Content uploaded by Gábor Murányi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gábor Murányi on Jun 17, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Analysis of nature based flood management in
the Tisza River Valley, Hungary
Gábor Murányipand László Koncsos
Department of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Budapest
University of Technology and Economics, Műegyetem rkp. 3., H-1111 Budapest, Hungary
Received: June 3, 2021 •Revised manuscript received: February 18, 2022 •Accepted: March 11, 2022
ABSTRACT
The floodplains of the Tisza River, stretching across the eastern part of Hungary, are often affected by
riverine and inland excess water flooding and draught. This paper investigates a possible solution to this
problem utilizing the water retention capabilities of old floodplains. In this study, the effect of the
position of the inlet structures of a floodplain, near Csongrád town, was examined with HEC-RAS
1D-2D coupled model. Based on the results, the rules of the deep floodplain selection were determined.
On the extended model, the possibilities of a deep floodplain storage area chain have been explored.
According to the estimate, more than 2.36 km
3
potential storage capacity is available along the Hun-
garian section of the Tisza River.
KEYWORDS
deep floodplain, HEC-RAS code, 1D-2D coupled model, flood, water retention, nature-based solution
1. INTRODUCTION
The effects of climate change can be already observed on the Great Hungarian Plain.
Groundwater table have been dropped by several meters in the last decades at certain zones
[1]. Although the total volume of annual precipitation has not been changed significantly, it
has been becoming more variable in space and time. It is well known that the uncertainty of
the prognosis generated by climate change forecast models is high. Nevertheless, the forecasts
show that the evaporation, the possibility of the flash floods and the droughts will increase
and the decreasing recharge of groundwater is foreseeable [2]. The changing climate, making
extreme meteorological phenomenon more likely, will most likely strengthen the adverse
effects of these phenomena. It is therefore becomes necessary to save available water re-
sources. To achieve this, as a prerequisite, the review of the existing approaches of water
management is needed.
The flood waves between 1998 and 2001 generated the highest water levels from year to
year without significant growth in measured discharges. A series of flood waves between 1998
and 2001 resulted in increasing flood levels year by year. The ever heightening of the levee’s
crests is not a sustainable solution. Due to the vast sediment deposition across the flood
channels, the further rise of the flood levels is expected. The sedimentation ratio in the
Middle-Tisza Section is about 1.1 cm year
1
, and in the Lower-Tisza section 0.8 cm year
1
[3,4].
The solution from the official Hungarian water management was the ‘Further Develop-
ment of Vásárhelyi’s Plan’(FDVP) [5]. Pál Vásárhelyi was the designer of the Tisza River
regulation. The concept of the FDVP was to build storage areas on the selected deep
floodplains and launch a new, integrated water management [5]. Till today not all the
planned storage areas have been built, and existing ones are only be used in critical cases to
reduce flood peak.
Pollack Periodica •
An International Journal
for Engineering and
Information Sciences
DOI:
10.1556/606.2022.00456
© 2022 The Author(s)
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
PAPER
pCorresponding author.
E-mail: muranyi.gabor@emk.bme.hu
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/16/22 10:18 AM UTC
The aim of the present study was to investigate the op-
portunities of a nature-based flood management solution in
the Tisza River Valley, Hungary. Based on previous in-
vestigations, many deep floodplain areas have been identi-
fied along the Tisza River. These areas were formerly
integrated parts of the Tisza River’sfloodplain. Since the
river regulation works and levee constructions of the 19th
century, the deep floodplains have been cut from the river by
the flood levees and the direct hydraulic contact with the
river has been lost. It seems to be logical that recovered and
reattached deep floodplains can be used as storage areas [6–8].
To reach this, there is no need for the destruction of the dikes.
The construction of sluice gates could provide the connection
between the storage area and the river. The inflow and the
outflow can be securely managed. The formerly approximated
total capacity of the storage areas is 2.5 cubic kilometer [9].
A more precise estimation is given in this paper. This nature-
based solution offers multiple positive effects: on one hand, the
flood risk mitigation, while on the other, it can be an effective
tool to mitigate drought and excess water flood risk. The
feasibility is caused by the peculiarity of the Tisza Valley. As it
is pointed out in the National Water Strategy (‘JenőKvassay
Plan’)[10], while in the upper section of the Tisza Valley,
riverine and excess water flood risk are more common, in the
lower section, all three risk factors occur together. The
essential of the deep floodplain storage method is the ‘calm’
water withdrawal. The filling of the reservoirs goes on
simultaneously with the rising water level in the river channel.
Thesluicegatesclosewhenthewaterreachestheallowable
level in the reservoir. Thus, water flows do not damage the
vegetation [11].
The previous phase of the research showed that natural
deep floodplains may function properly as a flood risk
mitigation system in a different way than the flood peak
reduction method [12]. The goal in the current phase is to
examine the effect of the position of flood control structures
on the flood levels and identify the possible areas for the
deep floodplain storage system. Utilizing deep floodplain
storage capacity is only the first step in a new planned, in-
tegrated, nature-based water management strategy subject to
research. The further functions of the reservoirs are reducing
the risk of flooding, act as Managed Aquifer Recharge
(MAR) areas and supply storage water background reser-
voirs far from the river. The precondition of implementation
of aforesaid elements in the current water management is
the changes of the land-use on the affected areas. The pre-
vailing land-use nowadays on these areas are crop fields. As
natural reservoirs, grasslands, wetlands, pastures, and
floodplain forests are the recommended land uses. With this
land-use change, drought and inland excess water risk can
be mitigated. Furthermore, restoring the water-related
ecosystem can increase biodiversity, which has a positive
impact on ecosystem services. As a MAR tool, the trend-like
decline in the groundwater level is expected to slow down,
moreover, the groundwater level is expected to increase.
Approximation of these effects will be the topic of the next
research phase, however, based on previous research, posi-
tive effects are expected [13–15].
2. METHODOLOGY
According to a previous comprehensive analysis [12], flood
risk could be efficiently mitigated on deep floodplains, which
was regularly covered by water before the river regulation
works. The aim is to analyze the effect of the position of the
inlet structures and identify further deep floodplain areas
suitable for flood mitigation, preparing the model to the next
research phase.
The following data and information were available for
our investigations:
‒25 325 m cells Digital Elevation Model (DEM) for
Hungary, Google Maps;
‒Cross section data of the Tisza River along the Hungarian
longitudinal section;
‒Time series of the floods between 1998–2001;
‒Data about the structure and the operating rules of Tis-
zalök and Kisköre hydropower plants;
‒Historical map database [16] and historical ethnograph-
ical and land use descriptions [17,18].
As a first step a comprehensive comparative study was
carried out analyzing the possible technical solutions. The
combined 1D/2D model has two parts. The 1D Saint-Venant
equations were used for the Tisza River. The detailed ex-
amination of the inundation process on storage area was
carried out with the 2D solver that gives the Diffusive wave
approximation of the Shallow Water (DSW) equations using
the Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes equation (RANS).
The connection between these model components were
provided by a sluice gate [19]. For optimization of the
reservoir operation the 2D model was replaced by a
simplified 0D storage model, which results in targeted
operation of the sluices. Based on the DEM an elevation-
volume curve was used to describe the reservoir storage
capacity [20]. In the frame of the first simulations it was
assumed there will be a two-structure system. An inlet
structure on the upstream site and one outlet structure
nearby the downstream site on a deeper point were assumed.
The operation regime of these structures is equivalent to the
current reservoir operation of that of the FDVP reservoirs.
In the second case, based on the descriptions of the historical
land use, just one multifunctional structure was used nearby
the floodplain embankment on the deepest point. This
alternative was used to provide a simulation of the ancient
traditional floodplain management methodology. The
essential of this approach is filling up the floodplain from the
deepest point because it results a moderate inundation ve-
locity and the sedimentation will happen on the deepest
point. Meanwhile the drainage of the storage the outflow will
work against the sedimentation. With the help of this
approach the decrease of the maintenance work was targeted
[11,17].
