EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 22.6.2005 
COM(2005) 282 final 
2003/0210 (COD)   
Amended proposal for a 
 
DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
on the protection of groundwater against pollution 
(presented by the Commission pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty) 
 
EN 2   EN 2003/0210 (COD) 
Amended proposal for a  
 
DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
on the protection of groundwater against pollution 
0n 28 April 2005, the European Parliament voted in first reading on the amendments tabled 
on the Proposal for a Directive of the Euro pean Parliament and of the Council on the 
protection of groundwater agains t pollution (COM(2003)550 final). 
Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty states that  as long as the Council has not acted, the 
Commission may alter its proposal  at any time during the proce dures leading to the adoption 
of a Community act.  
The Commission hereafter gives its opinion on  the amendments adopted by the European 
Parliament. 
1. B ACKGROUND  
Transmission of the proposal to  the Council and to the European Parliament (COM(2003) 550 
final – 2003/0210(COD)) in accordance with Artic le 175(1) of the EC Treaty: 19 September 
2003 
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee: 31 March 2004 Opinion of the Committee of the Regions: 12 February 2004. 
2. O
BJECTIVE OF THE COMMISSION PROPOSAL  
Groundwater is an import ant natural resource, which is ma inly used for drinking water, 
industry and agriculture. It has also a high envi ronmental value as it interacts with surface 
waters and wetlands, and thus represents a ke y part of the water cycle, which should be 
protected. 
Preventing groundwater pollution has been the s ubject of Community legislation since 1980 
and, more recently, through the Water Framewor k Directive, which was adopted in 2000.   
However, clear criteria regarding the de finition of groundwater environmental quality 
objectives, and in particular good chemical status , are lacking. In additi on, specific measures 
to prevent and contro l groundwater pollution are needed.  This was recognised when the 
Water Framework Directive was agreed to the extent that Article 17 of that Directive 
requested the Commission to come forward w ith a proposal to address these needs.  
Against that background, and after extensive c onsultation with stakeholders, the Commission 
published a proposal for a new directive conc erning the protection of groundwater against 
 
EN 3   EN pollution in September 2003, under reference COM(2003)550. This proposal contains the 
following main elements:  
• a compliance regime for assessing good chemi cal status for groundwater for a limited 
number of pollutants where existing Community standards prevail;   
• criteria for assessing the ch emical status of groundwater based on environmental quality 
standards, which have to be established by Member States at the appropriate level 
(national, river basin or groundwater body) , depending on the variations of natural 
groundwater conditions, identified pressu res and related chemical substances; 
• criteria for identifying significant upward trends  in pollutant concentr ations in groundwater 
and defining starting points for reversing these trends; 
• measures for preventing or limiting direct – and particularly indirect – inputs of pollutants 
into groundwater. 
The proposal provides clear specif ications that will ensure that  the environmen tal objectives 
of the Water Framework Directive will be achie ved with respect to groundwater. Equally, the 
proposal achieves the right balance between issu es that need to be addressed at Community 
level and those that are best  left to Member States. 
3. C OMMISSION OPINION ON THE AMENDMENTS ADOPTED BY THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT  
On 28 April 2005, the European Parliament adop ted 89 amendments out of the 123 that were 
tabled. Eight amendments – numbers 1, 15, 18,  29, 38, 58, 71 and 88 – were subject to split 
votes. In amendment 58, only the first part was supported by Parliamentarians. The other 
amendments were untouched by the split vote. 
The Commission finds that a large number of th e Parliament’s amendments are acceptable in 
full, in principle or in pa rt, as they clarify and impr ove upon the Commission proposal, 
particularly regarding the compliance regime related to the groundwater  good chemical status. 
The Commission’s detailed posit ion with regard to the am endments of the European 
Parliament is as follows: 
3.1. Amendments accepted fully by the Commission 
Amendment 1 modifies the title of the proposal, cl arifying that the proposal deals with 
chemical pollution of groundwater only. This is  in line with the objectives of the Water 
Framework Directive 2000/60/EC (WFD). 
Amendment 5 clarifies the text of Recital 3, which is  acceptable as it is consistent with the no-
deterioration clause of the WFD. 
The new recital proposed by Amendment 9 referring to the impact of groundwater quality 
standards on the environmental protection level and on the functioning of the internal market 
is acceptable.  
 
