Implementing the Drinking Water Directive : water quality and access to it improved in Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, but investment needs remain substantial. Special report No 12, 2017.
Date: 2018-04-20
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, audit, directive (EU), drinking water, public health, report, water requirements, water supply

EN 

2017 

NO 12

Special Report 

Implementing the Drinking 
Water Directive: water quality 
and access to it improved in 
Bulgaria, Hungary and 
Romania, but investment 
needs remain substantial

(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU) 

1977 - 2017

 
 
 
Audit team 

The ECA’s special reports set out the results of its audits of EU policies and programmes or 
management topics related to specific budgetary areas. The ECA selects and designs these audit tasks 
to be of maximum impact by considering the risks to performance or compliance, the level of income 
or spending involved, forthcoming developments and political and public interest. 

This performance audit was produced by Audit Chamber II – headed by ECA Member Iliana Ivanova - 
which specialises in investment for cohesion, growth and inclusion spending areas. The audit was led 
by ECA Member George Pufan, supported by Patrick Weldon, Head of Private Office and Mircea 
Radulescu, Attaché; Alain Vansilliette and Myriam Cazzaniga, Principal Managers; Paolo Pesce, Head of 
Task; Zuzana Gullova, Zhivka Kalaydzhieva, Attila Horvay-Kovács and Ana Popescu, Auditors. 

From left to right: Paolo Pesce, Myriam Cazzaniga, Patrick Weldon, George Pufan,  
Attila Horvay-Kovács, Zhivka Kalaydzhieva. 

 
 
 
 
 
CONTENTS 

Abbreviations and glossary 

Executive summary 

Introduction 

Audit scope and approach 

Observations 

The 1998 Drinking Water Directive had been implemented in most 
respects by the end of 2016 

National legislation in the Member States visited is in compliance with 
the requirements of the Drinking Water Directive 

Derogations from Drinking Water Directive granted in Hungary and 
Romania, but not in Bulgaria 

Shortcomings in the Drinking Water Directive monitoring 
arrangements 

Information to consumers on the quality of drinking water is not easily 
accessible 

A revision of the Drinking Water Directive has been included in the 
Commission Work programme for 2017 

All ERDF/CF projects examined improved drinking water in the areas 
concerned, but water losses remain a common problem 

Overall, the completed ERDF/CF projects examined achieved most of 
their objectives, but were sometimes delayed 

Losses in the drinking water supply system are still high 

Significant funds in addition to EU co-financing is still needed to provide 
access to quality drinking water and to ensure that EU-funded investments 
can be adequately maintained 

The investment gap for the three visited Member States up to 2020 is 
estimated at 6 billion euro 

2 

Paragraph 

I - VI 

1 - 23 

24 - 28 

29 - 106 

29 - 67 

31 - 34 

35 - 41 

42 - 56 

57 - 59 

60 - 67 

68 - 88 

73 - 81 

82 - 88 

89 - 106 

90 - 95 

User fees are not sufficient to ensure the sustainability of the projects 

96 - 106 

Conclusions and recommendations 

107 - 115 

 
 
 
 
3 

Annex I -  ERDF/CF spending on the management and supply of drinking water (2007-2013 

and 2014-2020 programme periods) 

Annex II -  Sources of drinking water in the EU 

Annex III -   Previous ECA reports and their main conclusions 

Annex IV -  Infringement procedures concerning the Drinking Water Directive in the visited 

Member States 

Annex V -  Overview of projects examined 

The Commission’s replies 

 
 
 
 
 
 
4 

ABBREVIATIONS AND GLOSSARY 

Audit monitoring 

Check monitoring 

Citizens' initiative 

Cohesion Fund (CF) 

Country-specific 
Recommendations 
(CSR) 

The purpose of audit monitoring is to provide the information 
necessary to determine whether or not all of the Drinking Water 
Directive’s parametric values are being complied with. 

All the parameters set in accordance with Annex I of the 
Drinking Water Directive are subject to audit monitoring. 

