(-1)

Water is not a commercial product like any other but, rather, a common good and a heritage, which needs to be protected, and treated as such, in order to ensure that ecosystems are preserved and that there is universal access to clean water.

(-1a)

The United Nations General Assembly recognised, on 28 July 2010, the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of life and all human rights. Following the success of the 2014 European Citizen’s Initiative entitled ‘Right2Water’ a proposal for the revision of the Directive on drinking water was adopted by the Commission in 2018 and the corresponding amended Directive entered into force on 12 January 2021. That Directive lays down an obligation for Member States to improve access to water intended for human consumption while relying, inter alia, on the knowledge gained and actions carried out under Directive 2000/60/EC. Member States should also ensure the effectiveness of the right to clean water and sanitation by improving the quality of both surface water and groundwater.

(1)

Chemical pollution of surface and groundwater poses a threat to the aquatic environment, with effects such as acute and chronic toxicity in aquatic organisms, accumulation of pollutants in the ecosystem and loss of habitats and biodiversity, as well as to human health. Setting environmental quality standards helps to implement the zero pollution ambition for a toxic-free environment.

(1)

Chemical pollution of surface and groundwater poses a threat to the aquatic environment, with effects such as acute and chronic toxicity in aquatic organisms, accumulation of pollutants in the ecosystem and loss of habitats and biodiversity, as well as to human health. Setting environmental quality standards helps to implement the zero pollution ambition for a toxic-free environment , one of the priority goals of the 8th Environmental Action Programme  (1a) .

(1a)

According to the European Environment Agency, around 90 % of the area of groundwater bodies is reported to be in good quantitative status, around 75 % of the groundwater body area is in good chemical status, 40 % of surface water bodies are in good or high ecological status, and 38 % of surface water bodies are in good chemical status, while the European Environment Agency’s report of 4 December 2019 entitled ‘The European environment — state and outlook 2020: Knowledge for transition to a sustainable Europe’ found that reduced pollution has improved water quality, but that the Union was far from achieving good ecological status for all water bodies by 2020.

(1b)

The 2019 Fitness Check of the Water Framework Directive (‘the Fitness Check’) concluded in its evaluation that the next round of programmes of measures will play a key role in ensuring the necessary progress towards achieving the environmental objectives of Directive 2000/60/EC by the 2027 deadline, and stated that currently more than half of all European water bodies are exempt under Directive 2000/60/EC, which makes the challenges for Member States to achieve the Environmental Quality Standards for priority substances within the given deadline, more than substantial. In addition, the Fitness Check concluded that the environmental objectives have not been reached fully largely due to insufficient funding, slow implementation and insufficient integration of environmental objectives in sectoral policies, and not due to a deficiency in the legislation.

(1c)

Due to geographical and socioeconomic factors, some populations, including indigenous peoples, are more vulnerable to water pollution. The mining sector in the European Union is expected to grow to ensure the development of the net zero industry. As stated in Report 09/2021 from the European Environmental Agency  (1a) , the mining sector directly impacts water quality and quantity. It is, therefore, necessary to better implement the existing legislative frameworks and to plan and control water use and discharge also in mining operations.

(1d)

Many territories in the Union are subject to large and increasing water constraints. The significant and persistent droughts of recent years, especially in the Mediterranean regions, are putting agricultural production at risk and causing a serious decline in surface and groundwater reserves  (1a) .

(1e)

Water is a public good for the benefit of all which, as an essential natural resource that is irreplaceable and indispensable to life, needs to be carefully considered in the light of its social, economic and environmental dimensions. Climate change, including the increased frequency of natural disasters and extreme weather events, and the degradation of biodiversity, both negatively affect water quality and quantity, leading to pressure on sectors dependent on the availability of water, particularly agriculture.

(1f)

While in its 2018 Report on ‘European waters — assessment of status and pressures’, the European Environment Agency (EEA) identified certain agricultural practices as obstacles to achieving good chemical status of groundwater in the Union, leading to nitrate and pesticide pollution, a steady decrease in use of mineral fertilisers and in nutrient surpluses has been observed in the Union over the last decades  (1a) . Other significant sources of pollution are discharges that are not connected to a sewerage system, contaminated sites or abandoned industrial sites.

(1g)

Good status of water bodies and efficient management of water resources represents a priority for agriculture, since farmers rely on water to conduct their activity, and as such, have a vested interest in the sustainable use of such resources.

(1h)

In order to facilitate a transition to a more sustainable and productive agricultural sector that is resilient as regards water constraints, incentives should be put in place for farmers to improve water management and modernisation of irrigation systems and techniques.

(1i)

Pesticide use can severely affect water quality and the quantity of water available for agricultural use, leading to negative impacts on both aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity. It is therefore appropriate to monitor the impact and ecotoxicological fate of pesticides and their metabolites in water bodies.

(1j)

It is essential to consider the efforts achieved so far in sectors such as agriculture, where it has already been possible to reduce phytosanitary contamination by 14 % compared to 2015-2017 and by 26 % if considering the most harmful pollutants. The figures, therefore, show a continuous reduction in the use and risk of chemicals, with 2020 being the second consecutive year in which there has been a significant reduction in the use of pesticides, especially the most dangerous  (1a) .

(1k)

Chemical pollution of surface and groundwater also poses a threat to agriculture by limiting the availability of water suitable for crop irrigation, and further aggravating water scarcity. The Union and Member States should, therefore, increase support for research and innovation to rapidly deploy solutions to tackle surface and groundwater scarcity and pollution, including digitalisation, precision agriculture, optimised irrigation and modernisation of irrigation and a circular use of resources, for improved climate-resilient water management and a more targeted application of pesticides and fertilisers for crops, less polluting and safer alternatives to agricultural inputs, more resistant and nutrient-efficient varieties of crops and increased usage of treated wastewater for agricultural irrigation. This should contribute to achieving a sustainable and resilient Union food system while reducing diffuse pollution from agriculture and the need for agricultural abstraction.

