Guidance on groundwater in drinking water protected areas. Guidance document No 16.
Date: 2011-11-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment
Subjects: EU environmental policy, drinking water, groundwater, water management

Technical Report - 2007 - 010

COMMON IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
FOR THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE 
(2000/60/EC)

Guidance Document No. 16

Guidance on Groundwater in Drinking Water Protected Areas

 
 
 
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 16 
Groundwater in Drinking Protected Areas 

COMMON IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 
FOR THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE (2000/60/EC) 

Guidance Document No. 16 

Guidance on Groundwater in Drinking Water Protected Areas 

Disclaimer:  
This  technical  document  has  been  developed  through  a  collaborative  programme  involving  the  European  Commission,  all  the  Member  States,  the 
Accession  Countries,  Norway  and  other  stakeholders  and  Non-Governmental  Organisations.  The  document  should  be  regarded  as  presenting  an 
informal consensus position on best practice agreed by all partners. However, the document does not necessarily represent the official, formal position 
of any of the partners. Hence, the views expressed in the document do not necessarily represent the views of the European Commission. 

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union 

New freephone number: 
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. 
It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://ec.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2006 

ISBN 978-92-79-06201-8 
ISSN 1725-1087 
N° Catalogue - KH-78-07-154-EN-N 

© European Communities, 2007 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 16 
Groundwater in Drinking Protected Areas 

FOREWORD 
The  Water  Directors  of  the  European  Union  (EU),  Acceding  Countries,  Candidate  Countries  and  EFTA 
Countries  have  jointly  developed  a  common  strategy  for  supporting  the  implementation  of  the  Directive 
2000/60/EC,  “establishing  a  framework  for  Community  action  in  the  field  of  water  policy”  (the  Water 
Framework Directive). The main aim of this strategy is to allow a coherent and harmonious implementation 
of the Directive. Focus is on methodological questions related to a common understanding of the technical 
and scientific implications of the Water Framework Directive. 

In  particular,  one  of  the  objectives  of  the  strategy  is  the  development  of  non-legally  binding  and  practical 
Guidance Documents on various technical issues of the Directive. These Guidance Documents are targeted 
to those experts who are directly or indirectly implementing the Water Framework Directive in river basins. 
The structure, presentation and terminology are therefore adapted to the needs of these experts and formal, 
legalistic language is avoided wherever possible. 

In this context, a guidance document "Identification of Water Bodies" has been developed and endorsed by 
the Water Directors in November 2002 (CIS Guidance Document Nr. 2). This document provides Member 
States with a common understanding of the definition of water bodies and specific practical suggestions for 
their identification under the Water Framework Directive. 

As a follow-up, and in the context of the development of the new Groundwater Directive under Article 17 of 
the Water Framework Directive, Member States have expressed the need to clarify issues of groundwater in 
protected  areas,  in  particular  Drinking  Water  Protected  Areas  (DWPAs).  A  project  to  develop  a  guidance 
document complementing the CIS Guidance Document Nr. 2 has, therefore, been designed in 2004, and an 
informal drafting group has been established under the umbrella of the CIS Working Group on Groundwater 
(WG C). This drafting group has been coordinated by the United Kingdom and EUREAU, and involved a 
range of experts from other Member States and from stakeholder organisations. 

The present Guidance Document is the outcome of this drafting group. It contains the synthesis of the output 
of discussions that have taken place since December 2004. It builds on the input and feedback from a wide 
range  of  experts  and  stakeholders  that  have  been  involved  throughout  the  procedure  of  Guidance 
development through meetings, workshops, conferences and electronic media, without binding them in any 
way to this content. 

“We,  the  water  directors  of  the  European  Union,  Norway,  Switzerland  and  the  countries  applying  for 
accession to the European Union, have examined and endorsed this Guidance during our informal meeting 
under the German Presidency in Dresden (18-19 June 2007). We would like to thank the participants of the 
Working Group C and, in particular, the leaders of the monitoring drafting group, the United Kingdom and 
EUREAU,  for  preparing  this  high  quality  document.  We  strongly  believe  that  this  and  other  Guidance 
Documents  developed  under  the  Common  Implementation  Strategy  will  play  a  key  role  in  the  process  of 
implementing the Water Framework Directive and the newly adopted Groundwater Directive. 

This  Guidance  Document  is  a  living  document  that  will  need  continuous  input  and  improvements  as 
application and experience build up in all countries of the European Union and beyond. We agree, however, 
that this document will be made publicly available in its current form in order to present it to a wider public 
as  a  basis  for  carrying  forward  ongoing  implementation  work.  We  also  commit  ourselves  to  assess  and 
decide upon the necessity for reviewing this document in the light of scientific and technical progress and the 
experiences gained in implementing the Water Framework Directive and the new Groundwater Directive”. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
   
  
 
 
  
 
 
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 16 
Groundwater in Drinking Protected Areas 

MEMBERS OF THE DRAFTING GROUP 

Leaders of the activity 

Tony MARSLAND   

Environment Agency (United Kingdom) 

Gyrite BRANDT 

City of Copenhagen / EUREAU (Denmark) 

Philippe QUEVAUVILLER   

European Commission, DG Environment (Belgium) 

Members of the Drafting Group – Member States and Associated States 

Ruxandra BALAET   

Environment and Water Ministry (Romania) 

Hermann BLOMEYER 

Baerisches Staatsministerium f. Umwelt  (Germany) 

Donal DALY 

Henk DENTERS 

Environmental Protection Agency (Ireland) 

Province of Gelderland (The Netherlands) 

Alfredo DIDOMENICANTONIO  Tevere Basin Authority (Italy) 

Kestutis KADUNAS  

Geological Survey  (Lithuania) 

Lucio MARTARELLI 

APAT (Italy) 

Carlos MARTINEZ NAVARRETE   Spanish Geological Survey (Spain) 

Isaac Sanchez NAVARRO 

Spanish Ministry of Environment (Spain) 

Didier PENNEQUIN 

Elisabetta PREZIOSI 

Hana PRCHALOVA  

Manuela RUISI 

Gergana STOEVA 

Agnes TAHY 

Sissel TVEDTEN 

BRGM (France) 

CNR (Italy) 

Czech Water Research Institute (Czech Republic) 

Tevere Basin Authority (Italy) 

Ministry of Environment and Water (Bulgaria) 

General Directorate of the Environment (Hungary) 

Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (Norway) 

Members of the Drafting Group – Stakeholders 

Dirk BREHM 

Christian GRØN 

Kommunale Wasserwerke Leipzig / CEEP (Germany) 

Nordtest/ DHI (Denmark) 

Stefano LO RUSSO   

Regione Piemonte / EPRO (Italy) 

Jussi LEVEINEN 

Zoran NAKIC 

EuroGeoSurveys (Finland) 

European Water Association / EWA (Croatia) 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 16 
Groundwater in Drinking Protected Areas 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Members of the Drafting Group 

1.  Purpose and Scope of guidance ...............................................................................5 

1.1  Introduction..............................................................................................................................5 

1.2  Purpose of this document.........................................................................................................5 

2.  The Water Framework Directive’s general requirements for Protected Areas......6 

2.1  Areas defined under the WFD .................................................................................................6 

2.2  Timescales for meeting objectives...........................................................................................7 

2.3  Relationship of protected area to other WFD objectives .........................................................8 

2.4  Registers of Protected Areas ....................................................................................................8 

3.  Groundwater Drinking Water Protected Areas ........................................................9 

3.1  Terminology.............................................................................................................................9 

3.2  Identification and Delineation of DWPAs ...............................................................................9 

3.3  Meeting the requirements of the Drinking Water Directive (DWD) .....................................10 

3.4  Necessary protection and avoiding deterioration...................................................................13 

3.5  Timescales for compliance.....................................................................................................16 

3.6  Monitoring and assessment....................................................................................................17 

3.7  Assessment of the need for and level of purification treatment.............................................18 

3.8  Safeguard Zones.....................................................................................................................19 

References......................................................................................................................................20 

Annex 1 : Case studies....................................................................................................22 

CASE STUDY – ITALY (Emilia Romagna Region)....................................................................22 

CASE STUDY : PORTUGAL   Source Protection Zones and measures around a public water-
supply in Golegã, ...........................................................................................................................26 

CASE STUDY – HUNGARY/ROUMANIA      Maros/Mureş transboundary groundwater bodies 
-  a multi-layered aquifer system....................................................................................................28 

CASE STUDY – GERMANY (Lingen area)   Delineation and use of safeguard zones ..............31 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 16 
Groundwater in Drinking Protected Areas 

1.  Purpose and Scope of guidance 

1.1  Introduction 

This  guidance  explains  the  obligations  for  Protected  Areas  that  apply  to  groundwater,  in 
particular  the  requirements  for  Drinking  Water  Protected  Areas  (DWPAs)  that  are  introduced 
under Article 7 of the Water Framework Directive (WFD).  It does not cover the requirements of 
the  source  Directives  under  which  individual  Protected  Areas  are  designated.  The  guidance 
explains the relationship between the objectives for protected areas and other WFD objectives.  
In particular it clarifies the requirements for DWPAs. 

