Markus Andrews

Groundwater storage variations by integrating GRACE/FO-derived TWS with other terrestrial water storage components for the past two decadesGRACE/FO TWS anomalies for the combined Sacramento, San Joaquin and Tulare basins (Fig. 1, Fig. 2a) were used to calculate groundwater storage anomalies in California’s Central Valley. The GRACE/FO time series (Fig. 2a) for the combined basins is indicative of a region that has experienced successive droughts, punctuated by brief wet periods, resulting in significant cumulative water loss during the study period.Fig. 2: Datasets used for groundwater storage anomaly calculation and GRACE/FO data evaluation in the Central Valley.a GRACE/FO observed monthly total water storage (TWS) anomalies. Red arrow indicates the driest winter in TWS for the past two decades at the begining of 2021. b Three water balance fluxes of precipitation (P), evapotranspiration (ET), and streamflow (Q). c Comparison of monthly change in TWS (dS/dt) between that derived from GRACE/FO and from an observed water balance. d Anomalies of three TWS components of soil moisture (SM), surface water (SW), and snow water equivalent (SWE). All variables are represented in equivalent water height in millimeters for the study region.Full size imageBefore estimating groundwater storage changes, GRACE/FO TWS were first evaluated by comparing its monthly changes to those from an observed water balance calculation (see Eq.(1) in Methods). Figure 2b shows the observed water flux components including precipitation (P), evapotranspiration (ET) and streamflow discharge (Q) for the combined river basins, while Fig. 2c shows a close correspondence between dS/dt derived from GRACE/FO, and that computed using P–ET–Q in Eq.(1). The Root Mean Squared Difference between the two is 26.4 mm/month, and is within the range of the mean uncertainty using GRACE/FO measurements (43.6 mm/month). Such a good agreement between GRACE/FO-derived and observed dS/dt demonstrates that GRACE/FO is capable of accurately monitoring basin-wide water balance changes, and provides further confidence in the groundwater storage change estimates described below12.Groundwater storage anomalies were estimated by subtracting the anomalies of soil moisture, surface water, and SWE (Fig. 2d) from GRACE/FO TWS anomalies (Fig. 2a) following Eq.(2) as detailed in Methods. The SWE, soil moisture and surface water datasets were obtained from operational, publicly available sources, including the National Oceanic Atmosphere Administration’s Snow Data Assimilation System (SNODAS)43, NASA’s North American Land Data Assimilation System (NLDAS)44, and the California Data Exchange Center45, respectively, ensuring data accessibility for potential routine monitoring following this approach.Figure 3a shows the monthly groundwater storage anomalies derived from GRACE/FO and the datasets shown in Figs. 2a, d in the Central Valley between September 2003 and December 2021. Three notable periods of groundwater recharge and loss were identified in the past 18 years. Groundwater recharge occurred during wet periods from October 2003 to July 2006, March 2011 to July 2011, and October 2018 to August 2019, shown as blue arrows in Fig. 3a. Groundwater loss phases correspond to the well-known droughts that occurred during that time period, namely August 2006–February 2011, August 2011–March 2017, and since September 2019, shown as red arrows in Fig. 3a. A pattern of short phases of recharge followed by longer phases of groundwater loss emerges, resulting in longer-term groundwater depletion over the last two decades. Estimated rates and the total volumes of groundwater gains and losses are summarized in Table 1.Fig. 3: Groundwater storage variations in California’s Central Valley.a GRACE/FO-derived groundwater storage anomalies from September 2003–December 2021 in the Central Valley. The green shaded margin is the uncertainty of groundwater storage. Red arrows represent groundwater loss trends during the droughts of 2006–2011, 2011–2017, and since 2019. Blue arrows represent the three short recharge periods. The black line shows the groundwater depletion trend from 2003–2021. b comparison of deseasonalized anomalies of GRACE/FO derived groundwater and water table depth anomalies from monitoring wells in the Central Valley.Full size imageTable 1 Groundwater change rates and total groundwater volume changes in the Central ValleyFull size tableA groundwater recharge phase (22.7 ± 16.0 mm/yr; 3.49 ±  2.5 km3/yr) in the Central Valley was observed at the beginning of the GRACE mission during 2003–2006 (1st recharge in Fig. 3a and Table 1), when the precipitation amounts were close to or slightly higher than the 20-year average. The NOAA National Weather Service report46 reveals that weak to moderate levels of El Niño events during 2004–2006 resulted in nearly normal amounts of precipitation and snow in the study region. A volume of 9.9 ± 4.2 km3of groundwater was replenished during this phase of the analysis.This period of groundwater increase was followed by the 4.5-year drought that began in August 2006. During the 2006–2011 drought (1st drought in Fig. 3a and Table 1), a groundwater loss rate of 42.9 ± 7.8 mm/yr (6.59 ± 1.20 km3/yr) was estimated, resulting in 30.2 ± 2.6 km3 of groundwater loss during that period. Compared with the earlier analysis in Ref. 12, an additional year of data was included here, and represented the complete drought phase through 2011, rather than through 2010, as in Ref. 12. Although the groundwater loss rate is slightly higher than the 38.9 ± 9.5 mm/yr reported in Ref. 12, the difference falls within the 95% confidence interval, confirming the consistency between the two analyses.Prior to the second drought, a short, rapid recharge phase (March–July 2011, 2nd recharge in Fig. 3a and Table 1) replenished 29.6 ± 15.7 km3 of groundwater (462.5 ± 157.8 mm/yr; 71.07 ± 24.25 km3/yr), as a result of the strong El Niño in 2010 that brought abundant precipitation in early 201147.The groundwater loss rate for the second phase of drought in the GRACE/FO record (2011–2017, 2nd drought in Fig. 3a and Table 1) was 42.7 ± 5.8 mm/yr (6.56 ± 0.89 km3). Although a similar groundwater loss rate was estimated for the drought of 2006–2011, the second drought lasted a year longer, resulting in roughly 7 km3 more groundwater loss (37.1 ± 2.1 km3 total), equivalent to about 23% of surface water storage in the Central Valley, and greater than the volume of Lake Mead (32.2 km3) at full capacity. The GRACE/FO-based groundwater estimated in this study reached an 18-year low by late 2016. This phase of drought was notable for widespread water conservation efforts across California, and for the passage of SGMA in 2014. This second phase of drought ended with atmospheric river events that brought heavy precipitation to California in early 201748.The original GRACE mission was decommissioned in late 2017 and transitioned to GRACE-FO after its launch in May 2018. Hence there is year-long data gap in the combined GRACE/FO record from August 2017–September. 2018. Studies of that time period23,34 suggest that groundwater recharge occurred during this data gap. We estimate that during the lifetime of original GRACE mission (2003–2017), 41.8 ± 1.2 km3 of groundwater were lost (Table 1).We assume that the groundwater depletion followed the 18-year historical trend (2003–2021), but made no assumption about its seasonal dynamics during the data gap between the GRACE and GRACE-FO missions. From October 2018 to August 2019 (3rd recharge in Fig. 3a) we estimated that groundwater storage increased by 26.6 ± 16.0 km3 (188.8 ± 108.9 mm/yr; 29.02 ± 16.73 km3/yr).The third phase of drought in the GRACE/FO record began in September 2019. After the recharge event in the winter of 2018, major water inputs in the region, including precipitation and SWE, significantly decreased in the winters of 2019 and 2020 (Figs. 2b and d). These two winters rank the years 2019 and 2020 as fourth driest consecutive 2-year period on record49. In particular, precipitation reached an 18 year low in the winter of 2020–2021 (Fig. 2b), and TWS (Fig. 2a) shows this same time period as the driest wet season in the GRACE/FO record. Between September 2019 and December 2021 (Present drought in Fig. 3a), total groundwater losses in the Central Valley were 20.0 ± 5.1 km3 (55.8 ± 21.8 mm/yr; 8.58 ± 3.35 km3/yr), which is roughly 31% faster than the previous two droughts.During the present megadrought in southwestern North America (2003–2021), groundwater anomalies observed from GRACE/FO in the Central Valley show a trend of groundwater depletion of 15.7 ± 1.4 mm/yr (2.41 ± 0.22 km3/yr), resulting in a total groundwater loss of 44.3 ± 0.9 km3, an amount that is nearly than 1.4 times the full capacity of Lake Mead.Longer-term trends and comparison to observationsThe GRACE/FO groundwater estimates were compared with water table depth anomalies observed from groundwater wells, as shown in Fig. 3b. A valley-wide water table depth was obtained by averaging measurements from available wells located within Central Valley, managed by California’s DWR and USGS23 (see Methods). Seasonal variations of GRACE/FO derived groundwater storage changes and the observed water table depth were removed by subtracting their climatologies, i.e. deseasonalized groundwater storage and water table anomalies, to avoid seasonal inconsistencies between the two measurements, and to only examine their long term trends. Overall, the two measurements demonstrate similar trends from 2003 to 2021. While there is a greater difference between the well and GRACE/FO estimates following 2017, Fig. 3b shows that the groundwater estimates using GRACE/FO are capable of capturing the periods of loss and recovery observed on the ground, and in particular, the greater rate of groundwater loss since 2019, which appears even stronger in the well observations than in the GRACE/FO estimates. Discrepancies may be attributed to the irregular availability of groundwater well data, and to a major decline in available well observations since late 2018 (see Methods, Supporting Information, and Fig. S3). Both of these factors underscore the challenges of estimating large-area groundwater dynamics from well data alone, and of validating groundwater models and satellite observations.Figure 4 shows cumulative groundwater losses from 1962–2021 using the CVHM13 and GRACE/FO. From 2003 to 2014 when both CVHM and GRACE data were available, the groundwater depletion rate for the CVHM was 16.3 ± 6.3 mm/yr (2.51 ± 0.97 km3), matching that from GRACE, 14.7 ± 6.0 mm/yr (2.25 ± 0.92 km3), indicating that the two methods are compatible and may be combined for the further analysis. The combined CVHM-GRACE/FO groundwater depletion rate was calculated by using both CVHM estimations from 1962–2014 and GRACE-derived groundwater storage changes from 2003–2021 through linear regression analysis. The result shows that the groundwater depletion rate from 1962 to 2021 was 12.1 ± 0.8 mm/yr (1.86 ± 0.12 km3/yr), shown as the black line in Fig. 4, resulting in a total groundwater loss of 111.5 ± 0.9 km3. In addition, Fig. 4 shows that the periods for groundwater recovery were shorter, and mostly driven by extreme weather events46,47,48,50 in the nearly two decades of the GRACE/FO record. Although groundwater was recharged, these extreme wet events typically generated flooding, and had significant negative social, environmental and economic consequences46,47,48,50. This sequence of extreme hydrological events—long-term extremely dry conditions with considerable groundwater losses, punctuated by short-term extremely wet conditions with short bursts of groundwater recharge—underscores the challenge of sustainable groundwater management under changing climate.Fig. 4: Yearly cumulative groundwater losses in the Central Valley.Groundwater losses combining the USGS’s Central Valley Hydrologic Model (CVHM)13 and the GRACE/FO estimates since 1962. The black line represents the overall groundwater depletion from 1962 to 2021 calculated by combining the CVHM and GRACE estimates.Full size imageFigures 3a and 4, along with Table 1, show that the rate of groundwater loss is accelerating in the Central Valley. Groundwater loss rates observed from GRACE/FO (15.7 ± 1.4 mm/yr; 2.41 ± 0.22 km3/yr) between 2003 and 2021 are 28% faster than the longer-term (1962–2021) depletion rate of the combined CVHM-GRACE/FO record (12.1 ± 0.8 mm/yr; 1.86 ± 0.12 km3/yr). The most recent phase of groundwater loss, between September 2019 and August 2021 (55.8 ± 21.8 mm/yr; 8.58 ± 3.35 km3/yr), is nearly 31% faster than GRACE/FO estimated losses the previous two drought phases during the GRACE/FO record, and nearly five times faster than the long-term depletion rate.Relationship between surface water allocations and estimated groundwater storage changesFigure 5a compares GRACE/FO estimated monthly groundwater storage variations to annual surface water allocations (in % of annual maximum) via the two primary aqueducts in the Central Valley, the California State Water Project (SWP)51 and the federal Central Valley Water Project (CVP)52. The two aqueducts transport surface water from northern California to the south. Figure 5b compares the annual groundwater storage changes (net fluxes) to the total surface water deliveries from both the CVP and SWP (in km3). The annual groundwater change was calculated as the difference of the mean annual groundwater anomalies between two consecutive years. Figure 5a, b show that when surface water is abundant, greater allocations are made to farmers, relieving stress on groundwater and allowing for recovery, and vice versa.Fig. 5: Groundwater and surface water management in Central Valley.a Comparison between annual surface water allocations in the aqueducts of the California State Water Project (SWP) and the federal Central Valley Water Project (CVP) and GRACE/FO-derived groundwater storage anomalies. b Comparison between annual surface water deliveries (dark blue bars) of SWP and CVP to the GRACE/FO derived groundwater changes (red and green bars) in Central Valley. The groundwater changes in 2003, 2017, and 2018 are not included because GRACE/FO-derived data do not have complete coverage over the year.Full size imageBetween 2003 and 2007, surface water storage was increasing (Fig. 2d), allowing for larger allocations ( >60%) from both aqueducts, less reliance on groundwater, and hence increasing groundwater storage. Surface water deliveries in Central Valley reached a high for the study period in 2016, resulting in about 5 km3 recharge (Fig. 5b). Surface water storage, and hence allocations, decreased between 2007 and 2009, resulting in significant groundwater storage decline. Surface water deliveries decreased to 2.30 km3 in 2009, corresponding to the highest annual groundwater storage loss by 7.86 km3 during the 1st drought period.The second drought in the GRACE/FO record began in August 2011, triggering decreasing surface water allocations that resulted in heavy groundwater demand. During this period, CVP cut its allocation to 0% in 2014 and 2015, and 5% in 2016, while the SWP reached its lowest allocation for the study period, 5% in 2014. The low surface water delivery volumes in 2014 and 2015 drove corresponding annual groundwater losses of 9.66 and 7.64 km3, respectively, and led to intensified groundwater pumping through 2016 (Fig. 5b).Groundwater storage variations continued to reflect surface water allocations, increasing in 2017 and 2019 with above-average surface water storage, followed by major losses in both surface water allocations, and groundwater storage, through the end of 2021. For example, in 2020, aqueduct allocations decreased to 20% for both projects, and to 0% and 5% in 2021 for the CVP and SWP, explaining in part the increased rate of groundwater loss during this time period. In 2021, the annual groundwater loss was 9.22 km3, matching the greatest annual loss during the study period, which occurred in 2014.Demonstration of GRACE/FO-derived groundwater storage changes to support regional groundwater managementGRACE/FO-derived groundwater storage changes were also estimated in the Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Tulare basins, as shown in Fig. 6 and Table 2. The same periods of groundwater recharge and loss in the Central Valley are used to calculate the gains and losses for the three basins, including longer-term depletion rates. Overall, the individual basin follows similar trends, i.e. three short recharge phases, followed by three longer droughts, as was presented for the entire Central Valley. During the 1st recharge phase, similar rates of groundwater recharge can be observed in the Sacramento and Tulare basins, with increasing rates of 39.0 ± 20.0 and 27.5 ± 15.8 mm/yr (2.81 ± 1.44 and 1.17 ± 0.67 km3/yr (Fig. 6a, c and Table 2)), resulting in groundwater increases of 8.0 ± 2.4 km3 and 3.3 ± 1.1 km3 in the two basins, respectively. Although a slight groundwater loss of 0.7 ± 2.0 km3 (6.4 ± 29.6 mm/yr; 0.26 ± 1.21 km3/yr) in the San Joaquin basin is observed for this period (Fig. 6b and Table 2), the loss rate is not statistically significant (within an uncertainty of 95% confidence interval), indicating that groundwater supply and consumption were nearly balanced in the basin.Fig. 6: Groundwater storage variations in the three Central Valley sub-basins.GRACE/FO-derived groundwater anomalies during September 2003–December 2021 in the (a) Sacramento, (b) San Joaquin, and (c) Tulare basins. The green shaded margins are the uncertainty of groundwater storage estimates. Red arrows represent groundwater loss trends during the droughts of 2006–2011, 2011–2017, and since 2019. Blue arrows represent the three short recharge periods. The black line shows the overall groundwater depletion trend from 2003–2021. Comparison of deseasonalized anomalies of GRACE/FO derived groundwater and water table depth anomalies from monitoring wells for the (d) Sacramento, e San Joaquin, and (f) Tulare basins.Full size imageTable 2 Groundwater change rates and total groundwater volume changes in the three sub-basins in the study regionFull size tableWhen entering to the 1st drought phase, results show that the Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Tulare basins all experienced similar groundwater loss rates of ~42 mm/yr (40–44 mm/yr) (Fig.6a–c and Table 2). The drought ended with the strong El Niño in 201047.During the 2nd drought, all three basins experienced significant losing trends. Figure 6a–c, and Table 2 show that the Tulare basin suffered more severe groundwater losses than the other basins, with a loss rate of 62.9 ± 4.4 mm/yr (−2.67 ± 0.19 km3/yr). The total groundwater loss in the Tulare basin was 15.1 ± 0.4 km3, which was nearly 40% of the total loss in Central Valley, yet the area of the Tulare basin only occupies about one quarter of the study region. The groundwater storage changes during the 18 year study period show that the depletion rates in the Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Tulare basins, were 12.9 ± 1.8, 16.2 ± 1.9, and 20.6 ± 1.5 mm/yr (0.93 ± 0.13, 0.67 ± 0.08, and 0.88 ± 0.06 km3/yr) (Fig. 6a–c and Table 2), respectively, indicating that the southern Central Valley (combined San Joaquin and Tulare) lost more groundwater than the north, similar to the findings of earlier studies23,30. However, the situation was reversed in the drought that began in September 2019 (present drought in Fig. 6a–c), during which we found higher groundwater loss rates of 76.1 ± 28.1 mm/yr (5.48 ± 2.02 km3/yr) in the Sacramento basin compared to those of 38.1 ± 25.2 and 60.1 ± 14.0 mm/yr (1.56 ± 1.03 and 2.55 ± 0.60 km3/yr) for the San Joaquin and Tulare basins, respectively.The deseasonalized GRACE/FO-derived groundwater storage and observed water table anomalies are compared for each of the three basins. Similar to the approach for the whole Central Valley, wells with available measurements within a particular basin boundary were averaged to represent the water table depth variation for the basin (see Methods and Supplementary Information). The two measurements show similar trends and variations for the Sacramento and Tulare basins, except for a strong water table rise in the winter of 2019 for the Tulare basin. As discussed earlier for the entire Central Valley, a dramatic decrease in the number of available well observations after late 2018 may have resulted in an inconsistent record of water table depth.While the Sacramento and Tulare basins showed generally good agreement between GRACE/FO-derived groundwater storage changes and observed well measurements, less correspondence was observed in the San Joaquin basin, particularly during the 1st drought period. However, the two drought phases from 2011–2017 and after 2019 are clearly recognizable, with water table observations falling in response to increased groundwater pumping.Figure 6 highlights both strengths and weaknesses of using the GRACE/FO approach at the sub-basin scale of the individual Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Tulare basins. On the one hand, sub-basin analyses provide important insights into groundwater storage variations across the Valley, in particular, sub-basin trends, which could ultimately inform SGMA performance and provide early warning (in the case of the Sacramento basin) for those regions where groundwater losses are unexpected. On the other, the sub-basins are considerably smaller than the ~154,000 km2 area of the Central Valley, which corresponds the lower area limit for an acceptable level of error for monthly TWSA detection36,53,54,55. (Note that the longer time period associated with the trend calculations mitigates this issue somewhat, resulting in greater confidence in the sub-basin trends than the monthly variations). Hence the GRACE/FO-derived groundwater storage variations at these sub-basin scales should be used judiciously.As with the whole-valley comparisons to observations, the sub-basin analyses are faced with the same challenges as described above, i.e. the difficulties in assembling larger-area water table depth averages from unevenly distributed well observations collected at disparate times and for varying periods of time. In spite of these challenges, the regional groundwater analyses for the sub-basins demonstrates the potential utility of GRACE/FO-derived groundwater storage changes for supporting regional groundwater management efforts. More

