-case, worst-case and two intermediate scenarios)

FINAL REPORT | k

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
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
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. 29
Figure 2.19: Town of Oliver annual water use in the “best-case” (smart growth, combined demand side
Town of Oliver. The specific scenarios (best-case, worst-case and two intermediate scenarios)
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
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 a
legitimate 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 person
attended. 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

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

Figure 5.1: Okanagan Basin Map, showing location in British Columbia in inset. From (Cohen et al. 2006). 67
Figure 5.2: Upland, Valley and South End areas are outlined. 68
Figure 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. 71
Figure 5.4: Population in Okanagan by Regional District, with major events that increased growth rates
indicated. 73
Figure 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
population growth. Average of 10 driest years in each 30-year period. 75
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). 76
Figure 5.12: 30-year average annual supply-demand hydrographs for the 2020s simulation. 77
Figure 5.13: 30-year average annual supply-demand hydrographs for the 2050s simulation. 77
population growth with residential adaptation (corresponding to Figure 5.6). 30-year average. 78
population growth with adaptation (corresponding to Figures 5.7). 30-year average. 78
Figure 7.1: Number of years that the respondent’s family has been farming in the Okanagan. 91
Figure 7.2: Pros of overhead irrigation identified by its practitioners. 93
Figure 7.3: Cons of overhead irrigation identified by its practitioners. 94
Figure 7.4: Pros and cons of drip irrigation identified by its practitioners. 94
Figure 7.5: What is the trade-off associated with investing in water efficiency? 95
Figure 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. 98
Figure 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. 99
Figure 7.8: Distribution of responses to the question: Are there any external/policy incentives for you
to conserve water on your property? 99
Figure 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. 100
Figure A.1: Groundwater Drilling Cost Curves. 125
Figure A.2: Pump and Motor Cost Curve. 128
Figure A.3: Operational Pumping Costs. 128
Figure C.1: Sketch created by Group 1. 136

FINAL REPORT | m

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. 145
Figure E.3: Exponential growth in the STELLA language. 147
Figure 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). 151
Figure 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. 151
Figure E.6: Comparison of crop water demand rates [m] for the four categories of crops in the Uplands. 152
Figure E.7: Comparison of Pasture crop water demand scenarios. Note increasing trend from historic
base case to 2020’s and 2050’s. 152
Figure E.8: Modeled standard conservation targets shown with five years of varying hydrologic
conditions (1978 – flood; 1979-80 – drought; 1981-82 – average). 154
Figure E.9: Conservation targets with modifications. Conservation target is no more than 50% of inflows.
Greatest reductions are in drought years (1979-80). 154
Figure E.10: Instream flow targets for Sockeye in Okanagan River near Oliver over a 12-month
period (Jan – Dec). 155
Figure E.11: Main components of the Uplands Hydrology Sector, where the water balance for this
region is calculated. 156
Figure 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). 157
Figure E.13: Spill Rules Factor rule curve. 158
Figure E.14: UL Cutoff Rules Factor, as a function of the UL Cutoff Ratio. 158
Figure E.15: Residential Outdoor Restrictions Factor defined as a function of the UL Supply Demand
Balance Ratio. 159
Figure E.16: Residential Indoor Restrictions Factor defined as a function of the UL Supply Demand
Balance Ratio. 160
Figure E.17: Agriculture Restrictions Factor defined as a function of the UL Supply Demand Balance Ratio. 160
Figure E.18: Supply and Demand balance calculation for the Valley Sector. 162
Figure E.19: Supply Demand Balance calculation for the South End Region. 163
Figure F.1: 1961-1990 base case summary of basin population, inflow, water demand and Okanagan
Lake stage. 166
Figure F.2: Basin summary for 2010-2039 scenario with no adaptation (same indicators as in Figure F .1). 166
Figure F.3: Upland agricultural supply-demand balance, 2010-2039 (red), no adaptation, compared
with 1961-1990 base case (blue). 167
Figure F.4: Uplands residential outdoor supply-demand balance, 2010-2039 scenario (red) compared
Figure 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. 168
Figure F.6: Basin summary for 2040-2069 scenario (same indicators as in Figure F .1). 168
Figure F.7: Upland agricultural supply-demand balance, 2040-2069 (red), no adaptation, compared
Figure F.8: Uplands residential outdoor supply-demand balance, 2040-2069 scenario (red) compared
Figure F.9: Uplands residential indoor supply-demand balance, 2040-2069 scenario (red) compared
Figure F.10: Uplands agricultural supply-demand balance, 2010-2039 scenario with DSM portfolio (red)
compared with 2010-2039 no-adaptation case (blue). 171