(2a)

In seeking to achieve a high level of environmental protection and in implementing the Zero Pollution Action Plan, the Union should take account of the diversity of situations in the different regions of the Union, the impact on food security, food production and food affordability, as well as healthy and sustainable diets.

(3a)

The objectives of achieving ‘good status of water bodies’ and ensuring water availability are cross-cutting and are often not pursued in a sufficiently coherent way. Good water management should be mainstreamed in all Union policies concerning water-using sectors.

(3b)

The Fitness Check pointed out that better integration of water objectives in agricultural policy was necessary. The new CAP introduced measures making water management more sustainable. In order to have enhanced coherence between agriculture and water policy, Member States should make full use of the opportunities available in the new CAP and integrate water issues fully in their strategic plans, including use of Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS), and facilitate the development of advisory services to promote best practices concerning water management.

(4)

Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (45) establishes a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater. That framework involves the identification of priority substances amongst those that pose a significant risk to, or via, the aquatic environment at Union level. Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (46) lays down Union-wide environmental quality standards (EQS) for the 45 priority substances listed in Annex X to Directive 2000/60/EC and eight other pollutants that were already regulated at Union level before Annex X was introduced by Decision No 2455/2001/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (47). Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (48) lays down Union-wide groundwater quality standards for nitrates and for active substances in pesticides and criteria for establishing national threshold values for other groundwater pollutants. It also sets out a minimum list of 12 pollutants and their indicators for which Member States are required to consider establishing such national threshold values. The groundwater quality standards are set out in Annex I to Directive 2006/118/EC.

(4)

Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (45) establishes a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater. That framework involves the identification of priority substances amongst those that pose a significant risk to, or via, the aquatic environment at Union level. Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (46) lays down Union-wide environmental quality standards (EQS) for the 45 priority substances listed in Annex X to Directive 2000/60/EC and eight other pollutants that were already regulated at Union level before Annex X was introduced by Decision No 2455/2001/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (47). Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (48) lays down Union-wide groundwater quality standards for nitrates and for active substances in pesticides and criteria for establishing national threshold values for other groundwater pollutants. It also sets out a minimum list of 12 pollutants and their indicators for which Member States are required to establish such national threshold values. The groundwater quality standards are set out in Annex I to Directive 2006/118/EC.

(4a)

Member States should ensure that pollution through the discharge, emission or loss of priority hazardous substances ceases or is phased out within an appropriate timeline and, in any case, not later than 20 years after a given priority substance is listed as hazardous in Part A of Annex I to Directive 2008/105/EC. That timeline should apply without prejudice to the application of stricter timelines in any other applicable Union legislation.

(5)

Substances are considered for listing in Annex X to Directive 2000/60/EC or in Annex I or Annex II to Directive 2006/118/EC based on an assessment of the risk they pose to humans and the aquatic environment. The key components of that assessment are knowledge of the environmental concentrations of the substances, including information collected from watch-list monitoring, and of the (eco)toxicology of the substances, as well as of their persistence, bioaccumulation, carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, reprotoxicity and endocrine disrupting potential.

(5)

Substances are considered for listing in Annex X to Directive 2000/60/EC or in Annex I or Annex II to Directive 2006/118/EC based on an assessment of the risk they pose to humans and the aquatic environment. The key components of that assessment are knowledge of the environmental concentrations of the substances, including information collected from watch-list monitoring, and of the (eco)toxicology of the substances, as well as of their persistence, bioaccumulation, toxicity, mobility, carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, reprotoxicity and endocrine disrupting potential.

(7)

A combination of source-control and end-of-pipe measures is required to effectively deal with most pollutants across their life cycle, including, as relevant, chemical design, authorisation or approval, control of emissions during manufacturing and use or other processes, and waste handling. The setting of new or stricter quality standards in water bodies therefore complements and is coherent with other Union legislation that addresses or could address the pollution problem at one or more of those stages, including Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (49), Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (50), Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (51), Regulation (EU) 2019/6 of the European Parliament and of the Council (52), Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (53), Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (54), Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (55) and Council Directive 91/271/EEC (56).

(7)

A combination of source-control and end-of-pipe measures is required to effectively deal with most pollutants across their life cycle, including, as relevant, chemical design, authorisation or approval, control of emissions during manufacturing and use or other processes, and waste handling. The setting of new or stricter quality standards in water bodies therefore complements and is coherent with other Union legislation that addresses or should address the pollution problem at one or more of those stages, including Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (49), Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (50), Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (51), Regulation (EU) 2019/6 of the European Parliament and of the Council (52), Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (53), Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (54), Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (55) and Council Directive 91/271/EEC (56). In order for the Member States to achieve the environmental objectives laid down in Article 4 of Directive 2000/60/EC in the best and most cost-effective way possible, they should ensure, when establishing their programmes of measures, that source-control measures are prioritized over end-of-pipe measures and that those measures are in accordance with relevant Union sectoral legislation on pollution. When there is a risk of source-control measures failing to achieve good status of the water bodies, end-of-pipe measures should be applied. The Commission should develop guidance on best practices for source-control measures and the complementarity of end-of-pipe measures.

(7a)

Water pollution is mainly the result of industrial and agricultural activities, sewage discharges, and urban runoff, including storm water. The Commission and the Member States should prioritise in their actions measures reducing pollution at source, as well as their enforcement. To this end, coherence between all pieces of Union and national legislation addressing pollutant emissions at source should be ensured in order to reduce pollution to levels no longer considered harmful to health and natural ecosystems.

