FEATURE pubs.acs.org/est Moving Targets, Long-Lived Infrastructure, and Increasing Needs for Integration and Adaptation in Water Management: An Illustration from Switzerland J. G. Hering,*,†,‡,§ E. Hoehn,†,^ A. Klinke,†,||,^ M. Maurer,†,^ A. Peter,†,^ P. Reichert,†,^ C. Robinson,†,^ K. Schirmer,†,^,§ M. Schirmer,†,^ C. Stamm,†,^ and B. Wehrli†,^,‡ †Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, CH-8600, D€ubendorf, Switzerland ‡Institute for Biogeochemistry and Pollutant Dynamics, ETH Z€urich, Switzerland §School of Architecture, Civil and Environmental Engineering, EPF Lausanne, Switzerland ’ INTRODUCTION Basic needs for water (e.g., for drinking water supply, irrigated agriculture, transportation, and waste assimilation, etc.) have been recognized throughout human history. Societies have traditionally invested heavily in water infrastructure to the point that human activities, such as dam construction, can be considered as a major geomorphic force on the water environment. In contrast, indirect ecosystem services provided by the water environment are only beginning to be fully appreciated.1 Pressures on available water resources have been increasing in many regions, and the need to maintain “environmental ﬂows” (i.e., water that supports aquatic and terrestrial habitat) has been acknowledged if not always satisﬁed.2 Water infrastructure has been developed in response to societal needs and values under speciﬁc environmental and geographic conditions (e.g., climate, hydrology, geomorphology, and ecologi- cal, biological, and chemical conditions) and with the technological, economic, and socio-political resources available at the time of design and construction. During the long lifetime of water infra- structure, all of these factors may evolve. In addition, new challenges may arise that the infrastructure was not designed to meet and unintended consequences may become apparent over a time-span of decades. Thus the criteria by which the success of water infrastructure is deﬁned can also change over time. The development of water infrastructure is embedded in the broader context of the management of water resources and the water environment. Thus deﬁciencies in technical performance that arise from unanticipated demands and/or unintended con- sequences may be addressed not only by modiﬁcation of the infrastructure but also by alternative strategies that obviate the need for such modiﬁcation. It is therefore of interest to consider how future decisions regarding the use, protection, and manage- ment of water resources as well as the replacement, upgrading, or redesign of infrastructure will be diﬀerent from those of the past. Here we use examples from Switzerland, a country with a long history of intensive water infrastructure development, to illus- trate the multiple and evolving challenges that must be addressed in the management of water resources and infrastructure. ’ WHY SWITZERLAND? The designation of Switzerland as the “water tower of Europe” reﬂects the importance of water resources and their management to the Swiss national identity. Switzerland has a long history of water infrastructure development and of active management of its water resources at a very high level of technical competence. As a water-rich country, with 1.5 m of precipitation annually, Switzerland faces only local issues of water availability. It must nonetheless address a number of conﬂicting objectives in the management of water infrastructure and water resources in the context of highly altered rivers and ﬂoodplains. As an alpine country subject to severe ﬂooding, Switzerland initiated the development of large-scale water infrastructure in the early 19th century. Today, in the Swiss midlands (i.e., at altitudes below 600 m), half of all water courses exhibit ecomorphological impairment.3 Switzerland is typical of many industrialized countries in that the management of water infrastructure and water resources has been highly professionalized. This has facilitated the incorpora- tion of expert knowledge and technical information but has also promoted a bias toward large infrastructure and a narrow deﬁnition of problems and potential solutions.4 As is common in many industrialized countries, responsibility and authority on issues related to water resources, water supply, and the aquatic environment are fragmented among various agencies. The issue of fragmentation is compounded by Swiss federalism and the strong tradition of local authority. Although legal and regulatory requirements are established at the Federal level, the ownership Published: December 15, 2011 r 2011 American Chemical Society 112 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es202189s | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 112–118