L’article Spectacle Léo & Léon est apparu en premier sur Saint-Mesmin.

The Ironwood upgrade deployed on 28 July 2026 introduced critical changes to address generation and shielding behavior. A zec wallet that claims to support unified addresses (u1) may implement only a subset of the standard, or may encode addresses in ways that older versions cannot parse. Understanding which wallets generate compatible addresses, why incompatibilities exist, and how to migrate between implementations is essential for anyone managing Zcash across multiple devices or time periods. The technical difference lies not in cryptography—all modern wallets use the same underlying shielded pools—but in how they represent addresses and validate transactions against them.

Why unified addresses exist and what u1 actually specifies

Before the Ironwood upgrade, Zcash users managed separate addresses for transparent (public) and shielded (private) receiving. A transparent address was a standard base58-encoded string; a Sapling shielded address began with ‘z’; an Orchard shielded address used a different encoding. Wallets showed these as three separate destinations. A user sending to the wrong address type would not achieve the desired privacy level, or would be unable to send at all if the receiving wallet did not support that address type.

Unified addresses (u1) consolidate these into a single encoded value that contains metadata for multiple address types. Instead of « zs… » or « t… » or a raw Orchard string, a unified address begins with ‘u1’ and encodes a receiver set. The receiver set is a data structure that lists which address types the receiving wallet supports: Orchard, Sapling, Transparent, or combinations thereof. When a sender reads a u1 address, they decode it to learn what options are available. The sender’s wallet can then choose which receiver type to use based on its own capabilities and the user’s privacy preferences.

The encoding scheme is specified in ZIP-316 and related Zcash Improvement Proposals, which define the data format, checksum, and validation rules. However, the specification does not mandate a single implementation. It describes what a compliant decoder must accept; it does not restrict how a wallet encodes receivers into the format. This distinction, subtle as it appears, is where incompatibilities arise. Two wallets can both claim ZIP-316 compliance while generating u1 addresses that the other wallet cannot read or that contain different receiver sets.

The technical roots of encoding divergence

After the Ironwood upgrade, wallet developers faced a choice: which address types should a new u1 address include by default? The Ironwood upgrade changed the shielding architecture by retiring the Orchard pool and introducing a new unified shielded pool. A wallet developed before the upgrade might generate u1 addresses containing only Sapling receivers, because Orchard receivers were the primary new shielded type at the time. A wallet updated after the upgrade might generate u1 addresses containing only Ironwood receivers, or a combination of Ironwood and Sapling for backwards compatibility.

The result is that a « u1 » address from Zodl (formerly Zashi) may contain different receivers than a « u1 » address from Zingo! or Zkool. One wallet generates [Ironwood, Sapling, Transparent]. Another generates [Ironwood, Transparent] only. A third generates [Sapling, Transparent]. All three are technically valid u1 addresses under the specification, yet when a sender decodes the address, they see different receiver options and may make different choices about which pool to use.

The practical impact is immediate. A sender using an older zec wallet version may not recognize the Ironwood receiver in a new u1 address and may fall back to Sapling. The transaction succeeds, but uses a deprecated shielding pool. Alternatively, the sender’s wallet may refuse to send because it does not understand the Ironwood receiver format. The receiver’s wallet sits waiting; the sender’s wallet displays an error. Both parties believe the address is incompatible, when the actual incompatibility is between the address format and the sender’s software version.

Wallet-specific implementation patterns and receiver set choices

Zodl’s approach to unified addresses prioritizes backwards compatibility. Newly generated u1 addresses from Zodl include Sapling and Transparent receivers in addition to the default Ironwood receiver. This makes it more likely that older wallets can successfully decode and send to the address. However, this strategy increases the address encoding size and does not guarantee compatibility with wallets that have not yet updated their decoder logic.

