Innovative Solution

preventive actions, drinking water, costs

financial

Costs of drinking water treatment and costs of reduction of water pollution from agriculture (watershed protection) were compared on 21 case studies in the Seine-Normandy river basin. This study aims at providing economic rationales in addition to environmental justifications to promote preventive actions (fertilizer reduction measures, organic farming, land acquisition, etc.) towards water supply companies. Remedial and preventive actions were compared from two points of view : first from water supply companies’ perspecrive and then from the point of view of all stakeholders supporting costs af measures (Water Agency principally). The study shows that remedial actions are always more expensive than preventive actions from the water supply companies’ point of view. However, the balance between remedial and preventive measures is not clear anymore when considering all actors supporting costs. Two additional dimensions have to be considered when comparing preventive and remedial action costs : positive ancillary effects should be taken for preventive actions, and preventive actions contribute to improve water related ecosystems. Furthermore, preventive actions would be more profitable if considered earlier : it is more economic to take early preventive measures to control pollution than to develop remediation strategies later when water quality has already been deteriored. A tool accompanies the study to help water supply companies to choose preventive actions on real cases, with their own parameters (surface, water volumes, …).

Seine-Normandy river basin

Seine-Normandy Water Agency

The solution was presented to many organizations (Governmental organizations, other French Water Agencies) and committees.

The solution aims to improve the quality of drinking water using a low cost method: preventive actions (such as fertilizer reduction measures, organic farming, land acquisition, etc…). We raise an important question here : what is the more expensive for water supply companies to improve the drinking water quality : preventive or remedial (treatment) actions?

Preventive measures are always less expensive than remedial actions from the water supply companies’ point of view. Preventive actions would be more profitable if considered earlier : it is more economic to take early preventive measures to control pollution than to develop remediation strategies later when water quality has already been deteriored.

Preventive actions would be more profitable if considered earlier : it is more economical to take early preventive measures to control pollution than to develop remediation strategies later when water quality has already been deteriored.

Water supply companies can be very interested by preventive actions, because they have postive ancillary affects, and are less expensive than remedial actions.

Preventive actions would be more profitable if considered earlier: it is more economic to take early preventive measures to control pollution than to develop remediation strategies later when water quality has already been deteriored.

Not yet.

Laëtitia Bompérin, Environmental economics officer at Seine-Normandy Water Agency; Contact :  bomperin.laetitia@aesn.fr, 01.41.20.17.15

The study can be downloaded on : http://www.eau-seine-normandie.fr/fileadmin/mediatheque/Expert/Prix_de_leau/PreventifCuratif.pdf