ECOLE NATIONALE DU GENIE RURAL DES EAUX ET DES FORETS
ENGREF
TECHNICAL SYNTHESIS
SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF ‘ALTERNATIVE
TECHNIQUES’ IN STORMWATER PURIFICATION
MAIGNE Julien
e-mail : maigne@engref.fr
January 2006
ENGREF Centre de Montpellier
B.P.44494 - 34093 MONTPELLIER CEDEX 5
Tél. (33) 4 67 04 71 00
Fax (33) 4 67 04 71 01
SUMMARY
KEY WORDS ........................................................................................................................ 2
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................... 2
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 3
ALTERNATIVE TECHNIQUES IN FRANCE : INVENTORY, STRENGTH AND
WEAKNESSES ..................................................................................................................... 3
O
O
O
DEFINITION ................................................................................................................ 3
OVERVIEW OF THE ALTERNATIVE TECHNIQUES ................................................... 3
KEY STAKEHOLDERS ................................................................................................ 3
JURIDICAL ASPECT : REGULATIONS WHICH CAN BE USED BY THE LOCAL
AUTHORITY ......................................................................................................................... 6
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES : EXAMPLES FROM SOME MUNICIPALITIES IN
FRANCE ............................................................................................................................... 7
O
O
A GLOBAL STORMWATER TREATMENT POLICY ..................................................... 7
THE INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT PROCESS.......................................................... 8
Setting a precise goal ..................................................................................................... 8
Compliance control ......................................................................................................... 8
Maintenance ................................................................................................................... 9
Summarized Board ........................................................................................................10
The follow-up work .........................................................................................................10
CONCLUSION .....................................................................................................................11
BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................12
1
KEY WORDS
Alternative techniques, integrated approach, stormwater treatments, stormwater runoffs,
retention, infiltration
ABSTRACT
French local Authorities have noticed that traditional urban storm drainage systems are often
limited when big flows must be purified. As a matter of fact, they have been more and more
interested in “alternative techniques” in order to improve drainage systems. However, and
whereas the technological issue is no longer a problem, local authorities haven’t
strengthened their storm drainage systems management. With both the spreading and the
diversification of alternative techniques, stormwater management is becoming increasingly
more compulsory.
Thus, the way this stormwater management will be set up it will have to incorporate
sustainable sanitation.
This bibliographical synthesis will present integrated approaches in the management of
stormwater discharges, which are built upon strict requirements for new owners and a
monitoring strategy. To reach these goals, local authorities rely on computing software or on
Geographic Information Systems (GIS).
2
INTRODUCTION
As big storms are becoming increasingly frequent, French local authorities have to address
the stormwater runoff upon urban impermeable ground issue'. As a result traditional
methods in urban storm drainage are changing. Alternative techniques built on softer and
more local structures are used more often by the authorities. However, if the technological
part is completely mastered, the management of these techniques have not been very well
established. The question is how the information from drainage system sites can be collected
when several drainage systems are built on private ground ? Moreover what kind of service
can be provided for each of them and finally how well will they be monitored ?
We will try to answer these questions after a quick view of all the techniques and a brief
inventory of the juridical context about stormwater purification.
ALTERNATIVE
WEAKNESSES
o
TECHNIQUES
IN
FRANCE :
INVENTORY,
STRENGTH
AND
DEFINITION
By « alternative », we will talk about the techniques that remove the traditional feature in
urban storm drainage system generalised during the 90’s. Indeed the concept of alternative
technique is the counterpart of a “everything in pipes” policy (Chocat and al., Techniques
alternatives, 1997). The goal is no longer to send water outside the city through a pipe but to
manage it on site or at a river basin level. Two techniques can be used : retention and
infiltration. With increasing urbanization, the surface area has become impermeable and it
has been necessary to enhance alternative techniques in order to. to stop this trend. When
the “everything in pipes” systems are difficult technically or not worth it economically,
managing stormwater on site becomes the easiest solution (Maytraud and Brousse, 1998).
Alternative techniques offer better integration within the urban development. Because these
techniques always present several utilities, they are not seen for their single drainage
function. Unlike pipes they need no big excavation works. Consequently they are rather
cheaper than classical drainage works. Finally, the cost can be split between the different
functions: urban (roadways), landscape (water meadow), environmental (wells) …(Azzout
and al., 1994).
