Online Resource 3: Methodology for Estimating Impacts

Using the Economic Supply and Demand Model

Climatic Change article :

Benefits of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation on the Supply, Management,

and Use of Water Resources in the United States

K. Strzepek, J. Neumann, J. Smith, J. Martinich, B. Boehlert, M. Hejazi, J. Henderson, C.

Wobus, R. Jones, K. Calvin, D. Johnson, E. Monier, J. Strzepek, J.-H. Yoon

Corresponding author:

Kenneth StrzepekJoint Program on the Science and Policy of Global ChangeMassachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA strzepek@mit.edu

Methodology for Estimating Impacts Using the Economic Supply and Demand Model

The following section provides additional detail on the methodologies used to model impacts in analyses described in the paper. This information is provided to supplement information included in the paper.

1. Introduction

The manuscript reports economic impacts from climate change on U.S. water supply and demand from a national-scale spatial-equilibrium optimization model (see Henderson et al. 2013 for more methodological details). This economic supply and demand model is written in the GAMS programming language with the CONOPT3 non-linear optimization solver (Brooke et al. 2006). The model maximizes the net benefits from water use subject to a wide range of constraints, such as the availability of runoff in space and time, topology of the flow-storage demand site network, storage and conveyance capacities, sustainable groundwater recharge limits and minimum flow needs for ecological purposes. The model simulates monthly for a single year (snapshot) which represents average annual conditions over the 30 year CIRA eras.

2. Model Overview

U.S. water resources were modeled at the scale of the assessment sub-region (ASR), of which 99 were defined by the Water Resources Council for the 1978 Second National Assessment (WRC 1978). This choice of modeling scale means that some detail is sacrificed compared to models of single watersheds or river basins. Base flows defined in the Second National Water Assessment were used in this study because they are the most recent comprehensive national dataset of flows. Sectors modeled in this study include agriculture, municipal, commercial and industrial, hydropower, and environmental flow penalty.

2.1. Water Balance

The ASR serves as the fundamental water accounting framework for the model, for which all inflows, outflows and changes in storage must balance for each monthly time period. Water resources in an ASR consist partly of endogenous sources, including endogenous runoff (QR), which is the fraction of precipitation that does not evaporate or infiltrate to groundwater, as well as groundwater extracted and direct precipitation (Ppt). It also consists partly of exogenous sources, such as inflows from ASRs located upstream (QI) and inter-basin transfers (QIBT). Figure 1 shows the water balance is calculated for each ASR in the model. Items within the shaded area are endogenous to the ASR, while items outside the shaded area are exogenous.

T, Ppt

Flow from upstream ASR (QI)

Evaporation (ET)

Precipitation (Ppt)

Climate change scenarios:

Runoff (CliRun) (QR) Recharge

Return flows

ET Ppt

Hydroelectric (HP)

Irrigated agriculture (Ir)

Domestic and municipal (Mn)

Commercial and industrial (CI)

Outflows from ASR (environmental flows) (Q0)

Other consumptive uses:Livestock, mining, thermo-electric cooling (Qoth)

Groundwater

Big reservoir(res_st)Inter-basin transfers (QIBT)

Fig. 1. Schematic of assessment sub-regions water balance.

The monthly water balance is calculated using a single hypothetical reservoir for each ASR to represent the total reservoir storage (S) and surface area (RA) for that ASR. This reservoir is assumed to receive all inflows and support all outflows within the ASR. Reservoir storage also imposes a cost in the form of water lost to evaporation from the reservoir surface. For each monthly period, the reservoir water balance equation is solved:

where:

S(t) storage in reservoir at the end of period t (in MCM)QR(t) runoff originating within the ASR during period t (in MCM)QI(t) inflow from upstream ASRs (if any) (in MCM)QIBT(t) net inter-basin transfers, defined as positive into ASR (in MCM)PPT(t) direct precipitation on reservoir surface (in mm)RA(t) reservoir surface area at end of period t (1000s Ha) (factor of 102 required for MCM)RF(t) return flows from groundwater withdrawals (in MCM)SW(t) surface water consumptive use (in MCM)ET(t) ET0 in period t (in mm) k converts reference ET0 to open water evaporation (unitless)QO(t) reservoir outflow, routed to downstream ASR or sink (in MCM).

tOttttttttIBTtItRt QRAETkSWSRFRAPPTQQQS )()()()()()()()()1(

The subscript (t) indicates monthly time period. Water storage is not carried over between years, in part because the model projects single year timeslices (e.g. 2025, 2050, 2075 and 2100) in the future rather than simulating the cumulative effect of successive years throughout the projection period. In the model, the final storage in month 12 (December) must be greater than or equal to the initial storage in Month 1 (January). Net reservoir evaporation is the difference between direct precipitation and evaporation multiplied by the monthly mean surface area, and adjusted by an appropriate constant to convert to appropriate volumetric units. Reservoir evaporation can be either positive (net evaporation loss) or negative (net precipitation gain).

All uses in the system are expressed as consumptive use, or losses to the system, rather than withdrawals. The National Water Use Information Program (NWUIP) series of reports was relied on as the most complete and detailed categorization of water use available for characterizing water use in municipal, commercial, industrial, and agricultural sectors (e.g., Solley et al. 1993, 1998). Return flows are assumed to reenter the system in the same ASR from which they are withdrawn. Total groundwater use is constrained to fall within sustainable limits such that groundwater mining is not permitted in the model, except for ASRs in the Great Plains and western U.S., where groundwater mining is an ongoing and established practice.

Reservoir evaporation is an important component of the ASR water balance. Evaporation rates are sensitive to temperature, indicating that climate change will result in increases in water depletions due to reservoir evaporation (Kundzewicz, et al. 2007). To calculate reservoir evaporation, the surface area of the “big reservoir” is estimated by assuming that the surface area relative to its maximum extent is proportional to the current storage relative to its maximum value. Potential ET0 is calculated using the Penman-Monteith combination method (Allen et al. 2005). Reservoir evaporation is calculated as the difference between direct precipitation and free water surface evaporation scaled by the surface area of the “big reservoir.”

Climate change, as characterized by changes in temperature and precipitation, acts to influence each of these water resource supply components. Direct impacts of temperature and precipitation on irrigation water demand and reservoir evaporation are simulated within the model. Increases in temperature increase potential evaporation and transpiration, which then increases actual evaporation from soils and the reservoir surface, reducing both runoff and groundwater recharge. The effects of climate change with regard to precipitation vary among regions, such that increased precipitation in some areas will to some degree counteract temperature impacts on runoff production, while decreases in precipitation will amplify the temperature impacts on the water balance. The runoff response to changes in temperature and precipitation are modeled in CLIRUN, which generates endogenous runoff (QR) as an output on the basis of precipitation and temperature fields. Projections of future climate are used to estimate streamflow by applying the CLIRUN lumped integral water balance model (Kaczmarek 1993). This model uses monthly projections of changes in temperature (average, minimum, and maximum) and precipitation to estimate changes in monthly streamflow. CLIRUN simulates the most important lumped hydrologic processes, including soil moisture storage, ET0, surface runoff, subsurface runoff, and base flow. CLIRUN was developed and designed to simulate the impacts of climate change on the water balance of medium- to large-scale catchments (100–30,000 km2) using a relatively restricted number of parameters (Kaczmarek 1993). CLIRUN is specified and parameterized at a 0.5 degree horizontal resolution, and most ASRs contain, on average, all or part of numerous CLIRUN gridcells.

