Changes from plenary report to adopted text

RemovedANNEX TO THE LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

AddedRecital 6 b (new): (6b) Indicator parameters have no direct public-health impact. However, they are important as a means of determining how water production and distribution facilities are functioning and of evaluating water quality. They can help to identify water treatment deficiencies and they also play an important role in increasing and maintaining consumer confidence in water quality. Therefore, they should be monitored by Member States.

RemovedDECLARATION BY THE COMMISSION ON DELEGATED ACTS IN THE DRINKING WATER DIRECTIVE

AddedRecital 7: (7) Where necessary for full implementation of the precautionary principle and to protect human health within their territories, Member States should be required to set values for additional parameters not included in Annex I .

RemovedThe Commission regrets the decision of the co-legislators to limit its empowerment to modify the annexes of the revised Drinking Water Directive to Annex III, whereas the Commission had sought an empowerment to modify Annexes I to IV in its original proposal.

AddedRecital 8: (8) Preventive safety planning and risk-based elements were only considered to a limited extent in Directive 98/83/EC. The first elements of a risk-based approach were already introduced in 2015 with Directive (EU) 2015/1787, which amended Directive 98/83/EC so as to allow Member States to derogate from the monitoring programmes they have established, provided credible risk assessments are performed, which may be based on the WHO’s Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality76. Those Guidelines, laying down the so-called "Water Safety Plan" approach, together with standard EN 15975-2 concerning security of drinking water supply, are internationally recognised principles on which the production, distribution, monitoring and analysis of parameters in water intended for human consumption are based. They should be maintained in this Directive. To ensure that those principles are not limited to monitoring aspects, to focus time and resources on risks that matter and on cost-effective source measures, and to avoid analyses and efforts on non-relevant issues, it is appropriate to introduce a complete risk-based approach, throughout the supply chain, from the abstraction area to distribution until the tap. That approach should be based on the knowledge gained and actions carried out under Directive 2000/60/EC and should take into account more effectively the impact of climate change on water resources. A risk-based approach should consist of three components: first, an assessment by the Me…

RemovedThe Commission specifically regrets that the co-legislators did not agree on an empowerment to amend Annex II, which is particularly necessary in light of the need to update the monitoring requirements set out in Annex II to scientific and technical progress.

AddedRecital 8 a (new): (8a) Ineffective use of water resources, in particular leakage in the water supply infrastructure, leads to over exploitation of scarce resources of water intended for human consumption. This severely hinders the Member States in reaching the objectives set under Directive 2000/60/EC.

RemovedDECLARATION BY THE COMMISSION ON THE PROCEDURE OF ADOPTION OF IMPLEMENTING ACTS

AddedRecital 9: (9) The hazard assessment should take a holistic approach to risk assessment, founded on the explicit aim of reducing the level of treatment required for the production of water intended for human consumption, for instance by reducing the pressures causing the pollution of, or a risk of pollution of, water bodies used for abstraction of water intended for human consumption. To that end, Member States should identify hazard and possible pollution sources associated with those water bodies and monitor pollutants which they identify as relevant, for instance because of the hazard identified (e.g. microplastics, nitrates, pesticides or pharmaceuticals identified under Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council78), because of their natural presence in the abstraction area (e.g. arsenic), or because of information from the water suppliers (e.g. sudden increase of a specific parameter in raw water). In accordance with Directive 2000/60/EC, those parameters should be used as markers that trigger action by competent authorities to reduce the pressure on the water bodies, such as prevention or mitigating measures (including research to understand impacts on health where necessary), to protect those water bodies and address the pollution source or risk, in cooperation with all stakeholders, including those responsible for pollutant or potential pollutant sources. Where a Member State finds, via the hazard assessment, that a parameter is not present in a given abs…

RemovedThe Commission underlines that it is contrary to the letter and to the spirit of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 to invoke point (b) of the second subparagraph of Article 5(4), without proper justification. Recourse to this provision must respond to a specific need to depart from the rule of principle, which is that the Commission may adopt a draft implementing act when no opinion is delivered. Given that it is an exception to the general rule established in Article 5(4), it cannot be simply seen as a "discretionary power" of the Legislator, but must be interpreted in a restrictive manner and thus must be justified.

AddedRecital 11: (11) The parametric values used to assess the quality of water intended for human consumption are to be complied with at the point where water intended for human consumption is made available to the appropriate user. However, the quality of water intended for human consumption can be influenced by the domestic distribution system. The WHO notes that, in the Union, Legionella causes the highest health burden of all waterborne pathogens, in particular Legionella pneumophila, which accounts for most cases of Legionnaires’ disease in the Union. It is transmitted by warm water systems through inhalation, for instance during showering. It is therefore clearly linked to the domestic distribution system. Since imposing a unilateral obligation to monitor all private and public premises for this pathogen would lead to unreasonably high costs and would contravene the principle of subsidiarity, a domestic distribution risk assessment is therefore more suited to address this issue, with a special focus on priority premises. In addition, the potential risks stemming from products and materials in contact with water intended for human consumption should also be considered in the domestic distribution risk assessment. The domestic distribution risk assessment should therefore include, inter alia, focusing monitoring on priority premises, assessing the risks stemming from the domestic distribution system and related products and materials in contact with water intended for human consumption. …