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

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
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
Figure F.15: Uplands residential indoor supply-demand balance, 2040-2069 scenario with DSM
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
Figure F.23: Valley outflows, 2040-2069 scenario with system managed for sockeye (red) compared
Figure F.24: Okanagan Lake stage, 2040-2069 scenario with system managed for sockeye (red) compared
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)
Figure F.34: Valley outflows, 2040-2069 with DSM AND Okanagan Lake supplemental use (red)

FINAL REPORT | o

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
Figure F.38: Uplands in-stream needs, 2040-2069 with DSM AND sockeye management (red) compared
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. 8
Table 2.2: Case study population growth scenarios comparing 2069 population to the 2001 Census
population. 11
Table 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. 12
Table 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. 14
Table 2.5: Indoor and outdoor water savings used in DSM scenarios. 16
Table 2.6: Comparison of per capita and per dwelling water use projections for the City of Kelowna.
Water use is presented in ML. 17
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. 21
Table 2.8: Comparison of per capita and per dwelling water use projections for Penticton. 23
Table 2.9: Comparison of per capita and per dwelling water use projections for the Town of Oliver. 27
Table 2.10: Domestic water demand scenarios and number of scenarios exceeding the City of Penticton’s
licensed domestic allocation of 14,485.25ML. 33
Table 3.1: Water Sources for Major Water Utilities. 38
Table 3.2: Typical Wells for Major Utilities in the Okanagan Basin. 39
Table 3.3: Parameters Related to Reservoir Storage Water Quality. 40
Table 3.4: Summary of reservoir storage costs. 41
Table 3.5: Mainstem pumping projects. 41
Table 3.6: Water Treatment Process Costs. 42
Table 3.7: Conservation project summary. 43
Table 3.8: Domestic water rates. SFE = Single Family Equivalent. 44
Table 3.9: Water treatment process costs (repeated from Table 3.6). 44
Table 3.10: Recent and proposed projects for water supply, water conservation and water treatment. 45
Table 4.1: Summary of Events in Group Model Building Process. 51
Table 4.2: Description of Workshop 1. 52
Table 4.4: Research questions that participants want the model to be able to answer. 55
Table 4.6: Description of the Round of Meetings and Workshop 4. 57
Table 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? 60
Table 4.9: Average values of responses on pre- and post-evaluations, for the question: “How well do
you understand the model’s structure?” 60
Table 5.1: Adaptation and policy options included in the model on the user interface. 70

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

Table 7.1: Interview recruitment success rates in each of the study communities. 90
Table 7.2: Participant distribution by business type and location. 90
Table 7.3: Land-use before establishment of the current vineyard. 91
Table 7.4: Summary of water consumption trends (per acre) since 1996. 92
Table 7.5: Types of irrigation systems in place. 92
Table 7.6: Decisions growers can make to mitigate the impact of these risks. 97
Table 7.7: Pros and cons of water metering as identified by producers. 101
Table A.1: Drilling Costs. 126
Table A.2: Well Development Qualifiers. 127
Table A.3: Pumping and Water Treatment Operational Cost Summary. 129
Table E.1: Current population data for Regional Districts, and the portion of the population served
by Okanagan Basin water sources. 146
Table E.2: Comparison of historic populations and those simulated by the model using calculated
growth rates from the historic to the present. 147
Table E.3: Historic and Projected Annual Population Growth Rates [%] by Regional District. 147
Table E.4: Division of residential water use according to water source. 148
Table E.5: Linear relation parameters correlating outdoor water use to daily max temperature. 149
Table E.6: Reprint of Table 3.3 from Neale (2005), p 47. Also Table 2.5 this text, Chapter 2. 150
Table 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. 53
Box 7.1: The process of autonomous adaptation to risk. 89
Box 7.2: Risks and challenges that affect growers’ ability to maintain the profitability of
their businesses. 96
Box 7.3: The interactions of producer-identified risks and their implications for water demand. 104