In the first phase, the 1D Tisza River model was applied
between Kisköre hydropower plant the river mouth at the
Danube, south of Titel. For the calibration procedure the
river discharge/stage data of year 1999 was used, while river
2Pollack Periodica
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/16/22 10:18 AM UTC
data of 2000 have been used for validation purpose. After the
hydrodynamic simulations, the model was extended for the
whole country. That means, the model’s new upstream
boundary is at Tiszabecs, where the Tisza River enters
Hungary. With using the US Army Corps of Engineers
Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System’s
(HEC-RAS) mapper module, the morphological model of
the riverbed was exported using linear interpolation. The
Tisza River’s bed data were integrated into the DEM using a
separate Geographic Information System (GIS) software.
The DEM covers the area of Hungary, therefore where the
Tisza River separates Hungary from the neighboring coun-
tries, the river bed data was missing. Based on the Google
maps, the satellite pictures, and the original cross section
data the missing parts were replaced with a synthesized
triangulated network. Thereafter the 1D schematic for the
extended Tisza model was drawn. The cross sections with
the new composite terrain data was inspected and over-
written. Based on the new model layout, potential deep
floodplain reservoirs have been explored. Existing FDVP
storages were also taken into consideration. The Bodrogzug
area act like a reservoir, therefore it has been built into the
model as a storage area, with open connection to the river. It
is an important part of the Tisza River Valley, but it is not a
part of the deep floodplain reservoir system, because the
inflows and outflows are uncontrolled.
The rules for selecting the floodplains were the following:
‒The permissible normal water level by operation can
cause 1.5–2 m deep average inundation;
‒By this average depth, the storage capacity must be
greater than 20 million m
3
;
‒The boundary edge of the reservoir follows the alignment
of the existing infrastructures, estate borders or the high
banks;
‒If the reservoir area overlaps with villages or bigger farm
complexes, the affected area will be protected with ring
levee where it is necessary;
‒The multifunctional structure can be used.
3. MODEL ANALYSIS AND CALCULATION
RESULTS
3.1. The effects of the structure position
The study area is located on the right side of the Tisza River,
south of Csongrád, east of Felgyő. The elevation versus
volume relationship gives the storage capacity curve shown
in Fig. 1. Based on the selection rules of the deep floodplains,
the allowable normal water level is 81 Meters Above Sea
Level (MASL). For that level, the capacity of the reservoir is
51.43 million m
3
.
The structure for the outflow control in both cases was a
2310 m wide sluice gate, with the bottom sill on 78.1
MASL. The operation inundation level was at 81 MASL. For
the 2D inundation mapping, the sluice gate opening time
series for the calibration flood of year 2000 were used. The
different approach of the 0D and 2D simulation can cause
differences in the emerging water levels. First, the inunda-
tion spreads from the northeasterly part of the deep flood-
plain. The maximal water surface was 80.90 MASL in this
case. The arrival time in the upper quarter of the storage
area was under 12 h. The inundation propagation is strongly
influenced by the existing drainage or irrigation canals. After
24 h approximately the half of the studied area was flooded.
It took a little over 96 h to reach the allowable water level,
but after 48 h the whole area is under water-cover. The re-
sults can be studied in Fig. 2. The maximal discharge of the
sluice gate was 198.95 m
3
s
1
. At the water gauge near
Szeged town, the maximal mitigation of the flood level was
12 cm peaking on 03/17/2000.
In the second case, a multifunctional structure was
examined, positioned to the deepest point nearby the
floodplain dike. The reached maximal water level was 80.95
MASL. In the first 24 h the deeper trenches were inundated,
Fig. 1. Reservoir capacity curve
Fig. 2. Arrival time with two structure system, inflow from the
northeasterly part
Pollack Periodica 3
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/16/22 10:18 AM UTC
then in the next 24 h the upper trenches. After filling the
canals and the nearby deeper plains, it took more than 180 h
to flood the entire storage area (see Fig. 3). This means 3.5
days more charging time than the first version. The maximal
measurable effect on the Szeged water gauge was 13 cm on
03/17/2000. The maximal discharge on the sluice gate was
153.30 m
3
s
1
.
