|
e-flow assessment and problems with implementation
|
|
Katharine Cross
Total Posts: 41
Member Since: Sep 2007 |
Posted: 26-Mar-2009
Dear E-Flow Colleagues,
I've begun writing a new paper on e-flow assessment and problems with implementation, and I could use your help in identifying some illustrative examples of the problems I want to highlight in this paper. My premise is that we need to fundamentally re-think the way that we have been specifying e-flow needs and the way they are treated in water allocation systems. I hope that sufficiently piques your interest such that you'll help me identify some rivers that illustrate the problems we are currently experiencing! If you can suggest examples of rivers in which any of the following conditions or problems exist, could you please let me know and send any readily-available reference material you might have that supports the points I'm making?
I would be most appreciative of any help you can offer.
Here's the list of problems for which I'm seeking examples:
1. Rivers for which e-flows have been specified but are only occasionally met due to their junior status in prior appropriation systems
2. Rivers for which e-flows have been specified but are only occasionally met due to a lack of available water (i.e., no high-flow releases made in drier years)
3. Rivers in which e-flow management is being compromised due to unregulated groundwater use
4. Rivers in which e-flow management is being compromised by landscape changes such as urbanization
5. Rivers for which e-flow specifications are intended to differ among wet vs. dry years, but implementation is proving difficult due to uncertainty in predicting future water availability (i.e., will the near-term future be wet or dry?)
6. Rivers in which higher-than-natural flows during the low-flow season (i.e., due to dam releases) are causing ecological problems
7. Rivers for which variable e-flow specifications have been set, but water managers have balked at implementing due to perceived complexity of e-flow requirements
Many thanks!
Brian
Brian D. Richter
Co-Leader, Global Freshwater Team
brichter@tnc.org
|
|
Stefano Barchiesi
Total Posts: 30
Member Since: |
Posted: 09-Apr-2009
Dear Brian,
My Colleague Caroline Bers informed me about your email which seems relevant to my current project on low flows in the Rhine. However it started recently and there have been no results with illustrative examples.
A short description of the project can be found here.
http://www.wem.ctw.utwente.nl/organisatie/medewerkers/medewerkers/booij/Research/Seasonal%20and%20long-term%20prediction%20of%20low%20flows%20in%20the%20Rhine%20basin/
Proceeding:
Demirel, M. C., Booij M.J. and Hoekstra A.Y. 2008: Seasonal and long term prediction of low flows in Rhine River. Proceedings of NCR-days, Dalfsen, the Netherlands, November 20-21, p. 54-55.
Paper:
Demirel M. C., Venancio A. and Kahya E., 2008: Flow Forecast by SWAT Model and ANN in Pracana Basin, Portugal. Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) pp. 467-473 doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2008.08.002 (in press)
I think these two website might be useful for published works on low flows.
- Eu project on droughts: http://www.eu-watch.org/nl/25222717-Publications.html
- Unesco-FRIEND low flow group: http://typo38.unesco.org/en/about-ihp/ihp-partners/friend.html
Finally a relevant paper on water scarcity:
The impact of upstream water abstractions on reservoir yield: The case of the Orós Reservoir in Brazil. van Oel, P.R.a , Krol, M.S.a , Hoekstra, A.Y.a , de Araújo, J.C.b. Hydrological Sciences Journal, Volume 53, Issue 4, August 2008, Pages 857-867.
Best regards,
Mehmet
Mehmet Cüneyd Demirel
University of Twente
Faculty of Engineering Technology
Group Water Engineering and Management
Room Horst Z-129
P.O. Box 217
7500 AE Enschede
Phone: +31 53 4893911
Fax: +31 53 4895377
E-mail: m.c.demirel@ctw.utwente.nl
URL: http://www.wem.ctw.utwente.nl/en/organization/Staff/Demirel/index.html
|
|
Stefano Barchiesi
Total Posts: 30
Member Since: |
Posted: 09-Apr-2009
Dear Brian,
I attached our paper on Implementation EF in Slovenia, maybe you could find some answers.
[http://www.eflownet.org/downloads/documents/Smolar et al EF Slovenia paper.pdf]
With best regards,
Natasa Smolar-Zvanut
-------------------------------
dr. Nataša Smolar-Žvanut
Institute for Water of the Republic of Slovenia
Hajdrihova 28 c, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija
t: + 386 (0)1 47 75 326 f: + 386 (0)1 42 64 162
e-mail: natasa.smolar@izvrs.si
www.izvrs.si
|
|
Stefano Barchiesi
Total Posts: 30
Member Since: |
Posted: 09-Apr-2009
Dear Katharine & Brian,
The case of the Komadugu Yobe Basin (KYB) falls under category 6 – rivers in which higher-than-natural flows during the low-flow season (i.e. due to dam releases) are causing ecological problems. Due to the improper operation of the two large dams of Tiga and Challawa Gorge, the seasonal river system of the basin has turned to perennial one. The KYB can therefore be cited as an example for this.
Cheers,
Daniel.
--------------------------
Daniel Kwesi YAWSON, Ph.D.