Zingo!, by contrast, emphasizes the new unified pool post-Ironwood. Its u1 addresses contain Ironwood and Transparent receivers, intentionally excluding Sapling to encourage migration away from the older shielded pool. This is technically compliant with the specification, but it means a Zingo! address cannot receive from a wallet that only understands Sapling shielding. Edge Wallet takes a middle position, supporting Ironwood and Sapling, with Transparent optional based on user settings. The zec wallet guide maintains current comparisons of these receiver set choices across platforms.

The specification itself does not mandate these choices. Electric Coin Company, the lead Zcash protocol development team, released the Ironwood specification with flexibility intentionally preserved. Wallets retain discretion over which receivers to include. This flexibility was intended to support diverse hardware constraints, privacy preferences, and deployment timelines. It has instead created a fragmented landscape where « u1 compatible » means different things to different wallet teams.

How address validation exposes receiver set mismatches

When a wallet validates a unified address before sending, it performs several checks. First, it decodes the u1 string and verifies the checksum. If the checksum fails, the wallet rejects the address outright. Second, it extracts the receiver set and checks whether it supports at least one of the listed receiver types. If the address contains only Ironwood receivers and the wallet is old enough to have only Sapling support, validation should fail—but does it?

Here is where implementation quality diverges. A strict validator rejects the address and displays an error. A lenient validator may attempt to use a Sapling receiver anyway, or may silently downgrade to Transparent and warn the user. A buggy validator may crash or hang. The user sees these different outcomes across wallets and concludes one wallet is broken, when in fact the wallets have different validation philosophies.

Address migration introduces another layer of complexity. When a user imports a recovery phrase from an old wallet into a new wallet, the new wallet may re-derive all addresses using its own encoding logic. If the new wallet generates u1 addresses with a different receiver set than the original wallet, the user may lose track of which addresses belong to which wallet generation method. Incoming payments may arrive on the wrong receiver type. Privacy assumptions may break if the user is not aware that a newly generated address uses Transparent receivers when they expected Ironwood shielding.

The role of Ironwood upgrade timing in backward compatibility

The Ironwood upgrade represents a fundamental shift in Zcash’s shielding pools. The new unified pool is the recommended destination for all new shielded transactions. Wallets developed during the transition window—roughly mid-2025 to late 2026—may have shipped with either Orchard-based u1 encoding or early Ironwood-based encoding. Wallets updated after July 28, 2026 should use Ironwood exclusively, but some developers released interim versions with both.

This timing matters because a u1 address is not timestamped. A wallet cannot determine when an address was generated or which protocol version created it. If a user holds multiple u1 addresses created at different times, they may contain different receiver sets without any visible indication. Sending to an address created before the Ironwood upgrade may use Sapling shielding, while sending to an address created after the upgrade may use Ironwood. Both succeed, but they use different privacy properties.

The Zcash Foundation has published migration guidance emphasizing that users should regenerate addresses after upgrading to post-Ironwood wallet versions. This is not merely a suggestion for convenience; it is a recommendation to ensure receiver sets align with current protocol capabilities. Users who fail to regenerate addresses may inadvertently use deprecated pools or expose themselves to incompatibilities when sending from older wallets.

Testing and workarounds for cross-wallet address compatibility

A user facing an address incompatibility error has several diagnostic steps. First, confirm the exact version of both the sending and receiving wallet. Wallets from different vendors often use different version numbering schemes, so checking a changelog or « About » screen is more reliable than guessing. Second, manually test a small transaction. If the small transaction succeeds, the incompatibility is a decoder issue, not a fundamental mismatch. If it fails, the wallets may genuinely not support each other’s address format.

If u1 addresses are failing, a fallback is to export legacy addresses from the receiving wallet. Most post-Ironwood wallets still support generating Sapling or Transparent addresses on request. An older sending wallet may successfully send to these legacy addresses. This is not ideal—it may reduce privacy compared to what a unified address should provide—but it is functional. The user should treat this as a temporary workaround while planning a wallet upgrade.

For users managing large balances across multiple wallets, the safest approach is to standardize on a single wallet vendor and ensure all devices are updated to the same version. This eliminates cross-vendor incompatibilities. If multiple vendors are necessary, test each address type before committing significant value. A small test transaction to verify that the address format is accepted and routed to the correct receiver pool is worth the transaction fee it costs.

