climate change impacts in the czech-german elbe river basin · climate change impacts in the...
TRANSCRIPT
Climate Change Impacts in the Czech-German Elbe River Basin
Water availability under global change
5.-6. NOVEMBER 2007, Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic, Jan Evangelista Purkyně University
S. KadenM. Kaltofen, M. Hentschel, M. Redetzky
H. Koch, K. Mazur
O. Dietrich, S. Schweigert
WASY GmbHDHI Group
BTU Cottbus
ZALF
Contents
1 Methodological background
2 WBalMo Elbe
3 Results for the Czech part of the Elbe river basin
4 Results for the German part of the Elbe river basin
5 Conclusions
sub project III – main goals
Proj
ect I
: Int
egra
tion
und
-coo
rdin
atio
n
Regional actors, decision bodies
Frame of DevelopmentProject II: Regionalisation of Global Change
Glo
bal
Cha
nge
Man
agem
ent l
evel
Project V: Cross conflict field scenario analysis
Management-options
Impact-analysis
Evaluation
Project IV:Surface Water Quality
Nutrient entry
Cost-efficiency analysis
Eco-hydrological Indicators
Socio-economic Indicators
Project III: Surface Water Availability
Run off regulation
Multi-criteria analysis
Eco-hydrological Indicators
Socio-economicIndicators
Project advisory board
Development of wateravilability under conditionsof global change (climate andsocio-economics)?
Management strategies / policyoptions to solve arisingproblems of water availability?Socio-economic and ecological consequencesof those strategies?
Methodological background
past future
Water yield
Water use
Water manage-ment measures
Management options
Scenarios of future development
Stochastic character + scenarios of change
ClimateLand-use
Water demand
Methodological background
Watermanagement
(WBALMO)
Water use
Energy / Mining
(KASIM)
Households /business
(HAUSHALT WASSER)
Industry
(INDUSTRIE WASSER)
Agriculture / Irrigation
Wetlands
(MODAM)
Development of watertechnologies
Inflow
Evaporation
Irrigation
Wetlands
Water suppliers
Industry
Mining
Power plants
Nutrient load(MONERIS)
Point source: Industry
Regionalization of global change
Future climate
(STAR)
Development of agricultural sector
(RAUMIS)
Economics and demography
(REGE)
Minimal flow forconservation
Transport on inlandwaterways
Point source: Sewage plant
Diffuse source: Sealed surfaces
Diffuse source: Erosion
Diffuse source: AtmosphericDeposition
Diffuse source: Drainage
Diffuse source: Surface denudation
Diffuse source: Groundwater
Diffuse source / Sink: Wetlands
Land use and regional water balance
Hydrological cycle and crop yields
(SWIM)
Land use(LAND USE SCANNER)
Development of energy sector
(KASIM)
Transport on inlandwaterways
X1X1
X13X13X13
X15X15
X4X4
X3X3
X2X2
Y2Y2
Y1Y1
Y5Y5
Y3Y3
Y4Y4
Y7Y7
Z8Z8
Y8Y8
Z1Z1Z1
Y6Y6
Z6Z6Z6
Z7Z7
Z9Z9
Z5Z5
Z1
Z2
Z3
Z4
Z1
Z2
Z3
Z4
Water quality(QSim)
Nutrient concentr.Phytoplankton
Oxygen
Methodological background
Recording and Statistical Analysis of Systems States (Events)
DeterministicP-Q-Model
Q P, PET
Stochastic Simulation of Meteorological and Hydrological Processes
Management Rules, Ranking Rules
Deterministic Simulation of Water Use
Methodological background
e.g. reliability of water supply
or minimum flow
Balancing water yield and water demand withinsocio-economic context
DeterministicP-Q-Model
Q P, PET
Stochastic Simulation of Meteorological and Hydrological Processes
Management Rules, Ranking Rules
Deterministic Simulation of Water Use
Recording and Statistical Analysis of Systems States (Events)
Stochasticgenerated
climate series
Methodological background
WBalMo
STAR II
Stochastic Simulation of Meteorological and Hydrological Processes
Management Rules, Ranking Rules
Deterministic Simulation of Water Use
Recording and Statistical Analysis of Systems States (Events)
SWIM
Balancing water yield and water demand withinsocio-economic context
DeterministicP-Q-Model