A river created by a melting glacier in Iceland: SWOT will track the world’s water bodies in unprecedented detail.Credit: Nejc Gostincar/E+/Getty

From swirling ocean eddies that help shape the global climate to millions of lakes and rivers, scientists are about to get an unprecedented view of Earth’s water.The US$1.2-billion Surface Water and Ocean Topography satellite (SWOT), which is due to launch on 15 December from the Vandenberg Space Force Base in California, promises to transform research into the global water cycle and provide climate scientists with a fresh lens on a warming world.A joint mission led by NASA and the French National Centre for Space Studies, SWOT will bounce radar off the surface of Earth’s water bodies — including many that are too small to be tracked from space by current methods. The satellite will enable scientists to measure and track the elevation, extent and movement of water across the planet in ground-breaking detail.“It’s a game changer,” says Rosemary Morrow, an oceanographer at the Laboratory of Space, Geophysical and Oceanographic Studies in Toulouse, France and one of the science leads for the mission. “It will be like putting on a pair of glasses when you are short-sighted: things are sort of vague, and then suddenly everything comes into clarity.”Lakes and riversThere are currently publicly available data for just 10,000–20,000 of the roughly 6 million lakes and reservoirs larger than one hectare on the planet today, says Tamlin Pavelsky, a hydrologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and another of SWOT’s science leads. SWOT will measure nearly all 6 million every 10 or 11 days. “We’ve never had measurements like this before,” says Pavelsky. “We don’t even have a baseline.”In 2021, a team led by Sarah Cooley, a geographer at Oregon State University in Eugene pieced together existing satellite measurements of surface area and water elevation for some 227,000 lakes1, but Cooley says those are available only every 90 days. “The data that will be provided by SWOT is orders of magnitude beyond what we were able to do,” says Cooley.SWOT has already helped to generate advances in river hydrology. In anticipation of the satellite’s launch, researchers developed new ways to convert measurements of water height, extent and elevation change into flow estimates2. Applying those techniques to existing satellite data, scientists estimated that rivers carried up to 17% more fresh water into the Arctic Ocean between 1984 and 2018 than previously thought3; SWOT is expected to refine this estimate while enabling similar work across the globe.“If SWOT does what we think it’s going to do, it’s going to change the face of hydrology,” says Colin Gleason, a geographer at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and an author on both studies.Ocean eddiesSimilar advances are expected at sea, where SWOT is expected to provide high-resolution measurements that will allow scientists to track currents, swirling eddies and the ebb and flow of tides. These will bolster understanding of water circulation and improve high-resolution models that can track the transfer of heat and carbon dioxide from the warming atmosphere into the depths of the ocean.SWOT will give scientists their first 3D view of eddies, for example, and will be able to detect perturbations around 10 kilometres wide — one-tenth the scale of the best measurements that are currently available, says Morrow. Even these small features are crucial to understanding and predicting the climate, she says.An international consortium involving the United States, France, Australia and others is planning field expeditions at 18 ocean sites around the world next year. These will help to calibrate the SWOT data against on-site measurements under a variety of ocean conditions.“We’re really really excited, but the proof is in the pudding,” Morrow says. “We’re waiting to see what information comes out.” More

Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda (2015).About the JMP. JMP https://washdata.org/how-we-work/about-jmp (2019).Do you know all 17 goals? United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs https://sdgs.un.org/goals (2021).Delivering the promise: Safe water and sanitation for all by 2030: The SDG 6 Global Acceleration Framework: In Brief (UN Water, 2020).Progress on household drinking water, sanitation and hygiene: five years into the SDGs (WHO and UNICEF, 2021).Cronk, R., Slaymaker, T. & Bartram, J. Monitoring drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene in non-household settings: priorities for policy and practice. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 218, 694–703 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bain, R., Johnston, R., Mitis, F., Chatterley, C. & Slaymaker, T. Establishing sustainable development goal baselines for household drinking water, sanitation and hygiene services. Water 10, 1711–1729 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
JMP Drinking water, sanitation and hygiene in schools: global baseline report 2018 (WHO and UNICEF, 2018); https://washdata.org/sites/default/files/documents/reports/2018-11/JMP%20WASH%20in%20Schools%20WEB%20final.pdfJMP Progress on drinking water, sanitation and hygiene in schools: 2000–2021 data update (WHO and UNICEF, 2022).Blanton, E. et al. Evaluation of the role of school children in the promotion of point-of-use water treatment and handwashing in schools and households—Nyanza Province, Western Kenya, 2007. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 82, 664–671 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hunter, P. R. et al. Impact of the provision of safe drinking water on school absence rates in Cambodia: a quasi-experimental study. PLoS ONE 9, 5 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Talaat, M. et al. Effects of hand hygiene campaigns on incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza and absenteeism in schoolchildren, Cairo, Egypt. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 17, 619–625 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
O’Reilly, C. E. et al. The impact of a school-based safe water and hygiene programme on knowledge and practices of students and their parents: Nyanza Province, western Kenya, 2006. Epidemiol. Infect. 136, 80–91 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Freeman, M. C., Clasen, T., Brooker, S. J., Akoko, D. O. & Rheingans, R. The impact of a school-based hygiene, water quality and sanitation intervention on soil-transmitted helminth reinfection: a cluster-randomized trial. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 89, 875–883 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Khanna, A., Goyal, R. & Bhawsar, R. Menstrual practices and reproductive problems: a study of adolescent girls in Rajasthan. J. Health Manag. 7, 91–107 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shah, V. et al. Effects of menstrual health and hygiene on school absenteeism and drop-out among adolescent girls in rural Gambia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19, 3337 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Adukia, A. Sanitation and education. Am. Econ. J.: Appl. Econ. 9, 23–59 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Njuguna, V. et al. The Sustainability and Impact of School Sanitation, Water and Hygiene Education in Kenya (International Water and Sanitation Centre and UNICEF, 2008).Caruso, B. A., Dreibelbis, R., Ogutu, E. A. & Rheingans, R. If you build it will they come? Factors influencing rural primary pupils’ urination and defecation practices at school in western Kenya. J. Water Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 4, 642–653 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mooijman, A., Snel, M., Ganguly, S. & Shordt, K. Strengthening water, sanitation and hygiene in schools – a WASH guidance manual with a focus on South Asia (International Water and Sanitation Centre, 2009).Garn, J. V. et al. A cluster-randomized trial assessing the impact of school water, sanitation, and hygiene improvements on pupil enrollment and gender parity in enrollment. J. Water Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 3, 592–601 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Trinies, V., Garn, J. V., Chang, H. H. & Freeman, M. C. The impact of a school-based water, sanitation, and hygiene program on absenteeism, diarrhea, and respiratory infection: a matched-control trial in Mali. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 94, 1418–1425 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grant, M., Lloyd, C. & Mensch, B. Menstruation and school absenteeism: evidence from rural malawi. Comp. Educ. Rev. 57, 260–284 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dreibelbis, R. et al. Water, sanitation, and primary school attendance: a multi-level assessment of determinants of household-reported absence in Kenya. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 33, 457–465 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jasper, C., Le, T.-T. & Bartram, J. Water and sanitation in schools: a systematic review of the health and educational outcomes. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 9, 2772–2787 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
McMichael, C. Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) in schools in low-income countries: a review of evidence of impact. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16, 359 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pérez-Foguet, A., Giné-Garriga, R. & Ortego, M. I. Compositional data for global monitoring: the case of drinking water and sanitation. Sci. Total Environ. 590–591, 554–565 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schools. JMP https://washdata.org/monitoring/schools (2018).Hutton, G., Haller, L. & Bartram, J. Global cost-benefit analysis of water supply and sanitation interventions. J. Water Health 5, 481–502 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Song, L., Appleton, S. & Knight, J. Why do girls in rural China have lower school enrollment? World Dev. 34, 1639–1653 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mahmud, S. & Amin, S. Girls’ schooling and marriage in rural Bangladesh. Res. Sociol. Educ. 15, 71–99 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Drèze, J. & Kingdon, G. G. School participation in rural India. Rev. Dev. Econ. 5, 1–24 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Iddrisu, A. M. The effect of poverty, household structure and child work on school enrolment. J. Educ. Pract. 5, 145–156 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Daoud, J. I. Multicollinearity and regression analysis. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 949, 012009–012015 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Farrar, D. E. & Glauber, R. R. Multicollinearity in regression analysis: the problem revisited. Rev. Econ. Stat. 49, 92–107 (1967).Article 

Google Scholar 
Keller, K. R. I. Investment in primary, secondary, and higher education and the effects on economic growth. Contemp. Econ. Policy 24, 18–34 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kiran, B. Testing the impact of educational expenditures on economic growth: new evidence from Latin American countries. Qual. Quant. 48, 1181–1190 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Myrskylä, M., Kohler, H.-P. & Billari, F. C. Advances in development reverse fertility declines. Nature 460, 741–743 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ward, J. L. & Viner, R. M. The impact of income inequality and national wealth on child and adolescent mortality in low and middle-income countries. BMC Public Health 17, 8 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Koolwal, G. & van de Walle, D. Access to water, women’s work, and child outcomes. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 61, 369–405 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Freeman, M. C. et al. Assessing the impact of a school-based water treatment, hygiene and sanitation programme on pupil absence in Nyanza Province, Kenya: a cluster-randomized trial. Trop. Med. Int. Health 17, 380–391 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Swanson, E. World Development Indicators 2007 81 (World Bank Publications, 2007).Chatterley, C. et al. Institutional WASH in the SDGs: data gaps and opportunities for national monitoring. J. Water Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 8, 595–606 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vedachalam, S. et al. Underreporting of high-risk water and sanitation practices undermines progress on global targets. PLoS ONE 12, 20 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Exley, J. L. R., Liseka, B., Cumming, O. & Ensink, J. H. J. The sanitation ladder, what constitutes an improved form of sanitation? Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 1086–1094 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nganyanyuka, K., Martinez, J., Wesselink, A., Lungo, J. H. & Georgiadou, Y. Accessing water services in Dar es Salaam: are we counting what counts? Habitat Int. 44, 358–366 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Evans, B. et al. Limited services? The role of shared sanitation in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. J. Water Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 7, 349–351 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bain, R., Johnston, R., Khan, S., Hancioglu, A. & Slaymaker, T. Monitoring drinking water quality in nationally representative household surveys in low- and middle-income countries: cross-sectional analysis of 27 multiple indicator cluster surveys 2014–2020. Environ. Health Perspect. 129, 19 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Morgan, C., Bowling, M., Bartram, J. & Lyn Kayser, G. Water, sanitation, and hygiene in schools: status and implications of low coverage in Ethiopia, Kenya, Mozambique, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 220, 950–959 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sommer, M. & Sahin, M. Overcoming the taboo: advancing the global agenda for menstrual hygiene management for schoolgirls. Am. J. Public Health 103, 1556–1559 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Elledge, M. F. et al. Menstrual hygiene management and waste disposal in low and middle income countries—a review of the literature. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 15, 20 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Spears, D. Exposure to open defecation can account for the Indian enigma of child height. J. Dev. Econ. 146, 17 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
World Bank Open Data https://data.worldbank.org/ (World Bank, 2019).Gelman, A. & Hill, J. Data Analysis Using Regression and Hierarchical/Multilevel Models Vol. 1 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).Fertility rate, total (births per woman) https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.iN (World Bank, 2018).Breierova, L. & Duflo, E. The Impact of Education on Fertility and Child Mortality: Do Fathers Really Matter Less Than Mothers? Working Paper No. 10513 (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2004); http://www.nber.org/papers/w10513.pdfDuflo, E., Dupas, P. & Kremer, M. Education, HIV, and early fertility: experimental evidence from Kenya. Am. Econ. Rev. 105, 2757–2797 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Osili, U. O. & Long, B. T. Does female schooling reduce fertility? Evidence from Nigeria. J. Dev. Econ. 87, 57–75 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sen, A. Development as Freedom (Oxford Univ. Press, 1999).Graham, J. P., Hirai, M. & Kim, S.-S. An analysis of water collection labor among women and children in 24 Sub-Saharan African countries. PLoS ONE 11, 14 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: 2014 Update (WHO and UNICEF, 2014).Beckman, P. J. & Gallo, J. Rural education in a global context. Glob. Educ. Rev. 2, 1–4 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Bhatia, A., Krieger, N. & Subramanian, S. V. Learning from history about reducing infant mortality: contrasting the centrality of structural interventions to early 20th-century successes in the United States to their neglect in current global initiatives. Milbank Q. 97, 285–345 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
RStudio: Integrated Development for R v.1.2.1335 (RStudio, 2018); http://www.rstudio.com/Robitzsch, A. & Grund, S. miceadds: Some additional multiple imputation functions, especially for ‘mice’. R package version 3.9.0 (2020).Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. R package version 3.3.2 (2016).Becker, R. A., Wilks A. R., Brownrigg, R., Minka T. P. & Deckmyn, A. maps: Draw geographical maps. R package version 3.3.0 https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/maps/index.html (2018).Auguie, B. egg: Extensions for ‘ggplot2’: Custom geom, custom themes, plot alignment, labelled panels, symmetric scales, and fixed panel size. R package version 0.4.5 (2019). More

