SWD(2016)0428

Under Directive 98/83/EC on drinking water, the Commission presents a synthesis report on the quality of drinking water in the Union.

Member States are obliged under the Drinking Water Directive to monitor on a regular basis the quality of the drinking water that is supplied to consumers. They have to report triennially the monitoring results to the Commission.

This synthesis report gives a summary of the drinking water quality in EU Member States in 2011-2013 . The Directive makes a distinction between large and small water supplies. Large water supplies provide either more than 1,000 m³ drinking water per day as an average or serve more than 5,000 persons.

During the data collection exercise, 15 Member States provided on a voluntary basis also information on small water supply zones (supplying less than 1,000m³/day). An overall EU assessment of compliance in small supplies was not considered meaningful as the data available was not fully representative for the entire EU and therefore this information is not included in the present report. According to the information provided by these 15 Member States the overall compliance is on average 98% high and no major problems are indicated.

The main conclusion of the synthesis report shows that compliance rates for parameters directly reflecting the quality of the drinking water supplied to consumers reached with one exemption at least 99 % for the first time in all Member States during the 2011-2013 reporting period. This is a positive achievement that reflects the efforts made by all concerned for the correct implementation of the Drinking Water Directive.

Drinking water quality – Compliance : to assess drinking water quality in a water supply zone, a very large number of analyses have been carried out within the 2011-2013 reporting period in Member States: 4.1 million on microbiological parameters, 7.1 million on chemical parameters and 17.5 million on indicator parameters:

as regards the microbiological parameters , all Member States reported between 99-100 % rate of compliance; concerning the chemical parameters , 26 Member States reported compliance of between 99-100 %, and only Hungary reported compliance just below 99 %; for the indicator parameters , three Member States had a compliance rate between 98 % and 100 %, three Member States show a compliance rate of less than 98 % and 21 Member States reached a compliance level of over 99 %. For indicator parameters, Malta reported a rather low mean compliance rate of 90.1 % because of very low compliance rates on chloride.

Remedial actions : the report presents these measures for three important parameters coliform bacteria, arsenic, and lead:

for coliform bacteria contaminations detected, the majority of the remedial actions taken (67 %) were related to the public distribution network or treatment infrastructure and operation (i.e through better disinfection); remedial actions to minimise high concentrations of arsenic in drinking water were mostly related to treatment (46 %) or catchment (29 %); in the case concentration of lead exceeds the parametric value, 67 % of all reported remedial actions consisted of the replacement or disconnection of lead pipes in the domestic distribution network.

The report noted that problems in relation to specific drinking water quality parameters or groups of parameters find their cause at different points of the drinking water supply chain: water source, treatment, distribution and end of pipe - the consumer. This suggests that useful monitoring programmes should be set up considering these different causes of non-compliance at different points .

The Commission recalled that when continuing non-compliance due to structural problems is observed, and remedial action was not sufficient to restore the quality of drinking water, the Commission can take action on a potential case of violation of Union law.

The Commission attempts to quickly resolve the underlying problem with the Member State concerned by means of a structured dialogue , and if the Member State concerned fails to implement a solution to rectify the suspected violation of EU law, the Commission may launch a formal infringement procedure . Due to the overall high compliance this has been necessary in only a few cases so far.

Next steps : the Commission stated that at the time of publication of this report, a detailed evaluation report on the Drinking Water Directive is being drafted , which assesses inter alia also the reporting system. In parallel, a Fitness Check of EU environmental monitoring and reporting is being carried out. Both these initiatives are likely to include further conclusions and follow-up to improve the reporting process under the Drinking Water Directive.

COM(2016)0666
EUR-Lex

The Commission presents a synthesis report on the quality of drinking water in the EU examining the Member States' reports for the period 2008-2010 under Directive 98/83/EC.

The Drinking Water Directive, introduced in 1980 and revised in 1998, has led to the availability of high-quality drinking water across the EU. Joint efforts from EU institutions, Member States and service providers have resulted in high compliance rates with the drinking water standards and the Directive is therefore one of the success stories, albeit not a very well known one, of EU legislation in the field of environment and public health.