Nevertheless alternative techniques are often misused because of misunderstanding. In fact,
this lack of communication can be explained by the lack of contact between the investors
(the city planner) and the users. Very often technical solutions are independent of the city
plan (Maytraud and Brousse, 1998). That is why sustainability is a very important issue for
the good working order of a drainage system. In the third part of this report we will see the
answers given by the local authorities in order to gather city plans and drainage techniques.
o
OVERVIEW OF THE ALTERNATIVE TECHNIQUES
Alternative techniques can be ordered between two principles : water retention and infiltration
in the ground. The following table (cf. table 1) presents the ageing behaviour of each
technique. We will see that these techniques need a substantial maintenance work. But
some structures are not as sensitive as others are to regular maintenance work.
o
KEY STAKEHOLDERS
3
Main stakeholders can be divided into two groups : the private and the public. Private can be
seen as:
- the contracting authority
In first place city planners who work on local project, integrated into a global urban
development. They are at a key place to promote alternative techniques especially with big
city works. At the same time property developers work on a limited area to construct
buildings and to sell flats. They may be interested by alternative techniques at a very
localized level (infiltration well, stocking roof). However, plot developers who sell land for
building don’t work on drainage system.
- the project manager
Frequently an engineering consultancy takes the project manager's place. They play a key
role for the choice of stormwater drainage system technique (Thomazeau and Reysset,
1998).
In the public domain, the technical services of the local authority (the municipality or the
Intermunicipal Cooperation Public Institution – EPCI –) play the main role. Indeed the Local
Urbanism Plan (PLU) is written by the municipality unless the municipality has integrated an
Urban Community or an Agglomeration Community (projet de territoire.com, 2005). In the
same way, waste water treatment is a municipal skill unless it has been delegated to an
upper community (like an EPCI). Consequently, in a local authority, several services can be
involved in stormwater treatment even if this topic is not their primary job : the roadway
department, the park department …In view of the local authority services, State agents have
been instructed to secure urbanism and to give advice and assistance.
In view of these stakeholders other players can be found like material makers for technical
solutions, public (city walkers for parks for example) … An integrated approach must be
planned to take into account so many stakeholders. This approach will have to gather
specialists for the same work (Thomazeau and Reysset, 1998). In an article about integrated
approach, W. Rauch advocates the need for moving away from solely traditional decisionmaking processes towards a local approach (Rauch and al., 2005). The idea expressed by
Brown and Ryan follows that public participation can lead to positive changes in social
practices and behaviours (Brown and Ryan, 2001).
According to this approach The Grand Lyon project “Porte des Alpes” is a success. A
steering committee has lead the different actors towards coordinated work and success in
giving a global view to the project. The stormwater drainage has been performed thanks to
structures used for many functions (roads, parks, ornamental lakes …) (Sibeud, 2001).