EN 4   EN Amendment 13 inserts a new recital on groundwater storage and recovery which clarifies 
WFD provisions and is, therefore, fully acceptable. Another new recital proposed by Amendment 14
 on comparability of monitoring results is also acceptable and in line with 
Amendment 41 and Annex V of the WFD. 
The new definition on background con centration introduced by Amendment 22 is acceptable 
and in line with Amendment 71. 
Amendment 25 suggests additions of new texts in the heading of Article 3, which is 
acceptable (criteria indeed concern both the as sessment and classification of the groundwater 
chemical status). 
Amendment 91 stipulates that when the natural leve ls of pollutants found in a groundwater 
body or a group of groundwater bod ies are above the quality stan dards defined in Annexes I 
or II (i.e. standards establishe d at national level) the backgr ound levels should be taken into 
account to establish the limit between poor and good groundwater chemical status. This is 
acceptable to the Commission. 
Amendment 29 (linked to Amendment 28) is acceptable, as it improves the legal clarity 
regarding the assessment of the chemical status of groundwater. 
Amendment 35 which deletes Article 4, paragraph 3, is acceptable, considering that 
Amendment 36 takes over this provision (see comment below). 
On Article 5, Amendment 37 clarifies that increases in concentrations resulting from natural, 
geological processes are not addressed here, which improves the text of the proposal. The 
proposed changes in Amendment 38 are acceptable and consiste nt with the acceptance of 
Amendment 24. Finally, the reference to specific tr end assessment and reversal for point 
sources of pollution as suggested in Amendment 39 is also acceptable. 
The change of title of Article 6 suggested by Amendment 42 is acceptable, as it is consistent 
with WFD provisions (Article 4.1(b)(i)).  
Changing “to” to “and” in Artic le 8 as proposed by Amendment 55 is acceptable. Both 
annexes may indeed be subject to adaptati ons to scientific an d technical progress. 
Regarding Annex I, changes to the main title and to the title of Part B as proposed by 
Amendments 57 and 59 are acceptable. 
Amendment 60 is acceptable as the reference to the provisions of Directive 96/676/EEC 
(Nitrates Directive) is sufficient. 
The 0.5 µg/l pesticide standa rd proposed by Amendment 63 is derived from the Directive 
91/414/EEC and can be accepted. Amendment 64 is also acceptable since it is fully in line 
with WFD provisions. 
The distinction of synthetic subs tances and of indicator s (instead of pollutants) as proposed by 
Amendment 90 is acceptable to the Commission. 
Consideration of groundwater use for human c onsumption is acceptable in the context of 
Amendment 68. Deletion of the paragraph 2.3 of Part B of Annex III as proposed by 
 