To develop flood risk management strategies, governments need to consider what really matters, namely how and over what period floods affect societal welfare. To do so, we advocate the adoption of a resilience lens in flood risk management. Here, resilience is understood as the ability of a society to cope with flood hazards by resisting, absorbing, accommodating, adapting to, transforming and recovering from the effects of floods on people’s welfare3,4. To analyze and enhance resilience, we need to consider how and over what period floods affect societies and how measures could affect flood impacts and society5. Questions to consider include whether floods will hamper economic activities; whether people can earn sufficient income or their livelihoods are destroyed and whether their health will be affected.Adopting a resilience lens means taking societal welfare as our starting point. From there, the interaction with flood hazards and flood risks can be considered6. For frequent events resistance may be required to allow societies to continue functioning without facing frequent damage. Damage as a result of rare and extreme events may not be avoidable, but such events must be included in our considerations in order to make sure that those events, although damaging, do not turn into disasters. This requires a deep understanding of what makes people vulnerable to floods and how resilience can be improved. We offer four elements linked to this resilience lens to understand what makes a flood disastrous. We aim to enable an informed discussion on how to arrive at appropriate flood risk management strategies (see Fig. 1).Fig. 1: Adopting a resilience lens by operationalizing the four elements into an integrated flood risk management approach.A welfare and recovery capacity (element 1 and 2): Different effects of floods on different areas or societal groups: some have a larger deterioration of welfare or a slower recovery than others. Both the maximum impact and the recovery together determine the impact of a flood disaster. B include beyond-design events (element 3). The grey curve shows the impacts as a function of event extremity. The standard assessment integrates over this curve and uses the resulting expected annual damage as risk measure; this aggregation undermines the role of high-impact but low-probability events. The extreme events must be given attention as well; (C) distributional impacts (element 4). Distributional impacts can be considered spatially or for different social groups. Welfare economics principles can be applied to capture the utility of different communities and vulnerable groups. By aggregating the effects, we may not see how some groups benefit from measures while others pay for them, or still face large risks. Therefore, next to total cost and benefits, also distributed impacts must be used and weighted to enhance equity.Full size imageImpacts on welfare, instead of on asset lossesFloods hit socially vulnerable people harder, because poorer communities often lack the capacity to recover quickly. Vulnerable people or communities have a lower capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist or recover from the impact of hazards7. They may be forced to live in hazardous places, have less access to flood warnings, a less effective network to enhance recovery, and fewer resources to protect their homes or livelihoods. Especially people that already live in poverty may need to shift to destructive strategies such as selling land or cattle or consume seeds to meet other short-term needs. Such strategies can lead to a vicious circle.Using absolute asset-based damages as yardsticks, as is often done in flood risk management, largely underestimates the disproportionally large welfare impact relatively small absolute losses can have on poor people and may lead to biased planning8. As one dollar does not count equally for all people, flood risk planning should move beyond asset-based valuations and put the welfare of people at the core of the assessment9. This can be done, for example, by considering social impacts such as loss of houses (irrespective of their value), deprivation cost, loss of percentage of income, or considering the effect on income generating ability.There are further merits to placing welfare upfront. First, it opens the possibility of better aligning flood risk management with the larger development agenda3, for instance by linking flood risk management to spatial and economic planning. Second, it allows for a better inclusion of non-structural measures in flood risk management strategies, such as adaptive social protection systems that can quickly disburse financial assistance to households when a disaster hits10. Such measures may not reduce asset-based damages but can have significant benefits of increasing recovery rate and dampening welfare losses.Recovery capacityWhen recovery from floods takes longer, the impact of the floods is more disastrous because of the many indirect and cascading effects, which often exceed the direct damage11. Differences in flood impacts across societal groups often link to differences in their ability to recover from flood impacts. To recover, physical damage must be repaired and income generating options must be restored. Accounting for disruption of services of critical infrastructure, cascading impacts12 or addressing people’s recovery capacity are thus crucial to understand the impact of floods on societal welfare. If we consider recovery as part of flood risk management, the effect of recovery enhancing measures can be included to reduce longer-term welfare loss. Measures such as citizen training, micro-credits, affordable insurance to compensate for flood losses and improving critical infrastructure (enhancing its robustness, redundancy, or flexibility) then become relevant.Beyond-design eventsThe July 2021 floods in Europe have shown the devastating impact of beyond-design events, events that exceed the known risks. The flood peak discharge in July 2021 in the Ahr valley was roughly five times higher than the extreme event scenario of the official flood map13 and its return period was estimated to be around 500 years. Such an event was beyond the imagination of people and authorities, which led to high numbers of fatalities and massive destruction.The complexity of flood risk systems, limitations of scientific knowledge but also motivational and cognitive biases in perception and decision making contribute to such surprises14,15. In many regions, climate change and other drivers of change, such as population growth or increasing vulnerability, lead to more frequent situations where current protection systems are overwhelmed. Our third element targets this blind spot of flood risk management: extreme events beyond current design standards to prevent disastrous surprises.This can be done for example by using a storyline approach, narrative scenarios or training exercises and simulation games that stimulate decision-makers to think through the full disaster cycle. Such exercises are known to inspire discussion of potentially long-term unexpected or unintended cascading effects across different systems16. Outliers in ensemble forecasts may be used as a starting point for such scenarios. These explorations guide dialogues towards achieving the desired level of protection and preparedness for extreme events, to reduce the impact to the most crucial objects, locations, or groups of a society, and provide the basis for training of decision-makers.Distributional impacts and equityA resilience lens requires asking the distributional questions of “the five Ws“17: for whom, when, what, where, and why? Most flood risk analyses aggregate risks and flood protection benefits and disregard their distribution across people, space and time. The resilience lens requires unpacking this aggregation by assessing the distributional impacts of alternative measures. Making explicit who wins and who loses can support distributive justice and prevent unintended distributional consequences. Additional measures for compensating worse-off groups can also be prepared. It is one option, for example, to target flood risk protection measures18 at the most socially vulnerable instead of selecting measures based on utilitarian principles. To do so, a risk analysis that shows distributed impacts on a range of social groups and regions must be carried out. These distributional questions also play out between current and future generations (intergenerational justice).The distributional performance of alternative plans can be assessed through a normative analysis. Various ethical principles drawn from theories of distributive justice can be operationalized to evaluate the fairness of alternative measures19. Multiple principles can also be combined. In the Netherlands, the flood protection standard is designed such that every person has at least a minimum level of safety (sufficientarian principle), while additional safety margin is allowed if it is economically sensible (utilitarian principle)20. More

Peru’s water utility companies are protecting peat bogs because of their ability to hold water.Credit: Erica Gies