Q P, PET
e.g. reliability of water supply
or minimum flow
Stochasticgenerated
climate series
Methodological background
Methodological background
- is an input from precipitation-runoff-model SWIM: for each simulation sub catchment at its end profile
- can be an output from WBalMo: at each balance profile at each step of balancing process
Water yield
WBalMo Elbe
Modular structure
- 22 modules: central module is “Elbeschlauch” (Elbe main river)
- each module can be used stand-alone
WBalMo Elbe
WBalMo BP catchment reservoir dyn. elements water user wetlands Elbe Main River 60 35 2 13 73 Eger (CR) 96 63 16 25 218
Lower Vltava (CR) 33 33 9 9 36 Upper Vltava (CR) 28 24 5 8 42 Berounka (CR) 31 31 8 5 40
Upper&Middle Elbe(CR) 91 60 14 12 185 Spree-Schwarze Elster 170 120 15 86 336 x
Spreewald 168 24 0 61 132 x Mulde 195 83 15 32 296 Saale 44 25 5 11 152
Bode 35 18 6 12 55 Weiße Elster 59 35 9 8 84
Drömling 72 18 0 16 89 x Havel 192 75 8 33 172 x
Rhin 139 14 0 36 113 Berlin 56 21 0 18 146 x Nuthe 70 19 0 15 88 x Buckau 25 11 0 11 27 x Plane 42 10 0 16 49 x Gr. Havelländ. channel 43 15 0 11 43 Dosse-Jäglitz 61 16 2 22 63 x
Lower Elbe 188 82 0 22 148 x total 1898 832 114 482 2587
WBalMo Elbe
- Modeling of water balance in wetlands
- 35 wetlands integrated intoWBalMo Elbe
Wetlands
WBalMo Elbe
Basis for Data and Information of the Czech part of WBalMo Elbe
“Agreement of co-operation” between GLOWA-ELBE II and the Czech River Basin Authorities
(Vltava, Labe and Ohre)
Data and information delivered:• reservoirs to be included in the modules (name, location, controllable storage, active
storage, water surface area, etc.) => reservoirs with capacity equal or larger than 1 mill. m3
• water users, i.e. withdrawals and discharges (name, location, reference number of permit, monthly or yearly values for the last years, etc.) => quantity equal or larger than 0.01 m3/s
• management of water resources facilities - e.g. water transfers between river reaches or reservoirs (name, location of intake and of orifice, capacity, etc.)
WBalMo Elbe
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S#S
#S
#S#S
#S
Au
ma
DE PL
CZ
DE
AT
Saale
Havel
Mulde
Lower Elbe
Elbe Main River
Berounka CR
Upper Vltava CR
Bode
OhreLower Labe CR
Upper / Middle Labe CR
Spree-Schwarze Elster
Lower Vltava CR
Berlin
WeißeElster
NuthePlane
Dosse-Jäglitz
Drömling
Buckau
Discharge profiles
Selected water uses1. drinking water for the city
of Prague
1. Vltava2. Labe
1
21
1
2Filling of reservoirs1. Rimov2. Sous
Water use scenarios:1 Water permit data2 Date of year 2003
Results for Czech part of Elbe basin
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
Vrane
Decin Labska
MelnikVranany
NemciceNymburk
Korensko
Pardubice
Vyssi Brod
Litomerice
Les Kralovstvi
Usti nad Labem
Ceske Budejovice
Brandys nad Labem
Vyss
i Bro
d
Ces
ke
Bud
ejov
ice
Kor
ensk
o
Vran
e
Vran
any
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Stre
amflo
w [m
3 /s]
MQ [m3/s]Year 2010, Water permit dataYear 2010, data of 2003Year 2050, Water permit dataYear 2050, data of 2003
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
Vrane
Decin Labska
MelnikVranany
NemciceNymburk
Korensko
Pardubice
Vyssi Brod
Litomerice
Les Kralovstvi
Usti nad Labem
Ceske Budejovice
Brandys nad Labem
Results - effects of climate change and of using different user data on managed streamflows
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Stre
amflo
w [m
3 /s]
0
60
120
180
240
300
360
Stre
amflo
w [m
3 /s]
MQ [m3/s]Year 2010, water permit dataYear 2010, data of 2003Year 2050, water permit dataYear 2050, data of 2003
Labs
ka
Les
Kra
lovs
tvi
Nem
cice
Pard
ubic
e
Nym
burk
Bra
ndys
na
d La
bem
Mel
nik
Lito
mer
ice
Ust
i na
d La
bem
Dec
in
Results for Czech part of Elbe basin
#Y
20000 0 20000 40000 Me20 0 20 40 Ki
Talsperre#Y Pegel
1.