This document gives a summary of the status of implementation of the Drinking Water Directive, based on the latest data reported by Member States:

Drinking water quality : in order to ensure that drinking water is safe for human consumption, the Drinking Water Directive sets out minimum water quality requirements. Reported data on these parameters show that drinking water quality in the EU is in general very good. The overall trend is also positive.

- For the large supplies , the vast majority of Member States show compliance rates for microbiological and chemical parameters of between 99% and 100%. For the few Member States showing compliance rates lower than 99%, reinforced action will be required to ensure that all citizens served by the large supplies concerned can safely use drinking water.

- As regards the small water supplies , the picture is more divergent. Lower compliance levels are noted for the microbiological parameters, with only three Member States achieving compliance rates between 99% and 100%. A breakdown of compliance rates for microbiological parameters shows that the compliance for small supplies is significantly lower than for large supplies.

For the chemical parameters for small supplies, similar high compliance levels are noted as for the big supplies. In some supply zones, problems were reported in relation to nitrate, nitrite, arsenic, and to a lesser extent, boron and fluoride. The assessment of reported data on the small supplies showed that some Member States are struggling to manage small supplies in a safe way.

Concerns in relation to small water supplies have also been recognised by the 7 th Environmental Action Programme (7th EAP), which calls for increased efforts in the implementation of the Directive in particular for small drinking water supplies.

Monitoring : the Directive requires Member States to ensure that regular monitoring of the quality of water intended for human consumption is carried out. However, monitoring approaches differ between Member States and even between different water supply zones within individual Member States, resulting in different levels and availability of monitoring data. This does not necessarily amount to a failure in meeting the legal requirements as the Directive allows for adapted monitoring programmes depending on the specific characteristics of the water supply zone. The analysis suggests, however, the need to review and better streamline the current monitoring approaches .

To address Member States’ monitoring and performance, the Commission is working on a so called "Structured Implementation and Information Framework" ( SIIF ), establishing systems at national level which actively disseminate information about how EU environment legislation is being implemented. This information is then brought together to provide an EU-wide overview. The Directive's requirement that up-to-date information on drinking water quality is made available to consumers could also be linked to such an information framework and be improved in this context. Drinking water data could also be more clearly linked to the Water Information System for Europe (WISE) which comprises a wide range of data and information collected by the EU institutions.

Information : the report also notes that it is important for the public to have access to information on drinking water quality. While often provided on national websites, it is frequently not up to date and is difficult to understand. The majority of Member States do not use comprehensive maps or other public supports. The current set-up for reporting does not provide the Commission with adequate and timely information to perform a thorough synthesis of drinking water quality developments in the European Union. This makes it difficult to provide the Council, European Parliament and the public with updated EU-wide information on drinking water policy and quality on a regular basis. In addition, the way data are collected, processed and reported differs across the EU, which makes it difficult to compare situations in different Member States with regard to their performance and compliance with the Directive. A revised or new reporting concept could facilitate transparent data dissemination and management at both national and EU level. Also, benchmarking drinking water quality could allow easier interpretation and visualisation of water quality data across the EU and better comparison of water quality and trends between Member States.

Derogations : the Directive allows derogations from the drinking water quality standards under very strict conditions and limited in time. The Commission has so far granted a number of derogations to the Czech Republic, Italy, Hungary and Germany, referring mainly to the parameters of nitrate and nitrite, fluoride, boron, arsenic and nickel. It has refused one request for a derogation, from Estonia. Derogations and other possible exemptions in exceptional circumstances could jeopardize a consistent EU-wide implementation of the Directive if not applied prudently.

Challenges : EU policy on drinking water has led to the development of high drinking water quality across the EU over the past decades. However, in order to keep these high quality standards and address specific remaining challenges, there may be a need to further adapt the EU legal framework .