In just a few months this year, abnormally low water levels in rivers led China to shut down factories and to floods in one-third of Pakistan, killing around 1,500 people and grinding the country to a halt. A dried-up Rhine River threatened to tip Germany’s economy into recession, because cargo ships could not carry standard loads. And the Las Vegas strip turned into a river and flooded casinos, chasing customers away. It seems that such water disasters pepper the news daily now.Many businesses have long lobbied against changing their practices to safeguard the environment, by refusing to implement pollution controls, take climate action or reduce resource use. The costs are too high and would harm economic growth, they argue. Now we are seeing the price of that inaction.With mounting climate-fuelled weather disasters, social inequality, species extinctions and resource scarcity, some corporations have adopted sustainability programmes. One term in this realm is ‘circular economy’, in which practitioners aim to increase the efficiency and reuse of resources, including water — ideally making more goods (and more money) in the process.
Part of Nature Outlook: The circular economy
But the term has its roots in decades of alternative economic theories — known variously as environmental economics, ecological economics, doughnut economics and steady-state economics. These frameworks recognize that the mainstream economics’ goal of eternal growth is impossible on a planet with finite resources.These ideas are beginning to filter into the mainstream, a mark of both the persuasiveness of advocates’ arguments and the declining state of the natural world. But the economists and scientists behind these principles say that some businesses and governments are engaging in greenwashing — claiming their actions to protect the environment are more significant than they really are — rather than making the kinds of fundamental change required to move the global economy onto a truly sustainable path.Because the dominant culture prioritizes human demands, water is generally viewed as either a commodity or a threat. That perspective inspires single-focus problem solving that ignores the complexity and interconnectedness of water’s relationships with rocks and soil, microbes, plants and animals, including humans, inevitably resulting in unintended consequences.Pumping out groundwater when rivers run low further depletes surface water because the two are linked. Erecting dams to provide water to one group of people deprives other people and ecosystems. Leveeing up rivers and building on wetlands removes space for water to slow, pushing flooding onto neighbouring areas. Paving cities and whisking water away creates localized scarcity.Some corporations are making ‘water neutrality’ or ‘water positive’ pledges, which are a big step forward but not enough, says Michael Kiparsky, director of the Wheeler Water Institute at the University of California, Berkeley’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment. “If corporations are really serious about water stewardship, they would throw their political and financial heft behind reform of the governance systems that set up this extractive economy around water,” Kiparsky says.More than 11,000 scientists from 153 countries agree that tweaks around the margins are insufficient. In a 2019 letter in the journal BioScience they called for “bold and drastic transformations”, including a “shift from GDP growth and the pursuit of affluence toward sustaining ecosystems and improving human well-being”1. In February, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, agreed, calling for integrating “natural, social and economic sciences more strongly,” in part by conserving 30–50% of Earth’s ecosystems (see go.nature.com/3sccm6h).A growing group of ecologists, hydrologists, landscape architects, urban planners and environmental engineers — essentially water detectives — are pursuing transformational change, starting from a place of respect for water’s agency and systems. Instead of asking only, ‘What do we want?’ They are also asking, ‘What does water want?’. When filled-in wetlands flood during events such as the torrential 2017 rains in Houston, Texas, researchers realized that, sooner or later, water always wins. Rather than trying to control every molecule, they are instead making space for water along its path, to reduce damage to people’s lives.Broadly speaking, the detectives are discovering that water wants the return of its slow phases — wetlands, floodplains, grasslands, forests and meadows — that human development has eradicated. People have destroyed 87% of the world’s wetlands since 17002, dammed almost two-thirds of the world’s largest rivers3, and doubled the area covered by cities since 19924. All these have drastically altered the water cycle. The water detectives’ projects — part of a global ‘slow water’ movement — all restore space for water to slow on land so it can move underground and repair the crucial surface–groundwater connection.Although the uses of slow-water approaches are unique to each place, they all reflect a willingness to work with local landscapes, climates and cultures rather than try to control or change them. Slow water is distributed throughout the landscape, not centralized. For instance, wetlands and floodplains are scattered across a watershed — an area of land drained by a river and its tributaries — in contrast to a dam and giant reservoir. Around the globe, water detectives are beginning to scale up these projects.Slow waterFor most of California’s state history, groundwater and surface water have been treated as separate resources from both a legal and regulatory perspective. But physically they are linked — by gravity and hydraulic pressure. When river levels run high and spill over into wetlands and floodplains, the flow slows down and seeps underground, raising the water table. Later, that groundwater feeds wetlands, springs and streams from below. “It is hydrologically ridiculous to treat groundwater and surface water differently,” says Kiparsky. “That is as non-circular as you can get.”That legal separation has resulted in overtaxing California’s water supply. The state’s massive water infrastructure — huge dams, levees and long-distance aqueducts — prevents the great rivers of the Central Valley region from occupying their floodplains and naturally recharging groundwater. Plus, when surface water is scarce, people aggressively pump groundwater. But because the two are connected, that further decreases surface water. This depletion means that people have to drill deeper, more expensive wells to reach water. It can also collapse the land, destroying infrastructure. And pumping groundwater near the ocean can allow seawater to push salt inland.Since passage of the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), California has prioritized recharging groundwater by spreading excess winter water and floodwater on land so it filters underground, or injecting it underground through wells. Various state programmes include incentives for farmers to percolate water on fallow fields, flood management that sets back levees, allowing floodplains to once again serve their purpose, and a search for palaeo valleys — special geological features that could rapidly move heavy water flows underground.But key hurdles remain to seize the bounty of winter floods, says Kiparsky. The main problem is that, despite the SGMA, legal legacies of the artificial divide between surface water and groundwater linger. Colorado is managing this better, he says, because it has integrated the rights systems for groundwater and surface water. Connecting them legally facilitates multipurpose projects such as routing winter water to recharge ponds, which provides habitats for birds and human recreation. The water infiltrates the ground and rejoins the river, effectively making that same water available to farmers later in the year.Peru is also focused on the connection between surface water and groundwater. Almost two-thirds of its population live on a desert coastal plain that receives less than 2.5 centimetres of rain per year and relies on water from the Andes, including from melting glaciers. In 2019, the World Bank predicted that drought-management systems in Lima — dams, reservoirs and under-city storage — would be inadequate by 20305. Over the past decade, Peru has passed a series of laws that recognize nature as part of water infrastructure and require water utilities to invest a percentage of user fees in wetlands, grasslands and groundwater systems.One type of investment is the protection of rare high-altitude wetlands called bofedales, or cushion bogs, which slow water runoff that might otherwise cause flooding or landslides, and hold onto wet-season water, releasing it in the dry season. Bofedales are peatlands, which cover just 3% of global land area but store 10% of freshwater and 30% of land-based carbon6. Unfortunately, these bogs have been subject to peat thievery for the nursery trade. Utility investments are introducing surveillance to protect bofedales and restoring damaged wetlands. Scientists have also studied a local practice of carving out more space for water in the landscape to expand the bofedales, and found that these expansions can store similar quantities of water as the original bogs7.Peru’s water utilities are also investing in a practice innovated by the Wari people 1,400 years ago. In a few Andean villages, Wari descendants still build hand-cobbled canals called amunas. The amunas route wet-season flows from mountain creeks to natural infiltration basins, where the water sinks underground and moves downslope much more slowly than it would on the surface. It emerges weeks to months later from lower-altitude springs, where farmers tap it to irrigate crops.“If we plant the water, we can harvest the water,” says Lucila Castillo Flores, a communal farmer in the Andes village of Huamantanga above the Chillón River valley in Peru. Their culture of reciprocity, with the landscape and with each other, governs how communal farmers care for the water and share the bounty. Because much of the water they use for irrigation seeps back underground, it eventually returns to rivers that supply Lima. Hydrological engineer Boris Ochoa-Tocachi, chief executive of the Ecuador-based environmental consultancy firm ATUK, and his co-researchers used dye tracers, weirs and surveys of traditional knowledge to calculate the impact of restoring amunas throughout the highlands. Lima already has 5% less water than its consumers need. The researchers showed that restoring amunas throughout the largest watershed that supplies Lima could make up that water deficit and give the capital an extra 5%, extending availability into the dry season by an average of 45 days8.Working with wildlifeTaking a holistic approach is also paying off in Washington state and in the United Kingdom, where people are allowing beavers space for their water needs. The rodents in turn protect people from droughts, wildfires and floods. Before people killed the majority of beavers, North America and Europe were much boggier, thanks to beaver dams that slowed water on the land, which gave the animals a wider area to travel, safe from land predators. Before the arrival of the Europeans, 10% of North America was covered in beaver-created, ecologically diverse wetlands.Environmental scientist Benjamin Dittbrenner, at Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts, studied the work of beavers that were relocated from human-settled areas into wilder locations in Washington state. In the first year after relocation, beaver ponds created an average of 75 times more surface and groundwater storage per 100 metres of stream than did the control site9. As snowfall decreases with climate change, such beaver-enabled water storage will become more important. Dittbrenner found that the beaver’s work would increase summer water availability by 5% in historically snowy basins. That’s about 15 million cubic metres in just one basin, he estimates — almost one-quarter of the capacity of the Tolt Reservoir that serves Seattle, Washington.

Beavers help to protect people from floods.Credit: Troy Harrison/Getty Images

Beavers have fire-fighting skills too, says Emily Fairfax, an ecohydrologist at California State University Channel Islands in Camarillo. When beavers are allowed to repopulate stretches of stream, the widened wet zone can create an important fire break. Their ponds raise the water table beyond the stream itself, making plants less flammable because they have increased access to water.And beavers can actually help to prevent flooding. Their dams slow water, so it trickles out over an extended period of time, reducing peak flows that have been increasingly inundating streamside towns in England. Researchers from the University of Exeter, UK, found that during storms, peak flows were on average 30% lower in water leaving beaver dams than in sites without beaver dams10. These benefits held even in saturated, midwinter conditions.Beaver ponds also help to scrub pollutants from the water and create habitats for other animals. The value for these services is around US$69,000 per square kilometre annually, says Fairfax. “If you let them just go bananas”, a beaver couple and their kits can engineer a mile of stream in a year, she says. Because beavers typically live 10 to 12 years, the value of a lifetime of work for two beavers would be $1.7 million, she says. And if we returned to having 100 million to 400 million beavers in North America, she adds, “then the numbers really start blowing up”.System changeFor the most part, mainstream economics doesn’t take into account the many crucial services provided by healthy, intact ecosystems: water generation, pollution mitigation, food production, crop pollination, flood protection and more.Value calculations such as Fairfax’s are increasingly tabulated by scientists but usually ignored by the market. One early effort to put a monetary value on those services was a landmark report11 in Nature in 1997, co-authored by Robert Costanza, an ecological economist at the Institute for Global Prosperity at University College London. At the time, global ecosystem services were worth tens of trillions of dollars, more than global gross domestic product (GDP). In an updated paper published in 2014, the global economy had grown but ecosystem services were still worth considerably more12.Another problem: the degradation of those services is typically not counted against profits; instead, those costs are paid by the environment and people. Hannah Druckenmiller, an environmental economist and data scientist at the non-profit organization Resources for the Future in Washington DC, has calculated that permitting development on one hectare of wetlands incurs property damages of more than $12,000 per year13. That’s because water that has been displaced from an area that used to absorb it floods surrounding communities. Druckenmiller estimates the value of wetlands nationwide, just for flood absorption, to be $1.2 trillion to 2.9 trillion. And that is a conservative estimate, based on flood damage data covering just around 30% of households in floodplains.The overarching problem is that the main measure of economic health, GDP, has a narrow focus on market-based production and consumption and does not accurately measure human well-being, Costanza asserts. “A circular economy that similarly limits itself to production will also fall short,” he says. If the goal is well-being, “the question becomes: should you be producing and consuming all those things in the first place?”. Protecting and restoring natural resources and rebuilding social capital, he says, are more likely to achieve well-being.
More from Nature Outlooks
One way to do that is to put more natural ecosystems into a common asset trust, or ‘the commons’. Creating state or local parks, hunting reserves, or wildlife refuges can restrict development and provide significant benefits to the community, says Druckenmiller. Communities that invest in protecting a wetland to prevent flood damages will see the benefit of avoided costs quickly, she says, often with a payback period of less than five years.Another strategy to protect the commons, says Costanza, is the ‘rights of nature movement’, which began in the early 1970s and has gained ground over the past 15 years. It includes enshrinements in the constitutions of Bolivia and Ecuador, local government changes across the United States, and personhood for the Whanganui River in New Zealand, the Ganges River in India and the Magpie River in Canada. That might sound unusual to some people, but in the United States, some corporations have personhood. Granting personhood to a river enables people to argue in court on behalf of its rights. A river’s rights can include freedom from pollution, protection of its cycles and evolution, and space to fulfil its ecosystem functions. The rights of nature movement recognizes that healthy ecosystems make everything work, and “people are part of that system and not separate from it”, says Costanza.States reforming century-old water rights, utilities investing in wetlands and Indigenous techniques and scientists deploying beavers for their engineering prowess are definitive shifts from business as usual. “We’ve made a lot of progress integrating [natural capital] into the system, where it doesn’t get pushed aside because other things are higher priority,” says Druckenmiller.But Costanza thinks much deeper change is needed. “A lot of the things that we’re talking about with the circular economy — regenerating wetlands, planting forests, dealing with climate change — are difficult to implement because the underlying goal is still GDP growth, and these things get in the way of that,” he says.People applying slow-water approaches are doing what they can in the dominant economy. But Costanza says that people can better protect social capital and environmental systems by switching from GDP to metrics such as the Genuine Progress Indicator or one of “literally hundreds” of alternatives, he says.Society’s fundamental goals might seem like a high bar to set, but some of these metrics have already been adopted by governments in Maryland, Vermont, Bhutan and New Zealand. Such shifts move beyond greenwashed versions of a circular economy and help to facilitate water detectives’ work in caring for water systems so that they can sustain human and other life. More

