(c) Create incentives to explore alternative water supply options
Incentives for increased water efficiency (e.g. water recycling) are not felt
everywhere, as water recycling comes at a cost (of energy). There seem to
be no initiatives in place exploring alternative water supplies, e.g. rainwater
harvesting, significant process water recycling, etc. An impulse to increase
process water recycling could be given by making creating an economic
case (e.g. making it financially beneficial) for the private companies that are
the largest water users in the Eifel-Rur region.
2. Develop a comprehensive and up-to-date database on water rights and water
uses
Related to the previous point are the significant data issues affecting surface
water. Up-to-date information would not always be available, both for the different types of surface water rights, as well as for the different types of actual
uses of water. Options such as systematic water metering do not seem to be in
discussion. The lack of data would be related to the lack of updated legal
requirements mentioned in the previous point.
An adequate management of water resources requires comprehensive and
up-to-date data on these points. This is a necessary basis for understanding the
system and evaluating the potential for increasing system resilience, e.g. by
water demand management. Again, a push for data improvement would probably require both political will and to some extent additional resources. The
benefits of increasing the water management system’s resilience would in all
probability far outweigh the expenditures.
3. Search for synergies between drought preparedness and advisory services/
flood prevention plans
There seems to be a potential for synergies between measures addressing water
scarcity and droughts, and other initiatives being implemented in the Eifel-Rur
region. For instance, the possibility of including water quantity aspects in the
current advisory services to farmers (within the context of the WFD) would
seem promising. Interviewees considered examples such as those of the
Somerset region (using moisture sensors to address irrigation needs more precisely and thus reduce water use), in which actors have an economic benefit
(reduced costs of irrigation) as very viable.
There is also potential to incorporate drought topics and measures into flood
prevention planning.
4. Authorities’ review of decision-making processes: goalposts and stalled
processes
Stakeholders report that some planning processes are somewhat stalled, with
little progress over the last 2–3 years. The deadlock would be a result of trying
to achieve consensus and keeping to the traditional voluntary approach in topics
which are contentious due to significantly different interests and the high price
tags of relatively minor concessions. It would seem that the planning process
requires a mechanism for addressing these kinds of impasses. Some stakeholders also wished a clearer guidance on the overall process objectives (the
4 Eifel-Rur: Old Water Rights and Fixed Frameworks for Action
81
Incentives for increased water efficiency (e.g. water recycling) are not felt
everywhere, as water recycling comes at a cost (of energy). There seem to
be no initiatives in place exploring alternative water supplies, e.g. rainwater
harvesting, significant process water recycling, etc. An impulse to increase
process water recycling could be given by making creating an economic
case (e.g. making it financially beneficial) for the private companies that are
the largest water users in the Eifel-Rur region.
2. Develop a comprehensive and up-to-date database on water rights and water
uses
Related to the previous point are the significant data issues affecting surface
water. Up-to-date information would not always be available, both for the different types of surface water rights, as well as for the different types of actual
uses of water. Options such as systematic water metering do not seem to be in
discussion. The lack of data would be related to the lack of updated legal
requirements mentioned in the previous point.
An adequate management of water resources requires comprehensive and
up-to-date data on these points. This is a necessary basis for understanding the
system and evaluating the potential for increasing system resilience, e.g. by
water demand management. Again, a push for data improvement would probably require both political will and to some extent additional resources. The
benefits of increasing the water management system’s resilience would in all
probability far outweigh the expenditures.
3. Search for synergies between drought preparedness and advisory services/
flood prevention plans
There seems to be a potential for synergies between measures addressing water
scarcity and droughts, and other initiatives being implemented in the Eifel-Rur
region. For instance, the possibility of including water quantity aspects in the
current advisory services to farmers (within the context of the WFD) would
seem promising. Interviewees considered examples such as those of the
Somerset region (using moisture sensors to address irrigation needs more precisely and thus reduce water use), in which actors have an economic benefit
(reduced costs of irrigation) as very viable.
There is also potential to incorporate drought topics and measures into flood
prevention planning.
4. Authorities’ review of decision-making processes: goalposts and stalled
processes
Stakeholders report that some planning processes are somewhat stalled, with
little progress over the last 2–3 years. The deadlock would be a result of trying
to achieve consensus and keeping to the traditional voluntary approach in topics
which are contentious due to significantly different interests and the high price
tags of relatively minor concessions. It would seem that the planning process
requires a mechanism for addressing these kinds of impasses. Some stakeholders also wished a clearer guidance on the overall process objectives (the
4 Eifel-Rur: Old Water Rights and Fixed Frameworks for Action
81