Türkiye’de Yeraltı Suyu Kullanımları ve Tahsislerinin Sürdürülebilirlik Anlayışı ile Değerlendirilmesi: Yeşilırmak Havzası Örneği

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 25 Sayı: 2, 97 - 110, 31.12.2024

Selim Armut

Öz

Yeraltı su kaynakları içme kullanma, tarımsal, endüstriyel gibi kullanımlarda değerlendirilmektedir. Ancak kaynağın sürdürülebilir tahsisinde bazı hususların dikkate alınmasını gerektirmektedir. Çalışmada yeraltı su kaynağı üzerinde baskı oluşturan sorunlara değinilerek, Türkiye’de yeraltı suyu kullanımları ve tahsislerinin Yeşilırmak Havzası özelinde değerlendirilip sorunlar ve çözüm önerileri geliştirilmiştir. Türkiye’de havza bazında tüm yeraltı su kullanımlarının miktar ve kalite yönünden izlenmesi, tahsislerin yeraltı suyunun sürdürülebilir yönetimi esas alınarak dinamik bir şekilde yapılması gerektiği; koruma tedbirlerinin maliyetlerinin karşılanmasında ücretlendirme veya vergi uygulaması getirilerek, gelirlerin bu amaç dışında kullanılmamasını düzenleyici önlemlerin alınması gereği açıkça görülmektedir. Sürdürülebilir yeraltı suyu yönetimine ilişkin düzenlemelerin, yerüstü su kaynakları yönetimine ilişkin düzenlemelerle birlikte havza bazında su kullanım durumları gözetilerek bütüncül bir anlayışla ele alınarak yapılması gerekmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

entegre yeraltı suyu yönetimi, yeraltı sularının kullanımı, yeraltı suyu tahsisleri, maliyet geri kazanımı