Although the charging time is almost double of the two-
structure system, from the viewpoint of the eco-friendly
inundation the one multifunctional structure system is
preferable. The highest velocity occurs in the existing canals.
The prevailing practice of water management drains out the
deep floodplains on the deepest points to handle the
groundwater flood. The advantage of a system similar to
the traditional one is that, in theory, the existing drainage
channels can be used as multifunctional channels. Further-
more, investment and operating costs can be reduced if only
one structure is built.
The arrival times described above do not include the
time needed to empty the reservoirs and the retention time.
Fig. 3. Arrival time with multifunctional structure system, inflow by
the deepest point nearby the embankment
Table 1. Deep floodplain storage areas in the Tisza River Valley
ID Name RKM Area [km
2
] Max. level [MASL] Volume [10
6
m
3
]
001 Milota 731þ100 23.05 118.00 61.83
002 Beregi VTT 706þ850 58.63 109.20 32.82
003 Kisar 690þ000 75.95 110.80 65.94
004 Gergelyiugornya 680þ740 39.96 109.40 61.90
005 Cigánd VTT 597þ700 25.28 97.80 57.79
006 Dombrád 569þ000 163.85 95.80 88.79
007 Tiszakarád 566þ400 40.33 96.20 65.30
008 Tiszaladány 512þ000 58.64 94.60 60.95
009 Taktakenéz 503þ500 27.87 93.70 38.54
010 Tiszalúc 493þ500 38.55 94.40 73.76
011 Tiszagyulaháza 488þ000 55.24 92.00 42.07
012 Polgár 468þ400 25.87 91.90 35.09
013 Tiszacsege 457þ000 54.36 90.90 48.59
014 Tiszadorogma 442þ000 203.79 90.50 67.45
015 Tiszafüred 434þ300 71.31 89.15 65.62
016 Sarud 414þ000 26.22 89.50 57.72
017 Tiszaderzs 411þ700 68.28 88.60 138.83
018 Tiszanána 404þ500 66.54 88.65 98.70
019 Nagykunsági VTT 400þ600 40.34 88.00 91.95
020 Tiszaroff sample 391þ000 5.58 86.00 7.31
021 Hanyi-Tiszasülyi VTT 388þ900 55.73 86.00 27.80
022 TiszaroffiVTT 370þ100 23.37 87.50 45.63
023 Nagykörű354þ300 49.24 85.60 42.16
024 Tiszabő362þ000 31.28 87.50 87.12
025 Tiszapüspöki 351þ400 68.01 87.50 197.76
026 Tószeg 321þ500 44.62 87.70 35.31
027 Tiszaföldvár 294þ500 45.26 83.80 58.46
028 Tiszakécske 275þ500 29.55 83.50 51.26
029 Tiszasas 249þ600 73.64 82.50 126.47
030 Szentes 238þ000 70.39 81.50 62.71
031 Csongrád 228þ800 29.91 81.00 51.43
032 Mindszent 218þ000 57.35 79.70 31.52
033 Ópusztaszer 204þ700 70.90 79.60 85.15
034 Dóc 196þ700 49.07 79.50 71.30
035 Mártély 204þ000 20.30 81.00 31.97
036 Hódmezővásárhely 183þ700 158.30 78.50 93.76
Sum 2,360.75
4Pollack Periodica
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/16/22 10:18 AM UTC
The required hydraulic retention time depends on the spe-
cific flood wave and the intended use of the stored water.
Theoretically, implementing reservoir elements of the
complex system, from the deep floodplains the water flows
further away and will be used firstly to aquifer recharge.
From certain storage areas gravity transfer is not possible a
part of the stored water flows back to the river, another part
seeps into the soil and/or evaporates.
