Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Transboundary Water Resources Allocation under Various Parametric Conditions: The Case of the Euphrates & Tigris River Basin

  • Published:
Water Resources Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The literature on transboundary water resources allocation modelling is still short on encompassing and analyzing complex geographic multiparty nature of basins. This study elaborates the Inter Temporal Euphrates and Tigris River Basin Model (ITETRBM), which is a linear programming based transboundary water resources allocation model maximizing net economic benefit from allocation of scarce water resources to energy generation, urban, and agricultural uses. The elaborations can be categorized in two directions: First, agricultural and urban demand nodes are spatially identified with their relative elevations and distances to water resources supplies (dams, reservoirs, and lakes). Digital elevation model (DEM) database are intensely processed in geographic information system (GIS) environment. Second, the agricultural irrigable lands are restructured into a pixel based decision making units (DMUs) in order to be able to see the spatial extent of optimally irrigated land, and then optimization program is converted from linear programming (LP) to a mixed integer programming (MIP). The model applications are designed to cover a series of sensitivity analyses encompassing the various transboundary management, energy and agricultural use value, and transportation cost scenarios over the optimal uses of the Euphrates and Tigris Basin (ETRB) resources. The model results are visually presented via GIS in order to show the transboundary upstream and downstream spatial impacts of these selected parameters. The findings are i) system parameters significantly alter the spatial extent of water resources allocation in the ETRB, and ii) the magnitudes of the parameters also explains the tradeoffs between agriculture and energy sectors as much as upstream and downstream water uses of countries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abed-Elmdoust A, Kerachian R (2013) Incorporating economic and political considerations in inter-basin water allocations: a case study. Water Resour Manag 27:859–870. doi:10.1007/s11269–012–0219–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altınbilek HD (1997) Water and land resources development in southeastern Turkey. Water Resour Dev 13(3):311–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagis AI (1989) The Cradle of Civilization. Gelisim Yayınları A. S, Istanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilen O (1994) Prospect for Technical Cooperation in the Euphrates–Tigris Basin. In: Biswas AK (ed) International waters of the Middle East: from Euphrates-Tigris to Nile. Oxford University Press, Bombay

    Google Scholar 

  • Booker JF, Young RA (1994) Modeling intrastate and interstate markets for Colorado river water resources. J Environ Econ Manag 26:66–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinar A, Wolf A (1994a) Middle east hydropolitics and equity measures for water-sharing agreements. J Soc, Polit & Econ Stud 19(1):69–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinar A, Wolf A (1994b) International markets for water and potential for regional cooperation: economic and political perspectives in the western Middle East. Econ Dev Cult Chang 43:43–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinar A, Dinar S, McCaffrey S, McKinney D (2007) Bridges over water: understanding transboundary water conflict, negotiation and cooperation. World Scientific, New Jersey

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Eleftheriadou E, Mylopoulos Y (2008) Game theoretical approach to conflict resolution in transboundary water resources management. J Water Resour Plan Manag 134(5):466–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flinn JC, Guise JWB (1970) An application of spatial equilibrium analysis to water resources allocation. Water Resour Res 6(2):398–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons DC (1986) The economic value of water. The Johns Hopkins Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Google (2011) kh.google.com

  • Hirshleifer J, De Haven JC, Milliman JW (1969) Water supply: Economics, technology, and policy. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Howitt RE, Mann DE, Vaux HJ Jr (1982) The Economics of Water Allocation. In: Engelbert EA, Scheuring AF (eds) Competition for California water: alternative resolutions. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurst, H.E. (1952). The Nile, London: Constable. http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80858e/80858E0S.GIF (last accessed: January 11, 2009)

  • İlhan Aİ, Utku M (1998) GAP sulama alanında bitki su tüketimi ve bitki su gereksinimi. Tarım Orman Meteorolojisi’98 Sempozyumu, İstanbul İTÜ.

  • İSKİ (2003) Tasfiye tesislerimizden verilen ortalama temiz su miktarı. http://www.iski.gov.tr/ariza/3.phtm (last accessed: 2004)

  • Jenkins MW, Lund JR, Howitt RE, Draper AJ, Msangi SM, Tanaka SK, Ritzema RS, Marques GF (2004) Optimization of California’s water supply system: results and insights. J Water Resour Plan and Manag-ASCE 130(4):271–280. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733–9496(2004)130:4(271)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaya I (2009) The Euphrates-Tigris Basin: An overview and opportunities for cooperation under international law. http://ag.arizona.edu/OALS/ALN/aln44/kaya.html (last accessed: January, 2009).