4
Retention
Principle
General
description
Alternative
Techniques
Roof storage
Public/Private
land
private
public
public and private
public and private
public and
private
Cost
low
10 to 100 € /m3
(depend of rural or
urban area)
100 to 150 € /m2
30 to 70 € /m2
3 € per m2 of
drained land
Advantage
no additional cost
compared to a
traditional roof
Recreational
activities possible
Low maintenance
Technical simplicity
rumble absorption
No risk of plugging Need low space
Need big space
Need very specific
maintenance (ice
removing, plug
removing)
Additionnal cost
compared to a
traditional structure
Pollution if stagnant
water
Useless if below a park
Flat roof uniquely
Disadvantage
Description
Discussion and
cost analysis
Maintenance
Sources :
Infiltration
Storage basin
(opened with
grass)
Porous pavement (with Porous pavement
Infiltration well
permeable structure)
(with manholes)
Need no extra land
control and cleaning
Clipping, slope
High maintenance : high
of the regulation
mowing, sweeping
pressure sucking up
device
up the bottom areas
processes
Need a good
knowledge of all
technical
informations
Easy maintenance
(Maytraud and
Brousse, 1998) - 0.5
€ to 1.5 € /m3/year
Tricky maintenance
(Chocat et al., 1997) 0.5 € à 1.5 € /m3/half
year
Traditional road
maintenance :
cleaning the
manholes …
attractive
landscape
Need a good
soil
Ground water
pollution
Filters cleaning
and control of
the pouring out
system
Ditch
Water
meadow
public and
private
8
à
18 € per
30 à 40 € /m3 for
3
m of stocked
excavation work
water
public and private
attractive
landscape
attractive
landscape
Low cost and
simplicity
No risk of
plugging
Risk of plugging
Need big
space
Ground water
pollution
Ground water
pollution
Anti -plugging
control and
maintenance
Mow the lawn,
spray, clean …
Regular
Regular and
Regular
Regular
maintenance
specific
maintenance (not maintenance
compulsary maintenance - as important as
(not as
0.15 € to 1 € /m²/half 0.15 € per m² of wells) - 0.3 € to important as
year
drained land
0.5 € /m²/year
wells)
Maintenance
frequencies
half a year
like the rain return
period used for the
building
half a year
half a year
monthly
between 3 to 6
months
between 3 to 6
months
Lack of
maintenance
sensibility
Low
but hydraulic
misuses may
appear
Low
But landscape
degradations
Very High
Quick plugging and
pourrring out
High
Quick manholes
plugging
High
Quick plugging
Moderate
But bordering
structures are
more sensitive
Moderate
But bordering
structures are
more sensitive
Azzou et al., 1994
Certu, 1998
Ville de Rennes, 2004
Table 1 : overview of alternative techniques and their time resistance
5
JURIDICAL ASPECT : REGULATIONS WHICH CAN BE USED BY THE LOCAL
AUTHORITY
Water runoff seems to have no juridical signification (carrefour des collectivités locales,
2004). In fact, it seems that the State didn’t want to regulate on a subject which is part of the
Local Authority control. Several ideas have been advanced like a tax on waterproof lands.
This idea may be applied in many cities like Rennes (Prenveille, personal communication).
As there is not a clear reference to the law, we will have to explore the whole juridical corpus
to outline the stormwater treatment policy. Thus we will present the main juridical articles
upon the subject.

The runoff servitude - art. 640, 641 and 681 from the Civil Code.
The 640, 641 and 681 articles of the Civil Code are the major laws that define rights and
duties for land owners. The downstream owner has to accept water coming from above.
However, if the runoff is modified by human activity (waterproofing, pipes …) the servitude is
not applicated. So these articles imply that owners have to maintain the natural water flows.
As land is seldom natural, it can be seen as an alternative techniques support to get back a
natural behaviour.
If people haven’t used yet these articles to sue, it may change as urban flooding increases.
Some local authorities state that they will use juridical means to stop the waterproofing trend
(Bourgogne, pers. com.).

Waterproofing zoning – art 35-III from the 01/03/1992 Water Law
This article coming from art. L2224-10 of the Local Authorities General Code, foresees that
areas can be established where measures have to be taken to restrict waterproofing and
consequently to secure stormwater runoff. This article regulates the way goals will be set up
but let the choice of the method to the local authority. The municipality can decide alone
whether it will recommend alternative techniques or not (carrefour des collectivités locales,
2004).

Natural risks - art R.123-18-II-1 from the Town Planning Code
Because of floods, local authorities can impose special conditions to new buildings or urban
structures (it will be written in the PLU).

Planning permission - art 421-3 from the Town Planning Code
This article states that planning permission can be denied if the projected building doesn’t
respect water drainage regulations. This article is a main tool to lay down principles written in
other local town planning documents like the PLU, drainage rules, health rules …(CERTU,
1998).
Although it is stated in many different and scattered regulations, the law is coherent toward
more restriction against waterproofing and more power for local authorities. This supports the
use of alternative techniques.
6
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES : EXAMPLES FROM SOME MUNICIPALITIES IN
FRANCE
o
A GLOBAL STORMWATER TREATMENT POLICY
As said previously, regulations support alternative techniques initiatives and a global view
seems compulsory in order to gather together so many actors. Natural short-term and low
cost thinking lead to disconnected work between town planning and technical choices that
will affect project effectiveness. Indeed alternative techniques can not be seen just as a
technical choice but as an alternative to a traditional drainage scheme. Maytraud and
Brousse (Maytraud, Brousse, 1998) prefer the “alternative approach” term to stress the
global dimension.
