Due to climate change, a new water management policy is considered in the Netherlands. The shift towards greater extremes in both wet periods and dry periods requires a more dynamic policy. It is investigated what effect the placement of a permanent water barrier in the Rijnmond has on the water levels in the Rhine branches, and if this can be an opportunity to help the drought prone area in the east of the Netherlands.This study shows that replacing the Maeslantkering with a permanent barrier has no influence on the water levels upstream of Nijmegen in the Waal at average to low Rhine discharges (2000 - 600 m^3/s), and thus has no effect on the water distribution at the Pannerdensche Kop. If the fresh water demand to stop the salt wedge is eliminated, a different water distribution over the Rhine branches is possible, but structural changes at the bifurcation point have to be made in order to achieve this. River water can be used to supply the east of the Netherlands with water. In this study, three options to do so are examined. The most promising options of these is placing a pumping station in the Rhine nearby Lobith and supplying the streams in the area with water, many of which fall dry in summer. From there, the water can be used for irrigation, infiltration, and other fresh water demands, relieving the stress on the groundwater during dry spells. Building a permanent storm surge barrier is not a requirement, but because it increases the navigability of the Waal river, water can be extracted more often with a permanent barrier. A solution to combat drought in the east of the Netherlands seems to be more urgent than a solution to mitigate sea level rise. However, a permanent barrier can help in mitigating the effect of drought on groundwater levels in the east of the Netherlands by allowing for more flexibility in using river water extraction.

In 2018 The Netherlands experienced the most severe drought since 1976. In response to this, the Minister of Infrastructure and Water Management established the 'Beleidstafel Droogte'. An external scientific committee took part in the Beleidstafel Droogte. One of their key recommendations was to introduce other drought indicators since the currently used indicator (precipitation deficit) is not sufficient due to limitations. This research investigates what drought indicators can be used in The Netherlands to support anticipative drought management. For water managers, it is crucial to know when and where drought occurs, and how severe this drought is. To reveal the start, severity, and ending of a drought, drought indicators can be used. However, to define drought, regional differences need to be incorporated. Therefore, this research used a case study area to find out what drought indicators can be introduced. Within the boundaries of this area, three different analyses were conducted: 1) hydrological analysis, 2) stakeholder analysis and 3) policy analysis. According to the results, a set of potentially relevant and suitable drought indicators was selected. These drought indicators were tested with focus groups to determine whether they can be used to support anticipative drought management. The area of water board Vallei & Veluwe was selected as the case study area. Concerning the hydrological analysis, multiple methods were applied to obtain a better understanding of the water system and essential hydrological processes. Because of the relative nature of drought, several stakeholders that are directly affected by drought were interviewed. Through semi-structured interviews, information concerning drought was obtained about the stakes and information needs for different stakeholders. Since measures can be taken to anticipate drought or to mitigate drought problems, the policy on drought was considered. In this way, the interrelation between policy on drought and drought indicators was taken into account. The results of the analyses mentioned above led to the following selection of drought indicators: SPI-1 & SPI-3, soil moisture, stream discharge, groundwater levels/isohypse, NDVI and EVI. To test the selected indicators can support anticipative drought management, two focus groups session were organised. For these focus groups, a dry year was reconstructed, which was explored by the participants. Based on the information that was presented to the participants, they were asked whether they would advise taking measures and what their level of alertness was. One group received information from the selected indicators, whereas the other group received information which is used nowadays for drought monitoring. After evaluating and comparing the focus groups, conclusions were drawn. The participants that received information from the selected drought indicators acted more pro-active, because: 1) measures were advised more rapidly, 2) more measures were advised, and maintained applicable for a more extended period, and 3) the level of alertness was significantly higher. Based on these findings, it was concluded that the selected drought indicators support anticipative drought management.