This week the directive that includes the review of legislation affecting surface and groundwater has come into force. A key date with which Brussels aims to increase water resilience while seeking to reduce pollution. This is a measure presented four years ago with the intention that the lists of water pollutants be adjusted to the latest scientific recommendations and that new substances be supervised and controlled with greater rigor.
Specifically, the reform affects three fundamental pillars of the Community water legislative framework: the Water Framework Directive, the Groundwater Directive, and the Environmental Quality Standards Directive. At the time, the European Commission argued that the central objective was to achieve "zero pollution" by 2050, protecting, on the one hand, human health and, on the other, the viability of ecosystems against emerging chemical threats.
In fact, this very Monday, the Community Water Resilience Officer, Jessika Roswall, stated that this reform was aimed at reducing the pollution of European waters caused by chemicals considered harmful. “It is precisely what we set out to do in the European Water Resilience Strategy. It is one of the smartest investments we can make and its profitability will be enormous,” she explained.
PFAS, medicines and Bisphenol A: the new areas of surveillance
The directive updates the lists of pollutants according to the most recent scientific knowledge. This involves incorporating substances that were not previously regulated or tightening the permitted limits for others already known.
One of the most relevant points affects the so-called PFAS, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, popularly known as "forever chemicals" due to their enormous persistence in the environment. These substances are used in industrial and everyday consumer products, from kitchenware to waterproof textiles or firefighting foams.
For surface waters, the new regulation establishes joint limits for a sum of 25 PFAS, while, in groundwater, a sum of the four most problematic substances is regulated and another additional sum of 20 PFAS linked to drinking water standards. Brussels considers that these substances represent one of the greatest environmental and health challenges of the coming decades due to their ability to accumulate both in nature and in the human body.
For the first time, moreover, medicines are included in the lists of priority substances or groundwater contaminants. Among them are carbamazepine, used to treat epilepsy; sulfamethoxazole, a widely used antibiotic; and several macrolide antibiotics. The objective is to control the impact of pharmaceutical residues in rivers and aquifers, especially due to the risk they represent for the development of antimicrobial resistance.
Featured story
When the green agenda clashes with the health agenda: the 'hidden cost' of the wastewater directive
6 minutes
Added to this is the tightening of the rules on Bisphenol A, a chemical compound present in certain plastics and resins. The substance will be classified as a “priority hazardous substance” in surface waters. Furthermore, Brussels plans to introduce future regulation of the so-called “sum of bisphenols” to prevent the substitution of one compound for another chemically similar one from circumventing environmental restrictions.
Regarding glyphosate, one of the most used and controversial herbicides within the European Union, the reform establishes specific quality standards differentiating between waters intended for the production of drinking water and those used for other purposes.
A stricter definition of water deterioration
Beyond the incorporation of new substances, the reform redefines key concepts to toughen the assessment of the state of European water bodies.
Until now, Member States had a certain margin of interpretation when determining when a water body was considered deteriorated. With the new text, Brussels legally clarifies that deterioration exists if a single quality indicator drops in category, even if the general classification of the water body does not change.
Furthermore, if an indicator is already in the worst possible category, any further deterioration will also count as deterioration. With this, the European Commission seeks to avoid flexible interpretations that allow the real deterioration of water quality to be masked.
The text also establishes that the so-called “basin-specific pollutants” (CECH), which were previously part of the ecological status, will now be integrated into the definition of “good chemical status”. Brussels argues that this modification will allow for a more holistic and coordinated approach to chemical risk.
Along the same lines, the principle of “one out, all out” is maintained, which implies that if one indicator fails, the entire body of water is considered in poor condition. However, the reform introduces new harmonized progress indicators so that partial advances in certain parameters can be visualized and compared between countries.
Microplastics, antimicrobial resistance, and artificial intelligence
The directive also opts for reinforcing tracking systems through more advanced technological tools.
Thus, the surveillance lists for surface and groundwater are expanded with the aim of collecting data on emerging substances before deciding on a definitive regulation. Among them stand out microplastics and indicators of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), a phenomenon that particularly concerns European health authorities.
The European Commission considers that having more information will allow for quicker action against environmental risks that are still insufficiently studied. Therefore, the use of remote sensing technologies, online sensors, and even Artificial Intelligence tools for the treatment and analysis of water quality data will be explicitly encouraged.
The reform also aims to reduce the administrative burden for Member States by simplifying certain reporting requirements and facilitating the digital exchange of data between national governments and European institutions.
Cross-border cooperation is also reinforced. From now on, it will be mandatory to issue alerts to territories located downstream of a river basin when pollution incidents occur that may affect other European countries. This is a particularly sensitive aspect in regions where several states share rivers and strategic water resources.
New obligations for Member States
The entry into force of this regulation also opens a new stage in terms of transparency and public communication of environmental data.
European agencies will play a more relevant role in the collection and dissemination of information. Member States shall make chemical data available to the public and the European Environment Agency every two years and biological data every three years, in an automated and digitized manner.
For its part, the European Chemicals Agency will assume a permanent role in the prioritization of substances and in the preparation of scientific reports for future legislative reviews.
Furthermore, the directive incorporates a relevant legal component: the Twenty-Seven will be obliged to guarantee that the interested public, including environmental organizations, can challenge decisions related to water management and protection in court. Brussels considers that strengthening access to environmental justice is a key tool for ensuring effective compliance with the regulations.
A Horizon of Application Until 2039
Despite the directive coming into force, Member States still have room to adapt their national legislation. The transposition deadline will end on December 21 of next year, the deadline for incorporating these provisions into the domestic law of each country.
From there, a gradual process of technical and administrative application will begin. The programs of measures for the new substances must be developed in specific hydrological planning cycles, with the objective of achieving good water status regarding these pollutants, at the latest, in 2039. The reform thus represents one of the greatest tightenings of European water policy in recent decades. Brussels maintains that the cost of acting now will be much lower than the economic, health, and environmental impact of not doing so.
The debate, however, is not closed. Some industrial and agricultural sectors warn that the new requirements could increase regulatory costs and generate new technical obligations for companies and administrations. Environmental organizations, on the contrary, consider that the review comes late and that the European Union should have acted sooner against substances whose dangerousness has been scientifically documented for years.