EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/355

(2004/C 84 E/0413)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0293/04

by María Bergaz Conesa (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject: Threat to the Güe springs from the construction of the Puente del Arco to El Condado section of the AS 17 highway (Asturias, Spain)

When work began on the Puente del Arco to El Condado section of the AS 17 highway (Asturias, Spain), it was discovered that the plan chosen by the competent authorities might cause irreparable damage to the Güe springs, which provide drinking water for over 11 000 local inhabitants.

In its answer to Written Question P-1825/03 (1) on this subject, the Commission stated that: ‘In any event, it appears that the project has undergone environmental impact assessment. It should be noted, however, that Directive 85/337/EEC (2) does not specify the criteria by which a project is to be selected from among the alternative solutions which have been examined, provided the chosen project has been properly assessed.’

In the light of this fresh information relating to the Güe springs, does the Commission consider the route selected by the Spanish authorities to be the best one from an environmental viewpoint?

Does it not consider, in view of current Community legislation on the protection of groundwater, that an alternative route which does not endanger those springs should be adopted?

Will the Commission ask the competent authorities to provide it with all the information relating to this matter?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2004)

According to available information, the project that the Honourable Member brings to the attention of the Commission for the third time consists in the conditioning of a three kilometre section of an existing road. It should be noted that this kind of project is not included in any of the Annexes of Council Directive 8 5/337/EEC (3). The Spanish authorities have, nonetheless, submitted this project to an impact assessment procedure. The ‘Environmental Impact Declaration’ (Declaración de Impacto Ambiental) clearly states that no impact on groundwater is foreseeable in relation with this project.

Furthermore, Directive 85/337/EEC does not establish any criteria for Member States to follow when determining which alternative to choose once the Environmental Impact Assessment procedure has been carried out. For this reason, it is not for the Commission to express its views on the environmental suitability of the chosen route.

In addition, current Community legislation on the protection of groundwater does not contain any provisions that apply to the present case, as this legislation only aims at preventing and, when possible, reducing the pollution of groundwater by substances contained in lists I or II of the Annex to Directive 80/68/EEC (4).

Therefore there is no evidence of an infringement of Community environmental law in this case.

(1) OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 174.

(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(3) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 175, 5.7.1985 as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(4) Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances, OJ L 20, 26.1.1980.