EN 5   EN Amendment 72 is acceptable on the basis that cost s should be taken into account when 
measures are taken rather than when es tablishing groundwater quality standards. 
Concerning Annex IV, Amendment 73 which links Article 5 and Annex IV and that part of 
Amendment 74 dealing with the evaluation of meas urements are acceptable. Amendment 75 
regarding statistical aspects of trends in groundwate r quality is also acceptable. 
Amendment 81 which deals with the risks to be assess ed when considering trend reversals is 
also acceptable. Finally, Amendments 82 and 87 improve the clarity of the text concerning 
trend reversals and are also acceptable. 
3.2. Amendments accepted in part or in principle by the Commission 
Amendment 2 modifies the text of the Recital 1 and introduces a new senten ce. The first part 
of this amendment is not accepta ble because it is not consistent with the principles of 
groundwater protection set out in the Wate r Framework Directive, which foresees 
groundwater protection as part of  the broader protection of asso ciated aquatic and terrestrial 
ecosystems. The second part of this amendment is in line with WFD e nvironmental objectives 
and its Article 7 and is, therefore, ac ceptable. The text would then read: 
(1) Groundwater is a valuable natural resource which must be protected from chemical 
pollution. This is particularly important for groundwater dependent ecosystems and for the 
use of groundwater in water supply for human consumption. 
The term “indicative” is included in Recital 4 by Amendment 6. However, the provisions in 
the WFD for groundwater pr otection are not indicative. Indeed they are quite extensive and 
detailed (definitions, level of protection, char acterisation, protected areas, protection of 
drinking water sources, mon itoring, programme of measures).  The amendment should then 
replace “indicative” by “ general ”. 
The reference introduced in a new recital by Amendment 8 to farming/forestry practices is 
acceptable in principle. Indeed, the cross refere nce to the CAP and rural development plans is 
understandable as farmers may have to change farming practice, leave wider buffer strips, re-
instate flood plains, etc.  The word “ elaboration ” is however preferre d over “development”. 
The text should then read:  
(5a) The protection of groundwater may in some areas require a change in 
farming/forestry practices, which could entail a loss of income. This issue should be taken 
into account in the elaboration of the rura l development plans under the reformed CAP. 
A new recital is introduced by Amendment 12, making reference to scientific knowledge 
concerning problematic substances  such as endocrine active subs tances. This is a constructive 
remark which is accepted in principle. A suggested redrafting reads as follows: 
(7a) There must be clarification as to the in puts of which pollutants must be prevented and 
limited, with particular regard to scientific knowledge concerning hazardous substances 
such as endocrine active substances.  
Amendment 15 inserts criteria related to the assessm ent of groundwater reserves in Article 1 
and a reference to Article 4 of the WFD, which are acceptable in part. In particular, item (b) 
related to groundwater quantitati ve status is not acceptable fo r the reasons expressed above 
(Amendments 7 and 80). The last sentence of Amendment 15 is acceptable with minor 
 
EN 6   EN changes. However, item (c) is redundant with this last sentence and should be deleted. The 
text should then read: 
This Directive establishes specific measures as  set out in Article 17(1) and (2) of Directive 
2000/60/EC in order to prevent and control chemical groundwater pollution. These 
measures include in particular: 
a) Criteria for the assessment of good groundwater chemical status; and 
b) Criteria for the identification and reversa l of significant and sustained upward 
trends and for the definition of starting points for trend reversals. 
This Directive seeks to complement the provisions of Article 4(1)(b)(i) of Directive 
2000/60/EC to prevent or limit inputs of pollutant s into groundwater and the deterioration 
of the status of all bodies of groundwater.   
Amendment 17 is acceptable in principle. The term “threshold values” inte nded to distinguish 
between environmental quality standards (EQS) for groundwater established at EU level as 
opposed to EQS established at MS level. As long as there is a clear distincti on between these 
two types of EQS, the Commission would not in sist on maintaining this term. The following 
definition could clarify the scope and ro le of groundwater quality standards: 
1. ‘Groundwater quality standard’ means an  environmental quality standard for 
groundwater established at Comm unity level or set by Member States in accordance with 
Article 3, expressed as the concentration of a particular pollutant, group of pollutants or 
indicator of pollution in groundwater, which should not be exceeded in order to protect 
human health and the environment. 
Amendment 19 is acceptable in principle. However, it is not compatible with amendment 20. 
The following definition, incor porating relevant elements fr om both amendments would be 
preferred: 
3. ‘input of pollutant into groundwater’ means the direct or indirect introduction, as a 
result of human activity, of pollutants into groundwater.    
Amendment 24 is acceptable in principle. The amendment may need to be changed by 
indicating the reference year 2007  instead of “2007 and 2008”. 
The modification of the introductory  part of Article 3 by Amendment 26 is acceptable in 
principle. However, the text should be redrafte d to reflect the fact th at the characterisation 
under Article 5 of Directive 2000/06/EC has alre ady been carried out. The reference to 
sections 2.4.5 and 2.5 makes an explicit link to Article 8 of the Directive 2000/60/EC, which 
should hence not be repeated here. The alternative text is proposed: 
1. For the purposes of the assessment of th e chemical status of a groundwater body, or 
group of bodies of groundwater pursuant to  sections 2.4.5 and 2.5 of Annex V of the 
Directive 2000/60/EC, Member States shall use the following criteria: 
Amendment 28 which clarifies arrangements in the compliance regime in the new paragraph 
1b of Article 3 is acceptable in principle. However the formulation of the proposed 
amendment is problematic as in some technical de tails it is contrary to the requirements of the 
Water Framework Directive. Furthermore, the fo rmulation repeats in a different manner what 
 