CLIRUN is calibrated on the basis of the WRC (1978) estimates of natural discharge, and historical data from the gridded CRU 0.5 degree dataset. The CLIRUN gridcells associated with each ASR are calibrated as an ensemble using an automated parameter optimization routine.

2.2. Model Aggregation

For reporting of results, ASRs can be aggregated to level of the 18 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Water Resource Regions (WRRs). These can be further grouped into 11 individual optimization models because they are hydrologically connected. Some WRRs contain ASRs that have independent outlets to the ocean (46 out of 99 ASRs) or, in some cases, flow to closed inland sinks. Each of these ASRs can be modeled as an independent water resources management problem. Occasionally, these independent ASRs are connected hydrologically via inter-basin transfers, but such transfers are represented explicitly in the model. Other WRRs have ASRs that are connected to other ASRs, whether upstream or downstream. These must be treated as being hydrologically linked within the model. Specifically, the water balance and allocation problems within linked or networked ASRs cannot be solved independently, because any actions taken in upstream ASRs will influence the quantity and timing of flows in all ASRs located downstream. When ASRs are connected hydrologically, they are always combined in a single networked model so that the solution takes full advantage of the connectivity.

The Mississippi river system contains several hydrologically connected WRRs. This system includes the Ohio (WRR 5) and Tennessee (WRR 6) systems in the East; and the Upper Mississippi (WRR 7), Lower Mississippi (WRR 8), Missouri (WRR 10), and Arkansas-White (WRR 11) systems draining the upper Midwest and much of the Great Plains. All are included in a single Mississippi model, comprising 35 ASRs, or roughly one-third of the national total. Other networked optimization models include the Hudson, Rio Grande, Colorado, and Columbia rivers. Figure 2 indicates the network flow topology for major river basins represented in the model.

Key to Networked Assessment Sub-Region by Water Resource Region

0200 Hudson0500 Ohio0600 Tennessee0700 Upper Mississippi0800 Lower Mississippi1000 Missouri1100 Arkansas1300 Rio Grande1400 Upper Colorado1500 Lower Colorado1700 Columbia

1704 1703

1401

1402

1403

1501

1502

1503

1302

1301

1304

1303

1305

1705 1702 1701

1002

1003 1001

1005 1006

1007 1008

1004

505

506

507

502

503 501

504

601602

201

202

701

702

703

704

705

801

802

803

1010

1102

1101

1103 1104

1105

1106 1107

1009

1011

O:\WordProcessing\Graphics\Henderson\Impacts.Water\Network.vsd

Fig. 2. Network flow for hydrologically connected assessment sub-regions.

2.3. Benefit Functions for Specific Sectors

Benefit functions were developed for modeling irrigated agriculture, municipal and domestic water use, commercial and industrial water use, and hydroelectric power generation. The value of environmental flows was modeled as a damage (penalty) function, i.e., flows below minimal levels required for environmental needs are assessed a penalty in terms of a cost. Additional categories of water use, including livestock, mining, and cooling of thermoelectric power generation, were included in the model as static demands in order to include them in the water balance for each ASR, but were not modeled with benefit functions.

Additional water-dependent sectors including river navigation, flooding and water quality have not been included in this model. The effect of flooding on climate change is significant but is modeled separately. The effect of climate change on river navigation and water quality are likely to be less than for those modeled.

2.3.1 Agriculture

Net economic returns under optimization are explicitly modeled depending on water use by crop and resulting productivity. A total of 19 specific crops are modeled, covering a great majority of the irrigated acreage reported. Crop water demand is estimated and irrigation demand is adjusted for each climate scenario by calculating ET using the Penman-Monteith equation, as described in

FAO 56 (Allen et al. 1998). Constraints are imposed to ensure that minimum and maximum areas are respected for each crop in each ASR. The default lower bound on area cultivated by crop is 0.4 (40%) of the area reported in the 2002 Census of Agriculture (USDA ERS 2008) in each ASR. In addition, maximum constraints on irrigated area within each ASR are imposed to be consistent with historical maximum irrigated area. Inclusion of new crop types due to changes in climatic conditions is not modeled.

A linear relationship is assumed between actual yield (Y) and its potential or reference value (YR), and yield is assumed to be equal to its reference or potential level at full water supply availability,:

In this expression, ETAS is the actual seasonal ET0, supplied by both effective precipitation and irrigation water used; GWDS is the seasonal gross or full water demand, and ky is the FAO crop water yield coefficient. The extent to which a given crop is drought-tolerant (ky < 1.0) or drought-sensitive (ky > 1.0) can be captured explicitly in this function. If at least 50% of gross water demand cannot be supplied through a combination of effective rainfall and irrigation, it is assumed that the crop cannot be grown. Irrigation supply is also constrained not to exceed full seasonal water demand (GWDS). Reference yield was determined by selecting the highest county-level yield for each crop across all counties included in each ASR, and assuming that it reflected the yield potential under full water supply conditions.

A straightforward profit function is used to calculate the value and net returns to irrigated cropping: profit ($/Ha) is equal to yield (MT/Ha) multiplied by farmgate price ($/MT) less fixed costs ($/Ha) and volumetric water charges:

In this expression, fp is the farmgate price of each crop and fcc is the fixed costs of cultivation per hectare. Costs and returns were derived from the USDA Economic Research Service costs of cultivation studies (USDA ERS 2008). 2002 costs and prices were used to maintain consistency with the USDA 2002 Census of Agriculture (USDA ERS 2008) data whenever possible. The costs of surface water (psw) and groundwater (pgw) were taken from the 2003 USDA Irrigation Sample survey (USDA 2004).

2.3.2 Municipal, commercial, and industrial demand

The approach used to calculate the value associated with domestic consumption is to estimate the consumer surplus associated with each level of water use. The consumer surplus is the (positive) difference between what consumers are willing to pay for a given quantity of water and what they are in fact required to pay (Griffin 2006), and represents the welfare value derived from water use.

cp

cpycpcp GWDS

ETASkYRY 11

cp t tttcpcpcpcp pgwirgwpswirswAreafccfpY __

The most general form of the household water demand function states that the quantity of water demanded (W) is negatively related to the price per unit (P). Following previous studies (e.g., Cai et al. 2006), a log-linear relationship is assumed:

In this specification, W is expressed in cubic meters per household per month, and P in $ per cubic meter. The parameter is an intercept term, empirically determined, and is the elasticity of demand with respect to price. The value of for this study is assumed to be –0.5, which is the mean value reported by Espey et al. (1997). This expression is inverted to obtain the willingness-to-pay (WTP) curve, in which P is interpreted as marginal WTP ($ per cubic meter) for a given quantity of water (W). To obtain the household consumer surplus (CS) estimate associated with a given level of monthly consumption, the WTP function is integrated between a minimum acceptable level of consumption (W0) and the observed water consumption W. The price actually paid is subtracted from the result. The integrated expression takes the form:

The above expresses the CS for an individual household. To obtain the aggregate benefit associated with a given level of total consumption, the resulting CS is multiplied by the projected number of households within each ASR (Kim et al. 2006). The domestic price of water is calculated for each WRR. Based on data from the American Water Works Association 2006 rate survey (AWWA 2006), price is assumed to decline with increasing volume.

