The document discusses cross-boundary groundwater management, particularly the impacts of extraction and open pit mining on the Rode Beek and Saeffeler Bach in Limburg, which has led to significant groundwater level reduction. It highlights the need for a comprehensive groundwater model to address complex hydrology and gather data for managing water resources across borders. Key next steps include reaching consensus on model utility and garnering political support for effective transboundary water management.

1. Cross-boundary Groundwater
Management: Effects of Extraction
and Open Pit Mining on Rode Beek /
Saeffeler Bach
Eric Castenmiller
Province of Limburg

2. Limburg
Capitol:
Maastricht
Inhabitants:
+/- 1 million
Delft

3. Delft

4. Rode Beek and
Saeffeler Bach
Rode Beek
Saeffeler Bach

5. A story …
Once upon a time, 10 – 20 million years ago there was ….
organic material.
Which became:
Lignite – Braunkohle –
Bruinkool

6. Garzweiler

7. Hambach

10. Open pit mining
 Lowering groundwater table 250 – 300 meter
 Each pit > 100 million m³/year
 Measures to compensate effects

11. Extensive monitoring
- Wetlands
- Catchment-areas

12. Roer Valley Graben

13. Geological profile
clay
fine sand
sand
50 km
300m

14. Head in deep aquifer (near Weert)
2200
2300
2400
2500
2600
2700
2800
2900
3000
1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013
cmabovesealevel

15. Rur Valley Graben
 Important aquifers for drinking water
- Province of Northern Brabant
- Flanders
- Province of Limburg
- Germany
 Multiple boundaries  cross border influence
 No cross-boundary groundwatermodel available

16. Groundwatermodel
In Limburg  IBRAHYM
In Germany  RWE - model
to small
no real cross-border calibration
Complex hydrology
demands larger
groundwatermodel

17. Objectives
 Groundwatermodel of the relevant area
 All relevant parties agree on the quality of the new model +
the result of the calculations
 Run scenario’s to:
- Understand what causes lower groundwaterlevels or -heads
- What measures are possible and effective
 No hidden agenda  political, high economical stakes

18. Participants

19. Challenges
 Cross border geology - tuning
 Expansion of aquifers and aquitards
 Collecting data groundwater extractions  border conditions
for pit instead of extractions
 Units  m/s or m/day
 Permeability of faults

20. Conceptual challenges
 Permeability and storage
coefficients (calibration)
– zones
– geological formation
Calibration
- Points  Netherlands
- Isohypses  Germany

21. Calibration in progress
 Check for:
- waterbalance (flow over faults)
- heads and isohypses
 One iteration cycle takes 13 - 15 hours
 Results (preliminary): trend is good, differences between
calculated and measured head
 Finished this month

22. Next steps
1 Agreement on:
- usefulness of the model  specialists
- scenarios and the results
- conclusions
- measures  politicians
2 Political support

23. Next steps
 Expansion to Flanders and Province of Northern Brabant
 Technical and political
 Real cross border water management in line with the
European Water Framework Directive
and than, hopefully, …….

24. …. we will live happily ever after, with enough water
for everybody.
The End