spring period when water is collected, there is not enough water meeting the quality
conditions for some drinking water providers (e.g. water temperature below 10 °C
and oxygen above 4 mg/l). Furthermore, there is a lack of coherence when it comes
to resources; in particular, there are a lot of issues with municipalities being
extremely cash-strapped at the moment as well as in the foreseeable future.
This said, it is also true that drought can be considered a second-order problem
and the extent to which conflicts related to drought and water scarcity have emerged
is really quite limited—with the exception of punctual issues of water supply and
water quality between core actors WVER and a water supply company.
4.4.3 Flexibility
The overall evaluation of the governance system’s flexibility is only intermediate
with, however, some positive developments over time. This evaluation is based on
the fact that the water management system has a quite rigid large-scale framework,
shown fundamentally in the priorities and responsibilities of WVER (established by
law) and its operational procedures. The management of the water system in the
Eifel valley follows a clearly established set of complex management rules which
WVER helps elaborate and which are authorised by the district authority of
Cologne. Any management decision that disregards these rules can bring with it the
question of legal responsibility—for instance for flood damages ensuing due to
incorrect flood protection. This means that WVER and its personnel have a strong
incentive not to stray from this set of rules.
The framework is both difficult and slow to change, and some actors see it as
problematic for the system to take on-board new responsibilities. However, the
water management system shows very significant flexibility at the small scale,
within the rooms provided by this overall fixed framework. There is a strong culture
of discussion and collaboration between actors, and interviewed stakeholders were
broadly of the opinion that their interests are considered and taken on board as
much as possible.
The legal obligation of the waterboard to provide a certain established level of
protection (floods) and of supply (deliver water for drinking water production) and
the responsibilities associated with it have resulted in an elaborate and sophisticated
set of rules that manage the interaction of reservoirs and water bodies. However,
these same legal obligations imply that there is no short-term possibility of officially
incorporating additional risks (e.g. droughts) into the set of principles which govern
the system. Even smaller changes have to be extremely well-founded and
well-argued, based on thorough evidence and modelling of historic data, which
means that the overall framework is destined to be rather more reactive than
proactive, and that these reactions will tend to take time. The management of
secondary objectives or of other unconsidered aspects can only be improved if it
can be shown that primary objectives are not affected. This means that the
76
R. Vidaurre et al.
conditions for some drinking water providers (e.g. water temperature below 10 °C
and oxygen above 4 mg/l). Furthermore, there is a lack of coherence when it comes
to resources; in particular, there are a lot of issues with municipalities being
extremely cash-strapped at the moment as well as in the foreseeable future.
This said, it is also true that drought can be considered a second-order problem
and the extent to which conflicts related to drought and water scarcity have emerged
is really quite limited—with the exception of punctual issues of water supply and
water quality between core actors WVER and a water supply company.
4.4.3 Flexibility
The overall evaluation of the governance system’s flexibility is only intermediate
with, however, some positive developments over time. This evaluation is based on
the fact that the water management system has a quite rigid large-scale framework,
shown fundamentally in the priorities and responsibilities of WVER (established by
law) and its operational procedures. The management of the water system in the
Eifel valley follows a clearly established set of complex management rules which
WVER helps elaborate and which are authorised by the district authority of
Cologne. Any management decision that disregards these rules can bring with it the
question of legal responsibility—for instance for flood damages ensuing due to
incorrect flood protection. This means that WVER and its personnel have a strong
incentive not to stray from this set of rules.
The framework is both difficult and slow to change, and some actors see it as
problematic for the system to take on-board new responsibilities. However, the
water management system shows very significant flexibility at the small scale,
within the rooms provided by this overall fixed framework. There is a strong culture
of discussion and collaboration between actors, and interviewed stakeholders were
broadly of the opinion that their interests are considered and taken on board as
much as possible.
The legal obligation of the waterboard to provide a certain established level of
protection (floods) and of supply (deliver water for drinking water production) and
the responsibilities associated with it have resulted in an elaborate and sophisticated
set of rules that manage the interaction of reservoirs and water bodies. However,
these same legal obligations imply that there is no short-term possibility of officially
incorporating additional risks (e.g. droughts) into the set of principles which govern
the system. Even smaller changes have to be extremely well-founded and
well-argued, based on thorough evidence and modelling of historic data, which
means that the overall framework is destined to be rather more reactive than
proactive, and that these reactions will tend to take time. The management of
secondary objectives or of other unconsidered aspects can only be improved if it
can be shown that primary objectives are not affected. This means that the
76
R. Vidaurre et al.