Main conclusions : although enforcement of the Drinking Water Directive is satisfactory and progress has been made in many areas, the following issues and challenges have been identified:

the supply of high-quality water, in particular in remote and rural areas , should be improved. Small water supplies in these areas require specific risk-based management approaches and the role of the Drinking Water Directive in this context should be explored; risk-based approaches to the management of big water supplies would allow for more cost effective monitoring and parameter analysis in relation to identified risks and provide better guarantees for the protection of human health; methodologies for monitoring and analysis should reflect the latest scientific and technological developments; new scientific information about chemical and other parameters in relation to the drinking water parameter list should be considered in line with the on-going revision of the WHO drinking-water guidelines, including emerging pollutants; modern information technology and easier access to environmental information should be used to provide more up-to-date information for consumers, and to explore how to link different monitoring data with reporting and consumer information; implementation timescales and derogation mechanisms are out- of-date and would benefit from a general update and overhaul; an EU-wide public consultation will be a first step towards a further in-depth assessment of the above mentioned challenges and how they could be best addressed. It may also identify additional issues to be tackled in order to ensure and further improve high drinking water quality standards across the EU.

EUR-Lex
COM(2014)0363

PURPOSE: the protection of human health from adverse effects of any contamination of water intended for human consumption by ensuring that it is wholesome and clean.

COMMUNITY MEASURE: Council Directive 98/83/EC on the quality of water intended for human consumption.

CONTENT: The Directive seeks to simplify, consolidate and update Directive 80/778/EEC in the light of scientific and technical progress and with account being taken of the subsidiarity principle. Experience gained from implementing Directive 80/778/EEC has shown that it is necessary to create an appropriately flexible and transparent legal framework for Member States to address failures to meet standards relating to the production and distribution of water. The Directive also takes into consideration the new scientific findings of the WHO concerning the quality of drinking water and the opinion of the Commission's Scientific Advisory Committee to examine the toxicity and ecotoxicity of chemical compounds. In comparison with the existing Directive, the number of quality parameters has been reduced so that the only ones retained at Community level are those which are essential to guarantee a high level of health protection.

Member States are required to take the necessary measures to ensure that water intended for human consumption is wholesome and clean and, thus, free from any micro-organisms and parasites and any substances which, in numbers or in concentrations, constitute a potential danger to human health. Member States are also required to take all necessary measures to ensure that regular monitoring of the quality of water intended for human consumption is carried out in order to check that the water available to consumers meets the requirements of this Directive and, in particular, the parametric values set in accordance with Art. 5. Samples should be taken so that they are representative of the quality of the water consumed throughout the year. Member States are obliged to ensure that any failure to meet the parametric values set in accordance with Art. 5 is immediately investigated in order to identify the cause. The Member States have to take the necessary remedial action as soon as possible to restore its quality. Whether or not any failure to meet the parametric values has occurred, Member States shall ensure that any supply of water intended for human consumption which constitutes a potential danger to human health is prohibited or its use restricted or such other action is taken as is necessary to protect human health. In such cases, consumers shall be promptly informed thereof and given the necessary advice. Member States may provide for derogations from the parametric values set out in Annex I, Part B, or set in accordance with Art. 5(3), up to a maximum value to be determined by them, provided no derogation constitutes a potential danger to human health and provided that the supply of water intended for human consumption in the area concerned cannot otherwise be maintained by any other reasonable means. Derogations shall be limited to as short a time as possible and shall not exceed three years. The most important change from the existing Directive is the reduction from 50 to 10 micrograms/litre (μg/l) of the maximum lead concentration in drinking water. The value applies to a sample of water intended for human consumption obtained by anadequate sampling method at the tap and taken so as to be representative of a weekly average value ingested by consumers. Member States must take account of the occurrence of peak levels that may cause adverse affects on human health. The parametric value for lead from five years after the entry into force of this Directive until 15 years after its entry into force is 25μg/l.

ENTRY INTO FORCE: 25/12/1998.

DEADLINE FIXED FOR TRANSPOSITION: 25/12/2000.