EN 7   EN is proposed under Amendment 29. To improve the logic of the se quence, it is suggested that 
Article 3 provides only criteria for assessing groundwat er chemical status, clarifying the links 
among groundwater chemical stat us and groundwater quality standa rds (including those to be 
established by Member States), while consider ing compliance aspects in Article 4. The text 
proposed under Amendment 28 will then be covered in a revised Article 4 (focusing on 
compliance aspects) and the related annex. 
Amendment 30 is linked to the change of th e definition suggested by Amendment 17, which 
is acceptable in principle on the basis that the definition makes it clear that the standards may 
be established at European or national level or  at the level of river basin or groundwater body. 
The same applies to Amendments 31 (Article 4, paragraph 1), 34 (Article 4, paragraph 2), 69, 
70 and 71 (Annex I, Part B), which are acceptable in principle. This is also linked to 
Amendment 32 which clarifies links am ong quality standards and levels of substances 
naturally present in water and Amendment 33 which deals with the requirement to coordinate 
the establishment of qua lity standards in inte rnational river basin di stricts. As suggested 
above, Article 3 would deal with Criteria for assessing groundwater chemical status  and 
would cover the changes proposed under Amendments 31, 32, 33, 34 and 36, whereas Article 
4 could solely focus on a Procedure for assessing groundwater chemical status . This would 
also allow to simplify the title which is considered to be too long in Amendment 30. 
The insertion of a new paragraph on measurements methods (Amendment 41) is acceptable in 
principle since it will promot e consistency with regard to measurement methods; however, the 
drafting needs to be reviewed as it is too ex tensive and unbalances the text. The alternative 
text is suggested: 
Article 5a – Measurement methods 
1. Member States shall identify measurement methods for the substances, or group of 
substances, including relevant CEN or national standardised methods, for which 
Community-wide or national groundwater qua lity standards are set in accordance with 
Article 3, and shall report them to the Commission along with the report of the monitoring programme pursuant to Ar ticle 8 of the Directive 2000/60/EC. 
2. The Commission shall, in accordance with Article 8(3) and Article 21 of Directive 
2000/60/EC, establish method performance and qu ality control criteria for each of the 
measurement methods reported under paragraph 1 in order to provide the basis for demonstrating  the comparability of ground water monitoring results, and shall verify 
that monitoring data fulfil with these criter ia upon reporting pursuant to Article 13 of 
the Directive 2000/60/EC. 
Following Article 6, the idea suggested in Amendment 46
 of including monitoring 
requirements associated with measures concerning  discharges is acceptable in principle, since 
these requirements are not covered by the WF D. It would, however, be better to simply 
indicate that Measures pursuant to paragraph 2 shall be monitored in accordance with the 
provisions laid down in Article 11( 5) of the Directive 2000/60/EC.   
Amendment 47 referring to best environmental practic e and best available technology is also 
acceptable in principle, but the precise drafting w ill need to be reviewed since this reference 
would restrict activities to those defined under the IPPC Dir ective. An altern ative text could 
be: The measures required by this Article shall take account of established best practices, 
 