For commercial and industrial use, rather than estimating the surplus measure on a per-household (per-business) basis, it was calculated on an aggregate level. Specifically, rather than specifying CS on a household basis and multiplying by the number of households per ASR to obtain the total CS, the WTP curve encompasses all water-using industries within the ASR, based on the NWUIP data for 19851995.

2.3.3 Hydropower

The amount of hydropower generation by ASR for recent years was calculated from the periodic USGS NWUIP studies for which hydropower was included (Solley et al. 1988 for 1985; Solley et al. 1993 for 1990; Solley et al. 1998 for 1995). Hydropower generation under each climate change scenario is calculated by scaling the modeled discharge to the discharge associated with average observed generation. The impact of reservoir evaporation was also included. The relationship is specified as:

PW lnln

ttt dwpWWWeCS

110

11

11

prhpnormhp

hrevapQ

revapQhpval

tttRH

tttR

___

In the above expression, the added subscript “H” indicates the historical value of the variable; hp_norm is the average historical observed generation level; and hp_pr is the regionalized wholesale price of power. The scaling in the above expression is limited in the model so that the value of hydropower generated can be no more than 40% greater than that of normal generation, in order to match maximum observed generation from NWUIP data.

2.3.4 Instream flow valuation

Explicit values for instream flows generally are not generally available across the country because formal markets for these services often do not exist, or subject to a range of distortions and missing information. The Second National Water Assessment (WRC 1978) estimated the monthly flows required to support fish and wildlife, evaluated at the outlet of each ASR. Based on the method in Frederick and Schwarz (1999), any reduction in flow that encroached on the fish and wildlife minimum flow (q_min) was assumed to incur a penalty in the model. Flows below 20% of long-term average were used to define minimum flows, and the penalty is applied only if flows are lower than the minimum flow. The penalty is equal to $0.40 per cubic meter of flow below the fish and wildlife threshold q_min, which is specified uniquely for each month. This penalty was based on the Frederick and Schwartz value, but was adjusted downward to reflect literature showing that the value of water for ecological use values and nonuse values may generally be lower than the Fredrick and Schwartz value. The value from Frederick and Schwartz was $597 per AF in 1995 dollars, or $765 per AF if adjusted to 2005 dollars using the CPI. The literature on the value of ecological flows is limited. Raucher et al. (2005) report that values for ecological values based on the purchase prices for agreements to restore/protect instream flows for ecological purposes ranged from $84 to $534 per AF, and nonuse values held by those that value existence of a resource even though they are not a user (existence values), or the idea that a resource should be available to future generations (bequest values), ranged from $101 to $202 per AF, all in 2005 dollars. The value of ecological flows at or below critical flow levels chosen for this study was $0.40 per cubic meter, or $493 per AF, which is toward the higher end of the range of estimated values of critical flows.

2.4. Additional Results of the Supply Demand Model Runs

Results of the supply demand model runs are presented in Tables 1 - 3 below. The IGSM-CAM model inputs are shown Table 1, and IGSM pattern scaling inputs (CCSM and MIROC) are shown in Tables 2 and 3. All results are presented as undiscounted annual values in millions of 2005 dollars. Positive values represent damages, and negative values represent benefits.

For a given scenario, the value shown represents the change under that scenario compared to the baseline without climate change. The baseline changes each year according to population growth, but does not account for climate-related changes in temperature, precipitation, or runoff. For example, total damages for the 3º reference scenario (cs3_p70_ref) by 2100 are $3,209.82 million. This value is the amount of damage projected for the same population without climate change in 2100.

The following water resource damage categories and other outputs (i.e., evaporation) are shown for CAM results and HFD results, in the order below:

Total Damages;

Environmental Flow Penalty; Evaporation (not a damage category, but an important tool in interpreting results); Irrigated Agriculture; Municipal and Domestic; Commercial and Industrial; and Hydropower.

References

Allen, RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M (1998) FAO irrigation and drainage paper no. 56. Crop evapotranspiration (guidelines for computing crop water requirements).

Allen RG, Walter IA, Elliott RL, Howell TA, Itenfisu D, Jensen ME, Snyder RL (eds) (2005) The ASCE standardized reference evapotranspiration equation. American Society of Civil Engineers

AWWA (2006) 2006 water and wastewater rate survey. American Water Works Association and Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. CD-ROM

Brooke A, Kendrick D, Meeraus A, Raman R (2006) GAMS: a user’s guide. GAMS Development Corporation, Washington, DC

Cai X, Ringler C, Rosegrant MW (2006). Modeling water resources management at the basin level. Methodology and application to the Maipo River Basin. Research Report 149. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC

Espey M, Espey J, Shaw WD (1997) Price elasticity of residential demand for water: a meta-analysis. Water Resour Res 33(6):1369–1374

Frederick KD, Schwarz GE (1999). Socioeconomic impacts of climate change on U.S. water supplies. J Am Water Resour As 35(6):1563–1583

Griffin RC (2006) Water resource economics: the analysis of scarcity, policies, and projects. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Henderson J, Rodgers C, Jones R, Smith J, Strzepek K, Martinich, J (2013) Economic Impacts of Climate Change on Water Resources in the Coterminous United States. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. July. DOI: 10.1007/s11027-013-9483-x

Kaczmarek Z (1993) Water balance model for climate impact assessment. Acta Geophy Pol 41(4):423–437

Kim SH, Edmonds J, Lurz J, Smith SJ, Wise M (2006). The objECTS framework for integrated assessment: hybrid modeling of transportation. Energy J (Special Issue #2):51–80

Kundzewicz ZW, Mata LJ, Arnell NW, Doll P, Kabat P, Jimenez B, Miller KA, Oki T, Sen Z, Shiklomanov IA (2007) Freshwater resources and their management. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptations and vulnerability. Contributions of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, pp 173–210

Raucher R, Chapman D, Henderson J, Hagenstad M, Rice J, Goldstein J, Huber-Lee A, DeOreo W, Mayer P, Hurd B, Linsky R, Means E, Renwick M (2005) The value of water: concepts, estimates, and applications for water managers. AWWA Research Foundation, Denver, Colorado

Solley WB, Merk CF, Pierce RR (1988) Estimated use of water in the United States in 1985. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1004. Denver, Colorado

Solley WB, Pierce RR, Perlman AH (1993) Estimated use of water in the United States in 1990. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1081. Denver, Colorado

Solley WB, Pierce RR, Perlman AH (1998) Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1200. Denver, Colorado

USDA (2004) Census of agriculture 2002: farm and ranch irrigation survey (2003). Volume 3, Special Studies, Part 1. AC-02-SS-1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, DC

USDA ERS (2008) Commodity costs and returns dataset. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service

WRC (1978) The nation’s water resources 1975–2000. Second National Water Assessment. U.S. Water Resources Council. USGPO, Washington, DC