Drinking water for the city of Prague is provided by three sources:
1. Withdrawal directly from the river Vltava in Prague,
2. Transfer from the area between the cities of Sojovice andKarany (bank filtration),
3. Transfer from reservoir Svihov/Zelivka.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Month
0102030405060708090
100
Safe
ty o
f sup
ply
[%]
Water permit data(demand= 0.600 m3/s)
Year 2010Year 2050
Data of 2003(demand= 0.082 m3/s)
Year 2010Year 2050
#Y
20000 0 20000 40000 Me20 0 20 40 Ki
Talsperre#Y Pegel
2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Month
0102030405060708090
100
Safe
ty o
f sup
ply
[%]
Water permit data(demand= 0.600 m3/s)
Year 2010Year 2050
Data of 2003(demand= 0.082 m3/s)
Year 2010Year 2050
#Y
20000 0 20000 40000 Me20 0 20 40 Ki
Talsperre#Y Pegel
3.
Results - safety for drinking water provision for the city of Prague
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Month
0102030405060708090
100
Safe
ty o
f sup
ply
[%]
Water permit data (demand= 5.25 m3/s)
Year 2010Year 2050
Data of 2003(demand= 3.57 m3/s)
Year 2010Year 2050
Results for Czech part of Elbe basin
#S #S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
0.028 0.006
0.444
0.1970.463
1.321
0.094 0.486
1.392
0.887
2.105
2.237
0.149
4.367
0.427
Riv_prisecn_flaje.shpCr_rivers_wbalmo.shpRes_prisecn_flaje.shpCr_reservoirs_wbalmo.shp
Safety of supply [%]#S 0 - 24.99#S 25 - 49.99#S 50 - 74.99#S 75 - 99.99
X.XXX = Deficit [hm3/a]ReservoirRiver
Water users’ safety of supply [%] and related water deficits [mill. m3/a] for the year 2050, probability of exceedance 1 % (variant ”2003”)
Results for Czech part of Elbe basin
Water users’ safety of supply [%] and related water deficits [mill. m3/a] for the year 2050, probability of exceedance 1 % (variant ”Water Permits”)
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S #S
#S#S
#S
#S
#S#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
0.029
0.158
0.023
0.710
0.2370.463
5.498
0.396
0.956
6.646
1.869
0.792
4.528
5.448
0.318
0.919
2.105
2.237
0.368
4.729
1.796
0.548
0.692
90.112
Riv_prisecn_flaje.shpCr_rivers_wbalmo.shpRes_prisecn_flaje.shpCr_reservoirs_wbalmo.shp
Safety of supply [%]#S 0 - 24.99#S 25 - 49.99#S 50 - 74.99#S 75 - 99.99
X.XXX = Deficit [hm3/a]ReservoirRiver
Results for Czech part of Elbe basin
Results - effects of climate change and of using different user data on filling of reservoirs
#Y Rimov
20000 0 20000 40000 Meters20 0 20 40 Kilom
Talsperre#Y Pegel
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Month
0102030405060708090
100
Filli
ng o
f res
ervo
ir [%
]
Year 2050 (water demand= 1,480 m3/s)Probability of exceedance 50 %Probability of exceedance 80 %Probability of exceedance 99 %
Year 2010 (water demand= 1,480 m3/s)Probability of exceedance 50 %Probability of exceedance 80 %Probability of exceedance 99 %
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Month
0102030405060708090
100
Filli
ng o
f res
ervo
ir [%
]
Year 2050 (water demand= 0,677 m3/s)Probability of exceedance 50 %Probability of exceedance 80 %Probability of exceedance 99 %
Year 2010 (water demand= 0,677 m3/s)Probability of exceedance 50 %Probability of exceedance 80 %Probability of exceedance 99 %
Results for Czech part of Elbe basin
#YSous
20000 0 20000 40000 Meters20 0 20 40 Kilom
Talsperre#Y Pegel
Results - effects of climate change and of using different user data on filling of reservoirs
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Month
0102030405060708090
100
Filli
ng o
f res
ervo
ir [%
]
Year 2050 (water demand= 0,320 m3/s)Probability of exceedance 50 %Probability of exceedance 80 %Probability of exceedance 99 %