Körner, C., Paulsen, J. & Spehn, E. M. A definition of mountains and their bioclimatic belts for global comparisons of biodiversity data. Alp. Bot. 121, 73–78 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Humboldt, A. v. & Bonpland, A. Ideen zu einer Geographie der Pflanzen nebst einem Naturgemälde der Tropenländer (Cotta, 1807).Barry, R. G. Mountain Weather and Climate (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992).Paulsen, J. & Körner, C. A climate-based model to predict potential treeline position around the globe. Alp. Bot. 124, 1–12 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Huss, M. et al. Toward mountains without permanent snow and ice. Earth’s Future 5, 418–435 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, R. B. 100 years of progress on mountain meteorology research. Meteorol. Monogr. 59, 20.1–20.73 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Immerzeel, W. W. et al. Importance and vulnerability of the world’s water towers. Nature 577, 364–369 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bradley, R. S., Keimig, F. T. & Diaz, H. F. Projected temperature changes along the American Cordillera and the planned GCOS network. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL020229 (2004).Zappa, G., Ceppi, P. & Shepherd, T. G. Time-evolving sea-surface warming patterns modulate the climate change response of subtropical precipitation over land. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 4539–4545 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Payne, A. E. et al. Responses and impacts of atmospheric rivers to climate change. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 1, 143–157 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mooney, H., Dunn, E., Shropshire, F. & Song, L. Vegetation comparisons between the Mediterranean climatic areas of California and Chile. Flora 159, 480–496 (1970).Article 

Google Scholar 
di Castri, F. in Mediterranean Type Ecosystems (eds di Castri, F. & Mooney, H. A.) 21–36 (Springer, 1973).Cody, M. L. & Mooney, H. A. Convergence versus nonconvergence in Mediterranean-climate ecosystems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 9, 265–321 (1978).Article 