This guidance should be read in conjunction with existing CIS guidance, such as the horizontal 
guidance on the delineation of water bodies1 and the companion guidance documents developed 
by the CIS Working Group C – Groundwater, in particular on groundwater monitoring2. 

1.2  Purpose of this document 

•  To provide a common understanding of the technical and scientific implications of the WFD 

regarding protected areas;  

•  Provide  this  in  terms  that  can  be  understood  by  both  regulators  and  those  affected  by  the 

Directive’s implementation; 

•  Clarify the groundwater aspects of the WFD’s requirements for Protected Areas, where this 
is not already dealt with elsewhere, with a particular focus on the requirements for Drinking 
Water Protected Areas (DWPAs) and their associated safeguard zones; 

•  Highlight  issues  that  may  affect  the  management  of  cross-boundary  aquifers  and  water 

bodies. 

Look  out!  The  methodology  from  this  Guidance  Document  must  be 
adapted to regional and national circumstances  
The Guidance Document proposes an overall pragmatic approach. Because 
of the diversity of circumstances within the European Union, Member States 
may  apply  guidance  in  a  flexible  way  in  answer  to  problems  that  will  vary 
from  one  river  basin  to  the  next.  This  guidance  will  therefore  need  to  be 
tailored to specific circumstances.  

1 CIS Guidance Document No. 2 on identification of water bodies, European Commission, 2003 
2 CIS Guidance Document No. 15 on groundwater monitoring, European Commission, 2006 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 16 
Groundwater in Drinking Protected Areas 

2.  The Water Framework Directive’s general requirements for Protected Areas 

2.1  Areas defined under the WFD 

Under  Article  4  the  environmental  objectives  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD)  are 
divided into those for surface waters, groundwater and protected areas.  For protected areas the 
objectives are those noted in the Community legislation under which these areas are designated, 
with  the  additional  objective  that  “Member  States  shall  achieve  compliance  with  the  existing 
standards and objectives” at the latest by December 2015, unless otherwise stated in the source 
legislation. 

Annex IV of the WFD defines protected areas as areas designated: 

1.  For the abstraction of water intended for human consumption under Article 7 of the WFD – 

Drinking Water Protected Areas (DWPAs); 

2.  For the protection of economically significant aquatic species; 

3.  As recreational waters, including bathing waters under Directive 76/160/EEC; 

4.  As  nutrient  sensitive  areas,  including  areas  designated  as  vulnerable  zones  under  Directive 

91/676 and areas designated as sensitive areas under Directive 91/271/EEC; and 

5.  For the protection of habitats or species where the maintenance or improvement of the status 
of  water  is  an  important  factor  in  their  protection,  including  relevant  Natura  2000  sites 
designated under Directive 92/43/EEC and directive 79/409/EEC. 

For groundwater protected areas except DWPAs: 
At the discretion of Member States1, these may: 
• 

be part of a groundwater body; 

• 

• 

extend over parts of two or more groundwater bodies; 

include  areas  that  do  not  themselves  comprise  groundwater  or  surface  water  but  contain 
habitats or species that depend directly on such water (e.g. some Natura Protected Areas); or 

• 

coincide with the boundaries of groundwater bodies. 

These areas must be reported in River Basin Management Plans. 

The designation of DWPAs in accordance with WFD Article 6.2 and Article 7.1 has been prone 
to  different  interpretations  discussed  during  the  drafting  of  this  guidance  document.  A  first 
interpretation is that DWPAs may be delineated as "areas", while the second interpretation is that 
they are to be delineated as whole water bodies as noted under Article 7.1. This divergence of 
opinions  mainly  stems  from  terminologies  used  at  national  level  in  the  Member  States,  which 
may have perceived consequences in term of protection measures. They may be summarised as 
follows: 

(cid:190)  In the first interpretation, a DWPA may be an area which is part of a groundwater body, 
extend over parts of two or more bodies, or correspond to groundwater body boundaries. 
In this context, safeguard zones defined under Article 7.3 may not be needed in addition 
to  the  DWPA.  Effectively  the  DWPAs  become  safeguard  zones  where  measures  are 
focused. 

(cid:190)  In  the  second  interpretation,  DPWAs  are  whole  groundwater  bodies.  The  necessary 
protection  measures  may  be  focused  (but  not  necessarily  restricted)  to  zones  around 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 16 
Groundwater in Drinking Protected Areas 

actual of planned abstractions, i.e. safeguard zones, which are hence similar to DWPAs 
defined in the first interpretation.  

Regardless  of  which  interpretation  is  used,  the  Article  7.3  objective  to  avoid  deterioration  in 
quality applies and the necessary protection is needed for those areas at risk of deterioration.  

The  second  interpretation  is  adopted  as  a  working  basis  in  this  guidance  document.  This 
implies, in summary, that: 

1.  DWPs are whole water bodies; 
2.  DWPAs  cover  actual  abstraction  zones  (safeguard  zones)  and  other  zones  of  potential 

abstraction; 

3.  Protection measures are focused on safeguard zones, normally linked to existing drinking 
water abstractions that are at risk of deterioration. This does not rule out wider measures 
over the entire DPWA, if a Member State wishes to provide protection, for example, to 
an area that is identified for future abstractions.  

4.  As  noted  in  the  new  Groundwater  Directive,  safeguard  zones  may  be  part  of  a 
groundwater  body  (i.e.  DWPA),  may  cover  parts  of  two  or  more  bodies,  or  cover  the 
whole territory of a Member State. 

The  delineation  of  groundwater  bodies  (including  bodies  designated  as  DWPAs),  which  are 
management units that are created to facilitate the achievement of WFD objectives, is entirely at 
the  discretion  of  Member  States.  The  requirements  associated  with  DWPAs  may  be  a 
consideration  in  the  delineation  of  a  groundwater  body.    As  stressed  above,  safeguard  zones 
may also be delineated to focus protection measures in order to meet the objectives of Article 7 
and in accordance with Article 4.2. 

Look out!   The existing terminology used in Member States for areas or zones 
used for drinking water protection may not be consistent with that in Article 
7.   In some Member States such areas are equivalent to “safeguard  zones”.  
There is no need to alter existing designations provided that the relationship 
with  WFD  terminology  is  clear  and  the  WFD  objectives  and  measures  are 
implemented. 

2.2  Timescales for meeting objectives 

Article 4(1)c of the WFD states that, for protected areas: 

“Member  States  shall  achieve  compliance  with  any  standards  and  objectives  at  the  latest  15 
years  after  the  date  of  entry  into  force  of  this  Directive,  unless  otherwise  specified  in  the 
Community legislation under which the individual protected areas have been established.” 

The  objectives  and  standards  of  other  Community  legislation  are  thereby  integrated  into  the 
WFD’s river basin planning system. 

Unless  an  alternative  date  is  given  in  the  Community  legislation  under  which  a  protected  area 
has  been  established,  the  WFD  introduces  a  date  of  22  December  2015  for  achieving  the 
standards and objectives for that protected area.  

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 16 
Groundwater in Drinking Protected Areas 

2.3  Relationship of protected area to other WFD and GWD objectives 

The objectives to implement the measures necessary to prevent or limit the input of pollutants to 
groundwater  in  Article  4.1(b)(i)  and  to  reverse  significant  and  sustained  upward  trends  in 
4.1(b)(iii) apply to all groundwater.  The status objectives specified in Article 4.1(b)(i) and (ii) of 
the  WFD  apply  to  groundwater  bodies.  The  objectives  for  protected  areas  specified  in  Article 
4.1(c) of Article 4 apply to the areas designated under the source Directives (that is, those noted 
in section 2.1 above). 

The standards and objectives for protected areas are distinct from status objectives.  Measures to 
meet  protected  area  objectives  may  be  focused  within,  but  not  necessarily  restricted  to,  those 
protected areas. Measures to meet the status objectives are applied, as necessary, over the whole 
groundwater body. 

Article 4(2) of the WFD, states that where more than one objective applies to a water body, the 
most stringent objective shall apply.  Within a protected area the most stringent of the protected 
area  and,  for  example,  the  status  objective  would  apply.    Even  if  it  were  more  stringent,  a 
protected area objective should not apply outside the designated protected area.  

Exemptions  and  derogations  that  apply  to  each  of  the  WFD’s  environmental  objectives, 
including protected areas objectives, will be discussed in the CIS drafting group on Exemptions 
and Environmental Objectives, and clear recommendations will be formulated in this respect in a 
separate CIS Guidance document.  

Article 11 of the WFD requires Member States to establish a programme of measures in order to 
achieve all the Article 4 objectives, including the objectives for protected areas. 

Finally,  it  should  be  mentioned  that  the  new  Groundwater  Directive  mentions  the  need  to 
undertake  research  in  order  to  provide  better  criteria  for  ensuring  groundwater  ecosystem 
quality and protection. This highlights awareness for considering groundwater as an ecosystem, 
while recognising that present knowledge is not sufficient to establish clear protection measures. 
According  to  Recital  20  of  the  directive,  relevant  findings  will  have  to  be  considered  in  the 
context  of  the  implementation  or  revision  of  the  directive,  meaning  that  related  guidance 
documents will also have to be updated. 

