Assessment of cumulative effects of new water abstractions for irrigation on groundwater bodies of Hungary

Transcription

1 Assessment of cumulative effects of new water abstractions for irrigation on groundwater bodies of Hungary Agnes Tahy General Directorate of Water Management, Hungary

2 Former events triggering Article 4(7) test Preliminary survey on interest in irrigation from surface water (irrigation canals operated by state) Launching projects to develop irrigation canal system Approval of the Hungarian Partnership Agreement for the programme period including Rural Development Programme (double irrigated areas) Call for farmers to develop irrigation with promotion water-efficient technologies Massive request of farmers for new water permissions mainly based on groundwater resources No significant effect of projects according to the EIAs How many licenses can be issued?

3 Water Resource Management Plan for 8 administrative regions to set the framework for future water licenses & 8 strategic environmental assessment including Art. 4(7) test Regional Plans and SEA preliminary water licenses issued over 6 months SW/GW

4 Assessed scenarios Baseline scenario: all water abstraction in the 2 nd RBMP refreshed by years 2014 and 2015 Scenario 1.: new water licences in 2016 (preliminary, construction and increased operational licences) Scenario 2.: estimated maximum water demands based on statistical data and development strategy of the FruitVeB Hungarian Interprofessional Organization for Fruit and Vegetable Scenario 3.: Scenario 2. with mitigation measures In all scenarios only abstraction for irrigation changes In all scenarios national regulation of water licensing were considered (e.g. streamlined EIA in the preliminary licensing process) Time steps: 2015, 2021, 2027 and 2027+

5 Upper Tisza Water Management Directorate Example of scenarios million m 3 /a irrigation estimated illegal all abstraction (a) (b) rate of drivers in 2015 Communal drinking water Agriculture irrigation Other shallow porous aquifer 1% 81% 18% deep porous aquifer 86% 1% 13% rate of drivers in 2021 Communal drinking water Agriculture irrigation Other shallow porous aquifer 0% 85% 15% deep porous aquifer 80% 10% 10%

6 Mitigation measures application of water-efficient technologies is required water metering for all abstractions more control to eliminate illegal water usages (including application of remote sensing) liquidation of improperly drilled wells rainwater harvesting on farmlands rainwater harvesting in urban areas treated sewage water reuse for irrigation water retention and augmentation by artificial recharge new reservoirs and damming of canals development of new surface water irrigation supply systems to change allocation reduction of losses in drinking water supply networks Estimated efficiency for all mitigation measures and the costs of large infrastructure projects

7 Impact assessment by Pannon XL v.2.0 model Significant change in model is larger than 10 cm (10 times larger than 1 cm limit value for a sensitive ecosystem) a groundwater flow numerical modelling was carried out by the Geological and Geophysical Institute of Hungary Modelling of changes in shallow porous aquifer and deep porous aquifers down to 100 meters This model run under permanent conditions overestimation of effects (consideration of worst case) Outcomes: alteration of groundwater level and flux (changes of water balance) Uncertainty of the method: +/- 5% (10 times larger than 1%)

8 shallow porous GWBs Status assessment of the GWBs good or poor in 2015 to manage uncertainty: good but risky GWBs if result is close to limit value 5 test types: water balance, surface water, GWDTE, intrusion (not typical in HU) & water level alteration 5% change in any criteria is significant further assessment is needed if a depression area intersects a GWDTE (or DWPA) local assessment of individual projects under EIA deep porous GWBs

9 Justification of Art. 4(7) exemption Some GWBs will deteriorate or not able to recovery from poor status even though all practical steps have done. The reason of failure is the cumulative effect of all water abstraction and climate change not an individual project for irrigation and not alone the cumulative effect of irrigation. Lack of political and financial support of large infrastructure project on modification of allocation, water retention, water efficiency led to the identification of disproportionate cost in the timeframe of WFD implementation (until 2027) Local effects have to test in an EIA process of individual projects to ensure compliance with WFD.

10 Public participation PP was ensured by several ways: Involvement of main stakeholders into SEA process requesting comments on WRMP and SEA Report Publication of WRMP and SEA Report on internet on homepage of regional water management directorate Organisation of forums Presentation and discussion on meeting of the Regional Water Councils Feedbacks on comments to participants Including comments and feedbacks in the final Plan and SEA Report Let minimum 30 days for comments

11 Application of exemption WRMP determines limit value for water abstractions then no significant deterioration Recently in all GWBs we are below limit value WRMP ex ante assess a possible scenario of water demands but we do not know whether it will happen or not. Obviously all practical steps have to start with and without exemption as well Regional water authorities should ensure that local effects of individual projects are assessed and avoided When should competent authority enter into force Art. 4(7) exemption?

12 Thank you for your attention!