Table 1. IGSM-CAM results (in millions of $2005USD) of economic supply and demand model by subsector and aggregated total.Millions of 2005 Dollars

cs3_p70_ref cs3_p70_pol3.7 cs3_p70_pol4.5 cs6_p95_ref cs6_p95_pol3.7 cs3_p70_ref cs3_p70_pol3.7 cs3_p70_pol4.5 cs6_p95_ref cs6_p95_pol3.7WRR01 New England -196.33 -63.25 -145.84 184.91 -58.06 -117.15 -95.51 -118.24 -143.39 -99.88WRR02 Mid-Atlantic -160.05 -69.11 -154.56 -161.56 -54.21 -96.94 -94.91 -86.95 -122.73 -79.86WRR03 South Atlantic-Gulf 1528.42 -365.88 -567.54 2436.14 40.48 758.38 -338.84 1522.67 1691.72 4.74WRR04 & 09Great Lakes and Souris-Red Rainy -389.14 -188.66 -389.52 -251.67 -85.57 -218.24 -339.52 -275.28 -151.67 -177.96WRR05 Ohio -78.27 -43.40 -50.42 -79.61 -59.76 -35.08 -43.99 -10.98 -78.34 -69.21WRR06 Tennessee -382.35 -85.02 -122.39 -382.64 -199.85 -93.10 -49.07 49.18 -373.53 -290.13WRR07 Upper Mississippi -40.85 -35.74 -40.01 -41.69 -24.74 -33.77 -32.84 -32.57 -21.77 -18.47WRR08 Lower Mississippi -132.00 -114.59 -113.08 -133.18 -140.34 -115.30 -111.07 -84.21 -126.42 -122.22WRR10 Missouri -554.10 -457.56 -472.59 -593.09 -483.04 -388.97 -434.91 -401.54 -470.56 -421.06WRR11 Arkansas-Red-White -367.85 -363.08 -337.27 -382.49 -370.69 -349.77 -304.05 -284.56 -365.04 -360.94WRR12 Texas-Gulf -429.79 -400.59 -396.80 -438.72 -419.55 -398.26 -380.45 -379.92 -401.00 -393.57WRR13 Rio Grande -22.19 -20.83 -17.32 -38.63 -37.00 -13.55 -0.30 -15.48 -26.96 -28.74WRR14 Upper Colorado 96.97 -79.10 -12.66 -76.41 1236.46 107.64 -24.45 32.21 12.14 2087.05WRR15 Lower Colorado 1551.45 198.16 248.74 441.46 1030.60 1199.36 178.82 336.00 267.62 3539.99WRR16 Great Basin 111.40 -26.33 -18.51 -58.49 -46.70 -15.39 -43.83 -35.67 -30.23 -33.80WRR17 Pacific Northwest 2209.85 -753.00 -1441.36 2335.14 124.24 -1152.51 -1650.85 -1141.50 1278.84 71.64WRR18 California 3795.22 -33.86 -102.22 2933.21 229.66 416.02 -101.06 24.46 336.30 222.31

6540.37 -2901.83 -4133.35 5692.69 681.95 -546.62 -3866.83 -902.38 1274.98 3829.92

Millions of 2005 Dollars

cs3_p70_ref cs3_p70_pol3.7 cs3_p70_pol4.5 cs6_p95_ref cs6_p95_pol3.7 cs3_p70_ref cs3_p70_pol3.7 cs3_p70_pol4.5 cs6_p95_ref cs6_p95_pol3.7WRR01 New England 0.00 0.00 0.00 386.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR02 Mid-Atlantic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR03 South Atlantic-Gulf 1787.84 -37.48 -37.48 2490.17 265.43 995.79 -35.77 1594.88 1803.34 299.89WRR04 & 09Great Lakes and Souris-Red Rainy 0.00 0.00 0.00 131.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 118.93 0.00WRR05 Ohio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR06 Tennessee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR07 Upper Mississippi 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR08 Lower Mississippi 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR10 Missouri 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR11 Arkansas-Red-White 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR12 Texas-Gulf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR13 Rio Grande 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR14 Upper Colorado 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1195.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2029.51WRR15 Lower Colorado 1261.23 4.54 109.49 114.16 673.62 792.87 64.30 0.00 0.00 2867.86WRR16 Great Basin 93.99 -9.53 -9.54 -7.87 -15.04 4.55 -13.32 -6.26 -8.29 -12.59WRR17 Pacific Northwest 1850.28 -1.24 -1.24 1689.64 -1.24 -2.03 -2.03 -2.03 911.79 -2.03WRR18 California 2996.18 47.95 21.66 2410.58 67.53 258.23 0.00 110.61 83.60 63.60

7989.52 4.24 82.89 7214.66 2185.58 2049.41 13.18 1697.20 2909.37 5246.23

Millions of 2005 Dollars

cs3_p70_ref cs3_p70_pol3.7 cs3_p70_pol4.5 cs6_p95_ref cs6_p95_pol3.7 cs3_p70_ref cs3_p70_pol3.7 cs3_p70_pol4.5 cs6_p95_ref cs6_p95_pol3.7WRR01 New England -0.50 -0.50 -0.50 -0.63 -0.50 -0.50 -0.51 -0.50 -0.50 -0.50WRR02 Mid-Atlantic -8.53 -7.17 -8.37 -10.04 -8.41 -7.17 -7.89 -7.55 -8.55 -8.66WRR03 South Atlantic-Gulf 134.10 -151.13 -146.99 339.56 -14.23 -40.78 -150.98 -30.43 238.71 1.37WRR04 & 09Great Lakes and Souris-Red Rainy -17.51 -14.55 -17.89 -11.92 -21.13 -12.76 -16.06 -11.18 -16.30 -18.89WRR05 Ohio -8.87 -6.98 -7.86 -10.20 -11.32 -5.71 -6.49 -5.35 -9.29 -8.34WRR06 Tennessee -1.00 -0.78 -0.84 -1.29 -1.16 -0.79 -0.84 -0.77 -1.06 -0.97WRR07 Upper Mississippi -5.55 -4.47 -4.70 -6.38 -6.29 -4.08 -4.10 -3.42 -4.93 -5.56WRR08 Lower Mississippi -109.29 -91.88 -90.37 -110.47 -117.63 -92.59 -88.36 -77.18 -103.71 -99.51WRR10 Missouri -405.84 -341.62 -348.70 -441.09 -374.53 -289.48 -317.78 -298.26 -356.41 -346.04WRR11 Arkansas-Red-White -172.53 -167.75 -163.45 -187.16 -175.36 -157.71 -158.85 -157.24 -169.72 -169.22WRR12 Texas-Gulf -411.93 -382.74 -378.94 -420.86 -401.69 -380.40 -362.59 -362.07 -383.14 -375.71WRR13 Rio Grande -19.77 -17.62 -13.32 -31.52 -27.69 -11.04 1.04 -11.38 -20.72 -21.45WRR14 Upper Colorado 25.60 -64.01 -22.83 -31.39 24.83 61.20 -21.27 14.20 -6.90 60.81WRR15 Lower Colorado 48.74 -13.30 -3.31 -14.88 6.49 49.69 -11.20 -1.83 -13.94 43.71WRR16 Great Basin 14.62 -15.43 -9.13 -45.27 -30.85 -20.34 -24.37 -27.93 -21.56 -20.89WRR17 Pacific Northwest -30.58 -96.12 -97.04 -89.77 -94.54 -89.13 -100.27 -100.06 -47.17 -76.12WRR18 California -17.52 -144.97 -160.56 -165.36 -157.19 -156.93 -158.22 -207.08 -160.52 -171.98