Privacy implications of receiver set choices

The receiver set embedded in a u1 address conveys information. If an address explicitly includes a Transparent receiver, any observer analyzing the wallet can infer that the wallet supports transparent transactions. If an address includes only Ironwood receivers, it signals that the wallet is recent enough to support the unified pool. Neither of these reveals the sender’s identity or transaction history, but they are weak information leaks nonetheless.

More importantly, the choice of which receiver type a sender uses affects the transaction’s privacy properties. Sending to an Ironwood receiver within a u1 address achieves different privacy than sending to a Sapling receiver or a Transparent receiver within the same address. The receiver’s address does not constrain the sender’s choice. A sender using an older wallet may not even be aware that they have a choice. They decode the u1 address, see it contains multiple receiver types, and use whatever their wallet defaults to—often Transparent for simplicity.

Users who care about privacy should regenerate addresses after upgrading to a modern zec wallet and should communicate to senders which receiver type they prefer. This can be done by requesting a legacy address (Sapling « z… » or Ironwood raw encoding) or by explicitly asking senders to use a recent wallet version when sending to a new u1 address. The address encoding itself cannot enforce privacy; only sender and receiver choices can.

Regulatory and practical incentives for receiver set divergence

Different jurisdictions are beginning to restrict privacy coins. The European Commission has implemented MiCA regulations that require exchanges and custodians to restrict anonymous transactions beginning in July 2027. This creates an incentive for wallets serving European users to include Transparent receivers in u1 addresses, so that compliant services can send to addresses that also support transparent receiving.

Meanwhile, FinCEN guidance on privacy coins in the United States focuses on transaction monitoring and address linking, not address format restrictions. This difference means a U.S.-focused wallet has weaker regulatory pressure to include Transparent receivers, while a globally-deployed wallet cannot avoid including them. These regulatory constraints are not reflected in the ZIP-316 specification—they are instead driving wallet development decisions that fragment the address space.

L’article ZEC Wallet: Comparing Unified Address (u1) Implementations—Why Some Wallets Generate Incompatible Addresses est apparu en premier sur Saint-Mesmin.

Basis trades are among the most disciplined strategies in traditional finance, commonly executed by professionals who profit from mispricing without betting on outcome probability. Polymarket, as one of the world’s largest prediction markets, has created unusual conditions for this approach. The same event can trade on both spot (where users buy and hold outcome shares) and perpetual futures (where traders use leverage up to 20x) within a single platform. Yet the mechanics, risks, and regulatory constraints differ significantly between the two venues. Understanding how to construct and manage basis trades on Polymarket requires clarity about what each instrument actually prices, how they settle, and what prevents them from converging.

The structure of a Polymarket basis trade

A basis trade begins with a price discrepancy. On Polymarket’s spot market, an outcome share represents a claim to $1 if the event resolves YES and $0 if it resolves NO. The share trades continuously between users and an automated market maker (AMM). On Polymarket Perps, the same event is represented as a perpetual futures contract—a leveraged instrument that does not expire but carries an ongoing funding rate connecting it to the spot price. If the perp trades higher than spot, longs pay shorts; if lower, shorts pay longs. This mechanism should theoretically prevent the perp and spot from drifting too far apart.

The arbitrage itself is mechanical. A trader identifying a basis—say spot at $0.65 and perp at $0.60—can execute: (1) buy 100 spot shares at $0.65 (cost: $65 in pUSD, the USDC-backed currency used natively on Polymarket); (2) short 100 perpetual contracts at $0.60, borrowing notional exposure to hedge the long spot position. The two legs move together. If the event resolves YES, the spot shares become worth $1.00 (profit: $35), while the short perp realizes a loss of $40. If the event resolves NO, the spot shares expire worthless (loss: $65), while the short perp profits $40. In isolation, neither outcome is profitable. But when combined, the trade captures the $5 difference in pricing ($0.05 per share × 100), minus transaction costs and funding expenses.