2.4  Registers of Protected Areas 

Article  6  of  the  WFD  requires  Member  States  to  establish  a  register  of  protected  areas.  The 
register (or registers) is limited to: 

•  Areas lying within river basin districts…. 
•  designated as requiring special protection under specific Community legislation…. 
•  for the protection of their surface water and groundwater or… 
•  for the conservation of habitats and species directly depending on water. 

These registers should have been completed by 22 December 2004 and must be kept up to date. In 
the case of DWPAs, which have not previously been identified under other legislation, this implies 
that they should have been identified by this date. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 16 
Groundwater in Drinking Protected Areas 

3.  Groundwater Drinking Water Protected Areas 

3.1  Terminology  

Article 7 of the WFD introduces but does not define certain terms. Guidance on these is given 
below: 

•  abstraction of water intended for human consumption 

for  the  purposes  of  this  guidance,  groundwater  taken  from  the  groundwater  body  and 
intended  for  drinking,  cooking,  food  preparation  or  other  domestic  purposes.  In  addition, 
water used in any food-production undertaking for the manufacture, processing, preservation 
or  marketing  of  products  or  substances  intended  for  human  consumption,  unless  the 
competent  national  authorities  are  satisfied  that  the  quality  of  the  water  cannot  affect  the 
wholesomeness of the foodstuff in its finished form.   

Note:  This  definition  is  taken  from  the  Drinking  Water  Directive  (98/83/EC).    It  includes 
water abstracted for public or private drinking water supplies, direct inclusion within 
food (e.g. brewing and canning), but not water intended for indirect uses such as spray 
irrigation.   

•  safeguard zone  

normally,  an  area  within  a  groundwater  body  (designated  as  DWPA)  that  may  be 
significantly smaller than this body, where measures can be focused to protect groundwater 
that  is  abstracted  for  human  consumption  from  deterioration  in  groundwater  quality  (see 
section 3.4). In some circumstances, for example in karstic aquifers, safeguard zones may be 
as  large  as  or  may  extend  beyond  the  boundary  of  a  groundwater  body  (see  further 
discussion  of  safeguard  zones  in  section  3.7).  Safeguard  zones  may  also  cover  the  whole 
territory of a Member State (Recital 15 of Directive 2006/118/EC). 

3.2  Identification and Delineation of DWPAs 

Article 7.1 states that Member States shall identify, within each river basin district: 

“all  bodies  of  water  used  for  the  abstraction  of  groundwater  intended  for  human 
consumption  providing  more  than  10  m3  a  day  as  an  average  or  serving  more  than  50 
persons, and 

those bodies of water intended for such future use”  

Whole groundwater bodies must be so designated under this provision and this is confirmed by 
section 4 of Reference 1.   

Note: As highlighted in section 2.1, this does not mean that the objective under Article 7.3 of the 
WFD  must  be  met  at  all  points  over  a  groundwater  body  or  that  measures  must  be  applied 
equally over the whole body (see sections 3.4- 3.8 of this guidance). 

The wording “10m3 a day as an average” suggests that the whole of the water body should be 
able to supply 10m3/day.  The alternative qualification, to supply more than 50 persons, confirms 
this interpretation (Note: although this wording is similar to that used in the DWD, it is used in a 
different  context).  Allowing  for  variations  in  water  usage  and  size  of  households  across  the 
Community, these limits approximate to the supply of water for potable purposes to between 10 
and 20 households within a groundwater body.  

There are no constraints on the size of groundwater bodies in the WFD - they are management 
units  that  are  delineated  at  the  discretion  of  Member  States,  as  noted  in  Ref.1.  However,  the 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 16 
Groundwater in Drinking Protected Areas 

administrative requirements under the WFD, including reporting, encourage the creation of quite 
large  groundwater  bodies  or  groups  of  groundwater  bodies.  Typically  these  are  many  tens  to 
many hundreds of square kilometres in size. The need to protect drinking water is only one of 
many  potentially  competing  factors  that  may  be  considered  in  the  delineation  of  groundwater 
bodies. 

Look out!   Many groundwater bodies in a Member State may need to 
be  designated  as  WFD  -  DWPAs.    This  does  not  mean  that  it  is 
necessary  to  apply  protection  measures  to  meet  Article  7  objectives 
equally over the entire land area of these WFD – DWPAs.  Safeguard 
zones  may  be  used  to  focus  measures  to  protect  groundwater 
abstracted for human consumption and thereby meet the requirements 
of Article 7.3 and Article 4.1(c).   

Existing  (pre-WFD)  protection  areas  that  have  been  identified  under 
Member  States  legislation  or  guidance  may  be  similar  to  safeguard 
zones and could be used to meet Article 7 objectives. 

The  requirements  to  identify  groundwater  bodies  that  are  “intended  for  such  future  use”  under 
Article  7.1  and  to  compile  a  register  of  such  areas  under  Annex  IV  of  the  WFD,  indicate  that 
Member  States  should  designate  such  bodies  as  a  resource  of  water  intended  for  human 
consumption in the future. At present there may be no such use or the total existing abstraction 
may be less than the limits noted above. If, within the planning horizons of the WFD, such use 
may reasonably be anticipated (based on both the hydrogeological properties of the aquifer and 
the potential use), then the groundwater bodies should be identified as intended for such future 
use. 

3.3  Meeting the requirements of the Drinking Water Directive (DWD)3 

Article 7.2 of the WFD states that “in addition to meeting the objectives of Article 4……Member 
States  shall  ensure  that  under  the  water  treatment  regime  applied,  and  in  accordance  with 
Community legislation, the resulting water will meet the requirements of directive 80/778/EEC 
as amended by Directive 98/83/EC.” 

(Note: in practice Directive 98/83/EC replaces Directive 80/778/EEC). 

This confirms that: 

• 

• 

the Article 4 objectives (that is, status, prevent or limit, implementation of trend reversal 
and other protected area objectives) must be met independently of meeting the Article 7.2 
objective; and 
the  requirements  of  the  Drinking  Water  Directive  (DWD)  must  be  met.  This  includes  a 
general  requirement  to  ensure  water  is  free  from  contamination  that  could  constitute  a 
danger to human health and the requirement to comply with formal DWD standards at the 
point of delivery to consumers (i.e. the tap).   
Note: references to meeting DWD standards in the remainder of this guidance should be 
taken to mean compliance with both of these requirements. 

Not all abstractions of water intended for human consumption may be subject to the DWD. As 
permitted  under  the  DWD,  a  number  of  Member  States  have  chosen  to  exempt  individual 

3 Council Directive 98/83/EC on the quality of water intended for human consumption. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 16 
Groundwater in Drinking Protected Areas 

sources that provide less than 10m3 a day as an average or serving less than 50 persons from this 
Directive.  On this basis, not all abstractions within a DWPA will be required to meet the DWD 
and therefore Article 7.2 of the WFD.   
Note:  this  exemption  of  individual  sources  is  quite  different  in  effect  from  the  application  of 
similar wording in Article 7.1, described above, which defines which water bodies are DWPAs). 

The point of compliance for Article 7.2 is the same as that noted in the DWD, that is, the point at 
which  the  drinking  water  is  used  for  human  consumption.  Under  Community  legislation  the 
quality standards noted in the DWD do not apply to the raw (untreated) water abstracted from 
the  groundwater  body.  However,  Member  States  may  have  their  own  legislation  that  applies 
quality  standards  to  raw  groundwater  in  such  circumstances  and  in  practice  there  are  many 
supplies within the EU where groundwater is abstracted and used as water intended for human 
consumption without purification treatment. 

The requirements of Article 7.2 do not introduce any new objectives for Member States and the 
timetable for meeting the requirements is set out in the Drinking Water Directive.  

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 16 
Groundwater in Drinking Protected Areas 

Figure 1 :  Potential relationship between a groundwater Drinking Water Protected Area 

and a Safeguard Zone. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 16 
Groundwater in Drinking Protected Areas 

3.4  Necessary protection and avoiding deterioration 

Under  Article  7.3  of  the  WFD,  Member  States  shall  ensure  the  necessary  protection  for 
groundwater bodies identified as DWPAs “with the aim of avoiding deterioration in their quality 
in  order  to  reduce  the  level  of  purification  treatment  required  in  the  production  of  drinking 
water. Member States may establish safeguard zones for those bodies of water.” 

In  practice,  avoiding  deterioration  in  the  quality  of  a  groundwater  body  would  not  in  itself 
necessarily result in the reduction in the level of purification treatment that may be required to 
produce  drinking  water.  An  improvement  in  quality  would  be  needed  to  reduce  treatment.  
However, it is clear that there is an intention to avoid deterioration in groundwater quality, as a 
minimum.  Ideally, the protection should be sufficient that, through time, purification treatment 
can be reduced.  The second sentence in Article 7.3 allows Member States, at their discretion, to 
establish safeguard zones within which the necessary protection may be focused.  In a number of 
Member  States  these  are  what  are  commonly  understood  to  be  “drinking  water  protection 
zones”. They are discussed in more detail in section 3.8 and Annex 1. 