(7b)

In order to ensure the legislation intended for preventing pollution of surface water and groundwater is up to date in relation to the fast-evolving pace of new and emerging chemicals that have the potential, as pollutants, to cause significant risks to human health and the aquatic environment, policy mechanisms to detect and assess such substances of emerging concern should be strengthened. In this regard, an approach that allows monitoring and analysis of additional numbers of such substances or groups of substances under the watch lists for surface water and groundwater should be devised. The substances or group of substances to be placed on the watch list should be selected from amongst those substances for which the information available indicates that they could pose a significant risk at Union level to, or via, the aquatic environment, and for which the monitoring data are insufficient. The number of such substances or groups of substances to be monitored and analysed under the watch lists for surface water and groundwater should not be limited.

(8)

The new scientific knowledge points to a significant risk from several other pollutants found in water bodies, in addition to those already regulated. In groundwater, a particular problem has been identified through voluntary monitoring for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and pharmaceuticals. PFAS have been detected at more than 70 % of the groundwater measuring points in the Union and existing national thresholds are clearly exceeded at a considerable number of locations, and pharmaceutical substances are also widely found. In surface waters, perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and its derivatives are already listed as priority substances, but other PFAS are now also recognised to pose a risk. Watch-list monitoring under Article 8b of Directive 2008/105/EC has confirmed a risk in surface waters from a number of pharmaceutical substances which should therefore be added to the priority substances list.

(8)

The new scientific knowledge points to a significant risk from several other pollutants found in water bodies, in addition to those already regulated. In groundwater, a particular problem has been identified through voluntary monitoring for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and pharmaceuticals. PFAS have been detected at more than 70 % of the groundwater measuring points in the Union and existing national thresholds are clearly exceeded at a considerable number of locations, and pharmaceutical substances are also widely found. A subset of specific PFAS as well as of PFAS total should therefore be added to the list of groundwater pollutants. In surface waters, perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and its derivatives are already listed as priority substances, but other PFAS are now also recognised to pose a risk. A subset of specific PFAS as well as of PFAS total should therefore be added to the list of priority substances. In order to ensure a harmonised approach and level playing field in the Union, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission to amend Annex I to Directive 2006/118/EC by setting a quality standard for PFAS total. Watch-list monitoring under Article 8b of Directive 2008/105/EC has also confirmed a risk in surface waters from a number of pharmaceutical substances which should therefore be added to the priority substances list.

(8a)

Glyphosate is the most frequently used herbicide within the Union for agricultural use. As an active substance, it has raised serious concerns in terms of its impact on human health and aquatic toxicity. In December 2022, the Commission decided to grant a temporary extension of the glyphosate marketing authorisation for one additional year, pending the European Food Safety Authority’s reassessment of the active substance due in July 2023. Various recent scientific studies  (1a) suggest, however, that an environmental quality standard (EQS) lower than 0,1 μg /L for all surface water bodies should be considered based on the aquatic toxicity of glyphosate, AMPA and glyphosate-based herbicides. Considering the ongoing assessments by competent Union regulators and the scientific findings of relevant studies regarding the impacts of glyphosate on aquatic life, and for the purpose of ensuring the good chemical status of the majority of Union waters, based on the precautionary principle, a common and unified AA-EQS for inland surface waters and, separately, for other surface waters, should be adopted in relation to glyphosate.

(8b)

Atrazine is a herbicide used for annual broad-leaved weeds and annual grasses in cereals. The use of atrazine in plant protection products is no longer authorised within the Union pursuant to Commission Decision 2004/248/EC  (1a) . Atrazine has been proven to be an endocrine disruptor, with evidence that it interferes with reproduction and development, and it could be a cause of cancer. The European Environmental Agency, assessing pesticides against effect or quality thresholds between 2013 and 2020, found that exceedances of one or more pesticides, mainly exceedances of atrazine and its metabolites, were detected at between 4 % and 11 % of groundwater monitoring sites. Considering its persistent presence in Union surface and groundwater and in order to ensure the threshold values for atrazine do not exceed the total pesticides and metabolites EQS, the threshold value for atrazine in Annex I to Directive 2008/105/EC should be adjusted, also in accordance with the threshold value for the same substance set in Directive (EU) 2020/2184  (1b) .

(8c)

According to SCHEER  (1a) and EMA  (1b) , the generic quality standard of 0,1 μg/L and 0,5 μg/L for groundwater, suggested for individual pesticides and for the sum of all pesticides respectively, as specified in Directive 2006/118/EC, was established in the 1980s, based on the chemical-analytical sensitivity available at that time. The default value of 0,1 μg/L for individual pesticides is not proven to be sufficiently protective for human health and the groundwater ecosystem, and is sometimes significantly higher in comparison to threshold values for many pesticides and fungicides on the list of priority substances in Annex I to Directive 2008/105/EC. Taking into consideration also SCHEER's opinion that no groundwater threshold values should be higher than the EQS for surface water, the Commission should review the threshold values for individual pesticides and the sum of all pesticides, including their relevant metabolites, in Annex I to Directive 2006/118/EC by applying modern analytical methods and comparing them in relation to the best available toxicological knowledge. Pending this review, and in line with the precautionary approach expressed by drinking water providers in the European Groundwater Memorandum  (1c) , interim threshold values, based on best available scientific knowledge, should be established.

(8d)

Bisphenol-A should be treated as a priority hazardous substance and should be added to the list in Annex I to Directive 2008/105/EC. Scientific reports show that also bisphenols other than bisphenol-A have proven endocrine-disrupting potential and mixtures of those bisphenols represent an ecotoxicological risk. Given that those scientific findings raise concerns regarding the safe use of alternatives to bisphenols that might have a negative impact on human health and the environment, the Commission should establish a ‘Bisphenols Total’ parameter and an appropriate EQS for the total of bisphenol substances.