FINAL REPORT | q

Acknowledgements

T his 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’s
Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Program (Project A846). The authors would also
like to acknowledge support and cooperation from: Environment Canada, Smart Growth on
the Ground, University of British Columbia, and BC Ministry of Environment. We would
also 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 from
their components (see Cohen et al. 2004) to this study.
The group-based model building process, led by Stacy Langsdale, was a crucial component of
this research effort. We would like to express our appreciation to Jeff Carmichael, Craig
Forster, Brian Symonds, Allyson Beall, Barbara Lence and Jessica Durfee, for their advice and
participation 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 this
process, and helped to shape the structure and content of the model: Diana Allen, Des
Anderson, Greg Armour, Darryl Arsenault, Jeptha Ball, Lorraine Bennest, Vicki Carmichael,
Kristi Carter, Al Cotsworth, Corui Davis, Anne Davidson, Don Degan, Shannon Denny, Rod
Drennen, Phil Epp, Don Guild, Brian Guy, Leah Hartley, Rob Hawes, Robert Hobson, Bob
Hrasko, Nelson Jatel, Mary Jane Jojic, Stephen Juch, Jessica Klein, Steve Losso, James
MacDonald, Deana Machin, Lloyd Manchester, Wenda Mason, Don McKee, Rick McKelvey,
Siobhan Murphy, Denise Neilsen, Tim Palmer, Toby Pike, Barbara Pryce, Steve Rowe, Gord
Shandler, 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 the
participation of growers from the Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen. We would like
to thank James Tansey and Tim McDaniels for their advice, and to acknowledge the growers
for generously giving their time and effort to be interviewed.
The study on residential water demand, contributed by Tina Neale, required detailed water
use data from a number of communities. We would like to thank the staff of the City of
Kelowna water utility, City of Penticton and Town of Oliver for providing this data and
assisting 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.

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

Executive Summary

T his is the final report of the study, “Participatory Integrated Assessment of Water
Management and Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia.” This study
was made possible with financial support from the Government of Canada’s Climate Change
Impacts and Adaptation Program (project A846). The research activity described in this
report is a collaborative, interdisciplinary effort involving researchers from Environment
Canada, Smart Growth on the Ground, the University of British Columbia, and the BC
Ministry of Environment, as well as many local partners and researchers from Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada and Australian National University, who participated in our 2002-2004
study.
Previous research on climate change and Okanagan water resources since 1997 has provided a
potential 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 a
participatory integrated assessment (PIA) of the Okanagan water system’s response to climate
change. The goal of the PIA is to expand the dialogue on implications of adaptation choices
for water management to include domestic and agriculture uses and in-stream conservation
flows, for the basin as a whole as well as for particular sub-regions. This has been
accomplished through collaboration with ongoing studies in these areas, and builds on the
results 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 management
measures and incorporating water treatment costs;
3. Decision support model: building a system model, using a group-based process with local
experts, which enables learning on impacts of climate and population changes, and the
effects of implementation of various adaptation measures;
4. Adaptation policy – residential design: bringing climate change into community design
through Smart Growth on the Ground’s process for creating a water-smart community plan
in the Town of Oliver and surrounding area;
5. Adaptation policy – agricultural water use: exploring growers’ views on regional water
policy.