When is deterioration significant? 
Benchmark data on existing groundwater quality are needed against which deterioration may be 
assessed. These may be derived from existing data and from the monitoring programmes set up 
under the WFD, as described in section 3.6 below.  As exceedence of a drinking water standard 
for  a  single  contaminant  may  trigger  the  need  for  purification  treatment  it  follows  that  the 
assessment  of  deterioration  should  be  conducted  for  individual  parameters.  A  benchmark  is 
needed for those contaminants that could be at risk of deterioration, against which future trends 
can be assessed. The aim is to prevent deterioration arising from anthropogenic pressures in any 
contaminant that could require additional treatment in order to meet drinking water standards.  

Fig. 2 illustrates a case where treatment is already installed to deal with an existing water quality 
problem  (which  may  arise  from  natural  or  anthropogenic  contamination),  so  that  the  drinking 
water  standard  can  be  met  for  contaminant  1.  This  treatment  could  also  deal  with  a  future 
deterioration in contaminant 2. However, this disguises the fact that there has been a significant 
deterioration in raw water quality. The aim of preventing deterioration has not been met. 

Figure 2: Significant deterioration in groundwater quality at an abstraction source when 

purification treatment is already installed. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 16 
Groundwater in Drinking Protected Areas 

Improvements in quality 

The  consequences  of  failure  to  supply  wholesome  and  clean  water  are  serious  for  both  the 
supplier and the consumer of drinking water. In practice, a small improvement in untreated water 
quality would not necessarily reduce the level of treatment. Once purification treatment has been 
installed,  a  sustained  improvement  in  quality  is  likely  to  be  necessary  to  give  sufficient 
confidence to the supplier (and the consumer) that such treatment is no longer necessary and can 
be decommissioned.   

In Article 11(3)(d) of the WFD it is noted that basic measures in a programme of measures for a 
River Basin District should include: 

“measures to meet the requirements of Article 7, including measures to safeguard water quality 
in  order  to  reduce  the  level  of  purification  treatment  required  for  the  production  of  drinking 
water” 

Whilst  this  clearly  indicates  an  aspiration  to  reduce  the  level  of  treatment,  it  is  not  in  itself  an 
absolute obligation to do so. 

The term “aim of avoiding” in Article 7.3 of the WFD indicates that Member States should use 
their  best  endeavours  to  ensure  the  necessary  protection  to  groundwater.  However,  best 
endeavours may have been taken and yet deterioration in quality due to anthropogenic influences 
cannot be avoided. This may arise where there is a long time lag between the source of pollution 
and any impact at a receptor, as a consequence of slow flow within the subsurface environment.  
The source of pollution may predate the WFD or other legislation requiring its control and this 
source may now have been removed, but there is still residual groundwater pollution. In addition, 
it  may  not  be  technically  feasible  or  it  may  be  disproportionately  expensive  to  remove  the 
pollution in the groundwater. 

In such circumstances it would not be reasonable to expect Member States to undertake further 
measures to protect the drinking water abstraction if all measures that were feasible have been 
taken.  The  installation  of  treatment  or  an  additional  level  of  treatment  may  still  be  needed  to 
ensure the continued supply of drinking water and to meet the requirements of the DWD.     

A  further  option  -  closure  of  the  drinking  water  source  –  should  in  itself  be  considered  as  an 
indicator  that  the  aims  of  Article  7.3  may  not  have  been  met,  but  only  where  there  is 
deterioration in quality due to anthropogenic effects. In many cases closure of a drinking water 
supply may not be feasible as an alternative supply may not be available; purification treatment 
may be unavoidable. 

Necessary protection 
Protective measures may not need to be applied equally over the whole of a groundwater body in 
order to meet the requirements of Article 7.3.  The WFD envisages the use of safeguard zones 
within which measures may be focused for these purposes (section 3.8).  

Member States have total flexibility in terms of how they delineate  and apply safeguard zones 
but  in  principle  these  zones  should  be  risk-based  so  that  any  necessary  measures  are  most 
effective in reducing the impact of human activities on the quality of the abstracted groundwater.  
Vulnerability  mapping  and/or  travel-time  methods  are  already  used in many Member States as 
methods  of  delineating  zones  with  different  levels  of  risk,  where  specific  protection  measures 
may be focused. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 16 
Groundwater in Drinking Protected Areas 

Note:  there  are  proposals  under  discussion  to  introduce  Water  Safety  Plans  under  the  DWD 
which  would  include  integrated  quality  assurance  procedures  from  catchment  to  consumer.  In 
terms of effect, the  proposals are similar to  the  requirements  of  Article  7  of  the  WFD,  but  the 
links should be clarified. 

Look out!   There is a potential link between the identification of DWPAs 
and  in  particular  the  delineation  of  safeguard  zones  and  necessary 
protection  measures  with  the  proposed  Water  Safety  Plans  under  the 
Drinking Water Directive. 

Compliance points 
A  compliance  point  is  needed  in  order  to  assess  whether  the  necessary  protection  has  been 
provided. If this point was at the consumer point of use (the tap) then it would be possible for 
multiple  water  sources  over  a  wide  area  to  be  blended  prior  to  supply,  thus  masking  any 
deterioration in groundwater quality and any inadequate protection measures.  

Equally,  it  would  be  impractical  to  monitor  and  assess  compliance  at  all  points  within  the 
groundwater  body.  As  the  aim  is  to  assess  deterioration  in  the  quality  of  abstracted  water,  the 
compliance point should be close to where groundwater is abstracted and before any purification 
treatment has taken place. A certain amount of blending to even out raw water quality within a 
well  field  may  be  acceptable,  or  unavoidable  given  the  nature  of  the  infrastructure  used  for 
abstraction.  However,  the  mixing  of  water  from  different  well  fields/production  sites  could 
obscure significant and sustained changes in groundwater quality.  

Look  out!  Member  States  should  ensure  that  raw  water  quality 
monitoring  is  representative  and  sufficient  to  ensure  that  significant 
and  sustained  changes  in  groundwater  quality  due  to  anthropogenic 
influences can be detected and acted upon.  Compliance points should 
be set at appropriate locations to detect such changes. 

Application to future abstractions 
Where  there  is  no  existing  use  of  the  groundwater  for  drinking  water  supply  but  future  use  is 
planned,  it  is  impractical  to  assess  whether  or  what  level  of  purification  treatment  is  required 
until  testing  has  been  undertaken  at  the  proposed  point  of  abstraction.  Therefore,  it  is  advised 
that  a  baseline  quality  and  level  of  treatment  needed  to  deal  with  anthropogenic  influences 
should be determined at the time that the proposed drinking water supply is being developed and 
initially  tested.  Compliance  with  the  objective  in  Article  7.3  should  be  assessed  against  this 
baseline. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 16 
Groundwater in Drinking Protected Areas 

Summary interpretation of Article 7.3 requirements 

By  taking  groundwater  protection  measures  that  are  technically  feasible  and  proportionate, 
Member  States  shall  use  their  best  endeavours  to  ensure  that  groundwater  quality  does  not 
deteriorate  at  the  point  of  abstraction  for  drinking  water  supply,  so  that  there  is  no  need  to 
increase the level of purification treatment.   

The risk of deterioration should be assessed for all individual parameters.  If treatment has been 
installed for one parameter, other parameters that can also be dealt with by that treatment should 
not deteriorate to the point where treatment for these is also necessary.   

Purification  treatment  may  be  in  place  to  deal  with  poor  natural  quality  and  quality  changes 
brought  about  by  human  activities.    Member  States  should  provide  protection  to  groundwater 
with the aim of giving sufficient confidence to suppliers (and consumers) of drinking water that 
the  level  of  purification  treatment  needed  to  deal  with  anthropogenically  induced  changes  in 
groundwater quality can be reduced through time and ideally eliminated altogether.  This may 
be achieved by groundwater protection measures (which may be focused using safeguard zones) 
and  the  monitoring  of  raw  groundwater  quality  to  demonstrate  significant  and  sustained 
improvements (trends). 

3.5  Timescales for compliance 

As noted earlier, DWPAs should have been identified and placed on a register by 22 December 
2004.  

There are no explicit timescales in Article 7.3 of the WFD to indicate the starting point at which 
any  deterioration  in  groundwater  quality  should  be  assessed  and  by  when  the  necessary 
protection should be in place.   

Where sufficient existing groundwater quality monitoring data are available to define a baseline 
quality  from  which  deterioration  may  be  assessed,  it  is  recommended  that  the  starting  point 
should  be  based  on  these  data,  with  the  aim  of  preventing  any  further  deterioration  in  quality 
from  this  baseline.  However,  where  existing  data  are  not  sufficient  then  assessment  may  wait 
until sufficient data from the WFD monitoring programmes are available.  