  • Kliot N (1994) Water resources and conflict in the Middle East. Roudledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolars JF (1986) Hydro-geographic background to the utilization of international rivers in the Middle East. Proc of the 1986 Ann Meet of the Am Soc of Int Law 80:250–258

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolars JF (1992) Water resources of the Middle East. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, special issue on Sustainable Water Resources Management in Arid Countries, 103–119.

  • Kolars JF (1994) Problems of International River Management. In: Biswas AK (ed) International waters of the Middle East: from Euphrates-Tigris to Nile. Oxford University Press, Bombay

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolars JF, Mitchell WA (1991) The Euphrates River and the Southeast Anatolia Development Project. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale

    Google Scholar 

  • Kucukmehmetoglu M (2002) Water resources allocation and conflicts – the case of the Euphrates and the Tigris. Dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

  • Kucukmehmetoglu M (2009) A game theoretic approach to assess the impacts of major investments on transboundary water resources: the case of the Euphrates and Tigris. Water Resour Manag 23(15):3069–3099

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kucukmehmetoglu M (2012) An integrative case study approach between game theory and pareto frontier concepts for the transboundary water resources allocations. J Hydrol 450–451:308–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kucukmehmetoglu M and Geymen A (2012) Transboundary water resources allocation under various parametric conditions: The case of the Euphrates and Tigris river basin. 52nd European Congress of the Regional Science Association, 21–25 Ağustos 2012, Bratislava, Slovakia.

  • Kucukmehmetoglu M, Guldmann JM (2004) International water resources allocation and conflicts the case of the Euphrates and Tigris. Environ and Plan A 36:783–801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kucukmehmetoglu M, Guldmann JM (2010) Multiobjective allocation of transboundary water resources: case of the Euphrates and Tigris. J Water Resour Plan and Manag-ASCE 136(1):95–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kucukmehmetoglu M, Şen Z, Özger M (2010) Coalition possibility of riparian countries via game theory and fuzzy logic models. Water Resour Res 46:W12528. doi:10.1029/2009WR008660

    Google Scholar 

  • Liao Z, Hannam PM (2013) The mekong game: achieving an all-win situation. Water Resour Manag 27:2611–2622. doi:10.1007/s11269–013–0306–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madani K (2010) Game theory and water resources. J Hydrol 381:225–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madani K, Hipel KW (2011) Non-cooperative stability definitions for strategic analysis of generic water resources conflicts. Water Resour Manag 25:1949–1977. doi:10.1007/s11269-011–9783–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahan RC, Horbulyk TM, Rowse JG (2002) Market Mechanisms and the efficient allocation of surface water resources in Southern Alberta. Socio Econ Plan Sci 36:25–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oğuz S (2011) Personal Interview. Civil engineer in the state hydraulic works (Devlet Su İşleri).

  • Rogers P (1969) A game theory approach to the problems of international river basin. Water Resour Res 5(4):749–760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers P (1993) The value of cooperation in resolving international river basin disputes. Natural Resources Forum 117–131.

  • Sadegh M, Kerachian R (2011) Water resources allocation using solution concepts of fuzzy cooperative games: fuzzy least core and fuzzy weak least core. Water Resour Manag 25:2543–2573. doi:10.1007/s11269–011–9826-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadegh M, Mahjouri N, Kerachian R (2010) Optimal inter-basin water allocation using crisp and fuzzy shapley games. Water Resour Manag 24:2291–2310. doi:10.1007/s11269–009–9552–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teasley RL, McKinney DC (2011) Calculating the benefits of transboundary river basin cooperation: the Syr Darya basin. J Water Resour Plan Manag. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943–5452.0000141

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaux HJ Jr, Howitt RE (1984) Managing water scarcity: an evaluation of interregional transfers. Water Resour Res 20:785–792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu X, Whittington D (2006) Incentive compatibility and conflict resolution in international river basins: a case study of the Nile basin. Water Resour Res 42:1–15

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mehmet Kucukmehmetoglu.

Additional information

The earlier version of this paper is presented in the 52nd European Regional Science Association Congress (ERSA), August 21–25, 2012, Bratislava, Slovakia.

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 Appendix 1

Table 4 The benchmark model results: upstream (Turkey) water balance upstream downstream parties (mm3)
Table 5 The benchmark model results: downstream (Syria-Iraq) water balance (mm3)
Table 6 The benchmark model results: upstream (Turkey) benefits and costs ($106)
Table 7 The benchmark model results: downstream (Syria-Iraq) benefits and costs ($106)

1.2 Appendix 2

1.2.1 Appendix A: Data and Assumptions

As detailed in Kucukmehmetoglu (2002), Kucukmehmetoglu (2009) and Kucukmehmetoglu et al. (2010), the demand–supply data, various system parameters, and assumptions are as follows:

In the ITETRBM the planned dams are considered as complete and all irrigable lands are developed by the year 2040. Current population is projected to the year 2040, assuming that the growth rates remain constant.