Residential Water Demand
Previous studies in the Okanagan Basin have found that average daily residential water use in
the 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

FINAL REPORT | i

estimated as high as 1,370 Lpcd. When compared to and 115-360% in the 2050s. The maximum increase in
municipal water use across Canada, water use in the water use determined in the current preferences
Okanagan is relatively high. housing scenarios, without the impacts of climate
change or additional DSM, ranged from 163% in the
The Okanagan has experienced dramatic population
low growth scenario to 570% in the high growth
growth, from approximately 210,000 in 1986 to
scenario.
310,000 in 2001. The population is expected to
continue to grow, reaching nearly 450,000 by 2031. The climate change impact on water use in the 2020s
This increase in population and associated development ranged from approximately 6% to 10%. The climate
will result in increased municipal water demands. change impact became more pronounced in the 2050s
Planning for future municipal water demands must take increasing water use by 10 to 19%. When combined
into account not only the future population of the with population and current preferences dwelling
region, but also urban development patterns, and growth, the climate change impact on water use was
changes in water demand resulting from a warming magnified. This is due to the increased number of
climate. ground-oriented dwellings and hence, increased
outdoor water use. In the high population growth
Building on earlier work reported in the 2004 study,
scenario, the combined effects of climate change and
three case studies were chosen for this research: the
population growth increased water use between 111
Town of Oliver, City of Penticton and City of Kelowna
and 119% in the 2020s and 407 to 446% in the 2050s
water utility. This study was a multi-attribute analysis
over the 2001 baseline. This was 12 to 21% more than
that used scenarios, constructed with available data, to
population growth alone in the 2020s and 45 to 86%
explore the combined impacts of population growth,
more in the 2050s.
residential form, climate change and demand side
management on municipal water demand. The The implication for climate change in water
scenarios approach aimed to create depictions of future management planning is that annual water demands
water demand that were plausible given a range of predicted without climate change occur several years
development, climate change and water management earlier in the climate change scenarios. For example, in
trends that could occur in the future. Scenarios of the 2030 to 2039 period, annual water demand with
future water demand for each case study were “average” climate change occurred approximately four
calculated in a spreadsheet model at annual time steps years earlier than in the no climate change scenario. In
for the period 2001 to 2069, corresponding with the the 2040 to 2059 period, this increased to an average of
2020s and 2050s periods typical of climate change six years earlier.
scenarios.
A combined DSM portfolio, including public education,
Three scenarios of population growth (low, medium metering with increasing block rate tariffs, xeriscaping
and high) were defined for each case study based on and high-efficiency appliances, was assessed in several
population growth projections published in available scenarios. For climate change scenarios, residential
planning documents. “Current preferences” and “smart water use increased by only 2 to 5% in the 2020s and
growth” housing scenarios were defined as lower and 81 to 92% in the 2050s, compared with 2001. With
higher density development patterns. The six climate low population growth, 2020s water use was actually
change scenarios developed in the 2004 study were reduced below 2001 levels by 10 to 13% in the 2020s
applied to determine the impacts of climate change on and increased only 24 to 32% in the 2050s. With high
outdoor residential water use. A literature search was population growth, 2020s average water use increased
conducted to compile a list of residential demand side by 20 to 24% and 2050s use by 165 to 182%. Similar
management (DSM) options along with their expected savings were reported for the Penticton and Oliver case
water savings. The information was then used to define studies.
seven DSM options for testing in the water demand
The untapped potential of demand side management in
scenarios. DSM options were selected to reflect a range
the Okanagan region offers significant flexibility in
of possible water savings approaches including
dealing with changing supply and demand regimes
economic incentives, educational programs, and
without impacting quality of life for water users. In the
mechanical or technological solutions.
scenarios, DSM resulted in dramatic reductions in water
For Kelowna, population and dwelling demand growth use, even in the cases where demand management
in the current preferences scenario accounted for programs were already in place. Water metering can
average increases in water use by 41-99% in the 2020s significantly reduce demand, but the combined effects