(8e)

According to the European Medicines Agency (EMA)  (1a) , groundwater ecosystems are fundamentally different and therefore can be more vulnerable to stressors than surface water ecosystems as they lack the ability to recover from perturbations. Therefore, a precautionary approach should be applied when setting groundwater threshold values to protect human health, groundwater ecosystems and groundwater-dependent ecosystems. In line with advice from EMA, as a result of this vulnerability, the threshold values applicable to groundwater should normally be 10 times lower than the corresponding threshold values for surface waters. However, where the actual risk posed to the groundwater eco-systems can be established, it could be appropriate to set threshold values for groundwater at a different level.

(9a)

Pursuant to applicable Union law, Member States are obliged to identify affected and at-risk waters, designate nitrate-vulnerable zones, develop action programmes and implement relevant measures. In this regard, there is still a need for an improvement in the harmonisation of control measures and water quality measurement systems between Member States, so as to allow for harmonised standards across the Union that make comparability between Member States possible, thus avoiding competition problems in the European agricultural sector, resulting in disturbances to the internal market.

(10)

Concern has been expressed about the risk of antimicrobial resistance developing from the presence of antimicrobial resistant microorganisms and antimicrobial resistance genes in the aquatic environment, but little monitoring has taken place. Relevant antimicrobial resistance genes should also be included in the surface and ground water watch lists and monitored as soon as suitable monitoring methods have been developed. This is in line with the ‘European One Health Action Plan against Antimicrobial Resistance’, adopted by the Commission in June 2017, and with the Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe, which also addresses this concern.

(10)

It is estimated that in 2019, between 900 000 and 1,7  million deaths around the world were attributable to antimicrobial resistance (AMR) infections  (1a) . At the same time, concern has been expressed about the risk of antimicrobial resistance developing from the presence of antimicrobial resistant microorganisms and antimicrobial resistance genes in the aquatic environment, but little monitoring has taken place. Relevant antimicrobial resistance genes should also be included in the surface and ground water watch lists and monitored as soon as suitable monitoring methods have been developed. This is in line with the ‘European One Health Action Plan against Antimicrobial Resistance’, adopted by the Commission in June 2017, and with the Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe, which also addresses this concern.

(10a)

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1729 repealing Implementing Decision 2013/652/EU1a sets the framework to obtain comparable and reliable data on antimicrobial resistance in the European Union, including by monitoring slaughterhouse wastewater as a potential vehicle of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and therefore a possible environmental contamination route. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria have been found in water discharged by slaughterhouses.

(10b)

Concern has been expressed about the risk of sulfates and xanthates in the aquatic environment. Sulfates not only impair drinking water quality, they also affect the material cycles of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus. Among other things, this increases the nutrient loads in water bodies and thus the growth of plants and algae and also increases food supply for aquatic organisms and leads to a decrease of oxygen in water. Sulfates and their degradation products, especially sulfide, under certain conditions, can have a toxic effect on aquatic life. Standard test results indicate that some xanthates and their degradation products are toxic to aquatic invertebrates and fish species and that they may bioaccumulate. Sulfates are already listed as a pollutant for groundwater, but the monitoring that has taken place has been insufficient. Sulfates should therefore be included in the surface and ground water watch lists. Xanthates should be included in the surface water watch list.

(10c)

Substances such as microplastics pose a clear risk to public health and the environment, but also to basic activities such as the development of agriculture. The presence of such substances and other particles can have implications not only on the water received by livestock and crops, but also on soil fertility, thereby compromising the health and good development of present and future crops  (1a) .

(11)

Considering the growing awareness of the relevance of mixtures and therefore of effect-based monitoring for determining chemical status, and considering that sufficiently robust effect-based monitoring methods already exist for estrogenic substances, Member States should apply such methods to assess the cumulative effects of estrogenic substances in surface waters over a period of at least two years. This will allow the comparison of effect-based results with the results obtained using the conventional methods for monitoring the three estrogenic substances listed in Annex I to Directive 2008/105/EC. That comparison will be used to assess whether effect-based monitoring methods may be used as reliable screening methods. Using such screening methods would have the advantage of allowing the effects of all estrogenic substances having similar effects to be covered, and not only those listed in Annex I to Directive 2008/105/EC. The definition of EQS in Directive 2000/60/EC should be modified to ensure that it may, in the future, also cover trigger values that might be set for assessing the results of effect-based monitoring.

(11)

The current and conventional monitoring methods for the chemical status of water bodies cannot, in general, determine the impact of complex mixtures of chemicals on water quality. Considering the growing awareness of the relevance of mixtures and therefore of effect-based monitoring for determining chemical status, and considering that sufficiently robust effect-based monitoring methods already exist for estrogenic substances, Member States should apply such methods to assess the cumulative effects of estrogenic substances in surface waters over a period of at least two years. This will allow the comparison of effect-based results with the results obtained using the conventional methods for monitoring the three estrogenic substances listed in Annex I to Directive 2008/105/EC. That comparison should be included in an evaluation report published by the Commission in which it assesses whether effect-based monitoring methods deliver robust and accurate data and may be used as reliable screening methods. Using such screening methods would have the advantage of allowing the effects of all estrogenic substances having similar effects to be covered, and not only those listed in Annex I to Directive 2008/105/EC. The Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts to supplement Directive 2008/105/EC to set out modalities for the Member States to use the effect-based methods for monitoring to assess the presence also of other substances in water bodies, in anticipation of a possible setting of effect-based trigger values in the future. The definition of EQS in Directive 2000/60/EC should be modified to ensure that it may, in the future, also cover trigger values that might be set for assessing the results of effect-based monitoring.

(11a)

More stringent threshold values should be established where groundwater quality standards could result in failure to achieve the environmental objectives of Directive 2000/60/EC for associated water bodies, as required under Directive 2006/118/EC. That requirement under Directive 2006/118/EC should be further extended to better protect vulnerable sites from pollution.

