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)
Date: 2005-06-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, environmental protection, groundwater, pollution control measures, prevention of pollution, water protection

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN 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 

   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  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the 
protection of groundwater against 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 procedures leading to the adoption 
of a Community act.  

The  Commission  hereafter  gives  its  opinion  on  the  amendments  adopted  by  the  European 
Parliament. 

1. 

BACKGROUND 

Transmission of the proposal to the Council and to the European Parliament (COM(2003) 550 
final – 2003/0210(COD)) in accordance with Article 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. 

OBJECTIVE OF THE COMMISSION PROPOSAL 

Groundwater  is  an  important  natural  resource,  which  is  mainly  used  for  drinking  water, 
industry  and  agriculture.  It  has  also  a  high  environmental  value  as  it  interacts  with  surface 
waters  and  wetlands,  and  thus  represents  a  key  part  of  the  water  cycle,  which  should  be 
protected. 

Preventing groundwater pollution has been the subject of Community legislation since 1980 
and, more recently, through the Water Framework Directive, which was adopted in 2000.   

However,  clear  criteria  regarding  the  definition  of  groundwater  environmental  quality 
objectives, and in particular good chemical status, are lacking. In addition, specific measures 
to  prevent  and  control  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 with a proposal to address these needs.  

Against that background, and after extensive consultation with stakeholders, the Commission 
published  a  proposal  for  a  new  directive  concerning  the  protection  of  groundwater  against 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
pollution  in  September  2003,  under  reference  COM(2003)550.  This  proposal  contains  the 
following main elements:  

•  a  compliance  regime  for  assessing  good  chemical  status  for  groundwater  for  a  limited 

number of pollutants where existing Community standards prevail;   

•  criteria  for  assessing  the  chemical  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 pressures and related chemical substances; 

•  criteria for identifying significant upward trends in pollutant concentrations 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 specifications that will ensure that the environmental objectives 
of the Water Framework Directive will be achieved with respect to groundwater. Equally, the 
proposal achieves the right balance between issues that need to be addressed at Community 
level and those that are best left to Member States. 

3. 

COMMISSION  OPINION  ON  THE  AMENDMENTS  ADOPTED  BY  THE  EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT 

On 28 April 2005, the European Parliament adopted 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 the Parliament’s amendments are acceptable in 
full,  in  principle  or  in  part,  as  they  clarify  and  improve  upon  the  Commission  proposal, 
particularly regarding the compliance regime related to the groundwater good chemical status. 

The  Commission’s  detailed  position  with  regard  to  the  amendments  of  the  European 
Parliament is as follows: 

3.1. 

Amendments accepted fully by the Commission 

Amendment  1  modifies  the  title  of  the  proposal,  clarifying  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 

3 

   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 concentration 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 assessment and classification of the groundwater 
chemical status). 

Amendment  91  stipulates  that  when  the  natural  levels  of  pollutants  found  in  a  groundwater 
body or a group of groundwater bodies are above the quality standards defined in Annexes I 
or II (i.e. standards established at national level) the background 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  consistent  with  the  acceptance  of 
Amendment  24.  Finally,  the  reference  to  specific  trend  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  Article  8  as  proposed  by  Amendment  55  is  acceptable.  Both 
annexes may indeed be subject to adaptations to scientific and 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  standard  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 substances and of indicators (instead of pollutants) as proposed by 
Amendment 90 is acceptable to the Commission. 

Consideration  of  groundwater  use  for  human  consumption  is  acceptable  in  the  context  of 
Amendment  68.  Deletion  of  the  paragraph  2.3  of  Part  B  of  Annex  III  as  proposed  by 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
Amendment  72  is  acceptable  on  the  basis  that  costs  should  be  taken  into  account  when 
measures are taken rather than when establishing 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 measurements are acceptable. Amendment 75 
regarding statistical aspects of trends in groundwater quality is also acceptable. 

Amendment 81 which deals with the risks to be assessed 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 sentence. The first part 
of  this  amendment  is  not  acceptable  because  it  is  not  consistent  with  the  principles  of 
groundwater  protection  set  out  in  the  Water  Framework  Directive,  which  foresees 
groundwater protection as part of the broader protection of associated aquatic and terrestrial 
ecosystems. The second part of this amendment is in line with WFD environmental objectives 
and its Article 7 and is, therefore, acceptable. 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 protection are not indicative. Indeed they are quite extensive and 
detailed  (definitions,  level  of  protection,  characterisation,  protected  areas,  protection  of 
drinking  water  sources,  monitoring,  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 reference 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 preferred over “development”. 
The text should then read:  

(5a)  The  protection  of  groundwater  may 
in 
farming/forestry practices, which could entail a loss of income. This issue should be taken 
into account in the elaboration of the rural development plans under the reformed CAP. 

in  some  areas  require  a  change 

A  new  recital  is  introduced  by  Amendment  12,  making  reference  to  scientific  knowledge 
concerning problematic substances such as endocrine active substances. This is a constructive 
remark which is accepted in principle. A suggested redrafting reads as follows: 

(7a) There must be clarification as to the inputs 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 assessment 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  quantitative  status  is  not  acceptable  for  the  reasons  expressed  above 
(Amendments  7  and  80).  The  last  sentence  of  Amendment  15  is  acceptable  with  minor 

EN 

5 

   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) 

b) 

Criteria for the assessment of good groundwater chemical status; and 

Criteria  for  the  identification  and  reversal  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 pollutants into groundwater and the deterioration 
of the status of all bodies of groundwater.   