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

of full retrofits and xeriscaping would reduce water use $3200 per ML depending on the height required for
far more than metering. pumping, the length of intake pump required and the
ability to use existing balancing reservoirs versus new
It is also important to note that DSM measures have
construction. In this study, some newer projects costs’
benefits beyond water use efficiency to the overall
have been determined, and these range from $114/ML
sustainability of the Okanagan. Demand management
to $1375/ML, however, the lower cost projects only
reduces the sensitivity of water management systems to
present costs for the lake intake pipe portion and do
external influences such as climate change and
not include conveyance costs, and none of these studies
development patterns. Regardless of what the future
include reservoir or water treatment costs. Since the
brings in terms of climate change and population
quality of mainstem water is often better than the
growth, demand management is relevant to the present
quality upstream, water treatment costs can also be
and represents a “no regrets” option for dealing with a
lower. Given the possibility of significant new
variety of concerns.
mainstem pumping developments, it is worth
considering some of the micro and macro scale
Adaptation Costs issues. For example, if service is required more than
The focus of this component was on measures that 130 metres above the lake, an additional pumping
individual utilities could undertake to adapt to the station may be required.
changing hydrology of the basin and to increased water When calculating the costs of any supply side
demands due to climate warming. These measures, adaptation options, the costs of water treatment should
aimed at increasing the reliability of the system’s water also be considered. In most supply options, the costs
supply to meet its needs, are not conceptually new and of treating the water are at least as great as the costs
the engineering and management issues are well of developing the supply. The various filtration
understood. technologies, often required to meet regulatory
Historically, developers of new water supply have relied standards, range from $2,700 to over $5,000 per ML
on surface water in the Okanagan, concentrating first treated. UV disinfection and clarification have a much
on gravity fed systems from upstream storage and lower cost range. As a result, water treatment costs
subsequently on pumped water from the mainstem become even more important in adaptation decisions.
system when tributary storage was not adequate. Previous work on DSM options outlined the range
Groundwater development followed, but mostly as a of costs of a number of options including public
secondary or small local source of supply. All of the education, irrigation scheduling, high efficiency
major communities, with the exception of Osoyoos rely irrigation systems, leak detection and domestic water
primarily on surface water as their main supply. metering. Irrigation scheduling ($400 – 700 per ML)
Groundwater development costs can be relatively low and public education ($700 per ML) were the two
compared to other alternatives. A recent development lowest cost options. Leak detection and high efficiency
by the Glenmore-Ellison Improvement District irrigation systems were in the $1200 to $1400 cost
illustrates the cost effectiveness of groundwater. The range, while costs of domestic metering ranged from
well, currently under construction, has an estimated $1500 to $2200 per ML saved. Costs for each of the
capital cost of $258,000 with an annual supply of 1200 various measures varied based on assumptions about
megalitres (ML), resulting in a per-unit cost of $206 /ML. the size and location of the system.
This represents an extremely low cost compared to Data from recent conservation case examples is
other options. However, problems exist that will affect available for the central Okanagan including the Black
the use of this option in the future. Mountain Irrigation District (BMID), the South East
Upstream storage is another supply option. Costs are Kelowna Irrigation District (SEKID) and the City of
dependant on site specific factors and vary considerably Kelowna. The cost of the meters in SEKID is about
from project to project. Dam height is particularly $450 per ML. A proposed domestic metering program
important, resulting in more stringent construction by SEKID would have a higher cost of about $2500 per
requirements and higher costs. Costs of recent storage ML saved. At BMID, the cost per ML saved is estimated
projects range from $418/ML to $4988/ML. to be approximately $600 for the agricultural metering.
The City of Kelowna implemented a domestic metering
Mainstem pumping, including pumping from Okanagan program in 1996-97 which included a public education
Lake, has a probable cost range of about $800 to component. This program resulted in a 20 percent