-986.35 -1521.01 -1474.81 -1238.69 -1411.20 -1158.52 -1428.73 -1288.04 -1085.72 -1217.96

Millions of 2005 Dollars

cs3_p70_ref cs3_p70_pol3.7 cs3_p70_pol4.5 cs6_p95_ref cs6_p95_pol3.7 cs3_p70_ref cs3_p70_pol3.7 cs3_p70_pol4.5 cs6_p95_ref cs6_p95_pol3.7WRR01 New England 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR02 Mid-Atlantic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR03 South Atlantic-Gulf 0.43 -0.60 -0.56 0.36 0.05 1.10 -2.33 2.75 2.13 0.85WRR04 & 09Great Lakes and Souris-Red Rainy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR05 Ohio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR06 Tennessee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR07 Upper Mississippi 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR08 Lower Mississippi 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR10 Missouri 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR11 Arkansas-Red-White 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR12 Texas-Gulf 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49WRR13 Rio Grande 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR14 Upper Colorado 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR15 Lower Colorado 216.99 -19.65 9.59 -8.68 11.93 253.72 39.78 26.89 19.44 269.82WRR16 Great Basin 1.28 0.02 0.02 -0.05 0.02 0.02 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 0.02WRR17 Pacific Northwest 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR18 California 0.21 0.18 0.18 0.22 0.22 0.25 0.02 0.21 0.25 0.21

219.88 -19.07 10.19 -7.20 13.19 255.57 37.88 30.28 22.26 271.38

Irrigated Agriculture2100 2050

Municipal & Domestic2100 2050

Total Damages2100 2050

Environmental Flow Penalty2100 2050

Millions of 2005 Dollars

cs3_p70_ref cs3_p70_pol3.7 cs3_p70_pol4.5 cs6_p95_ref cs6_p95_pol3.7 cs3_p70_ref cs3_p70_pol3.7 cs3_p70_pol4.5 cs6_p95_ref cs6_p95_pol3.7WRR01 New England 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR02 Mid-Atlantic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR03 South Atlantic-Gulf -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.30 0.96 -1.69 -1.02 -0.33WRR04 & 09Great Lakes and Souris-Red Rainy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00WRR05 Ohio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR06 Tennessee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR07 Upper Mississippi 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR08 Lower Mississippi 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR10 Missouri -0.24 -0.23 -0.23 -0.24 -0.23 -0.18 -0.21 -0.22 -0.21 -0.21WRR11 Arkansas-Red-White -0.11 -0.11 -0.11 -0.11 -0.11 -0.11 -0.11 -0.11 -0.11 -0.11WRR12 Texas-Gulf -1.00 -1.00 -1.00 -1.00 -1.00 -0.52 -0.52 -0.52 -0.52 -0.52WRR13 Rio Grande 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR14 Upper Colorado 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15WRR15 Lower Colorado 18.64 -1.57 0.77 -0.73 0.91 25.41 3.62 2.49 1.74 25.72WRR16 Great Basin -1.21 -0.02 -0.02 0.03 -0.03 -0.01 0.04 0.04 0.04 -0.03WRR17 Pacific Northwest 2.82 -0.03 -0.03 2.79 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 2.83 -0.01WRR18 California 1.26 0.00 0.00 1.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

20.25 -2.97 -0.63 2.14 -0.35 24.34 3.83 -0.04 2.90 24.67

Millions of 2005 Dollars

cs3_p70_ref cs3_p70_pol3.7 cs3_p70_pol4.5 cs6_p95_ref cs6_p95_pol3.7 cs3_p70_ref cs3_p70_pol3.7 cs3_p70_pol4.5 cs6_p95_ref cs6_p95_pol3.7WRR01 New England -195.84 -62.75 -145.34 -200.69 -57.56 -116.65 -95.00 -117.74 -142.89 -99.38WRR02 Mid-Atlantic -151.52 -61.95 -146.19 -151.52 -45.79 -89.77 -87.01 -79.40 -114.17 -71.20WRR03 South Atlantic-Gulf -393.94 -176.66 -382.50 -393.94 -210.76 -197.42 -150.72 -42.83 -351.44 -297.04WRR04 & 09Great Lakes and Souris-Red Rainy -371.63 -174.11 -371.63 -371.63 -64.51 -205.49 -323.46 -264.10 -254.45 -159.07WRR05 Ohio -69.40 -36.42 -42.56 -69.40 -48.44 -29.37 -37.50 -5.62 -69.05 -60.87WRR06 Tennessee -381.35 -84.23 -121.56 -381.35 -198.69 -92.31 -48.23 49.95 -372.47 -289.17WRR07 Upper Mississippi -35.30 -31.27 -35.30 -35.30 -18.46 -29.69 -28.74 -29.15 -16.84 -12.91WRR08 Lower Mississippi -22.71 -22.71 -22.71 -22.71 -22.71 -22.71 -22.71 -7.03 -22.71 -22.71WRR10 Missouri -148.02 -115.71 -123.66 -151.76 -108.28 -99.30 -116.92 -103.06 -113.95 -74.81WRR11 Arkansas-Red-White -195.22 -195.22 -173.71 -195.22 -195.22 -191.95 -145.09 -127.21 -195.22 -191.61WRR12 Texas-Gulf -17.83 -17.83 -17.83 -17.83 -17.83 -17.83 -17.83 -17.83 -17.83 -17.83WRR13 Rio Grande -2.42 -3.21 -4.00 -7.11 -9.30 -2.50 -1.41 -4.10 -6.23 -7.28WRR14 Upper Colorado 71.28 -15.09 10.17 -45.02 16.27 46.36 -3.18 18.01 19.04 -3.42WRR15 Lower Colorado 5.84 228.14 132.21 351.59 337.65 77.67 82.33 308.46 260.38 332.88WRR16 Great Basin 2.70 -1.37 0.16 -5.33 -0.80 0.39 -6.12 -1.47 -0.37 -0.30WRR17 Pacific Northwest 387.33 -655.61 -1343.05 732.48 220.04 -1061.32 -1548.52 -1039.38 411.39 149.81WRR18 California 815.10 62.98 36.50 686.52 319.11 314.47 57.14 120.72 412.97 330.50

-702.93 -1363.01 -2750.99 -278.22 -105.27 -1717.41 -2492.98 -1341.78 -573.83 -494.40