(12)

The evaluation of Union water legislation (58) (the ‘evaluation’) concluded that the process for identifying and listing pollutants affecting surface and groundwater and setting or revising quality standards for them in the light of new scientific knowledge could be accelerated. If those tasks were to be carried out by the Commission , rather than in the framework of the ordinary legislative procedure as currently provided for in Articles 16 and 17 of Directive 2000/60/EC and Article 10 of Directive 2006/118/EC, the functioning of the surface and groundwater watch-list mechanisms, in particular in terms of timing and sequence of listing, monitoring and assessing results, could be improved, the links between the watch-list mechanism and the reviews of the lists of pollutants could be strengthened, and changes to the lists of pollutants could take account of scientific progress more swiftly. Therefore, and given the need to amend the lists of pollutants and their EQS promptly in the light of new scientific and technical knowledge, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission to amend Annex I to Directive 2008/105/EC with regard to the list of priority substances and corresponding EQS set out in Part A of that Annex and to amend Annex I to Directive 2006/118/EC with regard to the list of groundwater pollutants and quality standards set out in that Annex. In this context, the Commisison should take account of the results of the monitoring of substances on the surface and groundwater watch lists. As a consequence, Articles 16 and 17 of Directive 2000/60/EC and Annex X to that Directive, as well as Article 10 of Directive 2006/118/EC, should be deleted.

(12)

The evaluation of Union water legislation (58) (the ‘evaluation’) concluded that the process for identifying and listing pollutants affecting surface and groundwater and setting or revising quality standards for them in the light of new scientific knowledge could be accelerated. Therefore , in the framework of any future review of Annex I to Directive 2008/105/EC with regard to the list of priority substances and corresponding EQS set out in Part A of that Annex and of Annex I to Directive 2006/118/EC, the functioning of the surface and groundwater watch-list mechanisms, in particular in terms of timing and sequence of listing, monitoring and assessing results, should be improved, the links between the watch-list mechanism and the reviews of the lists of pollutants should be strengthened, and the review period for the lists of pollutants should be adjusted in order to take account of scientific progress more swiftly. In this context, the Commission should take account of the results of the monitoring of substances on the surface and groundwater watch lists. As a consequence, Articles 16 and 17 of Directive 2000/60/EC and Annex X to that Directive, as well as Article 10 of Directive 2006/118/EC, should be deleted , while maintaining the obligation to take measures aimed at the cessation or phasing out of discharges, emissions and losses of priority hazardous substances .

(12a)

Overall, the conclusions of the Fitness check indicate that the Directives are broadly fit for purpose, with scope for improvement, including accelerating the proper implementation of their objectives, which might be achieved through more Union funding. The assessment indicates that the Directives have so far generally led to a higher level of protection of water bodies and flood risk management.

(13a)

Any decision on the selection, review of substances and the setting of EQS should be based on a risk assessment and follow a proportionate, transparent and science-based approach and take into consideration recommendations from the European Parliament, Member States and relevant stakeholders.

(13b)

While Directive 2000/60/EC set the rules necessary to make progress in relation to water quantity and quality, the Fitness check showed that the slow progress made as regards achieving the objectives of this Directive can amongst other things be attributed to a lack of sufficient financial resources as well as regulatory and ecological complexity, including possible time lags for groundwater to respond to measures and with regard to reporting timelines. Measures that improve the status of water bodies through restoration of rivers and ecosystem services provide financial benefits that outweigh the costs and could reduce unnecessary expenditure for Member States. Furthermore, the evaluation points to a lack of implementation, an insufficient scope, and insufficient or inadequate restoration measures ensuring hydrological and ecological connectivity  (1a) .

(15)

In order to ensure a harmonised approach and level playing field in the Union, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission to amend Part B of Annex II to Directive 2006/118/EC by adapting the list of pollutants for which Member States have to consider establishing national threshold values.

(15)

In order to ensure a harmonised approach and level playing field in the Union, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission to amend Part B of Annex II to Directive 2006/118/EC by adapting the list of pollutants for which Member States have to establish national threshold values.

(20a)

In order to provide for adequate protection standards for areas of high ecological value, vulnerability or pollution, such as caves and karst areas, that contain ecosystems that are among the most vulnerable to contamination and represent an important drinking water supply, as well as for former industrial sites and other areas with known historical contamination, the Commission should publish an assessment of the chemical status of such areas and, where appropriate, present a legislative proposal to revise Directive 2006/118/EC accordingly.

(21)

To ensure effective and coherent decision-making and develop synergies with the work carried out in the framework of other Union legislation on chemicals, the European Chemicals Agency (‘ECHA’), should be given a permanent and clearly circumscribed role in the prioritisation of substances to be included in the watch lists and in the lists of substances in Annexes I and II to Directive 2008/105/EC and Annexes I and II to Directive 2006/118/EC, and in the derivation of appropriate science-based quality standards. The Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) and the Committee for Socio-Economic Analysis (SEAC) of ECHA, should facilitate the carrying out of certain tasks conferred on ECHA by providing opinions. ECHA should also ensure better coordination between various pieces of environmental law through increased transparency as regards pollutants on a watch list or the development of Union wide or national EQS or thresholds, by making relevant scientific reports publicly available.

(21)

To ensure effective and coherent decision-making and develop synergies with the work carried out in the framework of other Union legislation on chemicals, the European Chemicals Agency (‘ECHA’), should be given a permanent and clearly circumscribed role in the prioritisation of substances to be included in the watch lists and in the lists of substances in Annexes I and II to Directive 2008/105/EC and Annexes I and II to Directive 2006/118/EC, and in the derivation of appropriate science-based quality standards. The Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) and the Committee for Socio-Economic Analysis (SEAC) of ECHA, should facilitate the carrying out of certain tasks conferred on ECHA by providing opinions. ECHA should also ensure better coordination between various pieces of environmental law through increased transparency as regards pollutants on a watch list or the development of Union wide or national EQS or thresholds, by making relevant scientific reports publicly available. In relation to assessing threshold values for pharmaceutical substances, ECHA should cooperate with the European Medicines Agency (‘EMA’).