FINAL REPORT | iii

reduction in water use by domestic users. The costs Participants provided a wealth of ideas about the
per ML saved are approximately $2000. Okanagan system, particularly in the areas of hydrology,
imported water, instream flow, water quality, land use
Water conservation will often be a first choice option
(Agricultural Land Reserve), forestry, population &
for individual utilities given its cost advantages,
urban , development, residential water use, and crop
particularly when considering the cost of water
water demand.
treatment for new supply sources. Despite the cost
advantages, conservation efforts by individual utilities The software used in the construction of this model
may not be sufficient to meet the joint challenges of was the stock and flow STELLA™ software.
population growth and climate change. The potential Participants became familiar with STELLA™ through a
20-30% water savings from conservation by municipalities year-long series of workshops and individual sessions.
may represent only a few years of growth in demand Previous research conducted on climate change and
from increasing population. The larger absolute gains hydrologic scenarios, and crop water demand and
achievable through agricultural metering will take residential demand, served as an important foundation
longer to implement. Utilities are thus forced to look for the model. However, the participants provided the
at options for developing new supplies. information to link what these scenarios mean to the
Okanagan context. The software became the medium
There are a few upstream storage developments in the
for expressing these linkages. Because the participants
proposal stage, which are advantageous from both a
did not actually create the model code themselves,
basin wide and an individual utility’s perspective. The
generating a feeling of ownership and trust in the
more cost effective upstream storage sites have already
model was challenging. The workshops provided the
been developed, limiting further development by
best opportunity for education about the model
municipalities and irrigation districts. Given the cost
through hands-on interaction and dialogue with the
advantages, utilities will be looking to develop
modeling team.
groundwater supplies where feasible.
The long-term significance of this participatory
Decision Support Model modeling process to policy development cannot be
measured during the timeframe of this phase of the
The purpose of this component was to assist the project. Since we do not have a control group, we may
Okanagan water resources community in incorporating never be able to measure what changed as a result of
climate change in their planning and policy our efforts. Regardless, we are optimistic that the
development and to evaluate their water resources in a process did make a difference to the participants, who
system context. This was done through a Participatory were quite positive about the experience. Throughout
Integrated Assessment (PIA) process centered on the the process, participants recommended that this work
development of a System Dynamics model. The study be shared with a wider community, particularly to
did not only focus on climate change, but on a wide elected officials and the public.
range of issues co-defined by the participants and
researchers. The products of this process are: (1) A Only one climate scenario was tested in this version of
shared learning experience for the participants and the the model: Hadley A2. Of the six scenarios evaluated
research team; and (2) The resulting simulation model, in the 2004 study, Hadley A2 is a moderate to worst
a decision support tool for increasing knowledge about climate scenario depending on the evaluation criteria
the system, and for exploring plausible future scenarios and the period of interest. Based on this climate
and adaptation opportunities. scenario, and a range of regional population growth
scenarios, model results show that without interventions,
Participants in the group model building process were regional water demands will not be met in the future.
recruited by invitation, with the intention of achieving Demand will exceed supply by the 2050s, and as early
a diverse and balanced representation of the various as the 2020s in relatively dry years. Aggressive
organizations and responsibilities related to water implementation of residential conservation measures
resources management in the Okanagan Basin. could reduce total demand in the 2050’s by about
Affiliations included First Nations, Federal, Provincial 8-12% (low growth and high population growth
(BC), Regional District, and Local Governments; scenarios, respectively). In any event, this is not
Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations; enough on its own to offset the supply-demand gap.
Academia; Irrigation Districts; Agricultural Association
(BC Fruit Growers Association); Consultancy; and The components of supply and demand respond
Local Initiative (The Okanagan Partnership). differently to the stressors of population growth and