Project Coordinator
FMAWR-IUCN-NCF Komadugu Yobe Basin Project
Delivery: 15A Race Course Road, Nassarawa GRA, Kano, Nigeria
Postal: Private Mail Bag 3139, Kano, Nigeria
Mobile: +234-802 523 8195
Alternative e-address: daniel.yawson@gmail.com
Please visit www.kyb-project.net
|
|
Total Posts:
Member Since: |
Posted: 17-Apr-2009
Dear Brian,
Please consider the case of Indus River as an example, indicating technical, economic, social and political constraints in estimation, allocation and implementation of e-flows. I was part of the team, which carried out basin wide study and made recommendations after intense negotiations. I did the basin level modeling for different scenarios. The proposed constant e-flows are yet not implemented - could not be implemented without few basic changes.
A brief not on the Indus case is given below, which can be further supported with actual data and info, in graphical or/and tabular form.
Best regards.
Dr. Ms. Zaigham Habib
Environment and development consultant
Phone: +92 0300 8884870
zaihabib@yahoo.com
The Case of Indus River
The issue has strong regional and political dimensions. Need for the estimation and allocation of a quantity was officially accepted in 1991 by the Provincial Water Allocation Accord (WAA), which provides guidelines for water allocation and regulation. A rather large quantity of 9 million acre feet-maf (about 11 bcm) was demanded by the lower province Sindh, documented in the Accord, which recommended technical studies for the estimation of e-flow requirements. Many partial studies (socio-technical) carried out, mostly by NGOs. Finally, a national study in 2004 by the Government of Pakistan and World Bank recommended an e-flow formula. The WB panel of experts proposed 5000 cubic ft/sec (141 m3/sec) constant minimum flow releases downstream. It is equal to 3.6 maf or 4.6 bcm annual volume. The study also estimates 5 maf annual flood justified over 3 years period. The only allocation guideline was “to equitably share inflow shortages with irrigation”. During the study variable flows were also evaluated as a scenario.
Practically, from 7 to 9 months no water goes downstream the last barrage on Indus river (called Kotri). Already agriculture demand is 20% to 50% higher than availability during this period.
1. The allocation and regulation are two steps in water distribution process. The recommended e-flows are not allocated with a high priority. And not included in the regulation procedures.
2. Proposed “shortage sharing” formula is not clear.
3. Currently, about 30 to 40 bcm water annually flows to the sea, other than sever drought. For the constant e-flows, only solution is to shift this water from the 2 to 4 high flow months to rest of the year. Hence, Indus is a case where surface-storage is required for e-flows.
4. Extensive groundwater pumpage along the rivers is a key factor in increased river losses and the length of low flow period.
5. The climate changes and increasing dry spans support a variable flow formula. It will also help to resolve “flood surplus” estimates for the future development, another disputed issue in the Indus Basin.
6. The data and graphs are available on e-flow estimates and actual wet and dry year outflows.
|
|
Stefano Barchiesi
Total Posts: 30
Member Since: |
Posted: 17-Apr-2009
Hi,
For Lower Zambezi system, we have been dealing for some time with your #6 below.
Implications of higher dry season flows (about an order of magnitude higher than under pre-dam conditions) include (1) downcutting of mainstem Zambezi channel by several meters, such that channel base is now below inlets to key distributary channels needed to connect the river to delta floodplain system; (2) negative impacts to coastal prawn production (high dry season flows make it difficult for prawns, which disperse during floods, to swim against flow back into mangrove); (3) shift from floodplain fishery to in-channel fishery, with changes in fish populations and lower catch-per-unit-effort in Zambezi channels during dry season flows; (4) permanent loss of habitat for species that breed on river during (former) dry season low-flows, especially Africa skimmers; (5) consolidation of formerly shifting-sandbars, which have now been permanently settled by people who are in significant harm’s-way during large flooding events.
Best, Rich
***********************************
Richard Beilfuss, Ph.D., Lic Prof Hydrologist
Senior Advisor to World Wide Fund for Nature
Phone/Fax: +1 608 251 6169
Mobile: +1 608 320 5250
Mobile (Mozambique): +258 82 9928948
Mobile (South Africa): +27 (0)82 0753796
Email: richbeilfuss@gmail.com
Skype: rich.beilfuss
|
|
Stefano Barchiesi
Total Posts: 30
Member Since: |
Posted: 17-Apr-2009
Dear Brian,
Thanks for your information. This letter is just to bring to your attention that the concept e-flow is not really self-explanatory in a broader water community.
My first thought, for instance, was that you were referring to some cutting edge project focusing on evapo-transpiration flow, i.e green water flow. With the increasing focus on global food security and the huge amounts of transpiration required to produce that food, there is an increasing debate on how to reduce evaporation losses, making this vertical “e-flow” as efficient as possible. And the larger that “e-flow” is the more difficult will it be to protect your e-flow. So they are linked by the water balance. The same goes for water requirements for fuelwood production and of terrestrial ecosystems in general. So terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems are water-competitors.
Best regards
Malin Falkenmark
Professor
Stockholm International Water Institute SIWI
|
|