Year 2010 (water demand= 0,320 m3/s)Probability of exceedance 50 %Probability of exceedance 80 %Probability of exceedance 99 %
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Month
0102030405060708090
100
Filli
ng o
f res
ervo
ir [%
]
Year 2050 (water demand= 0,203 m3/s)Probability of exceedance 50 %Probability of exceedance 80 %Probability of exceedance 99 %
Year 2010 (water demand= 0,203 m3/s)Probability of exceedance 50 %Probability of exceedance 80 %Probability of exceedance 99 %
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Month
0102030405060708090
100
Filli
ng o
f res
ervo
ir [%
]
Year 2050 (water demand= 0,320 m3/s)Probability of exceedance 50 %Probability of exceedance 80 %Probability of exceedance 99 %
Year 2010 (water demand= 0,320 m3/s)Probability of exceedance 50 %Probability of exceedance 80 %Probability of exceedance 99 %
Mean values for years 2002-2004
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Month
0102030405060708090
100
Filli
ng o
f res
ervo
ir [%
]
Year 2050 (water demand= 0,203 m3/s)Probability of exceedance 50 %Probability of exceedance 80 %Probability of exceedance 99 %
Year 2010 (water demand= 0,203 m3/s)Probability of exceedance 50 %Probability of exceedance 80 %Probability of exceedance 99 %
Mean values for years 2002-2004
Results for Czech part of Elbe basin
Discussion•Natural (unmanaged) discharges have not proved satisfactory at all locations in the Czech part
•Results (especially for small catchments) should be treated with caution due to the low number of climate stations used in the climate regionalization (Czech Republic compared to Germany)
possible inaccuracy in the simulated natural discharges
•Minimum discharges can be sustained generally (exception: profile Soutice, water permit data)
•Water deficits can occur for a variety of user groups (drinking water supply from reservoirs, industry, agriculture)
•Applying different user data for same time interval gives lower safety of supply for water permit data than for data of 2003
•Presumed climate change has much more severe effects on water availability than user data in general
•The WBalMo sub-models can be used for investigations in the separate river basin districts or the Czech part of the Elbe river basin as a whole
Results for Czech part of Elbe basin
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S#S
#S
#S#S
#S
Au
ma
DE PL
CZ
DE
AT
Saale
Havel
Mulde
Lower Elbe
Elbe Main River
Berounka CR
Upper Vltava CR
Bode
OhreLower Labe CR
Upper / Middle Labe CR
Spree-Schwarze Elster
Lower Vltava CR
Berlin
WeißeElster
NuthePlane
Dosse-Jäglitz
Drömling
Buckau
Discharge profiles
Selected water uses1. Waterworks Wienrode2. Powerplant Lippendorf3. Powerplant Berlin-Mitte4. Chemical company DOW
Olefinverbund GmbH (plant Schkopau)
12
345
6
78
9
14
2
3
1. Border Czechia/ Germany2. Dresden3. Torgau4. Aken5. Barby6. Magdeburg7. Wittenberge8. Neu Darchau9. Wehr Geesthacht
Evaporation from surface water bodies in Weiße Elstercatchment
Results for German part of Elbe basin
Scenario SQ: Water demand as planned by authorities + climate change
Elbe profil: planning horizon 2010
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
GrenzeD/CR
Dresden Torgau Aken Barby Magdeburg Wittenberge NeuDarchau
WehrGeesthacht
disc
harg
e in
m³/s
MQ (500 a / 2010) MNQ (500 a / 2010)MQ (observed 1931-2000) MNQ (observed 1931-2000)
Results for German part of Elbe basin
August: planning horizones 2010 and 2035
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
GrenzeD/CR
Dresden Torgau Aken Barby Magdeburg Wittenberge NeuDarchau
WehrGeesthacht
disc
harg
e in
m³/s
Aug(2010)-MQ
Results for German part of Elbe basin
August: planning horizones 2010 and 2035