A global approach is all the more significant as a non-coordinated network can have the
opposite effect. Runoff may increase without any stormwater treatments. So at a river basin
level, many non-coordinated structures have a negative action against floods (Azzout and al.,
1994). Similarly, none of the solutions are effective in all cases and a longer and more
appropriate thinking has to be promoted. For instance retention should be avoided
downstream where the main problem is to drain off big rain discharges coming later from the
top.
This global stormwater treatment policy can be written into a sewerage master plan. This
plan has to explain which place will be attributed to both traditional and alternative
techniques in a larger drainage context. That’s why information on these two techniques
must be collected and be available for teams in charge of the drainage mission. Many
documents can link together stakeholders especially people from the private and public
circles. The next figure summarizes the main steps during a building project. Each step
represents a good opportunity to bring private and public circles closer (Thomazeau and
Reysset, 1998).
Public
Private
Sewerage regulation (in the
PLU appendix)
Notarial deeds and servitudes
Specifications
Planning permission
Contrat-based
maintenance
Agreement
End of work compliance
Temporary maintenance
Final maintenance
Handover to the authorities
Figure 1 : Different steps during the public/private consultation
Following this figure very few documents are used by the authorities to regulate building
works even if there are plenty of juridical references. Thus the ‘sewerage regulation’ is the
major document for them to edify the rules whereas the ‘planning permission’ becomes the
last control point. Authorities can consult and check each step of this proceeding.
7
o
THE INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT PROCESS
Setting a precise goal
For more effectiveness, all lands have to be treated in the sewerage master plan without any
exceptions. For each plot, the municipalities interviewed for this report, have set a detailed
goal to limit surface waterproofing. On the one hand the Douai Authorities set the goal
individually depending on land features (Hérin, pers. com.). On the other hand Toulouse,
Bordeaux and Rennes have preferred to lay down restrictive impermeable coefficients on
their territory divided into two or three areas.
Questions have been raised about the large variety in impermeable coefficients or the runoffs
admissible flows. Therefore it’s a 1 litre per second and per hectare flow chosen in Paris,
whereas it reaches 7 L/s/ha in Nimes and Montpellier or 3 L/s/ha in Bordeaux (Baladès, pers.
com., Desbordes, pers. com. and Espinasse, pers. com.). So it seems that these coefficients
are empirically set and are useless for avoiding the waterproofing processes (Bouillon, pers.
com.). For instance, the 3 L/s/ha parameter often used in France, comes from a thoroughly
different context taken in a Dutch study. Besides, it is hardly possible to measure such little
flows because of difficult rainy conditions (Desbordes, pers. com.). These coefficients are
less used to monitor waterproofing than to give a common reference for retention work (like a
storage basin or any stocking structure). The flow rates inferred from these coefficients will
be very useful to fix pipe sizes, pump capacities etc. Finally with some criterion,
municipalities can give some clear and easy recommendation for builders (Baladès and al.,
2001).
Furthermore these flow rates must be linked to rain intensity : the rain return period. Very
often it is a 10-year period but sometimes nothing is detailed and as a result it increases
imprecision. Finally, as it is very difficult to identify the natural flow rate, can a very low flow
rate be convincing ? Indeed, water can’t infiltrate more than it would have be naturally
(Savary, pers. com.). Setting the flow rate is a very important step during the stormwater
treatment policy.
For instance, the Agricultural and Forest Departmental Service of the Gard Department
according to DIREN advise 100 L/m² criteria for retention and a 7 L/s/ha limit for the flow
rate. This choice should allow the surface to go back to a natural soil behaviour (Espinasse,
pers. com.)
Compliance control
The authorities have to monitor each building project if they want the regulations to be
respected. Planning permission delivery is a key-step for better control. In Douai, a specific
municipality service studies closely every request from a sewerage point of view. If needed
they can ask for more information or technical modification e.g they might ask for technical
alternative solutions. Thanks to their local skills, this service is in charge of the tricky work of
determining if the new project will deepen the stormwater runoff (Hérin, pers. com.). Local
knowledge is indeed necessary. In Rennes infiltration is forbidden because of an unsuitable
waterproofed soil. The Municipality promotes retention structures by calculating for each
project the minimum retention volume needed (Prenveille, pers. com.).