Amendment 17 is acceptable in principle. The term “threshold values” intended 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 distinction between these 
two types of EQS, the Commission would not insist on maintaining this term. The following 
definition could clarify the scope and role of groundwater quality standards: 

1.  ‘Groundwater  quality  standard’  means  an  environmental  quality  standard  for 
groundwater  established  at  Community  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,  incorporating  relevant  elements  from  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  redrafted  to  reflect  the  fact  that  the  characterisation 
under  Article  5  of  Directive  2000/06/EC  has  already  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  the  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 details it is contrary to the requirements of the 
Water Framework Directive. Furthermore, the formulation repeats in a different manner what 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
is proposed under Amendment 29. To improve the logic of the sequence, it is suggested that 
Article 3 provides only criteria for assessing groundwater chemical status, clarifying the links 
among groundwater chemical status and groundwater quality standards (including those to be 
established  by  Member  States),  while  considering  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 the 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  among  quality  standards  and  levels  of  substances 
naturally present in water and Amendment 33 which deals with the requirement to coordinate 
the  establishment  of  quality  standards  in  international  river  basin  districts.  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 promote consistency with regard to measurement methods; however, the 
drafting needs to be reviewed as it is too extensive 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 quality 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 Article 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 quality control criteria for each of the 
measurement  methods  reported  under  paragraph  1  in  order  to  provide  the  basis  for 
demonstrating    the  comparability  of  groundwater  monitoring  results,  and  shall  verify 
that monitoring data fulfil with these criteria 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  WFD.  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 practice and best available technology is also 
acceptable in principle, but the precise drafting will need to be reviewed since this reference 
would restrict activities to those defined under the IPPC Directive. An alternative text could 
be: The measures required by this Article shall take account of established best practices, 

EN 

7 

   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  permitted  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  compliance  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  carried  out  in  the  upper  aquifer”,  which  is  a  useful 
suggestion  which  should  however  be  included  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 standards suggested by Amendment 65 is accepted in principle although 
the  proposed  methodology  warrants  further  elaboration,  which  was  the  intention  of  the 
original  Commission  proposal.  Furthermore,  the  text  repeats  provisions  proposed  under 
Amendment 29. It is, therefore, suggested to redraft this part (becoming 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  professional  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  naturally  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  (thus  following  the  above 
guidelines),  and  to  cover  all  aspects  related  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 ARTICLE31 

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 

8 

   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  amendments  concerning  the  establishment  of  groundwater  quality 
standards  by  Member  States.  In  line  with  the  above  comments,  however,  it  is  suggested 
that the information to be provided by Member States originally under this Annex is now 
moved  to  Annex  II,  Part  C,  to  improve  the  sequence  “criteria  for  the  establishment  of 
groundwater  quality  standards”  (now  covered  by  Article  3  and  Annex  II)  followed  by 
“assessment of groundwater chemical status” (now 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 discussions with groundwater technical experts from 
the  Member  States,  which  resulted  in  a  Technical  Report  developed  under  the  Common 
Implementation  Strategy  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive.  Changing  arbitrarily  these 
time  periods  might  be  technically  problematic.  It  is  therefore  suggested  to  simplify  this 
annex  by  providing  general  binding  rules  but  without  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 water 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 therefore not in line with the WFD. 

Amendment 7 introduces a new recital related to groundwater quantitative status. This is not 
acceptable  since  the  provisions  concerning  quantitative  assessments  are  already  covered  by 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
the WFD where there is an obligation to ensure a balance between abstraction and renewal of 
groundwater  bodies  and  associated  requirements  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 amendment 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  drafted  in  2004  is  not  the  best  way  to  draft 
legislation and is inappropriate. 

The  insertion  of  a  new  paragraph  2a  in  Article  1  by  Amendment  16  duplicates  WFD 
provisions  and  is  therefore  redundant.  The  characterisation  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 problematic, their consideration 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 provision concerning 
rehabilitation of sites suffering long-standing pollution (Article 3, new paragraphs (c) and (d)) 
and  Amendment  49  referring  to  direct  and  indirect  discharges  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  associated  surface  water.    It  is 
therefore inconsistent to have groundwater environmental quality standards based on human 
and eco-toxicological criteria of pollutants. 

The way the programme of measures will be operated is left to the Member States’ decision, 
and it is not appropriate to indicate 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 Annex 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 already covered by Article 9 of the WFD, which makes 
Amendment  52  redundant.  Finally,  while  it  is  recognised  that  recommendations  should  be 
issued regarding protected areas, it would not be reasonable to consider all possible cases in 

EN 

10 

   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 directive 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 Treaty,  the  Commission  modifies  its  proposal  as 
indicated above. 

EN 

11 

   EN