The true cost of executing this trade is not simply the entry-level pricing difference. Polymarket charges taker fees ranging from $1.00 to $1.75 per 100 shares on the international version (with no maker fees), meaning the trader pays approximately $1–$1.75 per 100 shares twice: once on the long spot purchase and again on the short perp setup. Polymarket Perps adds its own fee structure, and the funding rate on perpetuals can either accelerate or decelerate the arbitrage depending on market conditions. A 5-basis-point gap can easily disappear after accounting for these frictions. The practical basis that justifies execution is often 15–25 basis points or wider.

According to the documentation available through polymarket, the spot market uses Polygon blockchain infrastructure with pUSD settlement, while perpetual futures similarly operate on Polygon. This shared settlement layer creates a technical advantage: both positions can be funded and closed without moving assets between different chains, reducing settlement delays and cross-chain bridge risk. However, the spot market and perps market maintain separate order books, and users access them through different interfaces. The trader must actively manage both legs, because neither platform automatically hedges the other.

Why basis trades converge or fail to converge

In theory, a basis should shrink as the event resolution date approaches. The fundamental reason is that uncertainty decreases. Near resolution, the true probability approaches either 0 or 1. Both spot and perpetual futures contracts must converge to the settlement value, because they represent claims on the same underlying event. A trader holding an arbitrage position into expiration realizes the basis regardless of the actual outcome, because the profit or loss is predetermined.

In practice, convergence depends on whether traders actually exploit the mispricing, and whether they can do so without friction. On Polymarket, several factors can prevent tight basis convergence. First, liquidity fragmentation: the spot market and Polymarket Perps maintain separate order books with potentially different depths. A large arbitrage order may move one leg significantly while the other remains stable, erasing the advantage. Second, funding rate dynamics: perpetual futures markets charge funding between longs and shorts to align prices with spot. If the basis is negative (perp cheaper than spot) and persistent, shorts on Polymarket Perps collect funding, which can actually widen the gap as the incentive structure rewards keeping the perp underpriced.

Third, settlement and resolution uncertainty: Polymarket’s markets resolve via written rules and UMA’s Optimistic Oracle with token-holder dispute resolution. This is not a real-time price feed; it is a governance mechanism. If market participants question the resolution, a dispute can delay or change the settlement value. This creates basis risk: the two instruments may converge to different values. A spot trader who has locked in a basis trade may find that the perp resolves differently based on a dispute ruling, undermining the « risk-free » character of the trade.

Fourth, funding cost over time: if the basis is narrow and the basis trader must hold the position for weeks, the accumulated funding payments can exceed the initial edge. A basis of 10 basis points captured on day one could be erased by ten days of 1-basis-point daily funding costs. This is especially relevant during periods of high leverage usage on Polymarket Perps, when funding rates spike.

Polymarket Perps as the leverage tool

Polymarket Perps supports leverage up to 20x, creating an operational choice for basis traders. Rather than funding the full notional of the short perp hedge, a trader can short a larger amount with partial margin, reducing the cash required. This amplifies the capital efficiency of the trade but introduces liquidation risk. If the event probability moves sharply between entries, the leveraged perp position can be liquidated at a loss, breaking the hedge and exposing the trader to directional market risk.

Consider a practical example: a trader has $1,000 available. Without leverage, the trader can enter a 100-share basis trade (long $65 spot, short ~$60 perp notional). With 10x leverage on the short perp, the trader can short 200 perp contracts notional using only $60 of margin, freeing capital for other trades or reducing the cash required. But if liquidation prices are set tightly, and the event probability spike to 70%, the perp position could be underwater by $200, triggering automatic closing at a loss.

The liquidation mechanics on Polymarket Perps are critical to understanding basis trade risk. The platform calculates maintenance margin requirements based on position size and current market price. A basis trader using 10x leverage on the short leg should verify: (1) the liquidation price relative to current mid-market prices; (2) the estimated liquidation cost (fees and slippage); and (3) whether any market move that would trigger liquidation is plausible given the event’s remaining resolution period. A basis trade is meant to eliminate direction risk, but leverage reintroduces that risk through liquidation.