The purpose of check monitoring is to determine whether water 
intended for human consumption complies with the relevant 
parametric values laid down in the Drinking Water Directive. It 
provides, on a regular basis, information on the organoleptic 
(i.e. colour, odour, and feel of a substance) and microbiological 
quality of the water supplied for human consumption as well as 
on the effectiveness of drinking-water treatment (particularly of 
disinfection) where it is used. 
Only some parameters listed in the Drinking Water Directive are 
required to be included in the check monitoring. 
A European citizens' initiative is an invitation to the European 
Commission to propose legislation on matters where the EU has 
competence to legislate. A citizens' initiative has to be backed 
by at least one million EU citizens, coming from at least seven 
out of the 28 Member States. A minimum number of signatories 
is required in each of those seven Member States. The rules and 
procedures governing the citizens' initiative are set out in 
Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens’ initiative (OJ L 
65, 11.3.2011, p. 1). 

The Cohesion Fund aims at strengthening economic and social 
cohesion within the European Union by financing environment 
and transport projects in Member States with a per capita GNI 
of less than 90 % of the EU average. 

Country-specific recommendations (CSR) are recommendations 
relating to structural challenges which it is appropriate to 
address through multiannual investments that fall directly 
within the scope of the ESI Funds as set out in the Fund-specific 
Regulations. They are adopted by the Commission in accordance 
with Article 121(2) and Article 148(4) of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). 

Drinking Water 
Directive (DWD) 

Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality 
of water intended for human consumption (OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, 
p. 32). 

 
 
5 

Drinking water safety 
planning (DWSP) 

EU13 

European 
Environment Agency 
(EEA) 

European 
environment 
information and 
observation network 
(Eionet) 

European Regional 
Development Fund 
(ERDF) 

Europe 2020 strategy 

Ex ante 
conditionalities 

The concept of DWSP was introduced by the World Health 
Organisation (WHO) in 2004. It consists of a comprehensive risk 
assessment and risk management approach that encompasses 
all steps in water supply from catchment to consumer. 

Water operators and public health authorities should preferably 
develop a DWSP for each individual drinking water supply zone. 

EU13 refers to the Member States who joined the EU in 2004 or 
later. These are: Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Croatia, 
Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Romania, 
Slovakia and Slovenia. 
The EEA is an agency of the European Union. 
It provides independent information on the environment for 
those involved in developing, adopting, implementing and 
evaluating environmental policy, and also for the general public. 
The EEA gathers data and produces assessments on a wide 
range of topics related to the environment. 

The Eionet is a partnership network of the European 
Environment Agency (EEA) and its members and cooperating 
countries. It consists of the EEA itself, six European Topic 
Centres (ETCs) and a network of around 1 000 experts from 39 
countries in up to 400 national bodies dealing with 
environmental information. Through Eionet, the EEA 
coordinates the delivery of environmental data from individual 
countries. 

The European Regional Development Fund aims at reinforcing 
economic and social cohesion within the European Union by 
redressing the main regional imbalances through financial 
support for the creation of infrastructure and productive job-
creating investment, mainly for businesses. 

Europe 2020 strategy is the EU’s 10-year jobs and growth 
strategy. It was launched in 2010 to create the conditions for 
smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. It includes five headline 
targets covering employment, research and development, 
climate and energy, education, social inclusion and poverty 
reduction. 

European Council of 17 June 2010, Conclusions further to 
COM(2010) 2020 final of 3 March 2010 “EUROPE 2020 A 
strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth”. 

Ex ante conditionalities are conditions, based on pre-defined 
criteria established in partnership agreements, which are 
regarded as necessary prerequisites for the effective and 
efficient use of Union support covered by those agreements. 
When preparing ERDF, CF and ESF OPs under the 2014-2020 

 
 
6 

programme period, Member States have to assess whether 
these conditions are fulfilled. If they have not been fulfilled, 
action plans need to be prepared to ensure fulfilment by 
31 December 2016. 

Indicator parameters are a mixture of microbiological, chemical 
and radiological parameters providing information on treatment 
processes and the organoleptic quality of drinking water. 

JASPERS is a technical assistance partnership between three 
partners (European Commission, European investment Bank and 
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development). It 
provides independent advice to beneficiary countries to help 
prepare high quality major projects to be co-financed by two EU 
Structural and Investment Funds (European Regional 
Development Fund and Cohesion Fund). 

Indicator parameter 

Joint Assistance to 
Support Projects in 
European Regions 
(JASPERS) 

Large Water Supply 
Zones (LWSZ) 

Large water supply zones are those supplying more than 
1 000 m3 of water a day as an average or serving more than 
5 000 persons. 

