evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Rainwater saving and use in households, Bremen

Germany · See the Germany profile

Evidence: Descriptive / self-reported · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

None

0.63 EUR/m2/year
Rainwater fee (sealed/impervious area)
12,000 EUR
Maximum investment subsidy
6,000 EUR
Minimum installation cost of rainwater-use system

Details

Region (NUTS)
DE50
Keywords
subsidy, rainwater, fee, soil sealing, Green building

Context

Climate projections for Bremen indicate up to 44% more winter precipitation and up to 22% less summer precipitation by 2100, a temperature rise of up to 3.1 degrees C annually, more frequent extreme rainfall in winter, and increased flood risk from sea, river, rain and groundwater sources. These changes affect the design of the sewer system and increase the need for decentralised rainwater management, prompting Bremen to invest in it.

Objectives

Establish a natural water balance and reduce rainwater discharge into the sewerage system by encouraging its reuse, while also cutting drinking-water consumption for uses such as toilet flushing.

Activities

Bremen combines a technical measure (subsidised rainwater cistern systems collecting roof runoff via gutters/downspouts for toilet flushing and garden watering) with an economic incentive (refund of the rainwater fee, 0.63 EUR/m2/year, charged on sealed area, if rainwater is used or the ground kept permeable). The investment subsidy covers up to 12,000 EUR or a maximum of one third of total installation costs; properties over 1,000 m2 must split the fee between rain and wastewater.

Results

Installing a rainwater-use system costs at least 6,000 EUR depending on local conditions; the Federal State of Bremen's subsidy covers up to 12,000 EUR but never more than one third of total costs incurred. The rainwater fee (0.63 EUR/m2/year) is refunded where infiltration or use is achieved.

Conclusions

The funding scheme is identified as the main success factor, since without subsidies few homeowners take action despite stated interest in eco-friendly retrofits. Key barriers include cases where the system doesn't produce a net cost saving, owner reluctance about construction disruption (easier in new-build than retrofit), and high upfront investment costs, which the subsidy is designed to offset.

Implementation

Implementation detail (cost, timeline, staffing, conditions for success) is not yet available for this practice.

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful