GROUNDWATER POLLUTION (12985/03)
Letter from Ian Pearson MP, Minister of
State for Climate Change and Environment, Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs to the Chairman
I am writing to update you on the latest developments
on the above directive.
You may recall that Elliot Morley wrote to you
on 31 May last year[87],
following the European (Parliament's First Reading, and again
on 20 June and 20 July[88]—shortly
before and after the June 2005 Environment Council. He outlined
the proposed text agreed at Environment Council, and reported
that it provided a flexible, risk-based approach to groundwater
protection.
On 12 June this year the European Parliament,
at its Second Reading, voted through 41 amendments to the Council
text. A copy of these is attached. Since most are unlikely to
be acceptable to Council, it is anticipated that Conciliation
between the European Parliament and Council will commence in September.
Since the key issue of contention on this proposal—whether
or not to have common European groundwater standards for most
substances—was resolved to the UK's satisfaction at First
Reading, a number of the Second Reading amendments address points
of detail which we expect to be satisfactorily addressed during
Conciliation. However, several more significant issues, in similar
vein to those addressed in the run up to the 2005 Environment
Council, arise as follows:
— a requirement at Amendment 22 for
Member States to prevent absolutely all inputs of hazardous substances
to groundwater, although this is impossible to achieve in practice;
— a new definition at Amendment 12
of "deterioration" which would could confuse the objective
in the Water Framework Directive (WFD) for Member States to prevent
deterioration of groundwater from "good" to "poor"
chemical status (ie a significant quality change for a large area
of groundwater), and simultaneously impose an obligation to control
all trivial and temporary fluctuations in quality;
— changes in Amendments 18 and 19 to
the way standards and threshold values are used for assessing
whether groundwater bodies are at "good" or "poor"
chemical status, which would result in the application of arbitrary
or inappropriate standards and departure from the WFD's risk-based
approach; and
— deletion at Amendment 36 of specific
wording in the Council text aimed at clarifying that the Nitrates
Directive is used as a "basic measure" to address agricultural
sources of nitrates (as intended in the WFD).
These issues are likely to generate the most
discussion at Conciliation. Our overall objective will continue
to be to attain a "flexible, risk-based instrument"
which will protect groundwater in a cost-effective way, and we
will be specifically looking to avoid the introduction of any
conflicts with the Nitrates Directive and the Water Framework
Directive.
I shall write to you again when the outcome
of Conciliation becomes clear. In the meantime, if it would be
useful to discuss any of the issues informally with Defra officials,
they should be happy to attend at the Committee's convenience.
4 August 2006
87 Correspondence with Ministers, 45th Report of
Session 2005-06, HL Paper 243, pp 345-346. Back
88
Correspondence with Ministers, 45th Report of Session 2005-06,
HL Paper 243, pp 346-348. Back
|