3.2. Review of the potential deep floodplain reservoirs
The hydraulic analysis showed that the integrated multi-
functional structure design is a technically appropriate
solution. Keeping in mind the rules of reservoir designa-
tion and striving for a multifunctional structure design, a
total of 36 deep floodplain areas were explored. Six from
that is an existing FDVP reservoir. To keep model uni-
formity, the official data of the FDVP storages were not
used. All the elevation versus volume curves were gener-
ated using the composite DEM data generated for this
study. The selected storage areas meet the requirements,
except the storage area N
o
020. That is a possible sample
area for the future field experiments. It is located north of
Tiszaroff town. On the historical land use maps the name
of this area is ‘Tó lapos’in Hungarian, which means plain
lake or shallow lake. The potential deep floodplain storage
areas of the Tisza Valley are summarized in Table 1.
In Table 1,the reservoirs are listed from upstream to
downstream. The positions of these storage areas are illus-
trated in Fig. 4. The sum of the selected area is 2,046.56 km
2
.
The total storage capacity is 2.36 km
3
. This is 1.48 times
larger than Hungary’s largest lake, Lake Balaton (approxi-
mately 1.9 km
3
).
4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The analysis performed in the present study proved that
both examined systems for the deep floodplain storage
method, the separated inlet and outlet structure system and
the multifunctional integrated structure system are suitable
solution for the reservoir operation. The essential of the
method has been validated, ergo the water withdrawal
started in the beginning of the flood. The water level in the
reservoir changed gradually, water fluxes did not exceed
200 m
3
s
1
. Moreover, with the multifunctional structure it
was under 160 m
3
s
1
. The maxima of the flood level miti-
gation at the Szeged water gauge were quasi the same. The
one structure system is also advocated by the presumably
higher cost efficiency.
The model of the Tisza River was extended to the up-
stream end of the Hungarian river section at Tiszabecs. For
that the digital elevation model was further developed,
which provided an opportunity to analyze all the possible
locations of deep floodplains. With the use of the selection
rules and results of previous research, 36 potential deep
floodplain storage areas were explored. The sum volume of
these reservoirs is 2.36 km
3
. It is noteworthy that this ca-
pacity is not an exact number. It depends on the applied
boundaries of the storage areas and the allowable normal
water level. That can be the explanation of the differences in
results between this research and the previous works.
The former work pointed out that the deep floodplain
storage method can be a nature-based alternative solution
for the flood, drought, and inland excess water flood risk
mitigation but only in a storage chain system. This paper
has shown that the necessary storage capacities are
available in the Tisza Valley. The next goal is the opti-
mization of the deep floodplain storage chain operation,
after the calibration and validation of the extended Tisza
model.
REFERENCES
[1] G. Mezősi, “Physical geography of the great Hungarian plain,”in
The Physical Geography of Hungary. Geography of the Physical
Environment, Springer, 2017, pp. 195–229.
[2] B. Nováky, “Climate change and its effects”(in Hungarian), in
Hungary’s Water Management: Situation and Strategic Plans (in
Hungarian). L. Somlyódy, Ed., Budapest: Hungarian Academy of
Sciences, 2011, pp. 85–102.
[3] F. Schweitzer, I. Nagy, and L. Alföldi, “Relationship between the
formation of point bars and natural levees and flood bed sedi-
mentation along the middle stretches of Tisza River”(in Hun-
garian), Földrajzi Értesítő, vol. 51, no. 3–4, pp. 257–278, 2002.
[4] F. Schweitzer, “Decision-making constraint in the Hungarion
flood management”(in Hungarian), in Studies from the Fields of
Geomorphology, Geochronology, Hydrography and Mars-research
(in Hungarian). F. Schweitzer, Ed., Budapest: MTA CSFK Föl-
drajztudományi Intézet, 2017, pp. 103–135.
Fig. 4. Deep floodplain storage areas in the Tisza River Valley
Pollack Periodica 5
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/16/22 10:18 AM UTC
[5] Concept of integrated territorial development, rural development
and environmental development on the areas along the Tisza
River (in Hungarian), VÁTI Hungarian Public Nonprofit Com-
pany for Regional Development and Town Planning, Budapest,
2004. [Online]. Available: http://www.terport.hu/webfm_send/87.
Accessed: May 27, 2021.