In the same way, other cities use compliance control to assess if the contracting authority
have respected all the specifications. Nevertheless, local authorities never impose the
technological choice. Contracting authority is free to choose its own method (Baladès, com.
pers.)
8
Maintenance
However even if the compliance control has been delivered, strict monitoring must be set up
to secure a workable structure and at least constant waterproofing. Two cases can be
considered :
 Public plots
The structure maintenance is in the charge of the local authority. As alternative techniques
assume many functions, maintenance is realised by the service that maintained the primarily
function. For instance water meadows or ditches are maintained by the park services, porous
pavements by the urban facilities service.
 Private plots
For private structures, maintenance is in the charge of owners. In big housing developments,
owners may gather to ask firms to carry out maintenance for their own. As maintenance is
done by private actors, local authorities can propose a contract to get back structures.
Nowadays handover is not automatic but is becoming more and more common (for porous
roads and ditches especially). It seems that owners are rather happy to give up this
seemingly tedious task (Hérin, pers. com.)
Handover is impossible for small structures like infiltration wells or roof storage and therefore
maintenance is always private. Improving sustainable stormwater drainage would need a
follow-up visit to secure good working order. Nevertheless in France local inspectors are not
allowed to enter private lands for drainage control. Therefore in Douai these controls are
done during the sanitary control planned by local rules (they look for waste water discharge,
savage plugging …) (Hérin, pers. com.)
Other policies should be considered. The Bordeaux Urban Community doesn’t want to
monitor maintenance that has to be realized by owners but states that owners can be sued if
unusual floods or even runoff is noticed. Local authorities press downstream owners to sue
upstream owners according to the Civil Code (cf. Table 2). Just as previously, the
Municipality will complain to the Court if it notices discharges in its waste water network
(Baladès, pers. com.). The Great Toulouse has the same approach hoping that the fine
system will prevent offenders (Artero, pers. com.).
To conclude, we can notice some similarities between local sanitation authorities that might
inspire us. Indeed authorities work hard to press owners to regularly clean their septic tanks.
Today some associations can be found which maintain the whole local sanitation sytem at
low prices. These associations subsidized by local authorities are an easy way to reintroduce
regular maintenance in private houses : which provide a lot of social benefit (Desbordes,
pers. com.). This example might inspire stormwater drainage managers in the near future. In
Douai an association has been already created to promote alternative techniques : the
« Association Douaisienne pour la Promotion de Techniques Alternatives » (ADOPTA,
2000). Finally perhaps this association will sooner be able to assume the maintenance
service.
9
Summarized Board
Bordeaux Urban
Toulouse
Douai
Rennes
Community
Agglomeration
Agglomeration
Agglomeration
Stormwater drainage management documents
yes. Steered on
Stormwater
the big building
planned for 2006
not planned
yes
master plan
works
city planner
Other
Sewerage
document, PLU,
management
PLU
regulation, zoning PLU, zoning plan
Sewerage
plan
plan
regulation
Management think about a data
GIS under
GIS
tools
base or a GIS
development
Main goals
30 % to 55 % on
90 % in the center
33 % in Toulouse
Impermeable
the whole territory
40 % elsewhere
no
coefficient
20 % elsewhere (3)
(1)
(4)
Admissible
flow rate
Maintenance
and
Monitoring
services
Private to
Public
Handover
Technical
monitoring
Pivate land
policy
3 L/s/ha
non
no
13 L/s/ha to 110
L/s/ha
Administration services management
Executive service
Executive service for the planning
Executive service
Project manager
for the planning
permission.
for the planning
service and
permission.
Sanitation
permission
operating service
Sanitation service
service, parks
service ...