In practice, it may take some time to collect sufficient data to establish both a coherent picture of 
the natural background water quality over the groundwater body and the trends in quality at the 
points where water is abstracted for human consumption. To reliably determine a deterioration in 
untreated water quality from the established starting point (in effect a significant and sustained 
adverse trend) may take several years.  

The above does not imply that the necessary protection for DWPAs and safeguard zones should 
not  be  in  place  at  an  early  stage.  In  most  instances  protective  measures  will  take  the  form  of 
measures  to  prevent  or  limit  the  inputs  of  contaminants  to  groundwater.  The  existing 
Groundwater Directive (80/68/EEC) along with the new Groundwater Directive (2006/118/EC) 
and other Community legislation that contributes to groundwater protection are in force. Member 
States should already have substantial groundwater protection programmes in place to meet these 
requirements;  these  should  be  maintained  and  extended  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  WFD 
and of the GWD.  Any necessary additional measures should be drawn up and incorporated in 
the  draft  River  Basin  District  plans  by  December  2008  and  fully  implemented  by  December 
2012, in accordance with Articles 11 and 13 of the WFD. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 16 
Groundwater in Drinking Protected Areas 

Look  out!      Existing  groundwater  protection  programmes  should  be 
maintained with the aim of preventing deterioration in groundwater 
quality  whilst  the  collection  of  sufficient  monitoring  data  and  the 
assessments of baseline quality and trends are being conducted. 

3.6  Monitoring and assessment 

It is essential that the monitoring for DWPAs is integrated with the operational and surveillance 
groundwater monitoring programmes that are required under Annex V of the WFD.  Details of 
the  monitoring  requirements  for  DWPAs  are  given  in  the  Groundwater  Monitoring  Guidance2.  
However, some key issues are noted below. 

Article 7.1 of the WFD states that: 
“Member  States  shall  monitor,  in  accordance  with  Annex  V,  those  bodies  of  water  which 
according to Annex V, provide more than 100 m3 a day as an average.” 
The 100 m3 a day threshold should be interpreted as the sum of all the abstractions for human 
consumption over the entire groundwater body.  

Article  7.2  states  that  the  DWD  objectives  must  be  met  for  abstracted  water  to  be  used  for 
human consumption.  To do this the range of parameters that are assessed under this Directive 
may  need  to  be  taken  into  account,  to  assess  whether  there  is  a  risk  of  deterioration  in  these 
parameters. 

Via  references  to  and  the  definitions  of  “pollutants”  and  “pollution”,  most  of  the  WFD’s 
objectives apply only to substances, which excludes biological parameters. However, Article 7.3 
does  not  make  reference  to  pollutants  and  instead  refers  to  “quality”  (Note:  for  this  reason 
“contaminants”  is  used  in  this  text,  rather  than  “pollutants”,  and  this  includes  microbiological 
parameters and both chemical and radioactive substances). 

Member States may need to consider whether the additional parameters noted in the DWD need 
to  be  monitored  in  untreated  water,  taking  into  account  any  risk  of  deterioration  in  these 
parameters.   

New contaminants may be present that have no formal drinking water standard, but may affect 
the use of the groundwater for human consumption.  Additional monitoring and assessment may 
then be needed, where a risk has been identified. 

Where  there  is  a  risk  from  anthropogenic  sources  of  contamination,  the  parameters  that  are 
monitored  in  treated  water  should  also  be  monitored  in  the  untreated  groundwater  at  the 
abstraction point. In principle, this may include those chemical, radiological and microbiological 
parameters monitored under the DWD.  

The  monitoring  programme  for  DWPAs  does  not  necessarily  require  the  same  intensity  of 
monitoring that is required by the DWD. It is recommended that, for those abstractions that are 
subject to the DWD, there should be monitoring of untreated groundwater for all the parameters 
noted in the DWD at least once every six years (the planning cycle of the WFD). For parameters 
where there is a risk of deterioration, monitoring should be more frequent and in accordance with 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 16 
Groundwater in Drinking Protected Areas 

recommendations  expresses  in  the  Groundwater  Monitoring  Guidance2.  Abstractions  may  be 
grouped for these purposes, provided that the monitoring is representative.   

In  determining  the  scope  and  frequency  of  any  necessary  monitoring,  consideration  should  be 
given to the likely risks of contamination, any actual impacts on groundwater and surface waters 
from  human  activity,  and  the  hydrogeological  characteristics  of  the  groundwater  body2.  For 
example,  for  a  group  of  abstractions  it  may  be  appropriate  to  monitor  one  abstraction  that  is 
representative of the whole group and also the abstraction that is most at risk. 

3.7  Assessment of the need for and level of purification treatment 

Purification treatment to meet the DWD or any other requirements for human consumption may 
be  installed  at  a  drinking  water  source  to  deal  with  both  contamination  by  naturally  occurring 
substances and anthropogenic impacts.   

In practice it may be difficult to attribute a current level of treatment to a particular contaminant 
and  then  assess  whether  the  level  of  treatment  has  increased  due  solely  to  the  anthropogenic 
component  of  this  contaminant.  This  will  be  particularly  the  case  where  the  substance  is 
commonplace  in  the  natural  environment  (e.g.  chloride,  sulphate,  arsenic).  Treatment  systems 
are also complex to assess. 

Given  the  above  and  the  emphasis  in  Article  7.3  on  avoiding  deterioration  in  groundwater 
quality, Member States are advised that they should focus on whether there have been significant 
and  sustained  changes  in  untreated  groundwater  quality  at  the  abstraction  point,  as  determined 
from monitoring programmes. If there are no such changes it is a reasonable assumption that no 
changes in treatment level are needed. 

If there are significant and sustained trends and treatment is already installed, in most cases any 
further deterioration will have implications through time for the level of treatment (see below).  
Where  drinking  water  standards  are  not  yet  exceeded  and  treatment  is  not  yet  installed,  the 
potential future deterioration and its implications for treatment should be assessed. 

Note: in this context a significant change in untreated groundwater quality would be a change in 
an  individual  parameter  that  would,  now  or  in  the  foreseeable  future  (e.g.  one  or  two  WFD 
planning  cycles)  result  in  the  need  for  purification  treatment  in  order  to  meet  drinking  water 
standards.  

Only  if  there  is  evidence  of  significant  changes  in  the  untreated  water  quality  that  can  be 
attributed  to  an  anthropogenic  impact  should  the  impact  on  the  level  of  treatment  at  the 
abstraction need to be assessed.  In this way the collection and assessment of additional data can 
be minimised. 

In assessing changes in the “level” of purification treatment, knowledge of the treatment process 
would be required (this may include which parameters it was installed to treat, to what extent, 
and the use of consumable materials such as chemicals).  

It  is  difficult  to  give  firm  guidance  on  the  issue  of  what  constitutes  a  change  in  the  level  of 
treatment,  but  Member  States  are  encouraged  to  take  into  account  the  following  factors,  on  a 
case-by-case basis: 

•  The timescale over which the potential increased treatment is necessary – is it a temporary 

or long- term increase? 

•  What is the overall trend in the use of treatment at the site? 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 16 
Groundwater in Drinking Protected Areas 

Is new equipment required? 

• 
•  Are  any  changes  in  equipment  or  chemicals  aimed  at  increased  or  simply  more  efficient 
treatment?    A  change  in  treatment  process  may  reflect  changes  in  technology  and  not  an 
increased level of treatment as such. 
If blending of different sources takes place, what is the purpose?   Is this an indicator that 
there is a significant and sustained change in raw water quality within the DWPA? 

• 

Information  on  the  disruption  to,  closure  and  abandonment  of  existing  drinking  water  supplies 
due  to  anthropogenic  contamination  should  be  collected  so  that  such  evidence  can  be  used  to 
provide  a  back  up  to  the  monitoring  system,  which  despite  best  endeavours,  may  not  always 
detect  contamination  incidents.  These  data  may  also  be  used  to  assess  whether  any  necessary 
protection measures are being effective. 

It should be noted that changes in groundwater quality may be induced not only directly by the 
release  of  pollutants  but  also  by  the  effects  of  abstraction.    These  effects  should  also  be  taken 
into account.  

3.8  Safeguard Zones 

As noted above, Article 7.3 indicates that Member States may establish safeguard zones to assist 
in meeting the requirement to ensure the necessary protection of DWPAs. The establishment of 
such zones is thus at the discretion of Member States.  

Safeguard  zones  can  be  used  as  a  practical  means  of  focusing  protection  measures  for  the 
abstraction  of  water  for  human  consumption.  Given  the  size  and  extent  of  most  groundwater 
bodies this option is recommended so that, where appropriate, specific protection measures can 
be  directed  to  give  the  greatest  effect  –  in  this  case  to  protect  the  groundwater  catchments 
(capture  zones)  for  those  points  (sources)  where  groundwater  is  abstracted  for  human 
consumption.   