Directive 1998/83
OJ L 330 05.12.1998, p. 0032

EUR-Lex
COM(1998)0388

EUR-Lex
COM(1998)0388

OJ C 167 01.06.1998, p. 0078-0092
T4-0268/1998

T4-0268/1998

The rapporteur urged Parliament to adopt Amendments Nos 1 to 30 as these would improve the directive. Indicating that the common position represented an acceptable compromise, Commissioner Bjerregaard stated that the Commission could accept Amendments No 6, 8, 15 and 19. It could also accept Amendments Nos 12 and 29 in part and Amendments Nos 13, 26 and 30 in principle. However, Amendments Nos 1-5, 7, 9-11, 14, 16-18, 20-25, 27, 28 and 31-34 could not be accepted. With specific regard to the amendments on the derogations (Nos 16, 17 and 22), the Commissioner stressed that these derogations would be granted only if there was no risk to health. They would in addition be time-restricted. According to Mrs Bjerregaard, Parliament’s major reservations had already been taken into consideration and it would be difficult to renegotiate these points with Council. As regards introducing new parameters for radioactivity (Amendments Nos 23 and 26), the Commissioner welcomed the fact that such parameters would be incorporated in a directive for the first time. On hormone-like substances (Amendments Nos 8, 25 and 30), the Commission shared Parliament’s reservations and the Commissioner announced that guidelines would very shortly be defined. On lead, Mrs Bjerregaard confirmed that the idea of requiring reports from Member States after five years could be accepted but the deadline specified for the adaptation periods could not be reduced. Likewise, the Commissioner did not accept Amendments Nos 31 to 34 which aimed to change the classification for copper and which the rapporteur had already asked to be rejected.

Debate in Parliament

A4-0146/1998
OJ C 152 18.05.1998, p. 0006

A4-0146/1998

EUR-Lex
SEC(1998)0128

12767/2/1997
OJ C 091 26.03.1998, p. 0001

12767/2/1997

2017

EUR-Lex
OJ C 213 15.07.1997, p. 0008
COM(1997)0228

EUR-Lex
COM(1997)0228

OJ C 020 20.01.1997, p. 0084-0121
T4-0673/1996

T4-0673/1996

The rapporteur, Mr Collins (PSE, UK), referred to the principles on which drinking water quality in Europe was based, including the conservation of stocks of safe drinking water, the need to prevent any further decline in water quality, the treatment of polluted water and the application of the latest scientific methods in order to satisfy these priority requirements. Among the amendments aimed at reinforcing health and safety parameters the rapporteur mentioned the new standards that had been proposed for reducing the lead and pesticide content of the public water supply, stressing the importance of keeping consumers better informed and promoting greater awareness of the principles of prevention and precaution. Referring to the amendments that had been tabled, Mr Collins was of the general view that the initial proposal was more likely to satisfy the expectations of consumers and citizens in respect of transparency and democracy. Commissioner Bjerregaard stated that she could only take over 35 of the 124 amendments tabled, with 22 of these being acceptable in full and 13 in part.

Debate in Parliament

1978

A4-0394/1996
OJ C 020 20.01.1997, p. 0003

A4-0394/1996

1956

The Economic and Social Committee broadly endorsed the Commission proposal to amend the Drinking Water Directive and confirmed that the Directive was primarily a health policy measure. It particularly welcomed the dropping of the incorrect and obsolete parameters, the abolition of indicative values and the adoption of rules to deal with situations where values are exceeded. A ‘horizontal’ comparison of different EU water policy measures, however, revealed that in some areas Community legislation had clearly not been harmonised. The ESC hoped that the communication and new framework directive on water policy recently announced by the Commission would effectively resolve the present lack of coherence. The ESC was pleased that the Commission had largely followed the recent recommendations of the World Health Organisation (WHO). For levels of plant protection products, however, the Commission had kept to the previous overall limit value of 0.1 microgram/litre of drinking water. This limit value could only be justified by the fact that it was a precautionary measure. The ESC broadly supported the Commission’s efforts to increase transparency in the application of the directive. The measures to protect and improve drinking water that were associated with the proposed Directive would involve considerable additional costs. The ESC called for aid programmes in the Member States to make the costs of replacing lead pipes bearable and reasonable for low-income households.