Google Scholar 
Morales, M. S. et al. Six hundred years of South American tree rings reveal an increase in severe hydroclimatic events since mid-20th century. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 16816–16823 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Viviroli, D., Kummu, M., Meybeck, M., Kallio, M. & Wada, Y. Increasing dependence of lowland populations on mountain water resources. Nat. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0559-9 (2020).Siirila-Woodburn, E. et al. A low-to-no snow future and its impacts on water resources in the western United States. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2, 800–819 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pepin, N. et al. Elevation-dependent warming in mountain regions of the world. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 424–430 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sturm, M., Goldstein, M. A. & Parr, C. Water and life from snow: a trillion dollar science question. Water Resour. Res. 53, 3534–3544 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Saavedra, F. A., Kampf, S. K., Fassnacht, S. R. & Sibold, J. S. Changes in Andes snow cover from MODIS data, 2000–2016. Cryosphere 12, 1027–1046 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Garreaud, R. D. et al. The Central Chile Mega Drought (2010–2018): a climate dynamics perspective. Int. J. Climatol. 40, 421–439 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Milly, P. C. D. & Dunne, K. A. Colorado River flow dwindles as warming-driven loss of reflective snow energizes evaporation. Science 367, 1252–1255 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Muñoz, A. A. et al. Water crisis in Petorca Basin, Chile: the combined effects of a mega-drought and water management. Water https://doi.org/10.3390/w12030648 (2020).Overpeck, J. T. & Udall, B. Climate change and the aridification of North America. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 11856–11858 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Serrano-Notivoli, R. et al. Hydroclimatic variability in Santiago (Chile) since the 16th century. Int. J. Climatol. 41, E2015–E2030 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hock, R. et al. in Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (eds Pörtner, H.-O. et al.) Ch. 2 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2019).Held, I. M. & Soden, B. J. Robust responses of the hydrological cycle to global warming. J. Clim. 19, 5686–5699 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Xu, Y. & Ramanathan, V. Latitudinally asymmetric response of global surface temperature: implications for regional climate change. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL052116 (2012).Friedman, A. R., Hwang, Y.-T., Chiang, J. C. & Frierson, D. M. Interhemispheric temperature asymmetry over the twentieth century and in future projections. J. Clim. 26, 5419–5433 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Putnam, A. E. & Broecker, W. S. Human-induced changes in the distribution of rainfall. Sci. Adv. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600871 (2017).Allan, R. P. et al. Advances in understanding large-scale responses of the water cycle to climate change. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1472, 49–75 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Amatulli, G. et al. A suite of global, cross-scale topographic variables for environmental and biodiversity modeling. Sci. Data 5, 180040 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shea, J. M., Whitfield, P. H., Fang, X. & Pomeroy, J. W. The role of basin geometry in mountain snowpack responses to climate change. Front. Water 3, 4 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Patricola, C. M. et al. Maximizing ENSO as a source of western US hydroclimate predictability. Clim. Dyn. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-019-05004-8 (2019).Eidhammer, T., Grubišić, V., Rasmussen, R. & Ikdea, K. Winter precipitation efficiency of mountain ranges in the Colorado Rockies under climate change. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 123, 2573–2590 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lynn, E. et al. Technical note: precipitation-phase partitioning at landscape scales to regional scales. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 24, 5317–5328 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bales, R. C. et al. Mountain hydrology of the western United States. Water Resour. Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004387 (2006).Jennings, K., Winchell, T. S., Livneh, B. & Molotch, N. P. Spatial variation of the rain–snow temperature threshold across the northern hemisphere. Nat. Commun. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03629-7 (2018).Colombo, R. et al. Introducing thermal inertia for monitoring snowmelt processes with remote sensing. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 4308–4319 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Demory, M. et al. The role of horizontal resolution in simulating drivers of the global hydrological cycle. Clim. Dyn. 42, 2201–2225 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rhoades, A. M., Ullrich, P. A. & Zarzycki, C. M. Projecting 21st century snowpack trends in western USA mountains using variable-resolution CESM. Clim. Dyn. 50, 261–288 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kapnick, S. B. et al. Potential for western US seasonal snowpack prediction. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 1180–1185 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Palazzi, E., Mortarini, L., Terzago, S. & Von Hardenberg, J. Elevation-dependent warming in global climate model simulations at high spatial resolution. Clim. Dyn. 52, 2685–2702 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Haarsma, R. J. et al. High Resolution Model Intercomparison Project (HighResMIP v1.0) for CMIP6. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 4185–4208 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
O’Neill, B. C. et al. The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 3461–3482 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Körner, C. et al. A global inventory of mountains for bio-geographical applications. Alp. Bot. 127, 1–15 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Conover, W. J. Practical Nonparametric Statistics Vol. 350 (John Wiley & Sons, 1999).Woodhouse, C. A. & Pederson, G. T. Investigating runoff efficiency in Upper Colorado River streamflow over past centuries. Water Resour. Res. 54, 286–300 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lehner, F., Wahl, E. R., Wood, A. W., Blatchford, D. B. & Llewellyn, D. Assessing recent declines in Upper Rio Grande runoff efficiency from a paleoclimate perspective. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 4124–4133 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Berghuijs, W., Woods, R. & Hrachowitz, M. A precipitation shift from snow towards rain leads to a decrease in streamflow. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 583–586 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, D., Wrzesien, M. L., Durand, M., Adam, J. & Lettenmaier, D. P. How much runoff originates as snow in the western United States, and how will that change in the future? Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 6163–6172 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Livneh, B. & Badger, A. M. Drought less predictable under declining future snowpack. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 452–458 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Trujillo, E. & Molotch, N. P. Snowpack regimes of the western United States. Water Resour. Res. 50, 5611–5623 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Musselman, K. N., Clark, M. P., Liu, C., Ikeda, K. & Rasmussen, R. Slower snowmelt in a warmer world. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 214–219 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barnhart, T. B., Tague, C. L. & Molotch, N. P. The counteracting effects of snowmelt rate and timing on runoff. Water Resour. Res. 56, e2019WR026634 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bambach, N. E. et al. Projecting climate change in South America using variable-resolution Community Earth System Model: an application to Chile. Int. J. Climatol. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.7379 (2021).Rhoades, A. M. et al. The shifting scales of western U.S. landfalling atmospheric rivers under climate change. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2020GL089096 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rhoades, A. M., Risser, M. D., Stone, D. A., Wehner, M. F. & Jones, A. D. Implications of warming on western United States landfalling atmospheric rivers and their flood damages. Weather Clim. Extrem. 32, 100326 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Milly, P. C. D. et al. Stationarity is dead: whither water management? Science 319, 573–574 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cosgrove, W. J. & Loucks, D. P. Water management: current and future challenges and research directions. Water Resour. Res. 51, 4823–4839 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fernández, A. et al. Dendrohydrology and water resources management in south-central Chile: lessons from the Río Imperial streamflow reconstruction. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 22, 2921–2935 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Castilla-Rho, J., Rojas, R., Andersen, M., Holley, C. & Mariethoz, G. Sustainable groundwater management: how long and what will it take? Glob. Environ. Change 58, 101972 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Scanlon, B. R., Reedy, R. C., Faunt, C. C., Pool, D. & Uhlman, K. Enhancing drought resilience with conjunctive use and managed aquifer recharge in California and Arizona. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 035013 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sterle, K., Hatchett, B. J., Singletary, L. & Pohll, G. Hydroclimate variability in snow-fed river systems: local water managers’ perspectives on adapting to the new normal. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 100, 1031–1048 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dillon, P. et al. Sixty years of global progress in managed aquifer recharge. Hydrogeol. J. 27, 1–30 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Delaney, C. J. et al. Forecast informed reservoir operations using ensemble streamflow predictions for a multipurpose reservoir in Northern California. Water Resour. Res. 56, e2019WR026604 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Szinai, J. K., Deshmukh, R., Kammen, D. M. & Jones, A. D. Evaluating cross-sectoral impacts of climate change and adaptations on the energy–water nexus: a framework and California case study. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 124065 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vicuña, S. et al. in Water Resources of Chile (eds Fernández, B. & Gironás, J.) 347–363 (Springer International, 2021).Williams, J. H. et al. Carbon-neutral pathways for the United States. AGU Adv. 2, e2020AV000284 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fasullo, J. T. Evaluating simulated climate patterns from the CMIP archives using satellite and reanalysis datasets using the Climate Model Assessment Tool (CMATv1). Geosci. Model Dev. 13, 3627–3642 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hirai, M. et al. Development and validation of a new land surface model for JMA’s operational global model using the CEOP observation dataset. J. Meteorol. Soc. Japan II 85A, 1–24 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Baldwin, J. W., Atwood, A. R., Vecchi, G. A. & Battisti, D. S. Outsize influence of Central American orography on global climate. AGU Adv. 2, e2020AV000343 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rhoades, A. M. et al. Sensitivity of mountain hydroclimate simulations in variable-resolution CESM to microphysics and horizontal resolution. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 10, 1357–1380 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hawkins, E. & Sutton, R. The potential to narrow uncertainty in regional climate predictions. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 90, 1095–1108 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hawkins, E., Smith, R. S., Gregory, J. M. & Stainforth, D. A. Irreducible uncertainty in near-term climate projections. Clim. Dyn. 46, 3807–3819 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lehner, F. et al. Partitioning climate projection uncertainty with multiple large ensembles and CMIP5/6. Earth Syst. Dyn. 11, 491–508 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Marshall, A. M., Abatzoglou, J. T., Link, T. E. & Tennant, C. J. Projected changes in interannual variability of peak snowpack amount and timing in the western United States. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 8882–8892 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Huning, L. S. & AghaKouchak, A. Global snow drought hot spots and characteristics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 19753–19759 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hatchett, B. J., Rhoades, A. M. & McEvoy, D. J. Monitoring the daily evolution and extent of snow drought. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 22, 869–890 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Svoboda, M. et al. The Drought Monitor. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 83, 1181–1190 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sexstone, G. A., Driscoll, J. M., Hay, L. E., Hammond, J. C. & Barnhart, T. B. Runoff sensitivity to snow depletion curve representation within a continental scale hydrologic model. Hydrol. Process. 34, 2365–2380 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Mote, P. W., Li, S., Lettenmaier, D. P., Xiao, M. & Engel, R. Dramatic declines in snowpack in the western US. NPJ Clim. Atmos. Sci. 1, 2 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Huning, L. S. & AghaKouchak, A. Approaching 80 years of snow water equivalent information by merging different data streams. Sci. Data 7, 333 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mote, P. W. et al. Perspectives on the causes of exceptionally low 2015 snowpack in the western United States. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 10980–10988 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Seneviratne, S. I. et al. Investigating soil moisture–climate interactions in a changing climate: a review. Earth Sci Rev. 99, 125–161, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2010.02.004 (2010).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bolten, J. D., Crow, W. T., Zhan, X., Jackson, T. J. & Reynolds, C. A. Evaluating the utility of remotely sensed soil moisture retrievals for operational agricultural drought monitoring. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 3, 57–66, https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTARS.2009.2037163 (2010).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Orth, R. & Seneviratne, S. I. Using soil moisture forecasts for sub-seasonal summer temperature predictions in Europe. Clim Dyn. 43, 3403–3418, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-014-2112-x (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wanders, N., Karssenberg, D., de Roo, A., de Jong, S. M. & Bierkens, M. F. P. The suitability of remotely sensed soil moisture for improving operational flood forecasting. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 18, 2343–2357, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-2343-2014 (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Martínez-Fernández, J., González-Zamora, A., Sánchez, N., Gumuzzio, A. & Herrero-Jiménez, C. Satellite soil moisture for agricultural drought monitoring: assessment of the SMOS derived Soil Water Deficit Index. Remote Sens. Environ. 177, 277–286, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2016.02.064 (2016).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