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

climate change. According to the Hadley A2 scenario (SGOG) is a unique initiative, helping BC communities
that was built into the model, natural flow into the to plan and implement more sustainable forms of urban
basin from precipitation will decrease from historic growth.
rates, more gradually in the 2020’s by about 5%, then
In 2005/2006, the Oliver BC region was the focus of
more drastically in the 2050’s, by about 21%. At the
SGOG work. The SGOG partners formed links with
same time, agricultural demand across the basin will
the Participatory Integrated Assessment team to gain
increase with climate change. Residential demand will
experience in connecting climate change research and
increase with climate change as well; however,
urban design within an ongoing SGOG design process
residential demand appears to be more sensitive to
taking place in Oliver.
growth rate than climate change, within the range of
growth rates tested. Instream ecosystem demand rates A key activity in the SGOG process is a Design
are more challenging to define. In this work, they are Charrette. A charrette is an intensive, multi-
based on established policies. Since these policies stakeholder design event. Citizens, elected officials,
allow adjustments to the requirement during low flow government staff, and other experts are brought
years, the instream flow demand level appears to together with professional designers. In a collaborative
decrease with climate change. This is a result of the atmosphere, charrette team members undertake an
increased incidence of low flow years, and does not “illustrated brainstorm.” The team created land use,
reflect the actual needs of the ecosystem in warmer transportation, urban design, and other design plans
climates. for the particular geographic area under study. The
design brief included a target of a 38% reduction in
Aggregating these three needs, the total average
residential water use by 2041. The team was also
demand is 79-82% of total inflow in the 2020’s, and
encouraged to explore “greener” building standards to
82-113% of total inflow in the 2050’s. Low values in
conserve water. The charrette team made a number
the range correspond to slow residential growth and the
of recommendations on water management and actions
upper values correspond to rapid population growth.
to address climate change, including “thickening”
Aggressive implementation of residential adaptation
(increasing residential density), xeriscaping, greening
measures can at least partially compensate for the
of streets and buildings, and expanded use of residential
increase in demand due to the population expansion.
water saving devices.
Additional conservation measures in the agricultural
sector will also help to offset the increase in demand
due to climate change; however, the combination of all Adaptation – agriculture
of these conservation policies may not be sufficient to The goal of this component was to improve
maintain the level of system reliability that was understanding of both the process of autonomous
experienced in the 1961-1990 simulation period. adaptation to climate change and the factors that must
Supplemental use of Okanagan Lake would be of be considered in the development of agricultural water
benefit to meeting future agricultural and residential policy in the Okanagan. To accomplish this goal, this
user demands. However, system performance for study explored the ways in which Okanagan wine-grape
meeting future instream flow requirements significantly growers use water and are likely to respond to future
deteriorates, and Okanagan Lake levels would decline. scarcity. Understanding how grape-growers make
This indicates that on its own, additional withdrawal decisions to manage multiple risks and how actions
from Okanagan Lake would lead to mining of the lake taken to mitigate one risk affect exposure to others is
and increased risks to aquatic ecosystems. This does an integral part of understanding the types of
not mean that supplemental use of the lake should be adaptations farmers do and will make, and the policy
rejected as a possible adaptation option. If used in initiatives they are willing to support.
conjunction with DSM, overall system performance Information on growers’ views on current and future
could improve. water use were obtained through interviews in the
South Okanagan. Previous research has indicated that
Adaptation—residential design wine-grape growers in the South Okanagan are more
vulnerable to climate change and more dependent on
One approach to design and implementation of
water to manage risk than those in the central or
adaptation responses, within the context of local and
northern parts of the region. Growers were interviewed
regional development, is a process known as “Smart
in January 2006 using a semi-structured questionnaire
Growth”, being promoted by Smart Growth on the
with a mix of open and closed questions, designed to
Ground (SGOG). Smart Growth on the Ground