Regulatory and access constraints on Polymarket basis trading

Polymarket exists in two versions. The international Polymarket is available globally except in 40+ restricted countries including the UK, France, Germany, Australia, and the Netherlands. This version is unregulated by US authorities. Polymarket US is CFTC-regulated and requires KYC (know-your-customer) identity verification, making it available only to verified US users. Basis traders must understand which version they access, because the feature sets, fee structures, and market conventions differ.

On the international Polymarket, basis trades can be executed without KYC, provided the user’s jurisdiction permits trading. However, users in UK-regulated territories face FCA restrictions on prediction market platforms, and France’s AMF and Germany’s BaFin similarly restrict derivatives and prediction markets. Dutch financial regulators and ASIC in Australia impose comparable constraints. These are not merely policy restrictions; they are legal prohibitions that can result in account closure and fund seizure if a user circumvents them. A basis trader operating from a restricted jurisdiction using VPN or similar tools is accepting regulatory and legal risk beyond market risk.

On Polymarket US, KYC requirements and CFTC oversight create additional obligations. The CFTC classifies binary option markets as derivatives, and Polymarket US is registered as a designated contract market. This means that profit calculations, trade reporting, and tax treatment may differ from international versions. A US-based basis trader should verify the reporting requirements with a tax advisor, because simultaneous spot and perp positions may trigger specific tax event classifications.

Executing the basis trade: practical steps and gotchas

A disciplined basis trade requires a checklist before and after execution. First, identify the basis: compare the mid-price on the spot market to the perp market. Use Polymarket’s fee calculation tools to estimate total transaction costs. A basis of 8 basis points may seem attractive until fees of 15–20 basis points are subtracted. Second, calculate the funding rate impact. Polymarket Perps displays the current funding rate (often quoted as an hourly percentage). Multiply by the expected holding period to estimate total cost. Third, set the liquidation price and confirm it is acceptable. A basis trade should not be entered if the liquidation price is within 10–15% of current market price, as ordinary event-probability movements could trigger it.

Execution should be simultaneous or near-simultaneous. Entering the long spot position without immediately hedging the short perp creates temporary directional exposure. If the market moves sharply between legs, the trader may overpay for one leg or miss the other execution entirely. On Polymarket, liquidity can be thin on some markets, so orders should be sized conservatively initially. It is better to execute a smaller basis trade successfully than to attempt a large trade and face significant slippage on one leg.

After entry, monitor the funding rate and basis daily. If the basis widens unexpectedly, the position can be closed early for profit. If funding accumulates faster than anticipated, consider closing the position rather than waiting for expiration. Polymarket’s spot markets have settlement, but perpetual positions remain open until closed. A basis trader who intends to hold through spot resolution should understand how the perp will be settled at that point—whether it closes to UMA’s oracle value or remains open for subsequent funding payments.

A frequent mistake is conflating basis with arbitrage. An arbitrage trade is executed with the expectation of zero risk and riskless profit. A basis trade reduces risk significantly but does not eliminate it entirely. Funding rate volatility, liquidation, resolution disputes, and unexpected market dislocations can all undermine the expected profit. The basis trade is therefore better understood as a low-risk strategy capturing modest edges, not a perfect hedge.

Funding rates and basis persistence on Polymarket Perps

Funding rates on Polymarket Perps serve as the mechanism that should keep perpetual futures prices tethered to spot. When the perp trades above spot, longs pay shorts, creating an incentive for longs to close and shorts to hold or open. Over time, this should drive the perp price down and spot price up (through basis-trade activity) until they converge. The reverse holds when the perp is underpriced.

