Map the dependency
Connect water sources, treatment, storage, reuse and discharge to the activities they support. Identify which interruption matters and to whom. Keep current seasonal variability visible before adding future climate scenarios; a project may already be exposed to conditions absent from its nominal design basis.
Turn hazards into performance questions
For heat, drought or intense rainfall, ask what changes in availability, quality, loading, access or utility supply. A hazard list becomes useful when each entry is tied to an asset, a failure mechanism and an observable consequence. Avoid assigning a precise site probability without a suitable basis.
Compare responses and trade-offs
Review demand reduction, reuse, storage, alternative supply, operational flexibility and ecosystem-related measures where relevant. Ask whether a response transfers pressure to energy use, residual management or another water user. State which assumptions determine its usefulness.
Choose indicators for revisiting the decision
Record the scenario, performance threshold, proposed action and trigger for review. A climate–water brief should distinguish measures useful now from those that depend on a future condition. It should also show what local data would most improve confidence.
| Review field | What to record |
|---|---|
| Exposure | Hazard, affected service and time horizon. |
| System response | Water balance, quality or operating constraint. |
| Options | Candidate response and associated trade-offs. |
| Decision trigger | Observation that warrants action or reassessment. |
Example deliverable structure. No client data or project results.
Sources & context
Background reading checked 9 October 2026. The review questions and structures above are BGF editorial guidance; the references are not BGF project evidence or endorsements. Apply them to the relevant site, data and agreed scope.