Millions of Cubic Meters

cs3_p70_ref cs3_p70_pol3.7 cs3_p70_pol4.5 cs6_p95_ref cs6_p95_pol3.7 cs3_p70_ref cs3_p70_pol3.7 cs3_p70_pol4.5 cs6_p95_ref cs6_p95_pol3.7WRR01 New England -739.89 -1394.87 -1412.42 -354.08 -1668.76 -1460.53 -1486.51 -1543.83 -1810.02 -1861.96WRR02 Mid-Atlantic -90.44 -516.06 -628.47 -134.94 -538.99 -592.13 -580.39 -546.07 -685.54 -792.51WRR03 South Atlantic-Gulf -963.35 -1959.71 -1174.32 -1019.60 -2479.07 -1840.97 -2114.73 -1459.26 -1984.71 -2272.18WRR04 & 09Great Lakes and Souris-Red Rainy -1523.03 -943.19 -1284.58 -2153.84 -1507.82 -689.22 -1106.77 -914.90 -1682.14 -1819.57WRR05 Ohio -1654.81 -2008.81 -2034.22 -3118.00 -2816.41 -1991.56 -2171.45 -2047.68 -2620.03 -3802.22WRR06 Tennessee -529.32 -1267.79 -1360.75 -1694.57 -1998.73 -1274.81 -1133.89 -528.21 -2522.13 -2326.15WRR07 Upper Mississippi -4045.16 -2716.24 -2661.27 -5418.03 -2877.49 -2698.84 -2832.21 -2335.16 -3480.72 -4224.41WRR08 Lower Mississippi -542.95 -384.50 -234.58 -929.48 -431.36 -290.23 -1100.38 -1096.84 -600.20 -447.17WRR10 Missouri -2353.08 -1732.53 -1743.06 -5183.72 -2100.00 -1566.16 -1264.38 -1775.96 -1944.70 -2307.56WRR11 Arkansas-Red-White -4344.23 -3173.82 -3066.61 -7931.20 -4174.49 -3263.57 -2864.92 -2682.69 -3910.14 -4212.00WRR12 Texas-Gulf -5026.15 -3139.73 -3449.03 -6255.27 -4483.37 -3673.44 -3241.58 -2797.68 -4567.41 -4091.09WRR13 Rio Grande -303.16 -93.10 -117.72 -402.98 -304.08 -204.64 -113.34 -70.93 -229.02 -197.48WRR14 Upper Colorado 201.14 -64.96 -48.43 -71.07 -164.11 30.89 -62.50 -54.62 27.18 -214.49WRR15 Lower Colorado -19.42 -180.12 -131.71 -345.92 -180.23 -140.47 -142.76 -174.99 -188.58 -1.43WRR16 Great Basin 9.19 -17.94 -13.70 -88.13 -50.64 -12.44 -66.90 -175.04 -36.18 -79.49WRR17 Pacific Northwest -53.50 -720.80 -868.89 -239.93 -52.68 -574.81 -947.33 -861.56 -88.93 -78.68WRR18 California 275.14 -245.20 -227.66 -7.04 -77.23 -138.41 -273.80 -243.23 -2.22 -195.78

-21703.02 -20559.37 -20457.42 -35347.80 -25905.46 -20381.34 -21503.84 -19308.65 -26325.49 -28924.17Positive numbers indicate net evaporative losses; negative numbers net precipitation input.

Net Reservoir Evaporation2100 2050

Hydropower2100 2050

Commercial & Industrial2100 2050

Table 2. CCSM-pattern scaled results (in millions of $2005USD) of economic supply and demand model by subsector and aggregated total.Millions of 2005 Dollars

CCSM_ref CCSM_Pol3.7 CCSM_ref CCSM_Pol3.7WRR1 New England -76.30 -42.22 -26.27 -17.85WRR2 Mid-Atlantic -13.37 -28.76 -14.18 -16.59WRR3 South Atlantic-Gulf 9967.66 1045.55 2144.94 1237.50WRR4&9 Great Lakes and Souris-Red Rainy 27.78 -50.71 1.28 -9.97WRR5 Ohio -3.31 -10.40 -10.04 -13.40WRR6 Tennessee 12.78 -22.95 -22.45 -34.63WRR7 Upper Mississippi -7.33 -7.93 -6.01 -4.98WRR8 Lower Mississippi -47.58 -64.30 -55.49 -65.32WRR10 Missouri 3.90 -231.10 -208.02 -253.66WRR11 Arkansas-Red-White 256.16 -71.20 -68.05 -130.60WRR12 Texas-Gulf 4121.16 -142.29 561.41 -129.70WRR13 Rio Grande 111.72 -0.93 29.94 -3.33WRR14 Upper Colorado 86.93 45.19 89.10 46.27WRR15 Lower Colorado 1319.35 268.38 369.89 138.82WRR16 Great Basin 32.87 -7.51 -0.39 -9.96WRR17 Pacific Northwest -1337.24 -347.27 -177.49 -144.07WRR18 California 504.33 1.09 111.27 -17.75

14959.50 332.65 2719.44 570.79

Millions of 2005 Dollars

CCSM_ref CCSM_Pol3.7 CCSM_ref CCSM_Pol3.7WRR1 New England 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR2 Mid-Atlantic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR3 South Atlantic-Gulf 9078.09 1008.71 1834.23 1167.90WRR4&9 Great Lakes and Souris-Red Rainy 17.40 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR5 Ohio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR6 Tennessee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR7 Upper Mississippi 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR8 Lower Mississippi 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR10 Missouri 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR11 Arkansas-Red-White 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR12 Texas-Gulf 3580.93 0.00 449.02 0.00WRR13 Rio Grande 88.48 0.00 15.97 0.00WRR14 Upper Colorado 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR15 Lower Colorado 1067.45 -44.11 25.22 6.96WRR16 Great Basin 0.91 -4.49 -4.53 -4.09WRR17 Pacific Northwest 44.02 6.97 15.74 8.06WRR18 California 51.78 0.00 0.00 0.00

13929.07 967.07 2335.65 1178.82

Millions of 2005 Dollars

CCSM_ref CCSM_Pol3.7 CCSM_ref CCSM_Pol3.7WRR1 New England -0.50 -0.50 -0.50 -0.50WRR2 Mid-Atlantic -5.97 -6.49 -6.58 -6.76WRR3 South Atlantic-Gulf 710.67 12.50 240.27 51.77WRR4&9 Great Lakes and Souris-Red Rainy -9.39 -10.88 -9.74 -10.74WRR5 Ohio -4.76 -5.16 -5.30 -5.42WRR6 Tennessee -0.65 -0.71 -0.68 -0.73WRR7 Upper Mississippi -2.62 -3.21 -3.18 -3.04WRR8 Lower Mississippi -56.39 -64.18 -58.02 -64.71WRR10 Missouri 36.94 -202.09 -192.34 -234.55WRR11 Arkansas-Red-White 197.00 -70.88 -73.93 -116.01WRR12 Texas-Gulf 520.91 -144.17 103.45 -131.52WRR13 Rio Grande 11.25 -3.50 7.12 -6.04WRR14 Upper Colorado 25.50 25.03 61.02 33.98WRR15 Lower Colorado 49.47 47.72 49.85 -1.34WRR16 Great Basin 28.18 -4.46 1.79 -7.41WRR17 Pacific Northwest -38.59 -76.17 -66.21 -76.58WRR18 California -7.50 -96.31 -78.16 -102.69

1453.56 -603.44 -31.14 -682.28

Millions of 2005 Dollars

CCSM_ref CCSM_Pol3.7 CCSM_ref CCSM_Pol3.7WRR1 New England 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR2 Mid-Atlantic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR3 South Atlantic-Gulf 3.45 -0.10 0.04 0.77WRR4&9 Great Lakes and Souris-Red Rainy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR5 Ohio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR6 Tennessee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR7 Upper Mississippi 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR8 Lower Mississippi 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR10 Missouri 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR11 Arkansas-Red-White 3.65 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR12 Texas-Gulf -1.95 -0.23 -28.06 -0.14WRR13 Rio Grande 0.40 -0.01 0.28 0.00WRR14 Upper Colorado 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR15 Lower Colorado 214.40 182.72 228.42 59.34WRR16 Great Basin 0.14 0.01 0.00 0.01WRR17 Pacific Northwest 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR18 California 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00