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
GrenzeD/CR
Dresden Torgau Aken Barby Magdeburg Wittenberge NeuDarchau
WehrGeesthacht
disc
harg
e in
m³/s
Aug(2010)-MQ QGlW
Results for German part of Elbe basin
August: planning horizones 2010 and 2035
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
GrenzeD/CR
Dresden Torgau Aken Barby Magdeburg Wittenberge NeuDarchau
WehrGeesthacht
disc
harg
e in
m³/s
Aug(2010)-MQ Aug(2010) T = 5 a Aug(2010) T = 100 a QGlW
Results for German part of Elbe basin
August: planning horizones 2010 and 2035
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
GrenzeD/CR
Dresden Torgau Aken Barby Magdeburg Wittenberge NeuDarchau
WehrGeesthacht
disc
harg
e in
m³/s
Aug(2010)-MQ Aug(2010) T = 5 a Aug(2010) T = 100 aAug(2035)-MQ Aug(2035) T = 5 a Aug(2035) T = 100 aQGlW
Results for German part of Elbe basin
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S#S
#S
#S#S
#S
Au
ma
DE PL
CZ
DE
AT
Saale
Havel
Mulde
Lower Elbe
Elbe Main River
Berounka CR
Upper Vltava CR
Bode
OhreLower Labe CR
Upper / Middle Labe CR
Spree-Schwarze Elster
Lower Vltava CR
Berlin
WeißeElster
NuthePlane
Dosse-Jäglitz
Drömling
Buckau
Discharge profiles
Selected water uses1. Waterworks Wienrode2. Powerplant Lippendorf3. Powerplant Berlin-Mitte4. Chemical company DOW
Olefinverbund GmbH (plant Schkopau)
12
345
6
78
9
14
2
3
1. Border Czechia/ Germany2. Dresden3. Torgau4. Aken5. Barby6. Magdeburg7. Wittenberge8. Neu Darchau9. Wehr Geesthacht
Evaporation from surface water bodies in Weiße Elstercatchment
Results for German part of Elbe basin
Power plant Berlin-Mitte: August planning horizon 2010
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
MQ-Aug (2010) demand T= 5 a T= 20 a T= 100 a
amou
nt [m
³/s]
dischargeSpree,Mühlendamm water availability in August
STATUS QUO SCENARIO 1
Results for German part of Elbe basin
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S#S
#S
#S#S
#S
Au
ma
DE PL
CZ
DE
AT
Saale
Havel
Mulde
Lower Elbe
Elbe Main River
Berounka CR
Upper Vltava CR
Bode
OhreLower Labe CR
Upper / Middle Labe CR
Spree-Schwarze Elster
Lower Vltava CR
Berlin
WeißeElster
NuthePlane
Dosse-Jäglitz
Drömling
Buckau
Discharge profiles
Selected water uses1. Waterworks Wienrode2. Powerplant Lippendorf3. Powerplant Berlin-Mitte4. Chemical company DOW
Olefinverbund GmbH (plant Schkopau)
12
345
6
78
9
14
2
3
1. Border Czechia/ Germany2. Dresden3. Torgau4. Aken5. Barby6. Magdeburg7. Wittenberge8. Neu Darchau9. Wehr Geesthacht
Evaporation from surface water bodies in Weiße Elstercatchment
Results for German part of Elbe basin
Evaporation Weiße Elster in August
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
evap
orat
ion
[m³/s
]
T = 5 aT = 20 aT = 100 a
Results for German part of Elbe basin
- Change of water withdrawel fromperiod 1 to 10 (median, relating to the wetland area)
Wetlands
Results for German part of Elbe basin
- Water use conflicts exist for extreme drought situations already now
- Water use conflicts increase with climate change
- Water shortages from withdrawals occur above all in tributaries to Elbe
river
- In the main Elbe river water use conflict is due to minimum discharges
for different purposes (as navigation)
Conclusions
Conclusions
Indicators for subbasin-wide assessment of water resources
1. Intensity of water use conflict: relative fullfillment of demand (August 2010) in conditionsof moderate water scarcity (return interval 5 years)
2. Degree of instability of water supply: relative fullfillment of demand in conditions of moderate water scarcity (August 2010) is compared to that of serious water scarcity(return interval 20 years) by their quotient
…..