[6] L. Koncsos, “Flood regulation of the Tisza in the Carpathian Ba-
sin”(in Hungarian), Magyar Természetvédők Szövetsége, Buda-
pest, pp. 4–31, 2006.
[7] Z. Derts and L. Koncsos, “Ecosystem services and land use
zonation in the Hungarian Tisza deep floodplains,”Pollack
Period., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 79–90, 2012.
[8] Z. Derts, L. Koncsos, and Z. Simonffy, “The flood protection sit-
uation of the Tisza in Hungary: current practice and alternative
possibilities,”(in Hungarian), World Wide Fund for Nature –
Under review, Budapest, 2018.
[9] Z. Derts and L. Koncsos, “Flood risk mitigation in the Tisza Valley
by deep floodplain reservoirs: The effect on the land use,”J. En-
viron. Sci. Eng. B1, pp. 34–40, 2012.
[10] National Water Strategy –JenőKvassay Plan (in Hungarian),
General Directorate of Water Management, Budapest, 2017.
[Online]. Available: https://www.vizugy.hu/vizstrategia/
documents/997966DE-9F6F-4624-91C5-3336153778D9/Nemzeti-
Vizstrategia.pdf. Accessed: May 27, 2021.
[11] G. Gábris, G. Timár, A. Somhegyi, and I. Nagy, “Flood storage or
floodplain management along the Tisza”(in Hungarian), in 2nd
Hungarian Geographical Conference (in Hungarian), Szeged,
Hungary, Sep. 4–5, 2004, pp. 1–18.
[12] G. Murányi and L. Koncsos, “Examination of a nature-based flood
control solution in the Tisza River Valley nearby Csongrád town
with HEC-RAS 1D-2D coupled model”(in Hungarian), Hidroló-
giai Közlöny - under rewiev, 2021.
[13] J. V. Ward, K. Tockner, U. Uehlinger, and F. Malard, “Under-
standing natural patterns and processes in river corridors as the
basis for effective river restoration,”Regulated Rivers: Res.
Manage., vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 311–323, 2001.
[14] K. Tockner and J. A. Stanford, “Riverine flood plains: present state
and future trends,”Environ. Conserv., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 308–330,
2002.
[15] L. Koncsos and E. Balogh, “A simulation-optimization method-
ology for designing the operation of emergency reservoirs in the
Hungarian Tisza basin,”Period. Polytech. Civil Eng., vol. 54, no. 2,
pp. 101–106, 2010.
[16] G. Timár, G. Molnár, B. Székely, S. Biszak, J. Varga, and A. Jankó,
Digitized maps of the Habsburg Empire –the map sheets of the
second military survey and their georeferenced version, Arcanum
(Budapest), 2006. [Online]. Available: https://maps.arcanum.com/
en/. Accessed: May 27, 2021.
[17] B. Andrásfalvy, “Ancient floodplain management and water uses
of Sárköz and the surrounding Danube areas before regulation”
(in Hungarian), Vízügyi Dokumentációs és Tájékoztató Iroda,
Budapest, 1973.
[18] G. Molnár, “Floodplain management - the basis of economic and
political continuity in the Carpathian Basin, part. I - part IX,”(in
Hungarian), Országépítő, vol. 1991, no. 2, pp. 30–34, 1991 –1994;
no. 3, pp. 38‒47; no. 4, pp. 30‒38; vol. 1992, no. 1, pp. 36‒46; no.
3-4, pp. 69‒78; vol. 1993, no. 3, pp. 52‒61; no. 4, pp. 50‒56; vol.
1994, no. 1, pp. 28‒34.
[19] G. W. Brunner, “HEC-RAS river analysis system user’s manual,
Version 5.0,”US Army Corps of Engineers Institute of Water
Resources Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, CA, USA, 2016.
[20] G. W. Brunner, “HEC-RAS river analysis system hydraulic
reference manual,”US Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic
Engineering Center, Davis, CA, USA, 2016.
Open Access. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited, a link to the CC
License is provided, and changes –if any –are indicated. (SID_1)
6Pollack Periodica
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/16/22 10:18 AM UTC