In practice, funding rates can remain one-directional for extended periods. If an event is gaining mainstream attention and retail traders are piling into long perpetuals (attracted by leverage and simplicity), the perp can drift significantly above spot despite high funding rates. The basis trader who shorted the perp and bought spot spot may profit from funding payments, but if the event eventually resolves YES, the accumulating funding can exceed the initial basis by the time the position closes. This is not a loss on the basis trade itself—both legs still move together—but rather a cost of holding the position longer than expected.

Understanding basis persistence therefore requires distinguishing between the initial captured basis and the funding paid or collected during the holding period. A basis trade entered at 20 basis points with an expected 5-day hold time is only profitable if the funding rate is negative (shorts pay longs) or modest and positive. If funding jumps to 0.1% per hour (3.6% daily), the $20 initial profit can be consumed by $36 in funding costs per day, turning a profitable trade into a money-losing position within days.

Convergence, settlement, and the end of the basis

As an event approaches resolution, both spot and perpetual prices should converge toward the true probability or resolution value. On Polymarket, this convergence is enforced by the underlying mechanics: spot shares settle to $1 or $0 based on the outcome, and perpetual futures must close or reset at that point. However, the path to convergence can be rocky.

Dispute periods and oracle resolution introduce basis risk near expiration. If the event is ambiguous or controversial, market participants may price uncertainty into the spot market. For example, a geopolitical event might trade at $0.52 spot but $0.48 perp if traders believe the oracle will rule NO despite the event technically occurring. A basis trader holding through this period may find the basis widening into expiration because the two prices are converging to different values, not the same value.

To mitigate this, basis traders should close positions well before the resolution oracle is scheduled to report. A typical Polymarket market allows a 2–3 day resolution window after the event date. Closing the basis trade 1–2 days before this window opens reduces the risk of oracle-related surprises. It also locks in the intended profit without exposing the position to last-minute market repricing.

Comparing Polymarket basis trades to alternatives

Basis trading on Polymarket is one approach to capturing prediction-market pricing inefficiencies. Other approaches include statistical arbitrage (finding markets pricing events inconsistently across different resolutions), spread trading (capturing differences between correlated markets), and outright directional speculation using perps leverage. The advantage of basis trading is simplicity and reduced risk: the trader is not making a fundamental bet about what will happen, but rather betting that mispricing will correct.

However, basis trades require capital to be locked up in both legs. A trader with limited funds might achieve better risk-adjusted returns by deploying capital in a single directional trade at higher conviction. Similarly, if the trader has a true edge in forecasting (e.g., superior analysis of geopolitical or sports outcomes), using leverage on Polymarket Perps to amplify a directional bet might generate higher expected value than a basis trade. Basis trading is optimal when pricing dislocations are large and capital efficiency is a secondary concern.

L’article The Polymarket Perps Basis Trade: Arbitraging Spot Prices Against Leveraged Perpetuals on the Same Platform est apparu en premier sur Saint-Mesmin.

L’article Prévention des vols et Sécurisation des habitations à l’occasion du changement d’heure. est apparu en premier sur Saint-Mesmin.

Des réserves qui continuent de diminuer
Depuis le printemps, la pluviométrie est très inférieure aux normales saisonnières. En septembre, seuls 14 mm de pluie ont été enregistrés en Vendée. Les averses récentes et les précipitations annoncées restent insuffiantes pour reconstituer signifiativement les réserves.
Parallèlement, les consommations d’eau potable restent élevées. Depuis le début de l’année, elles dépassent de plus de 10 % la moyenne des cinq dernières années. Cette tendance se poursuit en ce début d’automne et accentue la pression sur des ressources déjà fragilisées.
À ce stade, les réserves disponibles permettent d’envisager une alimentation en eau potable jusqu’au mois de décembre, sous réserve de l’évolution des consommations et des précipitations à venir. Cette projection souligne l’importance d’agir dès maintenant pour éviter une dégradation supplémentaire de la situation.