O, S., Hou, X. & Orth, R. Observational evidence of wildfire-promoting soil moisture anomalies. Sci. Rep. 10, 11008, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-67530-4 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kroll, J. et al. Spatially varying relevance of hydrometeorological hazards for vegetation productivity extremes. Biogeosciences 19, 477–489, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-477-2022 (2022).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Famiglietti, J. S., Ryu, D., Berg, A. A., Rodell, M. & Jackson, T. J. Field observations of soil moisture variability across scales: Soil moisture variability across scales. Water Resour. Res. 44, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005804 (2008).Brocca, L., Ciabatta, L., Massari, C., Camici, S. & Tarpanelli, A. Soil moisture for hydrological applications: Open questions and new opportunities. Water 9, 140, https://doi.org/10.3390/w9020140 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rodell, M. et al. The global land data assimilation system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. 85, 381–394, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-85-3-381 (2004).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Naz, B. S., Kollet, S., Franssen, H.-J. H., Montzka, C. & Kurtz, W. A 3 km spatially and temporally consistent European daily soil moisture reanalysis from 2000 to 2015. Sci. Data 7, 111, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0450-6 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Muñoz-Sabater, J. et al. ERA5-land: a state-of-the-art global reanalysis dataset for land applications. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 13, 4349–4383, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-4349-2021 (2021).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Koster, R. D. et al. On the nature of soil moisture in land surface models. J. Clim. 22, 4322–4335, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI2832.1 (2009).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Petropoulos, G. P., Ireland, G. & Barrett, B. Surface soil moisture retrievals from remote sensing: Current status, products & future trends. Phys. Chem. Earth. 83-84, 36–56, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2015.02.009 (2015).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Dorigo, W. et al. ESA CCI Soil Moisture for improved Earth system understanding: state-of-the art and future directions. Remote Sens. Environ. 203, 185–215, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.07.001 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Chan, S. et al. Development and assessment of the SMAP enhanced passive soil moisture product. Remote Sens. Environ. 204, 931–941, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.08.025 (2018).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Yao, P. et al. A long term global daily soil moisture dataset derived from AMSR-E and AMSR2 (2002–2019). Sci. Data 8, 143, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021-00925-8 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Park, S. et al. Downscaling GLDAS soil moisture data in East Asia through fusion of multi-sensors by optimizing modified regression trees. Water 9, 332, https://doi.org/10.3390/w9050332 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mao, H., Kathuria, D., Duffield, N. & Mohanty, B. P. Gap filling of high–resolution soil moisture for SMAP/sentinel–1: A two–layer machine learning–based framework. Water Resour. Res. 55, 6986–7009, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR024902 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Guevara, M., Taufer, M. & Vargas, R. Gap-free global annual soil moisture: 15 km grids for 1991–2018. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 13, 1711–1735, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-1711-2021 (2021).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
O, S. & Orth, R. Global soil moisture data derived through machine learning trained with in-situ measurements. Sci. Data 8, 170, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021-00964-1 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Guo, Z., Dirmeyer, P. A., Gao, X. & Zhao, M. Improving the quality of simulated soil moisture with a multi-model ensemble approach. Q.J.R. Meteorol. Soc. 133, 731–747, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.48 (2007).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Bai, W. et al. The performance of multiple model-simulated soil moisture datasets relative to ECV satellite data in China. Water 10, 1384, https://doi.org/10.3390/w10101384 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Reichstein, M. et al. Deep learning and process understanding for data-driven Earth system science. Nature 566, 195–204, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-0912-1 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Geer, A. J. Learning earth system models from observations: machine learning or data assimilation. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A. 379, 20200089, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2020.0089 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, Y., Keenan, T. F. & Zhou, S. Exacerbated drought impacts on global ecosystems due to structural overshoot. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 1490–1498, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01551-8 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bastos, A. et al. Vulnerability of European ecosystems to two compound dry and hot summers in 2018 and 2019. Earth Syst. Dynam. 12, 1015–1035, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-1015-2021 (2021).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
O, S. et al. The role of climate and vegetation in regulating drought-heat extremes. J. Clim. 35, 5677–5685, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-21-0675.1 (2022).Meng, X., Wang, H., Chen, J., Yang, M. & Pan, Z. High-resolution simulation and validation of soil moisture in the arid region of Northwest China. Sci. Rep. 9, 17227, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-52923-x (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Peng, J. et al. A roadmap for high-resolution satellite soil moisture applications – confronting product characteristics with user requirements. Remote Sens. Environ. 252, 112162, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2020.112162 (2021).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Sabaghy, S., Walker, J. P., Renzullo, L. J. & Jackson, T. J. Spatially enhanced passive microwave derived soil moisture: Capabilities and opportunities. Remote Sens. Environ. 209, 551–580, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.02.065 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Nayak, H. P. et al. High-resolution gridded soil moisture and soil temperature datasets for the indian monsoon region. Sci. Data 5, 180264, https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2018.264 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Vergopolan, N. et al. Field-scale soil moisture bridges the spatial-scale gap between drought monitoring and agricultural yields. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 25, 1827–1847, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1827-2021 (2021).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Abbaszadeh, P. et al. High-resolution SMAP satellite soil moisture product: Exploring the opportunities. Bull. Amer. Meteor. 102, 309–315, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-21-0016.1 (2021).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Hochreiter, S. & Schmidhuber, J. Long Short-term memory. Neural Comput. 9, 1735–1780, https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735 (1997).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gao, P. et al. Modeling for the prediction of soil moisture in litchi orchard with deep long short-term memory. Agriculture 12, 25, https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12010025 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, Q. et al. An attention-aware LSTM model for soil moisture and soil temperature prediction. Geoderma 409, 115651, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2021.115651 (2022).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Dorigo, W. A. et al. The International Soil Moisture Network: a data hosting facility for global in situ soil moisture measurements. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 15, 1675–1698, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-1675-2011 (2011).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Dorigo, W. et al. The International Soil Moisture Network: serving Earth system science for over a decade. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 25, 5749–5804, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5749-2021 (2021).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
O, S., Dutra, E. & Orth, R. Robustness of process-based versus data-driven modeling in changing climatic conditions. J. Hydrometeorol. 21, 1929–1944, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-20-0072.1 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Beck, H. E. et al. Global-scale regionalization of hydrologic model parameters. Water Resour. Res. 52, 3599–3622, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR018247 (2016).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Mittelbach, H. & Seneviratne, S. I. A new perspective on the spatio-temporal variability of soil moisture: temporal dynamics versus time-invariant contributions. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 16, 2169–2179, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-2169-2012 (2012).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Amante, C. ETOPO1 1 arc-minute global relief model: Procedures, data sources and analysis. National Geophysical Data Center, NOAA https://doi.org/10.7289/V5C8276M (2009).Wieder, W. Regridded harmonized world soil database v1.2. ORNL Distributed Active Archive Center https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1247 (2014).Kratzert, F. et al. Towards learning universal, regional, and local hydrological behaviors via machine learning applied to large-sample datasets. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 23, 5089–5110, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-5089-2019 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
LeCun, Y. A., Bottou, L., Orr, G. B. & Müller, K.-R. Efficient BackProp. In Neural networks: tricks of the trade, Second Edition, 9–48, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35289-8_3 (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012).Gauch, M. et al. Rainfall–runoff prediction at multiple timescales with a single long short-term memory network. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 25, 2045–2062, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-2045-2021 (2021).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
O, S., Orth, R., Weber, U. & Park, S. K. High-resolution european daily soil moisture derived with machine learning (2003–2020). Figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.5957127 (2022).Martens, B. et al. GLEAM v3: satellite-based land evaporation and root-zone soil moisture. Geosci. Model Dev. 10, 1903–1925, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1903-2017 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Bogena, H. R. et al. COSMOS-europe: A european network of cosmic-ray neutron soil moisture sensors. Earth Syst. Sci. Data. 14, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1125-2022 (2022).Koster, R. D. & Suarez, M. J. Soil moisture memory in climate models. J. Hydrometeorol. 2, 558–570, https://doi.org/10.1175/1525-7541(2001)0022.0.CO;2 (2001).Orth, R., Koster, R. D. & Seneviratne, S. I. Inferring soil moisture memory from streamflow observations using a simple water balance model. J. Hydrometeorol. 14, 1773–1790, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-12-099.1 (2013).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Wu, W. & Dickinson, R. E. Time scales of layered soil moisture memory in the context of land–atmosphere interaction. J. Clim. 17, 2752–2764, 10.1175/1520-0442(2004)0172.0.CO;2 (2004).McColl, K. A. et al. The global distribution and dynamics of surface soil moisture. Nature Geosci. 10, 100–104, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2868 (2017).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Laaha, G. et al. The european 2015 drought from a hydrological perspective. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 21, 3001–3024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-3001-2017 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Ionita, M. et al. The European 2015 drought from a climatological perspective. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 21, 1397–1419, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-1397-2017 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Meyer, H. & Pebesma, E. Predicting into unknown space? estimating the area of applicability of spatial prediction models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 12, 1620–1633, https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13650 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ghiggi, G., Humphrey, V., Seneviratne, S. I. & Gudmundsson, L. GRUN: an observation-based global gridded runoff dataset from 1902 to 2014. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 11, 1655–1674, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-1655-2019 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Jung, M. et al. The FLUXCOM ensemble of global land-atmosphere energy fluxes. Sci. Data 6, 74, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0076-8 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kraft, B., Jung, M., Körner, M., Koirala, S. & Reichstein, M. Towards hybrid modeling of the global hydrological cycle. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 26, 1579–1614, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1579-2022 (2022).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Dabrowska-Zielinska, K. et al. Soil moisture in the Biebrza wetlands retrieved from Sentinel-1 imagery. Remote Sens. 10, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10121979 (2018).Brocca, L. et al. Soil moisture estimation through ASCAT and AMSR-E sensors: An intercomparison and validation study across Europe. Remote Sens. Environ. 115, 3390–3408, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.08.003 (2011).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Zreda, M. et al. COSMOS: the COsmic-ray Soil Moisture Observing System. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci. 16, 4079–4099, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-4079-2012 (2012).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Ikonen, J. et al. The Sodankylä in situ soil moisture observation network: an example application of ESA CCI soil moisture product evaluation. Geosci. Instrum. Methods Data Syst. 5, 95–108, https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-5-95-2016 (2016).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Al-Yaari, A. et al. The AQUI soil moisture network for satellite microwave remote sensing validation in south-western France. Remote Sens. 10, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10111839 (2018).Cobley, A., Hemment, D., Rowan, J., Taylor, N. & Woods, M. GROW soil moisture data. University of Dundee https://doi.org/10.15132/10000156 (2020).Bircher, S., Skou, N., Jensen, K. H., Walker, J. P. & Rasmussen, L. A soil moisture and temperature network for SMOS validation in Western Denmark. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 16, 1445–1463, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-1445-2012 (2012).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Morbidelli, R., Saltalippi, C., Flammini, A., Rossi, E. & Corradini, C. Soil water content vertical profiles under natural conditions: matching of experiments and simulations by a conceptual model. Hydrol. Process. 28, 4732–4742, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9973 (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Biddoccu, M., Ferraris, S., Opsi, F. & Cavallo, E. Long-term monitoring of soil management effects on runoff and soil erosion in sloping vineyards in Alto Monferrato (North–West Italy. Soil Tillage Res. 155, 176–189, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2015.07.005 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Beyrich, F. & Adam, W. Site and Data Report for the Lindenberg Reference Site in CEOP – Phase 1. Berichte des Deutschen Wetterdienstes (2007).Sanchez, N., Martinez-Fernandez, J., Scaini, A. & Perez-Gutierrez, C. Validation of the SMOS L2 soil moisture data in the REMEDHUS network (Spain. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 50, 1602–1611, https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2012.2186971 (2012).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Schaefer, G. L., Cosh, M. H. & Jackson, T. J. The USDA natural resources conservation service soil climate analysis network (SCAN. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 24, 2073–2077, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JTECHA930.1 (2007).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Calvet, J.-C. et al. In situ soil moisture observations for the CAL/VAL of SMOS: the SMOSMANIA network. In 2007 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, 1196–1199, https://doi.org/10.1109/IGARSS.2007.4423019 (IEEE, 2007).Marczewski, W. et al. Strategies for validating and directions for employing SMOS data, in the Cal-Val project SWEX (3275) for wetlands. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 7, 7007–7057, https://doi.org/10.5194/hessd-7-7007-2010 (2010).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Zacharias, S. et al. A network of terrestrial environmental observatories in Germany. Vadose Zone J. 10, 955–973, https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2010.0139 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schlenz, F., dall’Amico, J. T., Loew, A. & Mauser, W. Uncertainty assessment of the SMOS validation in the upper Danube catchment. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 50, 1517–1529, https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2011.2171694 (2012).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Bell, J. E. et al. U.S. Climate Reference Network soil moisture and temperature observations. J. Hydrometeor. 14, 977–988, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-12-0146.1 (2013).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Kirchengast, G., Kabas, T., Leuprecht, A., Bichler, C. & Truhetz, H. WegenerNet: a pioneering high-resolution network for monitoring weather and climate. Bull. Amer. Meteor. 95, 227–242, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00161.1 (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Petropoulos, G. P. & McCalmont, J. P. An operational in situ soil moisture & soil temperature monitoring network for West Wales, UK: The WSMN network. Sensors 95, 227–242, https://doi.org/10.3390/s17071481 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Beck, H. E. et al. MSWX: Global 3-hourly 0.1° bias-corrected meteorological data including near-real-time updates and forecast ensembles. Bull. Amer. Meteor. 103, E710–E732, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-21-0145.1 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Beck, H. E. et al. MSWEP V2 global 3-hourly 0.1° precipitation: Methodology and quantitative assessment. Bull. Amer. Meteor. 100, 473–500, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0138.1 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Fischer, G. et al. Global agro-ecological zones assessment for agriculture (gaez 2008). IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria and FAO, Rome, Italy (2008). More

