not compromise safety-concerning flood risks. In this sense, the requirement for
evidence (based on simulations using historical data) can slow down the implementation of adaptation measures: the legal aspects bring with them a reluctance to
take responsibility to adjust management rules without clear science-based
evidence.
Water use ranking in case of drought and water scarcity is a subject that has not
been highlighted by stakeholders in the DROP project interviews in Somerset, but
drinking water and environment tend to get priority all over England with different
expressions in regions according to the Water Act 2003. The priorities established
by the Dutch national “verdringingsreeks” (displacement chain) in case of serious
freshwater shortage are not the same as in France and Germany. Preventing
irreparable damage to the water system, the soil (e.g., peat layers) or nature is the
first priority of the chain. Drinking water and energy production come as second in
line, followed by high-value agricultural and industrial production processes and
last by the interests of shipping, general agriculture, nature with resilience, industry,
recreation, and fishery.
Surprisingly, there is no “hierarchy” or prioritization of different water
uses/demand if a situation of water scarcity occurs in Flanders. The VMM water
board, which is developing physical drought indicators provided by modeling
assessment tools for the monitoring and reporting of the drought situation, is now
getting this issue on the agenda. The fact that drinking water companies set lower
prices for large-volume consumers, as some industries, does not contribute to
regulating demand and is not coherent with the general aims of the water board,
particularly in the perspective of preserving environmental flow.
In Vechtstromen, the second DROP case study in the Netherlands (see Chap. 9),
increasing extractions for irrigation and drinking water threatens the
groundwater-sensitive areas. As a result, the farmer organizations and drinking
water companies are opposed to nature conservation organizations. Province and
Vitens (the local drinking water producer) are looking for ways to protect drinking
water resources by combining nature and drinking water protection through the
involvement of water boards and farmers. Vitens provides financial compensation
to the farmers and for nature areas that are affected by its water abstractions.
In Eifel-Rur, the obligation of the water board to provide a well-established level
of protection against floods and drinking water supply, with all the responsibilities
associated, have resulted in an elaborate and sophisticated set of rules to manage the
interaction of reservoirs and water bodies. These legal obligations restrict the
possibility of officially incorporating additional risks (e.g., droughts) into the set of
priorities which govern the system. Even small changes have to be extremely well
founded and well argued, based on technical evidence and modeling of historic
data. The overall framework is therefore destined to be rather reactive than
proactive, and these reactions tend to take time. The management of secondary
objectives or other unconsidered aspects can only be improved if it can be shown
that primary objectives are not affected. This means that the adaptation of dam
management rules to drought and water scarcity is a lengthy procedure.
222
C. Furusho et al.
evidence (based on simulations using historical data) can slow down the implementation of adaptation measures: the legal aspects bring with them a reluctance to
take responsibility to adjust management rules without clear science-based
evidence.
Water use ranking in case of drought and water scarcity is a subject that has not
been highlighted by stakeholders in the DROP project interviews in Somerset, but
drinking water and environment tend to get priority all over England with different
expressions in regions according to the Water Act 2003. The priorities established
by the Dutch national “verdringingsreeks” (displacement chain) in case of serious
freshwater shortage are not the same as in France and Germany. Preventing
irreparable damage to the water system, the soil (e.g., peat layers) or nature is the
first priority of the chain. Drinking water and energy production come as second in
line, followed by high-value agricultural and industrial production processes and
last by the interests of shipping, general agriculture, nature with resilience, industry,
recreation, and fishery.
Surprisingly, there is no “hierarchy” or prioritization of different water
uses/demand if a situation of water scarcity occurs in Flanders. The VMM water
board, which is developing physical drought indicators provided by modeling
assessment tools for the monitoring and reporting of the drought situation, is now
getting this issue on the agenda. The fact that drinking water companies set lower
prices for large-volume consumers, as some industries, does not contribute to
regulating demand and is not coherent with the general aims of the water board,
particularly in the perspective of preserving environmental flow.
In Vechtstromen, the second DROP case study in the Netherlands (see Chap. 9),
increasing extractions for irrigation and drinking water threatens the
groundwater-sensitive areas. As a result, the farmer organizations and drinking
water companies are opposed to nature conservation organizations. Province and
Vitens (the local drinking water producer) are looking for ways to protect drinking
water resources by combining nature and drinking water protection through the
involvement of water boards and farmers. Vitens provides financial compensation
to the farmers and for nature areas that are affected by its water abstractions.
In Eifel-Rur, the obligation of the water board to provide a well-established level
of protection against floods and drinking water supply, with all the responsibilities
associated, have resulted in an elaborate and sophisticated set of rules to manage the
interaction of reservoirs and water bodies. These legal obligations restrict the
possibility of officially incorporating additional risks (e.g., droughts) into the set of
priorities which govern the system. Even small changes have to be extremely well
founded and well argued, based on technical evidence and modeling of historic
data. The overall framework is therefore destined to be rather reactive than
proactive, and these reactions tend to take time. The management of secondary
objectives or other unconsidered aspects can only be improved if it can be shown
that primary objectives are not affected. This means that the adaptation of dam
management rules to drought and water scarcity is a lengthy procedure.
222
C. Furusho et al.