Optimizing Flexibility and Value in California’s Water System. Jay R. Lund Richard E. Howitt Marion W. Jenkins Stacy K. Tanaka Civil and Environmental Engineering Agricultural and Resource Economics University of California, Davis. http://cee.engr.ucdavis.edu/faculty/lund/CALVIN/.
Optimizing Flexibility and Value in California’s Water System
Jay R. Lund
Richard E. Howitt
Marion W. Jenkins
Stacy K. Tanaka
Civil and Environmental Engineering
Agricultural and Resource Economics
University of California, Davis
Dr. Andrew J. Draper Dr. Kenneth W. Kirby
Matthew D. Davis Kristen B. Ward
Brad D. Newlin Stacy Tanaka
Brian J. Van Lienden Randy Ritzema
Siwa M. Msangi Guilherme Marques
Pia M. Grimes Dr. Arnaud Reynaud
Jennifer L. CorduaMark Leu
Matthew EllisTingju Zhu
Inês Ferreira Sarah Null
CALFED Bay Delta Program
State of California Resources Agency
National Science Foundation
US Environmental Protection Agency
California Energy Commission
US Bureau of Reclamation
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
We had a lot of help.
Advisory Committee of ten, Chaired by Anthony Saracino
Diverse staff of DWR, USBR, MWDSC, SKS Inc., USACE HEC, EBMUD, CCWD, USACE, SDCWA, SCWA, SWC, and others.
Varied providers of ideas, data, and support.
Part I – Assembling the Water Puzzle
What is the CALVIN model?
Approach and Data
Part II - CALVIN Results
Conclusions, Implications and Future
These are not “back of the envelope” calculations.
Finding the “best” decisions within constraints.
Optimization can identify promising solutions.
Decisions: Water operations and allocations
Find “best” performance:
Maximize net benefits over historic hydrology
(Minimize economic losses & costs)
(1) Water balance
(2) Flow and storage capacities
(3) Minimum flows
a) Develop schematic of sources, facilities, & demands.
b) Develop economic values for agricultural & urban water use for 2020 land use and population.
c) Identify minimum environmental flows.
d) Reconcile estimates of 1922-1993 historical inflows.
e) Develop documentation and databases for more transparent and flexible statewide analysis.
f) Combine this information in an optimization model.
g) Three policy alternatives:
1) Base Case
– current operation and allocation policies
2) Five Regional Optimizations/Water Markets
– current import and export levels
– economically driven decisions
3) Statewide Optimization/Water Market
h) Interpret results.
Not in CALVIN
Upper Sacramento Valley
Lower Sacramento Valley & Delta
San Joaquin and Bay Area
Tomato Production-Yolo County
Benefits ($ 000)
Data Flow for the CALVIN Model
Tsunami of data for a controversial system
Political need for transparent analysis
Practical need for efficient data management
Databases central for modeling & management
Metadata and documentation
Database & study management software
Systematic data management is needed for transparency and informed decision-making.
CALVIN Results &
a) Regional & statewide markets can reduce water scarcity and scarcity costs. Most benefits occur with regional markets.
b) Flexibility of markets allow environmental flows to be more easily accommodated.
c) Markets never reduced deliveries to any major user more than 15%.
d) Exchanges and transfers improve operational efficiency and increase overall deliveries.
e) If ~20% of water is allocated by markets, most scarcity disappears statewide.
a) Additional infrastructure is very valuable economically at some locations and times.
b) Select inter-ties, recharge, and other conveyance expansions show the greatest benefits – by far.
c) Surface storage expansion has much less value, assuming conjunctive use is available.
d) Water reuse can have significant water supply value.
a) Statewide: surface storage ~40 MAF
groundwater storage 140+ MAF
CALVIN uses ~73 MAF
Base Case uses ~58 MAF
b) Regional and statewide optimization employs more conjunctive use.
c) Conjunctive use of ground and surface waters has large economic and operational benefits for every region.
d) Most benefits are within regions, but substantial statewide benefits also exist.
a) Water use efficiency measures are useful, but do not have unlimited potential.
b) Most water demands can be satisfied. Most unsatisfied demands could be well compensated with markets.
c) Satisfying all demands is not always economically worthwhile. Some scarcity is optimal.
a) Consumptive environmental flows impose greater costs to agricultural and urban water users than instream flows.
b) With flexible operations and markets, most environmental flows impose little cost on other water users.
c) A statewide water market greatly reduces environmental costs to other water users.
a) The vast majority of potential economic improvement in California’s water system is from local and regional changes.
b) Local and regional improvements greatly reduce demands for additional imported water, often by 70-90%.
c) Statewide management has some additional benefits, especially for mitigating economic impacts of environmental requirements.
Uses for CALVIN
Future of CALVIN