(23)

Better integration of data flows reported to the EEA under the Union water legislation and, in particular, of the inventories of emissions required by Directive 2008/105/EC, with the data flows reported to the Industrial Emissions Portal under Directive 2010/75/EU and Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council  (61) , will make the inventory reporting in accordance with Article 5 of Directive 2008/105/EC simpler and more efficient. At the same time, it will reduce administrative burden and peak work load in the preparations of the river basin management plans. In combination with the abolition of interim reporting on the progress of programmes of measures, which did not prove effective, this simplified reporting will allow Member States to put more effort into reporting emissions that are not covered by the legislation on industrial emissions but which are covered by the emissions reporting under Article 5 of Directive 2008/105/EC.

(31)

It is necessary to take into account scientific and technical progress in the area of monitoring of the status of water bodies in accordance with the monitoring requirements set out in Annex V to Directive 2000/60/EC. Therefore, Member States should be allowed to use of data and services from remote sensing technologies, earth observation (Copernicus services), in-situ sensors and devices, or citizen science data, leveraging the opportunities offered by artificial intelligence, advanced data analysis and processing.

(31)

It is necessary to take into account scientific and technical progress and the best available methods in the area of monitoring of the status of water bodies in accordance with the monitoring requirements set out in Annex V to Directive 2000/60/EC. Therefore, Member States should be allowed to use of data and services from remote sensing technologies, earth observation (Copernicus services), in-situ sensors and devices, or citizen science data, leveraging the opportunities offered by artificial intelligence, advanced data analysis and processing.

(31a)

Industrial activities related to the energy transition could increase adverse impacts on the water quality. Mitigating such future impacts, such as changes to natural flow patterns and temperature, and water pollution, requires assessing the full range of potential factors as well as measures to be taken to achieve and maintain good water quality. Therefore, Member States should regularly evaluate the impact on water quality of industrial activities related to the energy transition and inform the Commission of newly identified threats with the aim of updating the watch list accordingly. The evaluation should be easily accessible to the public and the update should be allowed to occur outside of the general updating cycles, to ensure a continuous improvement of water quality assessment.

(31b)

The Commission, in its communication of 11 December 2019 on the European Green Deal and its communication of 14 October 2020 on improving access to justice in environmental matters, committed to taking action to improve access to justice before national courts in all Member States for citizens and environmental non-governmental organisations that have specific concerns about the compatibility of administrative acts that have effects on the environment with environmental law. In the latter communication, the Commission affirms that ‘access to justice in environmental matters, both via the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) and the national courts as Union courts, is an important support measure to help deliver the European Green Deal transition and a way to strengthen the role which civil society can play as watchdog in the democratic space’. Those commitments should be implemented also under Directive 2000/60/EC.

(31c)

As confirmed by the case law of the CJEU  (1a) , environmental non-governmental organisations and directly concerned individuals should be provided legal standing in order to challenge a decision taken by a public authority, which is in breach of the environmental objectives referred to in Article 4 of Directive 2000/60/EC. With the purpose of enhancing access to justice in the matters concerned before national courts across the Union and for environmental non-governmental organisations and directly concerned individuals to be able to rely on national laws when challenging decisions that are in breach of Directive 2000/60/EC, provisions to ensure access to justice should be established in Directive 2000/60/EC.

(32)

Considering the increases in unforeseeable weather events, in particular extreme floods and prolonged droughts, and in significant pollution incidents resulting in or exacerbating transboundary accidental pollution, Member States should be required to ensure that immediate information on such incidents is provided to other potentially affected Member States and effectively cooperate with potentially affected Member States to mitigate the effects of the event or incident. It is also necessary to reinforce cooperation between Member States and streamline procedures for transboundary cooperation in case of more structural, i.e. non accidental and longer term transboundary issues which cannot be solved at Member State level, in accordance with Article 12 of Directive 2000/60/EC. In case European assistance is necessary, competent national authorities may send requests for assistance to the Emergency Response Coordination Centre of the Commission, which will coordinate possible offers of assistance and their deployment through the Union Civil Protection Mechanism, in accordance with Article 15 of Decision 1313/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (64).

(32)

Considering the increases in unforeseeable weather events, in particular extreme floods and prolonged droughts, and in significant pollution incidents resulting in or exacerbating transboundary pollution, Member States should be required to ensure that immediate information on such incidents is provided to other potentially affected Member States and effectively cooperate with potentially affected Member States to mitigate the effects of the event or incident. It is also necessary to reinforce cooperation between Member States and streamline procedures for transboundary cooperation in case of more structural, i.e. non accidental and longer term transboundary issues which cannot be solved at Member State level, in accordance with Article 12 of Directive 2000/60/EC. In case European assistance is necessary, competent national authorities may send requests for assistance to the Emergency Response Coordination Centre of the Commission, which will coordinate possible offers of assistance and their deployment through the Union Civil Protection Mechanism, in accordance with Article 15 of Decision 1313/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (64). Considering that river basin districts can also extend beyond the territory of the Union, ensuring that there is effective implementation of relevant provisions for water protection under Directive 2000/60/EC as well as appropriate coordination with the relevant non-Member States would also contribute to the objectives as set out in Directive 2000/60/EC for those specific river basin districts, as referred to in Article 3(5) of Directive 2000/60/EC. In addition, armed conflicts taking place in close geographical proximity to the Union should also be considered as exceptional events due to their extensive negative transboundary environmental impact, including air, soil and water pollution. As the river basins affected by such conflicts could extend within the Union’s boundaries, the Commission and Member States should increase their endeavours to establish appropriate coordination with relevant non-Member States as referred to in Article 3(5) of Directive 2000/60/EC.