Supply Data

Tributary flow amounts are derived from Kolars (1986, 1992, 1994), Kolars and Mitchell (1991), Kliot (1994), Bagis (1989). The return flow rate is assumed 35 % for agriculture, and 80 % for urban use.

Demand Data

Among 1463 agricultural demand nodes, 377, 354, and 732 are assigned to Turkey, Syria, and Iraq, and covers 1.99, 2.03, 4.36 million ha irrigable agricultural land, respectively. For the urban demand nodes, 18, 8, and 10 are the numbers of urban demand nodes in Turkey, Syria, and Iraq, respectively.

Agriculture and Urban Water Values

Agriculture and urban water values are derived from Dinar and Wolf (1994b) and Howitt, Mann, and Vaux (1982), and the following values are selected: Vur = $150,000/Mm3, Vag = $25,000/Mm3. Agricultural productivity (Vag) is assumed to be the same throughout the region.

Maximum and Minimum Consumption Rates

Using the upper-bound estimate of Dinar and Wolf (1994a), Maxag = 0.020 Mm3/ha is selected as the upper bound of water withdrawal and Maxur = 0.000106 Mm3/capita is selected as the upper water use rate. Because some districts may not be irrigated and some urban areas are not served, minimum withdrawals are chosen to be Minag = 0.0 Mm3/ha and Minur = 0.0 Mm3/capita.

Water Transportation Costs

Then transportation costs are derived from Hirshleifer et al. (1969) as Cag = $850/Mm3-km for agricultural uses, Cur = $4,958/Mm3-km for urban uses, and Css = $850 per Mm3-km for inter-basin links.

Electricity Generation

The average electric generation rate is known as 0.87 kWh per foot-head and acre-feet of water (Gibbons 1986). This value has been converted into per Mm3 of water released from the head of the dam. The literature provides head heights of dams from the riverbed on the main branch of the Euphrates (Bilen 1994). Energy values (Pe = $25 per-MWh) are assumed to be the same throughout the year.

Additional Data and Assumptions needed for the ITETRBM

In Turkey, the total active storage capacity is 63.3 Mm3. The 47.6 Mm3 of this total is in the Euphrates, and the remainder 15.7 Mm3 in the Tigris basin. In the Euphrates basin, in Syria and Iraq, the known total active storage capacities are respectively 9 and 10.4 Mm3. In the Tigris basin of Iraq, the only available active reservoir capacity is Mosul Dam with 8.2 Mm3.

Kliot (1994: p.106, 107) provides monthly variations of the Euphrates and the Tigris in graph form. These figures are aggregated into the 12 working periods and their ratios are used as multiplier for the tributary flows used in Kucukmehmetoglu (2002). These multipliers are mT 1 mT 12 , and they can be used to compute periodically defined tributary flows for each supply node as T jt  = T j mT t .

The values of water used in these 12 monthly periods are the same, but quantities demanded are different. Therefore, adjustments of the maximum withdrawal limits for the 12 periods are needed. In the literature, İlhan Aİ & Utku (1998) provide monthly variations of water demands in the GAP area of Turkey. The monthly figures are converted into 12 water demand multipliers, by computing the monthly ratios of water demanded in the total annual demand (mMax ag1 mMax ag12 ), then these ratios are used as multiplier to adjust maximum water withdrawal limits Mm3 per-ha in agriculture (Max agt  = Max ag mMax agt ). The same procedure is applied for maximum urban water demands Mm3 per-inhabitant by using monthly Istanbul metropolitan area water use figures (İSKİ, 2003) to obtain the periodical water demand ratios (mMax ur1 mMax ur12 ). Then conversion is done by multiplying the maximum urban water demands Mm3 per-inhabitant by these multipliers (Max urt  = Max ur mMax urt ).

Evaporation rates (per-km2) from the reservoirs are computed for the three riparian countries based on observed annual evaporation figures (Altınbilek 1997) and then the estimated evaporation rates are applied to the other reservoirs. The constant evaporation values in Kucukmehmetoglu (2002) need to be apportioned into 12 periods. The necessary multipliers are adapted from the graph provided by Hurst (1952) for the Aswan Dam over the Nile. Monthly evaporation figures are aggregated into 12 periods, and then the ratios of periodical to annual evaporation total are calculated (mEL 1 mEL 12 ). Then the constant evaporation values are apportioned to periods by using these ratios as multipliers (EL jt  = EL j mEL t ).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kucukmehmetoglu, M., Geymen, A. Transboundary Water Resources Allocation under Various Parametric Conditions: The Case of the Euphrates & Tigris River Basin. Water Resour Manage 28, 3515–3538 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-014-0685-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-014-0685-0

Keywords

Navigation