Gérer la vulnérabilité de l'eau potable : une action publique désengagée ?

Management of drinking water vulnerability: a disengaged public action?

¹ Sociologue, Laboratoire des Mécanismes et Transferts en Géologie (LMTG), Université Toulouse 3 Paul Sabatier, CNRS UMR 5563, IRD, 31400 Toulouse, France
² Doctorante en sociologie, Centre d'Étude et de Recherche Travail, Organisation, Pouvoir (CERTOP), CNRS UMR 5044, 31058 Toulouse cedex 9, France

Auteur de correspondance : becerra@lmtg.obs-mip.fr

Résumé

Cet article propose une analyse de la gestion publique française de la vulnérabilité de l'eau souterraine destinée à la consommation humaine à travers l'observation et la mise en perspective de deux études de cas situées dans le bassin Adour-Garonne relatant le processus de décision d'abandon de captages au profit d'une interconnexion autour d'un unique point de prélèvement. La dynamique de gestion de la contamination des ressources en eau mise en évidence est dominée par une logique de gestion "palliative ": pas de traitement de fond des problèmes mais des solutions techniques ou curatives pour en traiter les symptômes. Un cercle vicieux s'instaure : la gestion quotidienne accentue la vulnérabilité des ressources en eau qui à son tour fragilise le système d'action local. Cette logique est symptomatique d'une "action publique désengagée " vis-à-vis de la contamination des ressources en eau, que l'on soit en situation de risque potentiel ou avéré. Les décisions finalement prises révèlent donc l'écart entre les responsabilités et la faible capacité gestionnaire des collectivités dans le traitement de la vulnérabilité.

Abstract

Our paper presents an analysis of French public management of drinking water vulnerability. The analysis is based on observation and comparison of two case studies. Each case describes the decision process leading to closure of some water catchments in favour of a single interconnected water catchment point. The second case (Val d'Adour, Hautes-Pyrénées) departs from the first situation (Saint-Nicolas-de-la-Grave, Tarn-et-Garonne) by a series of bans on tap water consumption upstream of this decision. It seems that water resources contamination from agricultural non-point source pollutions is an “ordinary risk”. It is acknowledged but does not cause any problem so long as chemical treatments ensure respect of drinkability standards. This situation does not help implement preventive measures and is probably also due to the absence of an asserted social demand. At present consumer requirements in France focus on tap water quality and price rather than on the quality of the process being used to produce it. In the management dynamic of this “ordinary risk” in the cases studied the prevailing logic is “palliative” management of the treatment of causes: only the symptoms are treated through technical or curative solutions claimed to be sustainable. A vicious circle is thus generated: the daily management stresses the vulnerability of water resources which in turn weakens the local action system. This logic of palliative management is symptomatic of a “disengaged public action”, characterized by disengagement regarding treatment of water resources pollution whether in situations of potential or of actual risk. The decisions taken to ensure the continued existence of water supply and respect of drinkability standards highlight the chasm between responsibilities in drinking water management and the actual “coping capacity” of locally elected authorities in the treatment of water resources vulnerability.