KRW oppervlaktewaterlichamen (water bodies European Water Framework Directive)

[harm-nomden-sweco]

the following rules apply:

• 1 KRW water body can be included in 1 or more basins
• 1 basin can not be part KRW water body and part not-KRW water body
• 1 basin can not be part of multiple KRW water bodies
• we do not have to include the outside waters (Waddenzee, etc)

@visr /@gijsber: Would like to have a check on how we want to do this:
The KRW water bodies are for example streams with many lateral inflows. Below an example of a part of the Berkel (= KRW water body).

• With all splits at structures (weirs/uniweirs/orifices) most lateral subcatchments are excluded from the Berkel (basin 50 can be separated as well from the Berkel) and the Berkel itself is split into multiple basins.
• Each basin has adjacent areas with probably secundary/tertiair watersystems, which can be excluded from the primary watersystem by applying the methodology suggested by Huite/Hendrik/Joachim (available in 2024).
• Further upstream 2 KRW water bodies are flowing into the Berkel via an open water connection: We will check whether a split can be generated using TabulatedRatingCurve or Manning-Node.

Is this more or less what is expected?

[gijsber]

Hi @harm-nomden-sweco , sounds like a good solution to me, assuming that the blue lines in e.g. 47, 31, 32 and 30 are such secundary system as you refer to. If not, we probably should introduce a split to separate them.
However, since we do not want a seperate basin for every small waterbody on the side of the main nody (e.g. a 50m inham), we think we should introduce a (configurable) (length) criterium to use in deciding when to introduce a new basin. For now, we would suggest to take 250m as a criterium (i.e. any side waterbody , 250m in length can be part of the main water body), and get into a discussion with some KRW experts to get their opinion.