WBalMo Elbe / module Czechia - application fields and first results Hagen Koch1, Stefan Kaden2, Michael Kaltofen2 1Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus, Chair of Hydrology and Water Resources Management 2 WASY GmbH, Institute for Water Resources Planning and System Research GLOWA-Elbe II Statuskonferenz 14. Dez. 2006 Potsdam Hagen Koch et al., BTU Cottbus 1. Contents 1. Contents 2. Relevance for the Overall Model 3. Input Data and Information 4. Development of Modules 5. First Results 6. Conclusion and Outlook GLOWA-Elbe II Statuskonferenz 14. Dez. 2006 Potsdam Hagen Koch et al., BTU Cottbus 2. Relevance for the Overall Model - GLOWA-ELBE II sub-project Surface Water Availability: investigation of changes in the water availability in the whole Elbe River Basin under global change scenarios - Czech Republic covers one third of the Elbe River Basin roughly - Inflow to Germany at different locations: • Main stream of river Labe => Decin / Labe • Sub-basin of the river Mulde => downstream reservoir Prisecnice / Prisecnice => downstream reservoir Flaje / Flajsk potok - Effects of climate change and reservoir management in the Czech Republic will in all probability have an influence on inflow to Germany GLOWA-Elbe II Statuskonferenz 14. Dez. 2006 Potsdam Hagen Koch et al., BTU Cottbus 3. Input Data and Information Basis for Data and Information “Agreement of co-operation” between GLOWA-ELBE II and the Czech River Basin Authorities Data and information delivered: • reservoirs to be included in the model (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.) GLOWA-Elbe II Statuskonferenz 14. Dez. 2006 Potsdam Hagen Koch et al., BTU Cottbus 4. Development of Modules Structure of the Modules … is according to the river basin districts (Povodis) in the Czech Republic $T $T $T $T $T $T Ohre / Lower • Upper Vltava, $T$T$T Labe Upper / Middle$T T$ $T Labe $T $T $T • Lower Vltava, $T $T $T $T$T $T $T $T $T • Berounka, $T $T $T $T $T $T $T $T$T Berounka $T $T $T $T $T • Upper and Middle Labe, $T $T Lower $T $T Vltava $T $T$T • Ohre and Lower Labe. $T $T $T $T Upper Vltava $T $T 2002040Kilometers $T GLOWA-Elbe II Statuskonferenz 14. Dez. 2006 Potsdam Hagen Koch et al., BTU Cottbus 4. Development of Modules Development of Modules …on the example of the module Upper and Middle Labe %# % # Legend: S# $ # % $ S# # % # % # S Withdrawals # # # % % % riversS%U S# % % # # % % %U Returnflows # % % % calculation%U profiles # % % % % ## % # %Reservoirs • Upper Vltava, ## % % reservoirs % % $ Rivers WBalMo S# # # S# S# S# %U % % River network% water users $ % % S# %U # S# % S# % % S# % % %US# %U # • Lower Vltava, S# % % S# S# % # % % % % # # %U # S# % % # % % % % % # # # # # % # % %# % % % % %# # • Berounka, % % % % % %U S# % % %# SS# $ % # % % %U S# % % % S# # %U S# % # % # % S# % • Upper and Middle Labe, S#%U % % # % % # # % # % % # % S S# % % % % %U %U S# S#S %U %U %U # S# # %# % %# % # S % % % % %%U% %U % # # # # # $ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % $ % % # # # %U # % # %# % % • Ohre and Lower Labe. % % % S# % # # # # % # # %$ % % % % % % # %# % # % %$ # % % # S# %# % SS# % %%US#%U % % % % % % % % % # ## %U # % #S# % % % # # # % S %U # % # % % # % % % % % % % S# # %U ## % %%U %U S# %# 5 % % $ % % %U % % # %U % $ # ## % %# % $ % %# $ S# # # % % % S#%# %$ # GLOWA-Elbe II Statuskonferenz 14. Dez. 2006 Potsdam Hagen Koch et al., BTU Cottbus 5. First Results Results …for different fields/sectors and locations as example for possible kinds of analysis: • Effects of climate change on natural streamflows • Effects of climate change on regulated (managed) streamflows • Effects of climate change for different water users • Effects of climate change on filling of reservoirs GLOWA-Elbe II Statuskonferenz 14. Dez. 2006 Potsdam Hagen Koch et al., BTU Cottbus 5. First Results Effects of climate change on natural streamflows 2.5 5.0 probability of exceedance 90% probability of exceedance 90% 2.0 probability of exceedance 99% probability of exceedance 99% 4.0 1.5 Jesenice #Y 3.0 1.0 #Y 2.0 Ceske Udoli streamflow [m³/s] streamflow streamflow [m³/s]streamflow 0.5 1.0 0.00.0 03-0703-07 08-12 08-12 13-17 13-17 18-22 18-22 23-27 23-27 28-32 28-32 33-37 33-37 38-42 38-42 43-47 43-47 48-52 48-52 5-year-periods5-year-periods (years(years 2003-2052)2003-2052) GLOWA-Elbe II Statuskonferenz 14. Dez. 2006 Potsdam Hagen Koch et al., BTU Cottbus 5. First Results Effects of climate change on regulated (managed) streamflows Decin #Y Labska 120 #Y 60 MQ, 1st period (2003-2007) #Y 360 Usti nad Labem MQ, 10th period (2048-2052) Les 100 #Y Kralovstvi #Y 50 NMQ, 1st period (2003-2007)Litomerice 300 #Y Melnik ] NMQ, 10th period (2048-2052) #Y ] ] s Vranany / s Nymburk s 3 / / 80 #Y Nemcice#Y 3 40 #Y 240 3 m Brandys m m [ Brandys #Y [ [ #Y nad Labem w Pardubice w w o o o l 60 l l 30 #Y Vrane 180 f f f m m m a a a e e e r r r 20 120 t t t 40 s s s 1020 60 0 #Y Korensko 0 0 Ceske Decin #Y Melnik Labska Budejovice Vrane Nemcice Nymburk Les Les Kralovstvi Pardubice Litomerice Vranany Brandys Brandys Labem nad Usti Labem nad Korensko Vyssi Brod Vyssi Ceske Ceske Budejovice #Y Vyssi Brod GLOWA-Elbe II Statuskonferenz 14. Dez. 2006 Potsdam Hagen Koch et al., BTU Cottbus 5. First Results Safety of drinking water provision for the city of Prague Drinking water for the city of Prague is provided by three sources: • Withdrawal directly from the river Vltava in Prague, • Transfer from the area between the cities of Sojovice and Karany (bank filtration), • Transfer from reservoir Svihov (Zelivka). 100 90 80 bank 70 filtration 60 Prague 50 40 30 Prazske vodarny, 20 vodarnaPVKPVK PrahaPraha Karany/Sojovice UV PodoliZelivka 333 SafetySafetySafetyofofof achievement achievement achievement [%] [%] [%] 10 demand=demand=demand= 1,835,250,6 m mm/s/s/s reservoir 0 Svihov 03-07 08-12 13-17 18-22 23-27 28-32 33-37 38-42 43-47 48-52 5-year-periods (years 2003-2052) GLOWA-Elbe II Statuskonferenz 14. Dez. 2006 Potsdam Hagen Koch et al., BTU Cottbus 5. First Results Comparison of real values for withdrawal (year periods (years 2003 - 2052). 6.0 s] 3 / 5.0 [m al 4.0 aw dr 3.0 th wi 2.0 1.0 0.0 Reservoir Svihov (Zelivka) GLOWA-Elbe II Statuskonferenz 14. Dez. 2006 Potsdam Hagen Koch et al., BTU Cottbus 1991 real values (years 1991-2004) withdrawal, real 1992 mean value for year 1993 1994 1995 s 1991 -2004) with simulated values for all ten 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 s withdrawal, simulated i 03-07 m mean value for period u 08-12 minimum value for period la t e d 13-17 , 5 - y 18-22 e a r 23-27 - p e r 28-32 io d s 33-37 ( 2 0 38-42 0 3 - 2 43-47 0 5 2 ) 48-52 Schmalzgrube/ Preßnitz #Y Probability ofof exceedanceexceedance 99% 99% inflowinflow to reservoir (sum) drinking water supply (UV Hradiste) streamflowPreßnitz below reservoir streamflow CSchmalzgrubeap.= 0.961c b/ Preßnitzm/s #Y Transfer from reservoir Prisecnice for UV Hradiste Qmin= 0.050 cbm/s modules for the rivers Ohre and Mulde s / m b m c o fr a 7 . r d r Sub-Basin of river Ohre 7 e o i f o = s V v e . r Sub-Basin p n a ic a n e a r r s n of river Mulde C e e c T r e #Y C is to r P a d o e v c i á n n 5. First Results Qmin= r c e 0.060 cbm/s e C Inflow to Germany downstream reservoir Prisecnice (at Schmalzgrube / Preßnitz) – s í r P 0.4 5-year-periods (years 2003-2052) h 0.3 c a b l h ö 0.2 P 1012Kilometers 0.1 03-07 08-12 13-17 18-22 23-27 28-32 33-37 38-42 43-47 48-52 streamflow, release [m³/s] release streamflow, 0.0 GLOWA-Elbe II Statuskonferenz 14. Dez. 2006 Potsdam Hagen Koch et al., BTU Cottbus 5. First Results Filling of Reservoirs Active capacity $T Probability$T $T of exceedance 99% reservoir Lipno I reservoir$T Lipno I $T reservoir $TOrlik Ohre / Lower reservoir Orlik Labe $T reservoir$T$T$T$T Hracholusky Upper / Middlereservoir Hracholusky $T Labe $T Rozkos reservoir Rozkos reservoir RozkosRozkos $T $T reservoir Nechranice reservoir Nechranice Nechranice $T $T 400 $T $T$T $T $T $T $T 350 $T $T $T $T $T $T $T $T$T 300 Berounka $T $T $T $T $T $T $T Lower $T 250 Hracholusky $T Vltava $T $T$T $T 200 Orlik 150 $T $T 100 $T Upper 50 Vltava $T Filling of reservoir [Mio m³] [Mio of reservoir Filling 0 Lipno I $T 2002040Kilometers 03-07 08-12 13-17Lipno 18-22I 23-27$T 28-32 33-37 38-42 43-47 48-52 5-year-periods (years 2003-2052) GLOWA-Elbe II Statuskonferenz 14. Dez. 2006 Potsdam Hagen Koch et al., BTU Cottbus 6. Conclusion and Outlook Conclusions: • Climate change will affect water availability in the Czech part of the Elbe River Basin • Affects will be different at different locations and within seasons (e.g. rising streamflows during winter and falling streamflows during summer and autumn) • Streamflows during low flow episodes will fall generally • Drinking water provision from reservoirs is sector most affected, for other water users water can be provided with high safety • Under extreme dry conditions the water level in some reservoirs will fall significantly while other reservoirs are unaffected • Adapted/changed management of reservoirs might compensate for some of the effects of climate change Outlook: • Analysis of results in consultation of Povodis (e.g.