FINAL REPORT | v

facilitate comparison between responses and provide variable, and prone to extremes. Growers voiced mixed
growers with the flexibility to answer unpredictably. opinions about the implications of climate variability
for basin supply. Four individuals suggested that
Examination of operators’ choice of irrigation
climate patterns are cyclical and that today’s warming
technology indicates that there is a preference for
trend will have cooled somewhat by 2031. In this
irrigation systems which allow the grower to strictly
scenario, water supply will remain the same in the
control water application to the vines. A majority use
future. Others believe that a diminished snowpack is
drip, or drip in combination with overhead sprinklers.
indicative of climate warming, either on a short-term or
Overhead irrigation is generally perceived to be less
a long-term scale, and will probably reduce basin
water efficient than other technologies. The most
supply further by 2031.
widely perceived benefit of using a drip system is the
ability to grow a very high quality grape. Deficit Agricultural adaptation research indicates that
irrigation is easy to practice because the system is adaptation to climate change occurs in an environment
highly controlled. A majority of respondents characterized by multiple stressors, and farmers
commented that the most effective way to increase confront difficult trade-offs in their attempt to
profit margins is to focus on grape quality through maximize diverse objectives. Since climate change is
deficit irrigation. only one of numerous challenges managed by farmers,
anticipatory adaptation policy should address existing
Warmer summer and winter temperatures are perceived
problems without compromising the ability of farmers
as an advantage from an industry perspective because
to manage other risks.
they are associated with a northward shift in the
geographic extent of grape-growing in the valley. Warmer
winter temperatures might also be a benefit if the Lessons and Moving On
incidence of ‘extreme’ cold events (below -30 Celsius) As the Okanagan grapples with its water resource
decreases because this would minimize vine damage. challenges, there will be important questions regarding
However, growers in this study expressed concern future demands and how these demands may be shaped
about increased temperature variability because in the by various forces. Our quantitative research has focused
autumn and spring, vines are very sensitive to frost on climate change itself, and has included population
events immediately preceded by mild temperatures. growth scenarios, but we have not explicitly considered
Warmer temperatures were also associated with (or modeled) alternative development pathways. Our
declining snowpack but growers were uncertain if qualitative dialogue-based studies have offered some
this would be offset by greater precipitation at other insights into the interplay between recent climate
times of year. experiences and responses by individuals and
Other risks identified by producers include decision- institutions. We conclude, not surprisingly, that future
making by local, provincial and federal governments, climate change can expose some vulnerability,
selling through the liquor distribution branch, exacerbate existing risks, and possibly create new risks
increasing regulation of wineries, escalating urban-rural as well as new opportunities. However, we also need to
conflict, and local land development planning. Some ask questions about the potential effects of
individuals mentioned climate extremes and variability development paths themselves.
as a big risk they face. These risks are associated with Moving beyond the climate change “damage report”
extreme cold, mild weather that increases vulnerability requires an approach that explicitly integrates climate
to spring and fall frost, excess moisture and pests. Risks change response and sustainable development
associated with climate change and water shortage were initiatives. Our study may have originated as an
identified by only a small number of respondents. assessment of climate change impacts on water
Growers’ perceptions of the future of their personal resources, but impacts on water supply and demand
water source and that of the basin system are widely have considerable implications for regional
variable. Notably, individuals’ perceptions of their development. In addition, this is not a one-way street.
personal water security are less related to their Development choices will also affect the water supply-
philosophies about hydrologic change than to their demand balance. Some development choices could
level of personal control over their water supply. Many exacerbate climate-related water problems, while others
of those with greater than ten years in the valley could ameliorate them. But what are the practical
commented that snowpack has decreased steadily in the aspects of a long-term sustainable development
last ten to fifteen years and climate is warmer, more pathway for the Okanagan? How would this pathway

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

incorporate potential climate change impacts and
adaptation without inadvertently creating new
vulnerabilities?
The Adaptation and Impacts Research Division of
Environment Canada and the Institute for Resources,
Environment and Sustainability at the University of
British Columbia are collaborating to propose a
research strategy to address the linkages between global
climate change and regional sustainable development.
The project, referred to as AMSD (Adaptation-
Mitigation-Sustainable Development), employs an
integrative approach in which the focus is on potential
synergies of response measures, and on defining the
response capacity of regions to address these
challenges. The niche of the proposed Okanagan
AMSD case study would be the explicit linkage of
climate change response measures and regional
development actions. The study would be looking for
synergies that would be mutually beneficial to
achieving both objectives of enhancing sustainability
and reducing climate-related vulnerability. The
Okanagan case study would begin with water resource
issues, building on past and ongoing research, but with
the goal of extending this to the exploration of alternate
development paths already being considered within
the region.

FINAL REPORT | vii

Okanagan Waterwise: Assessment of Water Management and Global Warming

Okanagan Waterwise: Assessment of Water Management and Global Warming

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (13)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (20)

Ähnlich wie Okanagan Waterwise: Assessment of Water Management and Global Warming

Ähnlich wie Okanagan Waterwise: Assessment of Water Management and Global Warming (20)

Mehr von Fiona9864

Mehr von Fiona9864 (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Okanagan Waterwise: Assessment of Water Management and Global Warming