It  follows  therefore  that  safeguard  zones  could  in  many  cases  be  significantly  smaller  than 
groundwater bodies and that there could be a number of such zones within a groundwater body.  
However, in some circumstances, such as karstic aquifers, safeguard zones may need to be quite 
large, reflecting rapid flow and extreme groundwater vulnerability.  Safeguard zones may even 
need to be extended beyond the boundaries of the groundwater body and also include associated 
“upstream” surface water bodies, reflecting the capture zones of the drinking water abstractions. 
Finally,  Member  States  may  decide  to  establish  safeguard  zones  covering  the  whole  of  their 
territory in order to protect drinking water supplies (Recital 15 of Directive 2006/118/EC). 

The size of a safeguard zone could therefore vary according to: 

•  hydrogeological  properties  of  the  aquifer.    For  example,  within  a  highly  porous  aquifer  the 
capture  zone  for  an  abstraction  may  be  relatively  small.  Within  a  low  porosity  aquifer  the 
capture zone may be extensive; 

•  the size of the abstraction for human consumption; 

•  the  type  of  pollutant  and  the  sources  of  contamination  for  which  protection  measures  are 
necessary.  In  principle,  larger  safeguard  zones  may  be  needed  for  persistent  contaminants 
arising  from  extensive  diffuse  sources,  in  comparison  with  readily  attenuated  contaminants 
arising from small point sources; 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 16 
Groundwater in Drinking Protected Areas 

•  whether the safeguard zone was based on a time of travel to the abstraction or the extent of 
the  capture  zone.  In  principle,  capture  zones  are  more  appropriate  for  focusing  measures  to 
deal  with  persistent  contaminants,  whereas  time  of  travel  zones  are  more  appropriate  for 
readily attenuated contaminants. 

•  the vulnerability of aquifers. For example, where there is a low permeability cover close to the 
abstraction,  the  capture  zone  may  be  extensive  and  the  highest  risk  areas  may  be  some 
distance  from  the  abstraction,  where  the  vulnerability  to  contamination  from  the  surface  is 
higher. 

Many Member States already use groundwater protection zones for a variety of purposes, based 
on the above principles. Case studies that illustrate their delineation and use are given in Annex 
1.  Most  schemes  focus  on  abstraction  points  that  are  used  for  drinking  water  and  in  particular 
those  sources  where  the  water  supplied  to  consumers  is  subject  to  the  DWD.  They  could  be 
readily adapted for the purposes of delineating safeguard zones for the purposes of Article 7.3 of 
the WFD. Highly fissured or karst areas may need additional consideration and special methods 
when delineating safeguard zones. 

Particularly  where  abstractions  are  very  small  (for  example,  for  supply 
isolated 
dwellings/single properties), the location and maintenance of records of all such supplies may be 
difficult  and  site-specific  protection  measures  may  not  be  practical.  Equally,  the  provision  of 
groundwater  protection  measures  over  a  whole  groundwater  body  may  be  unnecessarily 
restrictive.  For  example,  the  imposition  of  precautionary  measures  for  a  readily  attenuated 
contaminant  over  the  entire  groundwater  body  may  prevent  many  commonplace  human 
activities.  This  may  be  unnecessary  to  maintain  the  quality  of  water  abstracted  for  human 
consumption.   

to 

A  risk-based  approach  to  the  delineation  of  safeguard  zones  is  suggested  for  use  by  Member 
States  to  give  the  most  cost-effective  protection  to  abstractions  for  human  consumption  and  to 
highlight  to  stakeholders  that  groundwater  protection  is  particularly  important  in  areas  where 
groundwater  is  exploited for  such use. An example  of  such  a  scheme  is  given  in  Table  1.  The 
aim  is  to  relate  safeguard  zone  delineation  to  both  the  presence  and  type  of  abstractions  for 
human consumption and the risk to these abstractions from human activities. 

References 

1.  Common Implementation Strategy for the WFD – Identification of water bodies: horizontal 

guidance, CIS Guidance Document No. 2,  January 2003. 

2.  Common Implementation Strategy for the WFD – Guidance on Groundwater Monitoring, CIS 

Guidance Document No. 15, December 2006. 

3.  Protecting Groundwater for Health.  Managing the Quality of Drinking Water Sources.  

WHO/IWA publication.  2006.

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 16 
Groundwater in Drinking Protected Areas 

Table 1: Example of a scheme to delineate safeguard zones around individual or groups of 
abstractions for the purposes of Article 7.3 of the WFD 

Type 1 

 Low Risk  

General 
protection 

Anthropogenic 
Pressures 

Insignificant 
e.g. designated not at 
risk during 
characterisation, low 
density of population 
and human activity in 
general. 

Type 2  

Moderate 

Moderate Risk 

Precautionary 
Protection 

e.g. WFD 
characterisation has 
identified risks but no 
evidence of declining  
groundwater quality 

Type 3  

High 

High Risk 

Specific 
protection 

e.g. evidence of 
deteriorating water 
quality  

Monitoring 

Zones and measures 

No additional strategic 
monitoring. 

(WFD operational and 
surveillance monitoring 
only). 

Minimum arbitrary zones.  
e.g. precautionary 
measures such as codes of 
practice applied within 
50m radius around 
abstraction. 

Monitoring of abstraction 
sources and possible 
additional precautionary 
monitoring targeted on 
identified risks. 

Specific monitoring in 
safeguard zone (both 
abstraction and 
groundwater within zone).  
Monitoring to be designed 
to determine effectiveness 
of measures. 

Consider establishing 
time of travel and/or 
capture zones.   

Appropriate precautionary 
measures focused on 
identified risks. 

Site–specific time of 
travel and/or capture 
zones recommended.  

Measures within these 
specifically to address 
sources of contamination. 

Note:  in all cases the size of the abstraction and the risks within the capture/time of travel zone to this 

abstraction should be taken into account.  This should include a consideration of the 
vulnerability of the aquifer within the zone. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 16 
Groundwater in Drinking Protected Areas 

Annex 1: Case studies 

CASE STUDY – ITALY (Emilia Romagna Region) 

Groundwater protected areas identification and measures enforcement  

Type of case study: Implementation of existing regulations in Italy  

Web-Links:  
http://www.camera.it/parlam/leggi/deleghe/testi/99152dl.htm  
http://www.sogesid.it/allegati/accordo_conferenza_permanente_12_12_2002.pdf 

Objective of case study: drinking water quality protection and improvement 

WFD focus: Protection of groundwater for human consumption. 

Specific contributions: Safeguard zone and protected area definition  
Characterisation 
Italian law (D.Lgs. 152/99, Art.21, paragraph 1) states that, in order to protect and improve the quality 
of groundwater resources intended for human consumption, Regions (Italian administrative units) must 
identify safeguard zones, within which measures and restrictions can be enforced in order to assure the 
protection of groundwaters. 

Safeguard  zones  are  divided  into:  1.  “absolute  guardianship  zone”  (an  area  of  at  least  10  m  radius 
immediately  surrounding  the  abstraction  point);    2.  “respect  zone”  (the  territory  surrounding  the 
absolute guardianship zone, identified by a travel time of 180 to 365 days, depending on vulnerability 
and hazard conditions, or at least with a radius of 200 m from the abstraction point); and  3. ”protection 
zones”,  identified  within  the  groundwater  recharge  areas.  The  protection  zone  is  based  on  
hydrogeological, hydrochemical and hydrological analysis.  Vulnerability to pollution is also taken into 
account.  Specifically, spring protection zones correspond to the entire recharge area. 
The “absolute guardianship zone” and the “respect  zone” have already been delineated in  most cases, 
while  Regions  are  establishing  protected  areas.  In  a  few  cases  protected  areas  have  been  already 
identified  and  protection  measures  are  in  force.    Emilia  Romagna  Region  has  identified  the  main 
groundwater  protected  areas  consisting  of  over  2850  km2  out  of  the  22,000  km2  (13%)  of  the  entire 
administrative territory, subdivided into 4 sub-zones with different characteristics (Fig.1). 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 16 
Groundwater in Drinking Protected Areas 

Figure 1: Drinking water protected areas in Emilia Romagna.  

The Po river alluvial plain extends in the northern part of the Emilia Romagna region over 12,000 km². 
Three different groundwater bodies have been recognised in this plain, among which the “Apennine 
river alluvial fans” could be considered as the priority groundwater bodies for chemical and quantitative 
features.  Recharge areas are located along the southern margin, where the aquifers are unconfined; 
towards the north they become multilayered and confined (Fig.2).  

Drinking water protected areas have been identified in the recharge areas as shown in Fig.1 and in the 
schematic cross section in Fig. 2.  Protection areas extend beyond the boundaries of the groundwater 
body in order to include the impervious basins upstream of the fans that can indirectly contribute to the 
recharge of the aquifers (zone C in Fig.1). 

Protection measures applied  
The  protection  measures,  organised  in  a  Regional  Plan,  vary  depending  on  the  characteristics  of  the 
zones  of  the  protected  areas  (A,  B,  C,  D  in  Fig.1).  They  concern  agriculture  and  cattle  breeding 
activities  (manure  spreading,  fertilisers  and  pesticides  use),  quarrying  activities,  urbanisation  (sewage 
networks,  waterproofing),  industrial  activities  (also  in  relation  to  quantitative  aspects)  and  landfill 
location.  Hazardous activities in relation to water quality must be specifically authorised.  Measures and 
rules  have  been  discussed  and  modified  through  a  participatory  process  in  which  public  and  private 
stakeholders  (water  companies,  agriculture  associations,  industry  representatives,  environmental 
organisations and others) have been involved. 