(32a)

The European Court of Auditors in its report of 19 May 2021 entitled ‘The Polluter Pays Principle: Inconsistent application across EU environmental policies and actions’ notes that Member States already spend around EUR 100 billion per year on water supply and sanitation and that increases of that expenditure are expected to amount to over 25 % to meet the objectives of Union legislation on wastewater treatment and drinking water, while not including investments needed to renew existing infrastructure or meet the objectives of the Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive. Furthermore, in the Union, users pay on average for around 70 % of the cost of providing water services, through water tariffs, while the public purse finances the remaining 30 %, although there are considerable differences between regions and Member States. Households in the Union usually pay for most of the cost of water supply and sanitation services, even though they consume only 10 % of water, whereas the economic sectors that exert the most pressure on renewable freshwater resources contribute the least to meeting such costs.

(32b)

The costs of monitoring programmes for determining the status of surface water and ground water are financed solely through Member States’ budgets. Given that the number of chemicals detected in the aquatic environment is constantly changing, that there is a growing number of emerging pollutants which have just recently appeared in the aquatic environment, that constant improvement of chemical analytical methods is required in order to detect these emerging and new pollutants and correctly assess their ecological impact, and that also new monitoring methods need to be developed in order to better assess effects of chemical mixtures, those monitoring costs are expected to increase even further. In order to cover those costs, and in accordance with the polluter pays principle enshrined in Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), it is essential that producers placing on the Union market products that contain substances which have a proven or potential negative impact on human health and the aquatic environment take financial responsibility for the measures required to control substances generated in the context of their commercial activities and found in surface water and groundwater. A system of extended producer responsibility is likely the most appropriate means of achieving this, as it would limit the financial burden on the taxpayer, while providing an incentive to develop greener products. The Commission should, therefore, prepare an impact assessment examining the inclusion in Directive 2006/118/EC and Directive 2008/105/EC of an extended producer responsibility mechanism, applicable to priority substances defined under Directive 2006/118/EC and under Directive 2008/105/EC, as well as to emerging and new pollutants, as defined in the watch lists under Directive 2006/118/EC and Directive 2008/105/EC. The impact assessment should be accompanied, where appropriate, by a legislative proposal to revise Directives 2006/118/EC and 2008/105/EC.

(32c)

Monitoring of an increased number of substances or group of substances involves increased costs but also the need for strengthened administrative capacity in the Member States, especially those with scarcer resources. In light of the above, the Commission should set up a joint European monitoring facility for managing the monitoring requirements when so requested by the Member States, thus easing their financial and administrative burdens. The Commission should define the methods of operation of the monitoring facility. The use of such facility should be voluntary and without prejudice to arrangements already set in place by the Member States.

(32d)

Evidence shows that there is an investment need in the water sector and Union funding is vital for some Member States to comply with legal obligations laid down in Directive 2000/60/EC, Directive 2008/105/EC and Directive 2006/118/EC. All Member States need to increase their expenditure by at least 20 % to reach Union water standards and there is an aggregated financing gap of EUR 289 billion up to 2030  (1a) . It is therefore necessary to ensure that sufficient financial and human resources are provided for the purpose of carrying out monitoring and inspections of water bodies in all Member States, including via relevant Union structural funds and programmes, as well as via contributions from the private sector, including under the extended producer responsibility mechanism, once put in place.

(34a)

Member States should encourage synergies between the requirements of the relevant directives concerning both data collection and deployment of digital tools such as remote sensing technologies or earth observation (Copernicus services).

(34b)

The competent authorities should support training, skills development programmes and investment in human capital to support the effective implementation of the best technologies and innovative solutions within the framework of the directives. Information should be accessible in the different national languages in order to strengthen accessibility to the relevant data across Europe for the relevant local actors and citizens.

(1)

in Article 1, the fourth indent is replaced by the following:

(1)

in Article 1 , point (e) , the fourth indent is replaced by the following:

(30a)

‘Priority hazardous substances’ means priority substances which are marked as ‘hazardous’ on the basis that they are recognised in scientific reports, in relevant Union legislation, or in relevant international agreements, as being toxic, persistent and liable to bio-accumulate or as giving rise to an equivalent level of concern, where this concern is relevant to the aquatic environment.

(30a)

‘Priority hazardous substances’ means priority substances which are marked as ‘hazardous’ on the basis that they are recognised in scientific reports, in relevant Union legislation, or in relevant international agreements, as being toxic, persistent and liable to bio-accumulate (PBT), or very persistent and very accumulative (vPvB), or persistent, mobile and toxic (PMT) or very persistent and very mobile (vPvM) or as giving rise to an equivalent level of concern, where this concern is relevant to the aquatic environment , and for which measures need to be taken in accordance with Article 4 (1), point (a), point (iv) .

(35)

‘Environmental quality standard’ means the concentration of a particular pollutant or group of pollutants in water, sediment or biota not to be exceeded in order to protect human health and the environment or a trigger value for the adverse effect on human health or the environment of such a pollutant or group of pollutants measured using an appropriate effect-based method.’;

(35)

‘Environmental quality standard’ means the concentration of a particular pollutant or group of pollutants in water, sediment or biota not to be exceeded in order to protect human health and the environment or a trigger value for the adverse effect on human health or the environment of such a pollutant or group of pollutants measured using an appropriate and scientifically established effect-based method.’;

(da)

point (37) is replaced by the following:

37.

‘Water intended for human consumption’ has the same meaning as under Directive 80/778/EEC, as amended by Directive 98/83/EC .

(db)

in Article 2 point (40), the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:

40.

‘Emission limit values’ means the mass, expressed in terms of certain specific parameters, concentration and/or level of an emission, which may not be exceeded during any one or more periods of time. Emission limit values may also be laid down for certain groups, families or categories of substances, in particular for those identified under Article 16 .