A project which comprises an economically indivisible series of 
works fulfilling a precise technical function, having clearly 
identified aims and whose total cost assessed when determining 
the contribution of the funds exceeds 50 million euro and is 
generally a large-scale infrastructure project in transport, 
environment or other sectors such as culture, education, energy 
or ICT. Commission approval is required at overall project level. 

For the 2014-2020 programme period, the threshold was raised 
to 75 million euro in the case of operations contributing to the 
thematic objective under point (7) of the first paragraph of 
Article 9 - “promoting sustainable transport and removing 
bottlenecks in key network infrastructures”. 

A managing authority is a national, regional or local public 
authority (or any other public or private body), which has been 
designated by a Member State to manage an operational 
programme. Its tasks include selecting projects to be funded, 
monitoring how projects are implemented and reporting to the 
Commission on financial aspects and results achieved. The 
managing authority is also the body to impose financial 
corrections on beneficiaries following audits carried out by the 
Commission, European Court of Auditors or a relevant authority 
in a Member State. 

Nonrevenue water consists mainly of water leaking from the 
system before it reaches the end consumer (technical or 
physical losses), and of water consumed without being properly 
billed, for example, through illegal connections or improper 
metering of consumption (commercial or apparent losses). 

Major project 

Managing authority 

Nonrevenue water 

 
 
7 

While the former unnecessarily increases production costs 
(because more water than necessary must be produced), the 
latter means foregone revenues. Nonrevenue water is normally 
estimated based on the establishment of a balance of water 
inflows and outflows in the system. 

For simplification purposes, in this report the term “water 
losses” will be used in place of “nonrevenue water”. 

An OP sets out a Member State’s priorities and specific 
objectives and describes how funding (EU and national public 
and private co-financing) will be used during a given period 
(currently seven years) to finance projects. The projects within 
an OP must contribute to a certain number of objectives. OP 
funding may come from the ERDF, CF and/or ESF. The OP is 
prepared by the Member State and has to be approved by the 
Commission before any payments can be made from the EU 
budget. OPs can only be modified during the programme period 
if both parties agree. 

Operational 
programme (OP) 

Programme period 

The multi-annual framework within which ERDF, ESF and CF 
expenditure is planned and implemented. 

Regulatory Fitness 
and Performance 
Programme (REFIT) 

Small Water Supply 
Zones (SWSZ) 

Under REFIT, the Commission is screening the entire stock of EU 
legislation on an ongoing and systematic basis to identify 
burdens, inconsistencies and ineffective measures and identify 
corrective actions. 
Small water supply zones are those supplying below 1 000 m3 of 
water a day as an average or serving less than 5 000 persons. 

TFEU 

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 

Water supply zone 
(WSZ) 

A supply zone is a geographically defined area within which 
water intended for human consumption comes from one or 
more sources and within which water quality may be considered 
as being approximately uniform. 

 
 
 
 
8 

ABOUT THIS REPORT 

This report examines whether EU actions improved the quality of drinking water in 
Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania as required by the 1998 Drinking Water Directive. 

Overall, we conclude that the situation has improved significantly. Nevertheless, there are 
still areas where citizens are supplied with water from the public supply network that is 
not fully in compliance with EU standards. Moreover, significant further national public 
and private funding will be needed to ensure access to good quality water to all citizens in 
these Member States and to ensure that EU-funded investments in water facilities can be 
adequately maintained. 

Among other things, we recommend that several remaining issues are addressed in the 
context of the current revision of the Drinking Water Directive and that the sustainability 
of water infrastructure is ensured while safeguarding the affordability of the service. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Drinking Water Directive 

I.  Water is essential for life on our planet. Our ecosystems, society and economy all need 

clean fresh water in sufficient amounts to thrive. The protection of EU citizens’ health 

through safe access to quality drinking water has been an element of EU policy for many 

years. Since 1975, the EU has adopted legislation on water that aims to protect consumers 

and water users, against harmful effects. A directive concerning standards for water 

intended for human consumption, the “Drinking Water Directive” (DWD), was adopted in 

1980 and subsequently revised in 1998. This directive is currently under revision. 

How we conducted our audit 

II.  Our audit assessed whether EU actions improved the safe access of citizens to quality 

drinking water in Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania. In particular, we examined whether the 

requirements of the Drinking Water Directive have been met; the examined ERDF/CF-funded 

projects improved the quality of drinking water and the access to its supply; and the 

revenues generated and the additional national public funding are adequate to ensure the 

maintenance and sustainability of the EU-funded investments in drinking water supply 

infrastructure. 