Pollution indicators (e.g. NO3) have been selected and monitoring activities have been undertaken in the 
protected  areas  in  order  to  check  the  effectiveness  of  the  adopted  measures.  The  possibility  of 
introducing  corrective  actions  during  the  implementation  of  the  Plan  has  been  foreseen.  Additional 
drinking  water  protected  areas  are  being  identified  in  the  Region  by  other  administrative  boards  for 
minor groundwater bodies. 

Experiences gained – Conclusions - Recommendations 
The large involvement of stakeholders in the definition of measures and restrictions to be adopted has 
been a fundamental part in the implementation of protected areas, leading to the general acceptance of 
the plan. 

Outlook - Accessibility of results 
http://www.regione.emilia-romagna.it/geologia/ (Italian and English language) 
http://www.ermesambiente.it/PianoTutelaAcque/ (Italian language)  

Next steps: 
Other Regions in Italy are currently implementing the national regulations and are delineating areas for 
the  protection  of  groundwater  for  human  consumption.  Measures  to  be  applied  and  delineation 
procedures  are  in  fact  entrusted  to  Regions,  whereas  the  general  criteria  and  the  objectives  are 
established by the national legislation. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Final Draft –  April 2007 

Figure 2: Location map and schematic cross section of the aquifers showing the protected areas for the “Apennine river 

alluvial fan” groundwater body. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 Final Draft –  April 2007 

CASE STUDY : PORTUGAL   Source Protection Zones and measures around a 
public water-supply in Golegã, 

Type of study: Groundwater protection zone identification and enforcement of measures. 

Web-Link: http://snirh.inag.pt/snirh.php?main_id=1&item=3.4&objlink=&objrede= 

Objective  of  case  study  -  to  indicate  how  comply  the  Portuguese  legislation  is  used  in 
drinking water quality protection and groundwater supply management at two wells in Golegã 

WFD focus : Protection of groundwater for human consumption, groundwater monitoring 

Specific contributions : groundwater quality assurance, protection zones 
Characterisation 
Two wells, with the national code 341/240 (JK1) and 341/241 (JK2), are in a porous aquifer 
system  called  “Bacia  do  Tejo-Sado  /  Margem  Direita”.  This  aquifer  system  is  confined  and 
composed of alternating sandstones and clays.  The JK1 well is 226.5 m in depth and the JK2 
well is 230.5 m in depth. 

local 

that, 

plume 

spread, 

groundwater 

to  account 

The 
flow 
direction is from NNW to SSE.  This 
for  
means 
possible 
the 
intermediate  and  outer  protection 
zones  will  have  an  elliptic  shape 
the  opposite 
developed  along 
direction  to  the  groundwater  flow. 
The  inner  zone  has  a  polygonal 
shape. 

In  this  case,  a  simple  method 
(Jacobs  and  Bear)  was  used  to 
define the source protection areas, 
mainly  the  intermediate  and  outer 
areas.  It  is  necessary  to  know  the 
transmissivity  (T),  pumping  rate 
(Q),  residence  time  (t)  (t=50  days 
for  the 
intermediate  zone  and 
t=3500  days  for  the  outer  zone), 
saturated  thickness  (b),  effective 
porosity 
hydraulic 
gradient  (i).  The  travel  time(tR)  is 
calculated by the formula:  

(me) 

and 

t

R

=

222
iT
Qbm
e

t

Bragança

!(

Viana do Castelo

!(

!(

Braga

Vila Real

!(

Porto

!(

Aveiro

!(

Viseu

!(

Guarda

!(

Coimbra

!(

Leiria

!(

Castelo Branco

!(

341/240

341/241

!(!(

!(

Santarém

!(

Portalegre

Lisboa

!(

Setúbal

!(

Évora

!(

Beja

!(

Faro

!(

120

km

Legend

!( Wells for public water-supply
!( Main cities
Main rivers

Groundwater body

T1 - Bacia do Tejo-Sado / Margem
di

i

0

15

30

60

90

The inner zone was already defined by the groundwater supply management authority, with a 
polygonal  shape.    It  was  decided  to  maintain  this  because  it  was  proven  that  the  area  is 
sufficient to protect the wells. 

The three source protection zones are defined as shown by the sketch below: The red line is 
the  inner  protection  zone;  in  orange  the  intermediate  zone  and  the  green  line,  the  outer 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Final Draft –  April 2007 

zone.  The  areas  are,  for  JK1,  the  inner  zone:  263  m2,  intermediate  zone:  0,01  km2,  outer 
zone: 0,34 km2; JK2, the inner zone: 780 m2, intermediate zone: 0,06 km2, outer zone: 0,95 
km2. 

After  the  zones  were  defined,  it  was  necessary  to  establish  which  activities  or  facilities, 
within the different protection zones, were to be restricted, in order to avoid pollution. 

For each protection zone, the Portuguese legislation states in its 6th article which activities or 
facilities  are  forbidden  or  restricted.  Accordingly,  in  the  inner  zone  all  the  activities  or 
facilities are forbidden except those meant to preserve the well. A fence must be installed. In 
the  intermediate  zone,  for  example,  septic  tanks,  waste  scrapyards  and  aeronautic 
installations  are  forbidden.  The  use  of  persistent  and  mobile  pesticides,  roads,  railways,
wastewater  treatment  plants  (WWTPs),  cemeteries,  may  occur  within  this  protection  zone 
only  if  its  proven  that  they  consist  of  no  threat  of  pollution  to  groundwater.  For  the  outer 
zone,  septic  tanks,  landfills  and  chemical  industries  are  forbidden.  The  lakes  and  the  new 
wells, for instance, are conditioned. 

These two wells belong to the national surveillance monitoring programme.  Samples of raw 
water are taken twice per year. 48 different parameters are monitored. 
Experiences gained - Conclusions - Recommendations  
Groundwater  is  a  very  important  natural  resource  in  Portugal,  accounting  for  nearly  60%  of 
drinking  water  supplies.  Protection  of  both  quality  and  quantity  is  a  priority.  One  of  the 
strategies  used  in  groundwater  protection  for  public  water  supply  is  the  definition  of  source 
protection  zones.  This  framework  is  very  important  and  needs  to  be  integrated  with 
monitoring programmes and other preventive practices to maintain good groundwater quality. 
Outlook - Next steps – Accessibility of results 
Data are available at http://snirh.inag.pt/snirh.php?main_id=2&item=1.1&objlink=&objrede= 
(Portuguese language) 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Final Draft –  April 2007 

CASE STUDY – HUNGARY/ROUMANIA      Maros/Mureş transboundary 
groundwater bodies -  a multi-layered aquifer system 

Background information 

Title/Name of case study:   Maros/Mureş alluvial fan group of transboundary groundwater bodies -  
a multi-layered porous aquifer system 

Type of case study: Example of groundwater protection in transboundary groundwater bodies between 
Hungary and Romania (sub-region – Maros/Mures alluvial plain : central part of the Western Plain in 
Romania and south-eastern part of the Great Hungarian Plain). 

Web-Link: www.euvki.hu, www.inhga.ro,  www.icpdr.org 

Background information: 

The  Mureş/Maros  alluvial  fan  group  of  groundwater  bodies  is  designated  as  important  transboundary 
groundwater body in the Danube River Basin. The alluvial fan of the Maros/Mures River, that has been 
depositing since the Miocene age, lies along both sides of the Hungarian-Romanian border. 

It is an important drinking water resource in both countries. Some of the drinking water supplies are facing 
considerable quality problems due to the naturally high arsenic, iron, manganese and ammonium content 
of  the  water,  especially  on  the  Hungarian  side.  The  upper  water  body  in  Romania  and  the  shallow 
groundwater in Hungary are vulnerable to pollutants originating at the surface. 

WFD focus: Drinking water safeguard zones, protected areas, transboundary water body. 

Specific contributions: Safeguard zone delineation, protection of drinking water sources. 

Characterisation: 

The  basin  encompassing  the  south-eastern  part  of  the  Great  Hungarian  Plain  is  in-filled  with  more  than 
2000 m of sedimentary deposits of different ages. The Hungarian approach for delineating water bodies 
separates the multi-layered aquifer system vertically based on temperature differences (HU 30 ºC, RO 23 
30  ºC  isotherm).  Thus  the  cold  part  of  the  Upper-Pannonian  and  the  Pleistocene  layers  are  vertically 
unified in Hungary, but divided horizontally with the characteristic downward and transitional flow system 
(Figure 1 - p.2.13.1) separated from the upward one (p.2.13.2). 

On  the  Romanian  side,  three  water  bodies  are  delineated  based  on  the  dividing  horizon  of  Upper- 
Pleistocene  -  Holocene  (MU20)  and  Lower-Pleistocene  -  Middle  Pleistocene  (MU22)  age  of  the  strata. 
The MU20 groundwater body is developed to 30 m depth, while the MU22 lies between 30 - 150 m depth 
with the maximum thickness at the border. Beneath the MU22 groundwater body, the Arad-Oradea-Satu 
Mare groundwater body (CR08) is of Upper Pannonian age, with cold water, developed between 150-400 
m  depth.  This  GWB  is  a  confined,  porous-permeable  type  and  consists  of  clays  and  marls,  with  thin 
interlayers of sands, argillaceous sands, rarely pebbles or sandstones.  This body has the most development 
in the Crişuri River Basin and was assigned for management to the Crişuri Water Directorate. 

The  water  bodies  can  be  lithologically  characterised  by  pebbles,  sands  and  clayey  interlayers,  but  the 
upper and eastern part is significantly coarser with higher permeability. The covering layer consists mainly 
of 3-5 m of sandy silt and clay. 

The upper aquifer is unconfined, while the lower ones are confined. The water table is only 2-4 m below 
the  surface  in  Hungary.  The  main  direction  of  the  groundwater  flow  is  from  the  recharge  area  to  the 
discharge  areas,  thus  generally  from  the  East-South-East  to  the  West-North-West.  Under  natural 
conditions  (without  groundwater  abstraction)  the  main  recharge  area  is  in  Romania,  thus  an  important 
element of the water regime of the Hungarian part is the lateral flow across the border. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 Final Draft –  April 2007 

Figure 1 : Cross section through Maros/Mureş alluvial fan group 

Experiences gained - Conclusions - Recommendations  

In Hungary, the vast majority of drinking water supply (96%) relies on subsurface water resources.  The 
law requires protection of all drinking water sources, regardless of whether they are actually exploited or 
designated  for  future  use.  The  safeguard  zone  delineation  methodology  is  based  on  the  Governmental 
Decree  123/1997.  (VII.18.).  The  boundaries  of  the  safeguard  zones  have  to  be  determined  by  the 
hydrological  and  hydrogeological  conditions,  with  the  dimensions  of  the  protective  zones  based  on  the 
travel time concept. The travel times used areas follows: 20 days for the inner zone, half year for the outer 
zone, and 5 and 50 years for hydrogeological protective zones. These safeguard zone are established where 
the zones intersect the terrain. 

The aim of water management is to delineate safeguard zones and evaluate a tailor-made plan of land use 
restriction  and  other  necessary  measures  for  each  vulnerable  drinking  water  source.  As  a  result  of  a 
countrywide  investigation,  all  drinking  water  sources  were  categorised  into  naturally  protected  and 
vulnerable groups. A source is considered vulnerable when pollution could reach it in less than 50 years. 
The  hydrogeological  model  is  checked  by  the  chemical  survey  of  the  groundwater  especially  from 
pollutants  of human  origin,  e.g.  nitrate,  pesticides,  chlorinated  hydrocarbons,  etc.  In  addition  the  tritium 
(3H)  content  is  measured.  If  tritium  is  detected,  the  age  of  water  is  younger  than  50  years,  thus  the 
groundwater is vulnerable. 

In  Romania,  the  delineation  of  sanitary  protection  areas  and  hydrogeological  protection  zones  are  made 
according to the Governmental Decision nr. 930/2005. The sanitary protection areas take into account a 20 
days travel time of a supposed polluted water particle from the area limit up to the water catchment point, 
in  case  of  severe  regime  area,  and  a  50  days  travel  time,  in  the  case  of  a  restriction  regime  area.  The 
hydrogeological protection zone delineation takes into account geological and geomorphological criteria.  

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Final Draft –  April 2007 

These methods meet the requirements of Article 6 and 7 of WFD. For vulnerable sources, safeguard zones 
have  to  be  established  to  ensure  the  necessary  protection  of  drinking  water  sources.  The  drinking  water 
protected  area  is  the  entire  territory  of  all  the  different  safeguard  zones.  Measures  are  not  necessary  to 
safeguard the naturally protected resources (deep aquifers), thus there is no protected area. 

The monitoring of drinking water protected area is based on wells (abstraction and monitoring). 

In this region, about 63 million m3 of drinking water is abstracted yearly from groundwater. Half of the 
drinking  water  resources  are  vulnerable.  Drinking  water  protection  areas  cover  about  2%  of  the  entire 
(4038 km2) territory of the Maros/Mureş alluvial fan. 

Outlook - Accessibility of results 

The  results  of  the  investigations  of  each  individual  water  works  are  accessible  at  the  regional 
environmental  and  water  directorates  (in  Hungarian  only).  In  Romania  these  data  are  accessible  at  the 
National Institute of Hydrology and Water Management and at the Mureş Water Directorate. 

Next steps 

In  both  counties  a  national  drinking  water  source  protection  program  is  under  implementation.  The 
delineation process will be finished in 2009. 

According  to  the  new  bilateral  agreement  signed  in  2005,  the  Maros/Mureş  alluvial  cone  will  be  the 
subject  of  joint  hydrogeological  modelling  to  evaluate  the  water  regime  to  provide  a  sound  basis  for 
integrated groundwater management. Bilateral monitoring activity is under negotiation. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Final Draft –  April 2007 

CASE STUDY – GERMANY (Lingen area)   Delineation and use of safeguard zones  
Type of case study: Redefinition of safeguard zones around an abstraction well field  

Objective of case study: Drinking water quality protection and improvement 

WFD focus: Protection of groundwater for human consumption. 

Specific contributions: Safeguard zone and protected area definition  
Description 
The city of Lingen (population 57,000) is located on the river Ems, 30 km from the Dutch border, 
between 20 and 65 m above sea level.  A substantial part of the city’s drinking water requirements 
comes from two of its own water works. These have a legal water extraction right of 2.5 Mm³ per year.  
The older is relatively close to the city centre and is surrounded by residential housing.  Despite the land 
use and the relatively high vulnerability of the aquifer, abstracted groundwater quality is very good. 
Except for the removal of iron no further purification treatment is required to guarantee the quality of 
the drinking water.  The main reason for this is that the catchment area has been protected for over 30 
years through the establishment of drinking water safeguard zones.   

In 2003, extensive hydrogeological investigations were initiated to review and adjust the existing 
safeguard zones. The investigations resulted in the establishment and calibration of a three-dimensional 
transient groundwater flow and transport model. Utilizing the model as a management tool, the 
objective was to establish new safeguard zones based on the guideline DVGW W101 used by the 
German authorities.  According to these guidelines three safeguard zones have to be established: 

•  Zone I: 
•  Zone II: 
•  Zone III:  Wider Safeguard Zone 

within direct vicinity of the extraction wells (10 m in diameter) 
Closer Safeguard Zone (50 days travel time) 

The geology of Lingen consists of Quaternary sands up to 30m thick, intercalated with layers of silt and 
clay. This leads to a separation into two aquifers which are more or less independent, though there are 
local hydraulic windows that allow limited connections between them. The lower aquifer is used as the 
source for the drinking water wells.  

South-east of Lingen the catchment area is delineated by a ridge of glacial deposits, typical of the 
lowlands of northern Germany (Fig. 2).  Groundwater flows from this ridge in a north-westerly direction 
towards the extraction wells (Fig. 1).  A detailed 3D finite element groundwater flow model was 
established for the wider catchment.  

Surface water flow measurements indicate a degree of interaction between the surface water bodies and 
the underlying aquifer. The model therefore also incorporates leakage from the smaller brooks and 
creeks into the aquifer. 

After successful calibration of the model, the hydrogeological delineation of the catchment area could 
be determined through various simulations (Fig. 3).  This was easily undertaken through a visualization 
of the simulated flow pattern (Fig. 4).   

The demarcation line for the Closer Safeguard Zone II was determined utilizing an inverse numerical 
transport model approach (Fig. 5).  Here the migration of a virtual tracer is simulated against the flow 
direction over a time period of 50 days.  The outer boundary, from which – with a 95% probability – the 
tracer can reach the abstraction wells within the given time interval, serves as an indication for the 
definition of the Closer Safeguard Zone II.   

Protection measures applied  
The  entire  protected  area  is  finally  mapped  out  based  on  the  hydrologic  catchment  area  utilizing 
landmarks,  roads  and  property  boundaries  (Fig.  6).    The  individually  defined  usage  restrictions  in 
relation to e.g. building work, commercial and agricultural usage are based on the local conditions and 
are captured as part of the management guidelines for the specific water protection area. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 Final Draft –  April 2007 

Figure 1 : Observed water table with hydrological delineation of the catchment area 

Figure 2 : Hydrogeological cross-section of the Lingen area 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Final Draft –  April 2007 

Figure 3 : Simulated piezometric heads based upon an abstraction of 1.5Mm3 per year 

Figure 4 : Visualisation of the simulated flow pattern 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Final Draft –  April 2007 

Figure 5 : Inverse transport modelling for evaluation of Safeguard Zone II (50 days) 

Figure 6 : Final safeguard zones for the Lingen waterworks 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
K
H
-
7
8
-
0
7
-
1
5
4
-
E
N
N

-