implies on the one hand that there are not many actors to be dealt with, whose
interests would have to be aligned in possible measures. On the other that there are
few control structures affecting springtime water availability which could be
managed to improve water availability. Indeed, one possible solution is to adjust
management plans so as to allow for more “winter water” to be kept in the reservoir
under dry hydrological conditions; the increase in water quantity would help to
avoid the decrease in water quality and its temperature rise.
The approach chosen by WVER—to adjust operating rules to be better prepared
for dry years—is thus an issue requiring interaction with few stakeholders. The
problem is fundamentally one of legal responsibility (how to increase “winter
water” in the reservoir without affecting the water board’s other legal requirements
such as flood protection; this issue could potentially be related to expensive litigation), so discussions are directly with the relevant authority. Since the required
agreement involves only authorities and the water board, the scale of the reservoirs
management in Eifel-Rur is quite limited compared to the Arzal Dam management.
Flanders relies on a mix of groundwater and surface water for its drinking water
provision, and summer low flows in the large transboundary rivers that cross the
country are accompanied with water quality issues. In recognition of this problem
(which is not new), water companies have infrastructure which allows the retention
of higher quality “spring” river water for use over the summer months. However,
longer dry periods mean that this buffering capacity no longer seems sufficient, and
both authorities and drinking water providers admit the necessity of increasing the
volumes retained—which means building additional retention infrastructure. The
water quality of the rivers that flow through Flanders is beyond the control of the
region or even of Belgium, as these are large international river basins (Meuse:
34,548 km
2 ; Scheldt: 21,863 km
2 ) covering a huge geographical scale and levels
going up all the way to the international. As an overall conclusion, the
drought-related issues affecting drinking water in the northwestern European pilots
were not directly a problem of water availability, but of limited water flow generating different water quality consequences. Longer periods of low flow (Vilaine,
Flanders) or changed precipitation patterns (Eifel-Rur) affect water quality negatively, to the point that drinking water companies see the need for (sometimes
expensive) action. In all three areas, and in spite of the largely different scales, the
planned responses were related to infrastructure: improving infrastructure by eliminating existing inefficiencies (Vilaine), increasing the capacity of infrastructure
(more reservoir capacity in Flanders), or adjusting operational rules of infrastructure.
11.4.1 Coordination Above Local Level for Increased
Resilience
When it comes to drinking water supply, the case study areas exemplify a broader
trend of increasing spatial water connectivity between neighboring water service
224
C. Furusho et al.
interests would have to be aligned in possible measures. On the other that there are
few control structures affecting springtime water availability which could be
managed to improve water availability. Indeed, one possible solution is to adjust
management plans so as to allow for more “winter water” to be kept in the reservoir
under dry hydrological conditions; the increase in water quantity would help to
avoid the decrease in water quality and its temperature rise.
The approach chosen by WVER—to adjust operating rules to be better prepared
for dry years—is thus an issue requiring interaction with few stakeholders. The
problem is fundamentally one of legal responsibility (how to increase “winter
water” in the reservoir without affecting the water board’s other legal requirements
such as flood protection; this issue could potentially be related to expensive litigation), so discussions are directly with the relevant authority. Since the required
agreement involves only authorities and the water board, the scale of the reservoirs
management in Eifel-Rur is quite limited compared to the Arzal Dam management.
Flanders relies on a mix of groundwater and surface water for its drinking water
provision, and summer low flows in the large transboundary rivers that cross the
country are accompanied with water quality issues. In recognition of this problem
(which is not new), water companies have infrastructure which allows the retention
of higher quality “spring” river water for use over the summer months. However,
longer dry periods mean that this buffering capacity no longer seems sufficient, and
both authorities and drinking water providers admit the necessity of increasing the
volumes retained—which means building additional retention infrastructure. The
water quality of the rivers that flow through Flanders is beyond the control of the
region or even of Belgium, as these are large international river basins (Meuse:
34,548 km
2 ; Scheldt: 21,863 km
2 ) covering a huge geographical scale and levels
going up all the way to the international. As an overall conclusion, the
drought-related issues affecting drinking water in the northwestern European pilots
were not directly a problem of water availability, but of limited water flow generating different water quality consequences. Longer periods of low flow (Vilaine,
Flanders) or changed precipitation patterns (Eifel-Rur) affect water quality negatively, to the point that drinking water companies see the need for (sometimes
expensive) action. In all three areas, and in spite of the largely different scales, the
planned responses were related to infrastructure: improving infrastructure by eliminating existing inefficiencies (Vilaine), increasing the capacity of infrastructure
(more reservoir capacity in Flanders), or adjusting operational rules of infrastructure.
11.4.1 Coordination Above Local Level for Increased
Resilience
When it comes to drinking water supply, the case study areas exemplify a broader
trend of increasing spatial water connectivity between neighboring water service
224
C. Furusho et al.