Kaynakça

• ARCADIS (2012). The Role of Water Pricing and Water Allocation in Agriculture in Delivering Sustainable Water use in Europe. Project number 11589. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.
• Badiani, R., Jessoe, K.K. & Plant, S. (2012). Development and the environment: the implications of agricultural electricity subsidies in India. J Environ Dev 21(2):244–262.
• Barker, I. (2016). UK Environment Agency. personal communication.
• Barlow, P.M. & Reichard, E.G. (2010). Saltwater intrusion in coastal regions of North America. Hydrogeol J 18(1):247–260
• Berbel, J., Pedraza, V., & Giannoccaro, G. (2013). The trajectory towards basin closure of a European river: Guadalquivir. International Journal of River Basin Management, 11(1), 111-119.Berbel, J.,
• Borrego-Marin, M. M., Exposito, A., Giannoccaro, G., Montilla-Lopez, N. M., & Roseta-Palma, C. (2019). Analysis of irrigation water tariffs and taxes in Europe. Water Policy, 21(4), 806-825.
• Berbel, J., & Expósito, A. (2020). The theory and practice of water pricing and cost recovery in the Water Framework Directive. Water Alternatives, 13(3), 659- 673.
• BMUB (2016). Water Framework Directive – The Status of German Waters 2015. Umweltbundesamt, Dessau, Germany.
• Damaneh, H. E., Gh, Z., Salajeghe, A., Ghorbani, M., & Khosravi, H. (2018). Assessing the effect of land use changes on groundwater quality and quantity (Case study: west basin of Jazmoryan wetland). Journal of Range and Watershed Management, 71(3), 1.
• Danmarks Statistik (2015), “Vandregnskap 2014: Geografi, miljoe og energi” [Water accounts 2014: Geography, environment and energy], Statistics Denmark.
• Devlet Su İşleri Genel Müdürlüğü (2024). https://www.dsi.gov.tr/.
• EC (2012). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: report on the review of the European water scarcity and droughts policy. COM (2012) 672, Brussels
• EC (2015). Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive: Actions Towards the ‘ Good Status’ of EU Water and to Reduce Flood Risks. Report on the Progress in Implementation of the Water Framework Directive Programmes of Measures. SWD (2015) 50 Final. Brussels, Belgium.
• Ferguson, G. & Gleeson, T. (2012). Vulnerability of coastal aquifers to groundwater use and climate change. Nat Clim Chang 2(5):342–345.
• Freeman, D. (2011). Implementing the Endangered Species Act in the Platte Basin water commons. University Press of Colorado, Boulder
• GEF, World Bank, UNESCO-IHP, FAO & IAH (2015). Global groundwater governance a call to action: a shared vision for 2030.
• Geoscience Australia, (2010). Assessing the need to revise the guidelines for groundwater protection in Australia: a review report. Geoscience Australia.
• GEUS (2010). Water Supply in Denmark. Denmark.
• Golovina, E., & Karennik, K. (2021). Modern trends in the field of solving transboundary problems in groundwater extraction. Resources, 10(10), 107.
• Grafton, R. Q., & Hussey, K. (Eds.). (2011). Water resources planning and management. Cambridge University Press.
• Grönwall, J. (2014). “Power to segregate: improving electricity access and reducing demand in rural India”, Stockholm International Water Institute, Paper 23.
• Jakeman, A. J., Barreteau, O., Hunt, R. J., Rinaudo, J. D., & Ross, A. (2016). Integrated groundwater management (p. 762). Springer Nature.
• Hou, L., Zhou, Z., Wang, R., Li, J., Dong, F., & Liu, J. (2022). Research on the non-point source pollution characteristics of important drinking water sources. Water, 14(2), 211.
• Huang, S., Krysanova, V., & Hattermann, F. (2015). Projections of climate change impacts on floods and droughts in Germany using an ensemble of climate change scenarios. Regional Environmental Change, 15, 461-473.
• Hunt, R.J., Borchardt, M.A., Richards, K.D., & Spencer S.K. (2010). Assessment of sewer source contamination of drinking water wells using tracers and human enteric viruses. Environ Sci Technol+ 44(20):7956– 7963.
• Hussey, K. & Kay, E. (2015). The opportunities and challenges of implementing water sensitive urban design: lessons from stormwater management in Victoria, Australia.
• Hunt, R. J., Rinaudo, J. D., & Ross, A. (2016). Integrated groundwater management (p. 762). Springer Nature.
• Kløve, B., Ala-Aho, P., Bertrand, G., Gurdak, J. J., Kupfersberger, H., Kværner, J. & Pulido- Velazquez, M. (2014). Climate change impacts on groundwater and dependent ecosystems. Journal of Hydrology, 518, 250-266.
• Liefferink, D. (2011). The EU water framework directive: a multi-dimensional analysis of implementation and domestic impact. Land Use Policy 28:712–722.
• Maupin, M.A. (2014). Estimated use of water in the United States in 2010: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1405, 56 p.
• Nelson, R. (2012) Submission to house of representatives standing committee on regional Australia’s inquiry on certain matters relating to the proposed Murray Darling Basin plan: groundwater SDLs. Parliament of Australia, Canberra. Neuman, J. (2010). Are we there yet? Weary travellers on the long road to water policy reform. Nat Resour J 50:139–166.
• Oeztan, M. & Axelrod, M. (2011). Sustainable transboundary groundwater management under shifting political scenarios: the Ceylanpinar Aquifer and Turkey-Syria relations. Water Int 36(5): 671–685.
• Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, (2017). Groundwater allocation: managing growing pressures on quantity and quality (pp. 116-pp).
• Pittock, J., Williams, J., & Grafton, R. (2015). The Murray- Darling Basin plan fails to deal adequately with climate change. Water: Journal of the Australian Water Association, 42(6), 28-32.
• Ross, A. (2012). Water connecting people adapting: integrated surface water and groundwater management in the Murray-Darling Basin, Colorado and Idaho. Australian National University, Canberra.
• Schuerhoff, M., Weikard, H.P. & Zetland, D. (2013). The life and death of Dutch groundwater tax. Water Policy 15(6), 1064–1077.
• Shah, T. (2014). Towards a managed aquifer recharge strategy for Gujarat India: an economist’s dialogue with hydro-geologists. J Hydrol 518:94–107.
• Taylor, R. G., Scanlon, B., Döll, P., Rodell, M., Van Beek, R., Wada, Y., & Treidel, H. (2013). Ground water and climate change. Nature climate change, 3(4), 322- 329.
• T.C. Çevre Şehircilik ve İklim Değişikliği Bakanlığı. 2023 İl Çevre Durum Raporları. https://ced.csb.gov.tr/2023- yili-il-cevre-durum-raporlari-i-112399.
• T.C. Merzifon Belediyesi. 2024. Gözetleyici Kontrol ve Veri Toplama Sistemi.
• T.C. Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı Su Yönetimi Genel Müdürlüğü (SYGM). Yeşilırmak Nehir Havzası Yönetim Planı (NHYP). https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/SYGM/Sayfalar/Deta y.aspx?SayfaId=49.
• T.C. Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı Su Yönetimi Genel Müdürlüğü (SYGM). Yeşilırmak Havzası Kuraklık Yönetim Planı 2023. . www.tarimorman.gov.tr/SYGM/Belgeler/Kuraklık%2 0Yönetim%20Planları.
• TÜİK (2024). https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Su-ve- Atiksu-Istatistikleri-2022-49607. Erişim tarihi: 09.08.2024. Erişim saati: 10:55.
• Tzampoglou, P., Ilia, I., Karalis, K., Tsangaratos, P., Zhao, X., & Chen, W. (2023). Selected worldwide cases of land subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal. Water, 15(6), 1094.
• UK Environment Agency (2016). “Managing water abstraction”, UK Environment Agency, Bristol.
• Wada, Y. & Heinrich, L. (2013). Assessment of transboundary aquifers of the world-vulnerability arising from human water use. Environ Res Lett 8(2).
• Wada, Y., Van Beek, L. P., Van Kempen, C. M., Reckman, J. W., Vasak, S., & Bierkens, M. F. (2010). Global depletion of groundwater resources. Geophysical research letters, 37(20).
• Wang, J., Zhang, L., Huang, Q., Huang, J., & Rozelle, S. (2014). Assessment of the development of groundwater market in rural China. Water Markets for the 21st Century: What Have We Learned?, 263- 282.
• Wang, J. et al. (2016). Managing Water on China’s Farms: Institutions, Policies and the Transformation of Irrigation under Scarcity, Academic Press, Elsevier.
• Wijnen, M. et al (2012). Managing the invisible: understanding and improving groundwater governance. World Bank, Washington, DC.