EN 8   EN including Best Environmental Practice and Best Available Techniques specified in relevant 
Community legislation .  
Amendment 48 is also acceptable in principle but would require redrafting. An alternative text 
could be: Where inputs of pollutants are permi tted under the conditions specified in 
paragraph (b) of this paragraph, diffuse sources of pollution having an impact on the 
groundwater chemical status shall be taken into account whenever technically possible. 
The introduction of a margin of flexibility into the comp liance regime as proposed by 
Amendment 58 is also acceptable in principle. This text, however, repeats provisions already 
covered in a different wording by Amendment 29. The only missing element concerns the 
sentence “ the relevant tests shall be ca rried out in the upper aquifer ”, which is a useful 
suggestion which should however be include d in another Article or Annex linked to 
compliance. 
With respect to Annex II, the principle of a common procedure for the establishment of 
groundwater quality standard s suggested by Amendment 65 is accepted in principle although 
the proposed methodology warrants further ela boration, which was th e intention of the 
original Commission proposal. Furthermore, the text repeats pr ovisions proposed under 
Amendment 29. It is, therefore, suggeste d to redraft this part (b ecoming Part A of Annex II) 
using the title “ Guidelines for the establishment of groundwater quality standards by 
Member States in accordance with Article 3 ”, including the text proposed under Amendment 
71 which should be made in line with Amendment 22 (“background concentration”) and 
changing the mention of “best pr ofessional estimate” into a sentence which is less prone to 
possible different interpretations.  
On Part A of Annex III, Amendment 89 proposes a rearrangement of the original table 
concerning substances which may occur both natu rally and as a result of pollution. This is 
acceptable in principle. However, in order to keep the sequence proposed for Articles 3 and 4, 
it is suggested to move this table under a part B of Annex II (t hus following the above 
guidelines), and to cover all aspects relate d to compliance in a revised Annex III. 
Furthermore, the column “comment” could simply be integrated in the title of Part A.1 as follows (including the footnote): 
PART
 A.1:  MINIMUM LIST OF SUBSTANCES OR IONS OCCURRING NATURALLY AND AS A RESULT 
OF HUMAN ACTIVITIES , FOR WHICH MEMBER STATES ARE REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH 
GROUNDWATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 31 
Substance or ion 
Ammonium 
Arsenic Cadmium 
                                                 
1 This list should be complemented by Member States for all pollutants which have been identified to 
characterise bodies of groundwater at  being at risk following the analysis carried out under Article 5 of 
Directive 2000/60/EC. 
 
EN 9   EN Lead 
Mercury Trichloroethylene Tetrachloroethylene 
 Regarding Part B of Annex III, Amendment 66
 is acceptable in principle as it is in line 
with other related amendmen ts concerning the establishm ent of groundwater quality 
standards by Member States. In line with th e above comments, however, it is suggested 
that the information to be provided by Member  States originally unde r this Annex is now 
moved to Annex II, Part C, to improve the sequence “criteria for the establishment of 
groundwater quality standards” (now cove red by Article 3 and Annex II) followed by 
“assessment of groundwater chemical status” (n ow covered by Article 4 and Annex III).  
Amendment 67 is also acceptable in principle. For consistency, the added text should be 
complemented by “ river basin or groundwater body level ” and moved to Annex II, Part C, 
as suggested above. 
Amendments 76, 77, 78, 83, 84 and 85 concerning time periods for trend assessment and 
reversal are acceptable in principle. However,  the time lengths proposed in the original 
annex were based on the outcome of discussi ons with groundwater te chnical experts from 
the Member States, which resulted in a T echnical Report devel oped under the Common 
Implementation Strategy of the Water Framew ork Directive. Changing arbitrarily these 
time periods might be technically problematic. It is therefore suggested to simplify this 
annex by providing general binding rules but w ithout including numerical values, taking 
into account the suggestion made by Amendment 79 concerning starting points for the 
assessment of trends in groundwater quality. 
3.3. Amendments not accepted by the Commission 
The new recital introduced by Amendment 3 is not acceptable because not all groundwater 
bodies are used for the production of drinking wa ter and to require all groundwater bodies to 
respect quality standards which assume that they will be used for drinking water is unrealistic.  
Amendment 95 concerns research and use of research  outputs. The promotion of new research 
should be achieved through the 6th and 7th Research Framework Programmes not in the 
groundwater directive. Therefore,  this amendment is not acceptable. For the same reason, 
Amendment 100 which introduces a provision in Article  6 (new paragraph (c)) on research 
and dissemination is also not acceptable. 
Amendment 4 inserts a new recital which is not acceptable since the Water Framework 
Directive provides for different levels of protection for groundwater and surface waters. 
While groundwater chemical status is indeed defined in relation to its impact on associated 
surface waters, this amendment is th erefore not in line with the WFD. 
Amendment 7 introduces a new recital related to groundw ater quantitative status. This is not 
acceptable since the provisions concerning quantitative assessments are already covered by 
 
