climate change impacts in the czech-german elbe river basin · climate change impacts in the...

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


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


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


e.g. reliability of water supply

or minimum flow

Balancing water yield and water demand withinsocio-economic context


Q P, PET





Stochasticgenerated

climate series


WBalMo

STAR II





SWIM

Balancing water yield and water demand withinsocio-economic context


Q P, PET

e.g. reliability of water supply

or minimum flow

Stochasticgenerated

climate series


- 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


#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


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


Year 2010Year 2050


#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”)


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 - 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 %


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Month

0102030405060708090

100

Filli

ng o

f res

ervo

ir [%

]




#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 [%

]



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Month

0102030405060708090

100

Filli

ng o

f res

ervo

ir [%

]



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Month

0102030405060708090

100

Filli

ng o

f res

ervo

ir [%

]



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 [%

]



Mean values for years 2002-2004


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


#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



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)


August: planning horizones 2010 and 2035

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

GrenzeD/CR


WehrGeesthacht

disc

harg

e in

m³/s

Aug(2010)-MQ



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

GrenzeD/CR


WehrGeesthacht

disc

harg

e in

m³/s

Aug(2010)-MQ QGlW



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

GrenzeD/CR


WehrGeesthacht

disc

harg

e in

m³/s

Aug(2010)-MQ Aug(2010) T = 5 a Aug(2010) T = 100 a QGlW



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

GrenzeD/CR


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


#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



Lower Vltava CR

Berlin

WeißeElster

NuthePlane

Dosse-Jäglitz

Drömling

Buckau

Discharge profiles



12

345

6

78

9

14

2

3




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


#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



Lower Vltava CR

Berlin

WeißeElster

NuthePlane

Dosse-Jäglitz

Drömling

Buckau

Discharge profiles



12

345

6

78

9

14

2

3




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


- Change of water withdrawel fromperiod 1 to 10 (median, relating to the wetland area)

Wetlands


- 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


0 no conflict1 water use conflict or instability of water supply2 water use conflict and instability of water supply

sub basin/ modul


Conclusions


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


Conclusions

climate change impacts in the czech-german elbe river basin · climate change impacts in the...

Documents