220.31 182.40 200.68 59.98

2100 2050

Total Damages2100 2050

Environmental Flow Penalty

Irrigated Agriculture2100 2050

Municipal & Domestic

2100 2050

Millions of 2005 Dollars

CCSM_ref CCSM_Pol3.7 CCSM_ref CCSM_Pol3.7WRR1 New England 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR2 Mid-Atlantic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR3 South Atlantic-Gulf -3.33 0.00 -1.07 -0.79WRR4&9 Great Lakes and Souris-Red Rainy 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR5 Ohio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR6 Tennessee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR7 Upper Mississippi 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR8 Lower Mississippi 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR10 Missouri 0.08 -0.13 -0.14 -0.14WRR11 Arkansas-Red-White 3.77 0.00 -0.01 -0.04WRR12 Texas-Gulf 2.28 0.22 28.85 0.14WRR13 Rio Grande 0.37 0.04 0.34 0.05WRR14 Upper Colorado 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.00WRR15 Lower Colorado 18.42 15.59 22.78 5.51WRR16 Great Basin -0.13 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01WRR17 Pacific Northwest -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01WRR18 California 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

21.92 15.77 50.80 4.71

Millions of 2005 Dollars

CCSM_ref CCSM_Pol3.7 CCSM_ref CCSM_Pol3.7WRR1 New England -75.80 -41.72 -25.77 -17.35WRR2 Mid-Atlantic -7.40 -22.27 -7.60 -9.82WRR3 South Atlantic-Gulf 178.78 24.45 71.48 17.85WRR4&9 Great Lakes and Souris-Red Rainy 19.39 -39.83 11.02 0.77WRR5 Ohio 1.44 -5.24 -4.74 -7.98WRR6 Tennessee 13.43 -22.24 -21.77 -33.90WRR7 Upper Mississippi -4.71 -4.71 -2.83 -1.94WRR8 Lower Mississippi 8.80 -0.12 2.53 -0.61WRR10 Missouri -33.12 -28.88 -15.54 -18.97WRR11 Arkansas-Red-White 51.75 -0.31 5.89 -14.55WRR12 Texas-Gulf 18.99 1.89 8.15 1.82WRR13 Rio Grande 11.23 2.53 6.23 2.65WRR14 Upper Colorado 61.34 20.08 27.99 12.29WRR15 Lower Colorado -30.40 66.45 43.63 68.34WRR16 Great Basin 3.77 1.44 2.36 1.55WRR17 Pacific Northwest -1342.66 -278.06 -127.01 -75.54WRR18 California 459.82 97.39 189.43 84.94

-665.36 -229.15 163.45 9.55

Millions of Cubic Meters

CCSM_ref CCSM_Pol3.7 CCSM_ref CCSM_Pol3.7WRR1 New England -1667.54 -1363.40 -1377.86 -1159.04WRR2 Mid-Atlantic -488.77 -453.24 -446.39 -396.71WRR3 South Atlantic-Gulf -960.62 -1277.44 -908.28 -1275.63WRR4&9 Great Lakes and Souris-Red Rainy -1285.19 -1114.77 -864.50 -878.43WRR5 Ohio -1827.97 -1574.84 -1646.97 -1602.50WRR6 Tennessee -946.90 -940.73 -956.82 -1013.17WRR7 Upper Mississippi -1868.06 -1500.36 -1539.85 -1456.28WRR8 Lower Mississippi -814.51 -965.41 -895.68 -1013.18WRR10 Missouri -836.03 -1202.31 -1065.21 -1173.49WRR11 Arkansas-Red-White -1859.89 -2409.88 -2222.71 -2570.22WRR12 Texas-Gulf -1329.46 -1923.39 -1507.75 -1860.44WRR13 Rio Grande 195.01 -108.13 -5.72 -112.42WRR14 Upper Colorado 160.62 -68.30 -39.52 -76.17WRR15 Lower Colorado 31.47 -126.92 -89.20 -130.23WRR16 Great Basin 98.00 -19.28 17.01 -24.77WRR17 Pacific Northwest -301.10 -491.90 -240.27 -362.34WRR18 California 202.25 -179.84 -96.68 -181.94

-13498.69 -15720.14 -13886.40 -15286.96Positive numbers indicate net evaporative losses; negative numbers net precipitation input.Change relative to baseline net reservoir evaporation

Commercial & Industrial2100 2050

Net Reservoir Evaporation 2100 2050

Hydropower2100 2050

Table 3. MIROC-pattern scaled results (in millions of $2005USD) of economic supply and demand model by subsector and aggregated total.

Millions of 2005 Dollars

MIROC_ref MIROC_Pol3.7 MIROC_ref MIROC_Pol3.7WRR1 New England 2786.98 0.48 160.11 19.65WRR2 Mid-Atlantic 1591.22 9.94 83.88 16.05WRR3 South Atlantic-Gulf 32643.82 3286.13 13643.79 2829.16WRR4&9 Great Lakes and Souris-Red Rainy10361.17 1906.39 5078.46 2231.16WRR5 Ohio 13496.54 2264.46 7447.18 30.25WRR6 Tennessee 3985.04 70.79 1085.53 51.87WRR7 Upper Mississippi 28039.26 343.09 8455.65 419.10WRR8 Lower Mississippi 44887.23 1330.08 4546.92 521.38WRR10 Missouri 3651.80 1561.96 1961.55 1510.72WRR11 Arkansas-Red-White10616.74 2310.75 7327.12 1412.72WRR12 Texas-Gulf 8256.89 1535.60 4217.24 1183.27WRR13 Rio Grande 262.48 82.85 172.43 67.79WRR14 Upper Colorado 1142.94 93.75 357.04 109.79WRR15 Lower Colorado 3547.20 1486.62 2008.70 971.93WRR16 Great Basin 250.82 17.35 37.10 9.60WRR17 Pacific Northwest -986.36 -215.03 236.63 169.62WRR18 California 867.45 57.96 207.82 32.05

165401.20 16143.18 57027.12 11586.10

Millions of 2005 Dollars

MIROC_ref MIROC_Pol3.7 MIROC_ref MIROC_Pol3.7WRR1 New England 2735.73 0.00 121.33 0.00WRR2 Mid-Atlantic 1537.20 0.00 52.44 0.00WRR3 South Atlantic-Gulf 31323.48 2754.75 12704.59 2316.83WRR4&9 Great Lakes and Souris-Red Rainy9931.21 1730.67 4794.16 2041.28WRR5 Ohio 13425.12 2229.62 7400.42 0.00WRR6 Tennessee 3801.67 0.00 976.89 0.00WRR7 Upper Mississippi 27929.64 285.19 8381.74 363.94WRR8 Lower Mississippi 43731.47 804.70 3892.61 0.00WRR10 Missouri 1406.10 0.00 230.47 0.00WRR11 Arkansas-Red-White9210.60 1435.95 6361.65 568.39WRR12 Texas-Gulf 7503.96 1204.21 3649.50 935.61WRR13 Rio Grande 179.43 56.06 119.44 42.33WRR14 Upper Colorado 992.64 10.49 212.83 0.00WRR15 Lower Colorado 3345.02 1178.99 1687.20 702.28WRR16 Great Basin 153.59 2.04 5.72 0.93WRR17 Pacific Northwest 56.25 22.92 189.83 153.97WRR18 California 210.25 0.00 0.00 0.00