Fishing vessels have legitimate reasons to turn off their position-tracking systems — but there are some suspicious reasons, too.Credit: Anthony Wallace/AFP/Getty

When fishing vessels hide their locations, they sometimes reveal a wealth of information. Gaps in tracking data can hint at illegal activity, finds a modelling study1.Some ships carry automatic identification systems (AIS), which pinpoint their locations and help to prevent collisions, but can be turned off manually. Researchers studied gaps in the tracking data to identify hotspots where fishing vessels frequently disabled their devices on purpose — and to explore the possible reasons. The findings suggest that vessels hid up to 6% of their activity — more than 4.9 million hours between 2017 and 2019. Some of these gaps could mask illegal fishing, finds the study, which was published in Science Advances this month..The study uses holes in tracking data “to tell us more about what we’re not seeing, what we’re missing”, says Juan Mayorga, a marine data scientist based in Santa Barbara, California, who is part of the National Geographic Society’s Pristine Seas project. “That is a really valuable contribution.”Expensive problemIllegal, unreported and unregulated fishing costs the global economy up to US$25 billion each year. It is also detrimental to marine life, and some evidence suggests that it is linked to human-rights violations such as people trafficking. Heather Welch, a spatial ecologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and her colleagues analysed more than 3.7 billion signals from vessels, sent over three years and recorded in the Global Fishing Watch AIS data set. The team used a model to distinguish between gaps caused by vessels intentionally turning off their AIS and those that were due to technical issues. Gaps of 12 hours or more when ships were at least 50 nautical miles from shore in areas with adequate signal reception were suspected to be intentional disabling.

Source: Ref 1.

The team found that 82% of time lost to AIS disabling happened on ships flagged from Spain, the United States, Taiwan and the Chinese mainland (see ‘Flag of origin’). Although most vessels that use AIS come from middle- and upper-income countries, so the data are biased towards those countries, the study says. “AIS is not feasible for a lot of countries globally at the moment,” says Claire Collins, a marine social scientist at the Zoological Society of London.There are many reasons vessels intentionally turn off their AIS, says Welch, and not all of them are nefarious. For instance, crews might hide their location in areas where pirates are a threat, or might obscure their position from competitors when fishing in a bountiful area. More iniquitous reasons to hide a ship’s location include trying to mask illegal fishing or unauthorized transshipment — transfers of cargo between ships at sea — she says.The team used another model to investigate what was behind the intentional AIS signal gaps, looking at factors such as how productive an area is for fishing, the risk of piracy and the level of transshipment activity. The results indicate locations in which the signal gaps are potentially nefarious, but they cannot definitively say whether these gaps hide illegal activity, says Welch.HotspotsThe model revealed 4 hotspots for intentional AIS disabling: 16% of gaps occurred next to Argentina’s exclusive economic zone, 13% in the Northwest Pacific Ocean, 8% adjacent to the exclusive economic zones of West African nations and 3% near Alaska. Apart from Alaska, these hotspots are already regions of concern for illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. They produce a lot of fish and have limited management, partially because of their locations in the high seas. Signal gaps near exclusive economic zones indicate that vessels could be hiding that they are crossing boundaries without authorization to fish in restricted areas, says Welch. “If they were allowed to go in that zone, why would they disable their AIS?” she says.Drifting longlines were the fishing vessels found to disable their AIS most often, followed by tuna purse seines (see ‘Out of sight’). Intentional AIS disabling events were also common near transshipment hotspots. Offloading catch at sea helps to reduce costs, but past research has linked it to human trafficking and slipping illegal catch on to the market.

Source: Ref 1.

The research is a good way to start exploring what AIS-disabling data can expose, and could help researchers to conduct finer-scale studies in the future, says Collins. “It’s a really important study.”Mayorga agrees that the data will aid fishery managers in understanding the magnitude and patterns of illegal fishing, helping them to zero in on specific problematic regions and improve enforcement of laws at sea. More