Conclusions
fishery industry power agric. drink.w. min. Q navigation hydropower locksElbe main 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 4Saale 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 4Bode 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3Weiße Elster 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 4Mulde 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 3Spree/SE 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 7Spreewald 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2Berlin 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3Havel 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 4Nuthe 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 4Plane 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 5Buckau 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2Rhin 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2Dosse-Jäglitz 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 6GHHK 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1Lower Elbe 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3Drömling 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 3Sum 9 3 1 17 4 13 3 7 3
0 no conflict1 water use conflict or instability of water supply2 water use conflict and instability of water supply
sub basin/ modul
Kind of water use Sum
Conclusions
- For all water users vulnerability for extreme drought situations, for climate and socioeconomic changes will be analyzed,
- For reservoirs and dams failure in water supply will be analyzed,- For most affected water uses water management options will be
developed
Outlook
Conclusions
Climate Change Impacts in the Czech-German Elbe River Basin
Thank you!
Indicators for subbasin-wide assessment of water resources
1. Intensity of water use conflict: relative fullfillment of demand (August 2010) in conditionsof moderate water scarcity (return interval 5 years)
2. Degree of instability of water supply: relative fullfillment of demand in conditions of moderate water scarcity (August 2010) is compared to that of serious water scarcity(return interval 20 years) by their quotient
3. Impact of change of framework conditions over time within one scenario of development(i. e. climate): relative fullfillment of demand in conditions of moderate water scarcity fromAugust 2010 is compared to that of August 2050 by their quotient
4. Impact of of framework conditions between scenarios of development (i. e. land use): relative fullfillment of demand in conditions of moderate water scarcity from one scenario(August 2010) is compared to that of another scenario by their quotient
from which scenarios:
indicators 1-3: Globalisation without environmental orientation
indicator 4: comparing „Globalisation without environmental orientation“ to „Globalisationwith environmental orientation“
Conclusions
fishery industry power agric. drink.w. min. Q navigation hydropower locksElbe main 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 4Saale 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 4Bode 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3Weiße Elster 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 4Mulde 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 3Spree/SE 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 7Spreewald 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2Berlin 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3Havel 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 4Nuthe 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 4Plane 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 5Buckau 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2Rhin 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2Dosse-Jäglitz 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 6GHHK 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1Lower Elbe 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3Drömling 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 3Sum 9 3 1 17 4 13 3 7 3
0 no conflict1 water use conflict or instability of water supply2 water use conflict and instability of water supply
sub basin/ modul
Kind of water use Sum
Conclusions
fishery industry power agric. drink.w. min. Q navigation hydropower locksElbe main 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 3Saale 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 3Bode 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 4Weiße Elster 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 3Mulde 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 3Spree/SE 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 8Spreewald 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 4Berlin 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3Havel 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 3Nuthe 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 4Plane 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 5Buckau 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2Rhin 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1Dosse-Jäglitz 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 6GHHK 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1Lower Elbe 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3Drömling 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 3Sum 9 4 1 13 6 13 3 7 3
0 no conflict1 water use conflict or its significant worsening change of framework conditions over time within one scenario 2 water use conflict and its significant worsening change of framework conditions over time within one scenario
sub basin/ modul
Kind of water use Sum
Conclusions