Maintenance and Monitoring policy
possible if
possible if tecnical
tecnical and
possible with a
possible with a
and administrative
administrative
regular
regular
requirements are
requirements are
maintenance
maintenance
respected
respected
formalization
yes - sanitation no but maybe in a
under
no
service
next future
development (2)
Legal action
if they noticed
abuses
Deterrent fines Follow-up visits
Legal action
will press owners for both a sanitary The Municipality
to maintain
and a preventmight launch a
structures
flooding goals
waterproofing tax
(1)
(Miquel, 2003) and (Communauté Urbaine de Bordeaux, 2005)
(Bourgogne, pers. com.)
(3)
(Communauté d'Agglomération du Grand Toulouse, 2002)
(4)
(Prenveille, 2000) and (Prenveille, pers. com.)
(2)
Table 2 : General presentation of stormwater policies in few French big cities
The follow-up work
Knowing exactly the location and state of alternative techniques will be a major task for local
authority before it starts with the main drainage works. The more decentralized structures are
the more it needs alternative techniques. So after planning permission, local authorities will
have to manage a data base system to keep at a local level the knowledge of the drainage
10
solutions. Conversely the Bordeaux Community with only 44 storage basins doesn’t need
complex follow-up work. These structures are very well known by the technical services of
the City. (Baladès, pers. com.).
The Douai Agglomeration, with more than 1 000 alternative techniques, developed the
Geographic Information System (GIS) for the stormwater drainage features. This step for
more integrated management has been realised gradually as GIS is not yet a major tool in
technical services. Therefore P. Gourmain (Gourmain, 2001) said that more than 70% of
municipal data are in fact localized data.
As a matter of fact, GIS is fully useful in alternative techniques management. In this case, the
three main functions are :
- the spatial data base function : to store all the main features of the techniques (size,
achievement year …) and to localize it.
- the graphic function : to generate maps and action plans.
- the analysis function : to reference information and to plan inspections (date and
place)
The Douai Agglomeration gets all the main features of their decentralised drainage
structures. They are currently thinking of a recalling system for inspection planning (Hérin,
pers. com.).
CONCLUSION
According to this French overview, it seems that few local authorities have chosen an
integrated approach for urban storm drainage. This bibliographic synthesis noticed two main
barriers towards a more integrated approach : the acceptable runoff assessment is still
unclear and it will distort behaviours if the goal achievement can’t be checked. The second
challenge for the authorities will be their ability to control the good working order of various
and decentralized structures.
The Singapore experience illustrates very well the planning and control linkage. After the
violent storms of 1972, a Drainage Department was set up at a national level to implement
drainage planning and control strategies for flood alleviation and prevention. At a local level,
this program is implemented by a “catchment team “responsible for one of the eleven
drainage administrative catchments. By means of a local drainage plan, the catchment team
identifies and implements new drainage schemes and maintains drainage records (Meng
Check, 1997).
For a small country (580 km² for the main island whereas the Great Lyon is a 500 km²
territory), this approach succeeded in linking together two scales of management :
- globally to set up goals and to control the effectiveness
- locally to promote more suitable techniques
11
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Association Douaisienne pour la Promotion de Techniques Alternatives, [08/21/2000
updating], Présentation. ADOPTA, Douai. Available on the Internet :
http://adopta.free.fr/accueil.htm (checked the 5 of déc. 2005)
Artero Roger, engineer from the Great Toulouse sewerage service, phone call, 11/07/2005.
Azzou Y., Alfakih E., Barraud S., Cres F-N., 1994. Techniques alternatives en
assainissement pluvial. Choix, conception, réalisation et entretien. Ed. Tec et Doc, Lavoisier.
Paris. 371 pages.
Baladès J-D., Berga P., Cuartero J., Ruperd Y., 2001. Démarche intégrée pour un zonage
d’assainissement pluvial et la révision d’un Plan d’Occupation des Sols. Novatech’2001,
Villeurbanne, 25-27/06/2001. GRAIE, Villeurbanne.
Baladès Jean-Daniel, engineer from the South West CETE, phone call, 10/28/2005
Bouillon Henri, engineer from CERTU, phone call, 11/07/2005.
Bourgogne Pierre, Water service director from the Bordeaux Urban Community, electronic
mail, 11/23/2005
Brown R., Ryan R., 2001. Evaluation of the storm-water management planning process.