(iv)

Member States shall implement the necessary measures to progressively reduce pollution from priority substances and river basin specific pollutants, and to cease or phase out emissions, discharges and losses of priority hazardous substances.;

(iv)

Member States shall implement the necessary measures to progressively reduce pollution , discharges, emissions and losses from priority substances and river basin specific pollutants, and to cease or phase out emissions, discharges and losses of priority hazardous substances within an appropriate timeline and, in any case, not later than 20 years after a given priority substance is listed as hazardous in Part A of Annex I to Directive 2008/105/EC . That timeline shall apply without prejudice to the application of stricter timelines in any other applicable Union legislation ;

(ba)

in point (c), the following subparagraph 1a is added:

(aa)

The following paragraph is added:

(7 a)

(7 b)

(c)

measures to promote an efficient and sustainable water use in order to avoid compromising the achievement of the objectives specified in Article 4;

‘(c)

measures to promote an efficient and sustainable water use , including in agriculture, in order to avoid compromising the achievement of the objectives specified in Article 4;’

(8 a)

—

relevant permits and authorisations are examined and reviewed as appropriate,

‘—

relevant permits and authorisations are examined and reviewed and, in duly justified cases, suspended, as appropriate,’

(9a)

(9a)

(a)

plans and projects which may be contrary to the requirements of Article 4, including to prevent the deterioration of the status of bodies of water and to achieve good water status, good ecological potential and/or good water chemical status, to the extent that those requirements are not already provided for under Article 11 of Directive 2011/92/EU;

(b)

programmes of measures referred to in Article 11, Member State river basin management plans referred to in Article 13(1) and supplementary Member State programmes or management plans referred to in Article 13(5).

(10)

(10a)

(b)

paragraph 4 is deleted;

(18a)

(20)

Annex X is deleted.

(20)

Annexes IX and X are deleted.

(ba)

criteria for assessing the good ecological status of groundwater.

(aa)

in paragraph 1, the following subparagraph is inserted:

(aa)

in paragraph 5, the following subparagraph is inserted:

(4a)

(f)

research projects and scientific publications, including information on trends and predictions based on modelling or other predictive assessments and data and information from remote sensing technologies, earth observation (Copernicus services), in-situ sensors and devices, or citizen science data, leveraging the opportunities offered by artificial intelligence, advanced data analysis and processing;

(f)

research projects and scientific publications and evidence , including information on the impact of material and thermal contaminants as well as impacts of aboveground and underground extractive and infrastructure activities on groundwater ecosystems and groundwater-dependent ecosystems and their biodiversity, information on trends and forecasts based on modelling or other predictive assessments , as well as information and data collected by remote sensing technologies, Earth observation (Copernicus services), in situ sensors and devices, or citizen science data, taking advantage of the opportunities opened by artificial intelligence and advanced data analysis and processing;

(6a)

(6b)

The following Article is inserted:

(6c)

(6d)

(a)

the voluntary nature of the use of the monitoring facility, which shall be without prejudice to arrangements already put in place by the Member States;

(b)

the operational procedures for Member States that intend to make use of the monitoring facility, which shall, inter alia, include the required notification to the Commission of their exact monitoring needs or capabilities, the exact protocols for samples managing, as well as the length of time they intend to remain part of the mechanism;

(c)

the sources of funding, which may include relevant Union structural funds and programmes, as well as contributions from the private sector, including under the extended producer responsibility mechanism, once put in place in accordance with Article 6ac.

(f)

Union research programmes and scientific publications, including information resulting from remote sensing technologies, earth observation (Copernicus services), in-situ sensors and devices and/or citizen science data, leveraging the opportunities offered by artificial intelligence, advanced data analysis and processing;

(f)

Union research programmes and scientific publications, including up-to-date information resulting from remote sensing technologies, earth observation (Copernicus services), in-situ sensors and devices and/or citizen science data, leveraging the opportunities offered by best available techniques which could include artificial intelligence, advanced data analysis and processing;

(g)

comments and information from relevant stakeholders.

(g)

comments and information from relevant stakeholders , including national regulatory authorities and other relevant bodies .

4.

Before adopting a delegated act, the Commission shall consult experts designated by each Member State in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making .

(1a)

(4 a)

(a)

the risk posed by the pollutants, including their hazard, their environmental concentrations and the concentration above which effects might be expected;

(a)

the risk posed by the pollutants, including their hazard, their environmental concentrations and the concentration above which effects might be expected , including their cumulative effects ;

(e)

research projects and scientific publications, including information on trends and predictions based on modelling or other predictive assessments and data and information from remote sensing technologies, earth observation (Copernicus services), in-situ sensors and devices, or citizen science data, leveraging the opportunities offered by artificial intelligence, advanced data analysis and processing.

(e)

research projects and scientific publications and evidence , including information on trends and forecasts based on modelling or other predictive assessments , as well as information and data collected by remote sensing technologies, Earth observation (Copernicus services), in situ sensors and devices, or citizen science data, taking advantage of the opportunities presented by artificial intelligence and advanced data analysis and processing;

(7a)

(7b)

(a)

the voluntary nature of the use of the monitoring facility, which shall be without prejudice to arrangements already put in place by the Member States;

(b)

the operational procedures for Member States that intend to make use of the monitoring facility, which shall, inter alia, include the required notification to the Commission, their exact monitoring needs or capabilities, the exact protocols for samples management, as well as the length of time they intend to remain part of the mechanism;

(c)

the sources of funding, which may include relevant Union structural funds and programmes, as well as contributions from the private sector, including under the extended producer responsibility mechanism, once put in place in accordance with Article 8ba.’

(8 a)

(8b)

(8c)

(8d)

(10a)

10.

Materials in suspension, including micro/nanoplastics.;

10.

Materials in suspension, including micro/nanoplastics , as well as materials known to give rise to micro- or nanoplastics ;

(1a)