Search for: All records

Climate change is increasingly impacting water availability. National-scale hydrologic models simulate streamflow resulting from many important processes, but often without processes such as human water use and management activities. This work explores and tests methods to account for such omitted processes using one national-scale hydrologic model. Two bias correction methods, Flow Duration Curve (FDC) and Auto-Regressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA), are tested on streamflow simulated by the US Geological Survey National Hydrologic Model (NHM-PRMS), which omits irrigation pumping. A semi-arid agricultural case study is used. FDC and ARIMA perform better for correcting low and high flows, respectively. A hybrid method performs well at both low and high flows; typical Nash-Sutcliffe values increased from <-1.00 to about 0.75. Results suggest methods with which national-scale hydrologic models can be bias-corrected for omitted processes to improve regional streamflow estimates. Utility of these correction methods in simulation of future projections is discussed. 

Abstract Reductions in streamflow caused by groundwater pumping, known as “streamflow depletion,” link the hydrologic process of stream‐aquifer interactions to human modifications of the water cycle. Isolating the impacts of groundwater pumping on streamflow is challenging because other climate and human activities concurrently impact streamflow, making it difficult to separate individual drivers of hydrologic change. In addition, there can be lags between when pumping occurs and when streamflow is affected. However, accurate quantification of streamflow depletion is critical to integrated groundwater and surface water management decision making. Here, we highlight research priorities to help advance fundamental hydrologic science and better serve the decision‐making process. Key priorities include (a) linking streamflow depletion to decision‐relevant outcomes such as ecosystem function and water users to align with partner needs; (b) enhancing partner trust and applicability of streamflow depletion methods through benchmarking and coupled model development; and (c) improving links between streamflow depletion quantification and decision‐making processes. Catalyzing research efforts around the common goal of enhancing our streamflow depletion decision‐support capabilities will require disciplinary advances within the water science community and a commitment to transdisciplinary collaboration with diverse water‐connected disciplines, professions, governments, organizations, and communities.