Des économies d’eau indispensables pour tous
La Vendée reste placée en alerte renforcée, conformément à l’arrêté préfectoral en vigueur. Ce niveau de restriction impose de limiter les usages de l’eau selon les mesures réglementaires applicables à chaque catégorie d’usagers. Particuliers, collectivités et entreprises sont concernés. Les restrictions en vigueur sont consultables sur https://vigieau.gouv.fr/ ou https://www.vendee-eau.fr/secheresse-ou-en-est-on-en-vendee-2/

Au-delà du respect de ces mesures, chacun est invité à réduire davantage ses consommations quotidiennes. À la maison, au travail ou dans les structures publiques, des gestes simples permettent de limiter la consommation :
• Privilégier les douches courtes et ne pas prendre de bain.
• Récupérer l’eau froide du début de douche pour arroser le jardin.
• Ne pas laisser couler l’eau inutilement.
• Utiliser les lave-linge et lave-vaisselle à pleine charge et en mode « éco ».
• Repérer et réparer rapidement les fuites. 

Retrouvez les conseils et les écogestes sur vendee-eau.fr/economiser-l-eau.

Chaque litre économisé aujourd’hui contribue à préserver les réserves disponibles pour demain.

Des baisses ponctuelles de pression possibles au robinet
Vendée Eau met en œuvre de nombreuses actions pour maintenir l’approvisionnement en eau potable dans les semaines à venir et sur tout le département. L’établissement public opère des transferts d’eau en fonction de sa disponibilité géographique et des besoins des territoires. Cette gestion peut entraîner, sur certains secteurs et notamment aux heures de fortes consommations, des baisses de pression ponctuelles au robinet.

Une sensibilisation des publics
Pour informer les usagers de la situation et les inciter à adapter leurs consommations, Vendée Eau déploie un plan de communication à l’échelle départementale : envoi de sms/mails aux usagers, information presse, communication sur les réseaux sociaux… Face à des réserves fragilisées et à des conditions météorologiques encore incertaines, la mobilisation de tous est essentielle. Préserver l’eau aujourd’hui, c’est contribuer à garantir l’approvisionnement en eau potable pour tous demain. _________________________________________________________________________

POP UP
Situation critique pour l’eau potable en Vendée : des réserves sous tension, des économies d’eau indispensables
Malgré l’arrivée de l’automne, la situation de la ressource en eau reste préoccupante en Vendée. Les consommations d’eau potable demeurent élevées et les précipitations annoncées ne permettent pas d’envisager une recharge signifiative des retenues.
À ce stade, les réserves disponibles permettent d’envisager une alimentation en eau potable jusqu’au mois de décembre, sous réserve de l’évolution des consommations et des précipitations.
Vendée Eau appelle l’ensemble des usagers à renforcer leurs effrts au quotidien et dès à présent pour préserver la ressource et maintenir l’approvisionnement en eau potable dans les prochaines semaines. Chaque litre économisé aujourd’hui contribue à préserver les réserves disponibles pour demain.
La Vendée reste en alerte renforcée : les restrictions d’usage de l’eau par arrêté préfectoral sont toujours en vigueur pour tous.

Des baisses de pression possibles au robinet
Vendée Eau met en œuvre de nombreuses actions pour maintenir l’approvisionnement en eau potable dans les semaines à venir et sur tout le département. L’établissement public opère des transferts d’eau en fonction de sa disponibilité géographique et des besoins des territoires. Cette gestion peut entraîner, sur certains secteurs et notamment aux heures de fortes consommations, des baisses de pression ponctuelles au robinet.

https://www.vendee-eau.fr/actualites/situation-critique-pour-leau-potable-en-vendee/

L’article Situation critique pour l’eau potable en Vendée est apparu en premier sur Saint-Mesmin.

À VOS JEUX, PRÊTS ? JOUEZ !

Envie de partager un moment ludique en famille ? Venez jouer à la bibliothèque !

Mardi 27 octobre 2026

De 14h30 à 17h

Pour toute la famille

Gratuit !

Venez partager un bon moment, rire et vous amuser autour des jeux !

On vous attend nombreux !

L’article JEUX DE SOCIÉTÉ à la bibliothèque de Saint-Mesmin est apparu en premier sur Saint-Mesmin.