CES1458/1995
OJ C 082 19.03.1996, p. 0064

The Committee of the Regions felt that it was important to ensure that the Directive continued to focus on human health, consumer protection and environmental conservation. The Committee welcomed the simplification of the parameters chosen to guarantee the general quality of water intended for human consumption, but felt that the range should be extended to require analysis of the microbiological parameters that were generally reckoned to provide an indication of whether water intended for human consumption contained harmful bacteria. The Committee regretted that the proposed directive did not include the parametric value for the total pesticide content of water intended for human consumption. It approved the Commission’s proposal to reduce the concentration of lead in water intended for human consumption but this required the replacement of pipework, resulting in high costs to local and regional authorities and to householders. The Committee called for EU funding to be made available to encourage the replacement of such pipework. It also proposed that the analysis parameters for total pesticide content be retained and that pesticide degradation products also be covered by the Directive. In addition, it recommended that emphasis be placed on the precautionary principle when setting the parametric values for trichlorethene and tetrachlorethene. EU citizens should have adequate information on this issue.

CDR0304/1995
OJ C 100 02.04.1996, p. 0134

EUR-Lex
OJ C 131 30.05.1995, p. 0005
COM(1994)0612

EUR-Lex
COM(1994)0612

PREVIOUS COMMUNITY LEGISLATION:

Directive 75/440/EEC (OJ No. L 194, 25.07.1975, p. 26) concerning the quality required of surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking water in the Member States; covers surface water intended for human consumption and supplied by distribution networks for public use. National differences in respect of these quality requirements can lead to distortion of competition, thereby having an adverse effect on the Common Market. Directive 79/869/EEC of 9 October 1979 (OJ No. L 271, 29.10.1979, p. 44) concerning the methods of measurement and frequencies of sampling and analysis of surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking water in the Member States; contains common reference methods for determining the parameters of analyses carried out by the Member States. Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 (OJ No. L 2290, 30.08.1980, p. 11) relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption. This is defined as water supplied for consumption or used in food processing for the manufacture, processing or preserving of foodstuffs or which affects the wholesomeness of the finished product. The maximum value for nitrate concentrations, for example, is set at 50 mg/l. If this value is exceeded, the water must be treated or mixed with clean water until the maximum is reached. The main causes of nitrate pollution are farms and domestic waste water. Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 (OJ No. L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1) concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources. Although the use of fertilizers and dung containing nitrates is essential in farming, excess concentrations are an environmental risk. Agricultural policy should therefore take greater account of such risks. Member States must identify waters at risk, and establish action programmes to reduce pollution of waters from nitrogen compounds, and to submit regular reports to the Commission on implementation of their programmes. Directive 91/692/EEC (OJ No. L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 48): new test methods and the obligation to submit annual reports to the Commission (see also the Commission Decision concerning questionnaires relating to directives in the water sector: 92/446/EEC (OJ No. L 247, 27.08.1992, p. 10)).

PREVIOUS POSITION OF EP:

own-initiative report on lead in drinking water (Doc. A-206/87, OJ No. C 94, 11.04.1988, p. 158), opinion on the Commission proposal (COM(88) 752) on methods of measurement and frequency of analysis of surface water (OJ No. C 158, 26.06.1989, p.489) which led to the amended Commission proposal (COM(89) 478; OJ No. C 300, 29.11.1989, p. 13), resolution on plant protection products pursuant to Rule 61 of the Rules of Procedure, B3-1736/93 (OJ No. C 20, 24.01.1994, p. 30) in which Parliament called for existing standards for the quality of drinking water to be upheld and for withdrawal of Com (93) 117 (which has since been withdrawn).

SITUATION IN THE MEMBER STATES: In accordance with the Commission's Eleventh Annual Report on Monitoring the Application of Community Law (1993) (COM(94) 500, p. 90) the quality of drinking water has improved in Luxembourg and Germany. There are still problems in Italy and the Netherlands. Following a judgement by the Court (Case 337/89, 1992 ECR, p. I-6103), the British authorities have announced measures to improve the situation, although the process will not be complete until 1995. Despite the efforts of the national authorities, the quality of drinking water in the new Länder has not reached the desired standard. France has been sent a reasoned opinion since two administrative circulars have permitted very high concentrations of pesticides in drinking water.