EN 10   EN the WFD where there is an obligation to ensure  a balance between abst raction and renewal of 
groundwater bodies and associated requireme nts for monitoring and assessment. The 
amendment is therefore redundant. The same reasoning applies to Amendment 80 concerning 
a new provision in Annex IV. 
The change to Recital 6 proposed by Amendment 10 on the identification of significant 
downward trends is not acceptable. This amen dment concerns groundwater quantitative status 
which is already adequately covered by WFD and it is therefore redundant. 
Amendment 11 inserts a new sentence at the end of  Recital 7, specifying that relevant 
provisions of the Directive 80/68/EEC  should be incorporated into this directive, which is not 
acceptable.  The text proposed by the Commission is indeed fully compatible with the 
directive 80/68/EEC, but it achieves the objectives in a different manner. The incorporation of 
provisions of the 1980s directive into a text dr afted in 2004 is not th e best way to draft 
legislation and is inappropriate.  
The insertion of a new paragra ph 2a in Article 1 by Amendment 16 duplicates WFD 
provisions and is therefore redundant. The char acterisation of groundwater bodies is to be 
carried out by Member States under Article 5 of the WFD.  
The Commission cannot accept Amendments 18, 21, and 23. The introduction of the term 
“environmentally” significant (Amendment 18) would leave open the possibility of Member 
States interpreting what is significant in very different ways. Further, the definition of deterioration (Amendment 21
) is already included in the Water Framework Directive (Article 
4).  Finally, Amendment 23 introduces a definition of historically contaminated sites. While 
the Commission recognises that such sites are pr oblematic, their consider ation in the present 
Proposal is outside the scope of the mandate provided for by Article 17 of the WFD. This is 
also why the Commission cannot accept Amendment 93 introducing a provi sion concerning 
rehabilitation of sites suffering long-standing pollution (Article 3, new paragraphs (c) and (d)) 
and Amendment 49 referring to direct and indirect disc harges from historical contaminated 
sites (Article 6, new paragraph 2d). 
The new paragraph 1a introduced by Amendment 27 is not consistent with the definition of 
the groundwater good chemical status as set out in table 2.3.2 of Annex V of the WFD. 
Groundwater chemical status is related to its impact on associ ated surface water.  It is 
therefore inconsistent to have  groundwater environmental qual ity standards based on human 
and eco-toxicological criteria of pollutants. 
The way the programme of measures will be oper ated is left to the Member States’ decision, 
and it is not appropriate to indica te a preference to the nature of the measures to be taken as 
suggested by Amendment 40. Thus the amendment is not acceptable. 
Amendment 88 is not acceptable. In particular, item (c) is redundant with the provisions of 
Article 11(3)(f) of the Water Framework Directive and is already covered by Amendment 13.  
 Amendment 50 repeats the requirement of item 7.6 of A nnex VII.A of the WFD. This is also 
the case of Amendment 51 which repeats what is already stated by the existing Article. The 
“Polluter pays principle” principle is alrea dy covered by Article 9 of the WFD, which makes 
Amendment 52 redundant. Finally, while it is recogni sed that recommendations should be 
issued regarding protected areas , it would not be reasonable to consider all possible cases in 
 
EN 11   EN the present directive as suggested by Amendment 54 concerning spas and medicinal water 
sources. Thus the amendment is not acceptable. 
The new paragraph introduced by Amendment 56 is not acceptable, considering that the 
collection of data under this directiv e is already regulated by the WFD. 
Amendment 62 is not acceptable as the provisions of  Directive 91/414/EEC (Plant Protection 
Products Directive) remain in force. 
3.4. Amended proposal 
Having regard to Article 250(2) of the EC Tr eaty, the Commission modifies its proposal as 
indicated above.