Environment Protection Authority (EPA). 2000-88, Sydney. Disponible sur Internet :
http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/resources/usped.pdf (checked the 5 of déc. 2005)
Carrefour des collectivités locales, Nov. 2004, Régime juridique des eaux pluviales. Available
on the Internet :
http://www.carrefourlocal.org/vie_locale/cas_pratiques/environnement/eaux.html
(checked
the 5 of déc. 2005)
CERTU, 1998. Techniques alternatives aux réseaux d’assainissement pluvial. Ministère de
l’Equipement, des Transports et des Logements, Paris, 155 p.
Chocat B. et al., 1997. Chaussée à structure réservoir In: Encyclopédie de l’Hydrologie
Urbaine et de l’Assainissement. Ed. Tec et Doc, Lavoisier. Paris. pp 185-199.
Chocat B. et al., 1997. Techniques alternatives In: Encyclopédie de l’Hydrologie Urbaine et
de l’Assainissement. Ed. Tec et Doc, Lavoisier. Paris. pp 968-979.
Communauté d’Agglomération du Grand Toulouse, règlement d’assainissement, 28/06/2002.
Règlement d’assainissement, 17p. Available on the Internet :
http://www.grandtoulouse.org/admin/upload/document/30-reglement_assainissement.pdf
(checked the 5 of déc. 2005)
Communauté Urbaine de Bordeaux, 07/01/2005. Règlement du PLU, 288 p. Available on the
Internet :
http://www.lacub.fr/projets/plu/Fichiers/reglement/PLU-reglement-arrete-070105.pdf
(checked the 5 of déc. 2005)
Desbordes Michel, Montpellier II University Professor, phone call, 11/14/2005.
Espinasse Michel, engineer from the Water and Environment Service of the Direction
Départementale de l’Agriculture et de la Foret du Gard, phone call, 01/05/2006
12
Gourmain P., 2001. Intérêts et coûts des Systèmes d’Information Géographique dans la
gestion des services d’eau. Synthèse technique. ENGREF, Montpellier. Oieau, Limoges,
14p.
Hérin Jean-Jacques, Technical services General Director of the Douai Agglomeration, phone
call, 11/14/2005.
Maytraud T., Brousse G., 1998. L’eau et l’urbanisme, comment ça marche ?, Techniques
Sciences Méthodes, n°4, avril 1998, pp 57-64.
Meng Check L., 1997. Drainage Planning and Control in the Urban Environment. The
Singapour Experience, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, n°44, 1997, pp 183-197.
Miquel G., 2003. Rapport sur la qualité de l’eau et de l’assainissement en France. Office
Parlementaire d’évaluation des choix scientifiques et technologiques, Paris, 195 p. Available
on the Internet :
http://www.senat.fr/rap/l02-215-1/l02-215-11.pdf
Prenveille A., 2000. Assainissement pluvial urbain. Présentation de la démarche globale
réalisée par la ville de Rennes pour assurer la maîtrise de l’imperméabilisation des sols,
Bulletin des laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussées, n°224, janv-fev 2000, pp 87-96.
Prenveille Alain, Urban sewerage Head of service of the Rennes Municipality, phone call,
11/29/2005.
Projet de territoire.com, [updated in 2003], La communauté urbaine : présentation
synthétique. Available on the Internet :
http://www.projetdeterritoire.com/spip/article.php3?id_article=471 (checked the 13 of dec.
2005)
Rauch W., Seggelke K., Brown R., Krebs P., 2005. Integrated Approaches in Urban Storm
Drainage : Where do we stand ?, The Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 35, n°4,
pp 396-409.
Savary Patrick, engineer from Etudes Conseils Eau, interview of the 12/12/2005.
Sibeud E., 2001. Lyon – Porte des Alpes. La mise en œuvre de techniques alternatives
intégrées dans une démarche de développement durable. Novatech’2001, Villeurbanne, 2527/06/2001. GRAIE, Villeurbanne.
Thomazeau R., Reysset P., 1998. Les acteurs de l’aménagement urbain et la gestion des
eaux pluviales, Techniques Sciences Méthodes, n°4, avril 1998, pp 65-69.
Ville de Rennes, 2004, working document, développement durable : pour une gestion douce
des eaux pluviales, 26 pages.
13