157473.36 11715.58 50780.80 7125.56

Millions of 2005 Dollars

MIROC_ref MIROC_Pol3.7 MIROC_ref MIROC_Pol3.7WRR1 New England -0.49 -0.50 -0.49 -0.49WRR2 Mid-Atlantic -1.40 -4.55 -3.69 -4.85WRR3 South Atlantic-Gulf 947.80 381.93 709.94 384.51WRR4&9 Great Lakes and Souris-Red Rainy53.72 23.19 27.54 22.67WRR5 Ohio 20.02 14.89 19.26 14.50WRR6 Tennessee 2.05 0.78 1.29 0.53WRR7 Upper Mississippi 74.35 43.23 51.99 40.12WRR8 Lower Mississippi 1023.15 461.48 585.12 459.19WRR10 Missouri 1811.96 1459.19 1567.95 1410.67WRR11 Arkansas-Red-White 842.74 745.70 792.08 732.95WRR12 Texas-Gulf 685.01 319.31 547.12 235.85WRR13 Rio Grande 56.02 19.36 38.43 17.50WRR14 Upper Colorado 26.54 25.50 61.70 61.29WRR15 Lower Colorado 51.25 48.28 50.71 49.50WRR16 Great Basin 79.37 10.44 24.54 4.20WRR17 Pacific Northwest -29.11 -71.06 11.48 -14.05WRR18 California 72.50 -83.93 -58.22 -92.23

5715.48 3393.25 4426.75 3321.87

Millions of 2005 Dollars

MIROC_ref MIROC_Pol3.7 MIROC_ref MIROC_Pol3.7WRR1 New England 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR2 Mid-Atlantic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR3 South Atlantic-Gulf -27.29 6.87 -23.54 -18.29WRR4&9 Great Lakes and Souris-Red Rainy0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR5 Ohio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR6 Tennessee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR7 Upper Mississippi 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR8 Lower Mississippi 77.73 37.39 37.68 36.62WRR10 Missouri 149.72 5.60 7.14 6.05WRR11 Arkansas-Red-White 258.85 17.20 20.61 18.53WRR12 Texas-Gulf 33.70 -1.00 -29.66 -28.33WRR13 Rio Grande 6.99 -0.03 2.00 0.43WRR14 Upper Colorado 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR15 Lower Colorado 235.02 210.85 250.70 164.88WRR16 Great Basin 8.76 0.01 0.17 0.01WRR17 Pacific Northwest 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00WRR18 California 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00

743.68 276.89 265.11 179.90

Irrigated Agriculture2100 2050

Municipal & Domestic2100 2050

Total Damages2100 2050

Environmental Flow Penalty2100 2050

Millions of 2005 Dollars

MIROC_ref MIROC_Pol3.7 MIROC_ref MIROC_Pol3.7WRR1 New England 0.58 0.00 0.31 0.00WRR2 Mid-Atlantic 1.21 0.00 0.13 0.00WRR3 South Atlantic-Gulf 27.78 -7.01 22.97 17.63WRR4&9 Great Lakes and Souris-Red Rainy20.75 18.98 19.61 18.99WRR5 Ohio 15.63 4.06 4.14 3.48WRR6 Tennessee 4.26 0.23 1.62 0.22WRR7 Upper Mississippi 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.63WRR8 Lower Mississippi 34.10 17.33 17.63 17.26WRR10 Missouri 30.21 1.89 2.63 2.42WRR11 Arkansas-Red-White 94.59 12.72 13.23 12.57WRR12 Texas-Gulf 3.78 1.27 30.90 29.30WRR13 Rio Grande 2.41 0.14 0.76 0.38WRR14 Upper Colorado 0.14 0.09 0.10 0.09WRR15 Lower Colorado 20.30 18.09 25.10 16.19WRR16 Great Basin -1.01 0.00 -0.18 -0.01WRR17 Pacific Northwest -0.01 -0.01 1.52 1.49WRR18 California 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00

258.36 71.39 144.08 123.63

Millions of 2005 Dollars

MIROC_ref MIROC_Pol3.7 MIROC_ref MIROC_Pol3.7WRR1 New England 51.17 0.98 38.95 20.14WRR2 Mid-Atlantic 54.22 14.49 35.00 20.90WRR3 South Atlantic-Gulf 372.04 149.59 229.82 128.48WRR4&9 Great Lakes and Souris-Red Rainy355.49 133.55 237.15 148.23WRR5 Ohio 35.77 15.88 23.36 12.26WRR6 Tennessee 177.07 69.78 105.73 51.12WRR7 Upper Mississippi 31.64 11.04 18.29 11.41WRR8 Lower Mississippi 20.78 9.20 13.87 8.32WRR10 Missouri 253.81 95.29 153.36 91.58WRR11 Arkansas-Red-White 209.97 99.17 139.55 80.28WRR12 Texas-Gulf 30.45 11.81 19.39 10.85WRR13 Rio Grande 17.63 7.33 11.80 7.14WRR14 Upper Colorado 123.62 57.68 82.42 48.41WRR15 Lower Colorado -104.39 30.42 -5.02 39.07WRR16 Great Basin 10.11 4.85 6.85 4.46WRR17 Pacific Northwest -1013.49 -166.87 33.81 28.20WRR18 California 584.46 141.89 266.04 124.28

1210.32 686.08 1410.38 835.14

Millions of Cubic Meters

MIROC_ref MIROC_Pol3.7 MIROC_ref MIROC_Pol3.7WRR1 New England -629.21 -1042.56 -672.94 -768.80WRR2 Mid-Atlantic -128.46 -226.77 -138.42 -188.08WRR3 South Atlantic-Gulf -144.08 -530.00 -287.07 -587.74WRR4&9 Great Lakes and Souris-Red Rainy558.59 -448.74 -170.83 -434.50WRR5 Ohio -794.15 -1212.37 -983.21 -1251.72WRR6 Tennessee -226.68 -349.11 -248.82 -455.95WRR7 Upper Mississippi 880.41 -1228.43 -1017.36 -1242.04WRR8 Lower Mississippi 17.18 -269.82 40.71 -325.28WRR10 Missouri 1520.31 -474.81 144.41 -635.53WRR11 Arkansas-Red-White 953.63 -1475.62 -422.91 -1768.31WRR12 Texas-Gulf -52.95 -1327.50 -815.73 -1322.23WRR13 Rio Grande 343.75 5.67 124.87 -8.35WRR14 Upper Colorado 433.60 71.42 158.46 21.86WRR15 Lower Colorado 122.06 -84.23 -32.49 -94.94WRR16 Great Basin 93.17 -5.85 51.03 14.27WRR17 Pacific Northwest 106.68 -212.74 61.55 -192.06WRR18 California 400.98 -130.80 -15.01 -148.89

3454.83 -8942.26 -4223.76 -9388.29Positive numbers indicate net evaporative losses; negative numbers net precipitation input.Change relative to baseline net reservoir evaporation

Net Reservoir Evaporation 2100 2050

Commercial & Industrial2100 2050

Hydropower2100 2050