 
 
9 

III.  The ERDF/CF funds for the management and supply of drinking water between 2007 and 

2020 in these three Member States is 3.7 billion euro. The audit covered the period from the 

accession of the visited Member States to the EU until the end of 2016. 

What we found 

IV.  Overall, we conclude that the citizens access to and supply of quality drinking water in 

Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania has improved. This is to a large extent due to the significant 

ERDF and CF-funded investments made in recent years. Nevertheless, there are still areas 

where citizens are supplied with water from the public supply network that is not fully in 

compliance with the EU standards set out in the 1998 Drinking Water Directive. Moreover, 

significant further national public and private investments are needed to ensure access to 

good quality water to all citizens in these Member States and to ensure that EU-funded 

investments in water facilities can be adequately maintained. 

What we recommend 

V.  The Commission should: 

(a)  follow-up gaps in Member States’ monitoring based on existing reporting and enforce 

the requirements of the Drinking Water Directive in this respect; 

(b)  in the context of the current revision of the Drinking Water Directive, address the 

following issues in a proportionate manner: 

(b)1 

improving the provision of information from Member States to the Commission 

about derogations concerning Small Water Supply Zones; 

(b)2  the extension of the reporting requirements to Small Water Supply Zones; 

(b)3  regular reporting ensuring that up-to-date information on the compliance with the 

Drinking Water Directive is collected from Member States. The Commission should 

consider options such as alternative IT tools (e.g. data harvesting from national 

administrations) to facilitate the reporting exercise, make it swifter and to ensure 

availability of up-to-date information; 

 
 
10 

(b)4 

improving the requirements for the provision of adequate and up-to-date 

information on the quality of water intended for human consumption available to 

consumers; 

(c)  support Member States in promoting actions aiming at the reduction of water losses. 

This could be achieved, for example, by including water loss reduction in the scope of EU 

funding in the field of drinking water infrastructure, or by enhancing transparency on 

water losses. 

VI.  Member States should: 

(a)  require that plans to reach a certain level of reduction of water losses are included as 

selection criteria for all water facility projects that allow the meeting of national targets; 

(b)  ensure that water tariffs provide for the sustainability of water infrastructure, including 

its maintenance and renewal; 

(c)  consider, if necessary, granting financial or other forms of support to households for 

which the cost of water services are above the affordability rate while ensuring the full 

cost-recovery in the water tariffs structure. 

 
 
11 

INTRODUCTION 

The EU Drinking Water directive 

1.  Water is essential for life on our planet. Our ecosystems, society and economy all need 

clean fresh water in sufficient amounts to thrive. The protection of EU citizens’ health 

through safe access to quality drinking water has been an element of EU policy for many 

years. Since 1975, the EU has adopted legislation on water that aims to protect consumers 

and water users, against harmful effects. Ensuring high quality and safe supply to all 
Europeans is also an integral part of the EU’s environmental policy1
. 

2.  A first directive, on the quality of drinking water in the Member States was adopted in 

1975

2. A further directive concerning standards for water intended for human consumption, 

is the “Drinking Water Directive” (DWD), which aims at protecting human health from the 

adverse effects of any contamination of water intended for human consumption (see Box 1). 
It was adopted in 19803 and subsequently revised in 19984

. This directive is currently under 

revision. 

Box 1 - The Drinking Water Directive 

The DWD lays down quality standards for drinking water in the EU for 48 parameters which must be 

monitored and tested regularly by the Member States. The parameters are broken down into three 

categories: 

•  microbiological parameters (relevant for human health) which comprise mainly the parameters 

E. coli and enterococci; 

1 

2 

3 

4 

European Environment Agency, http://www.eea.europa.eu. 

Council Directive 75/440/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the quality required of surface water 
intended for the abstraction of drinking water in the Member States (OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, 
p. 26). 

Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the quality of water intended for 
human consumption (OJ L 229, 30.8.1980, p. 11). 

Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human 
consumption (OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 32). 

 
 
                                                       
12 

•  chemical parameters (relevant for human health) which range from specific substances such as 

individual metals, individual organic compounds to generic substances such as pesticides and 

disinfection by-products; 

• 

indicator parameters, providing information on treatment processes and the organoleptic (i.e. 

colour, odour, and feel of a substance) and aesthetic quality of drinking water, which are a 

mixture of microbiological, chemical and radiological parameters. A failure to meet an indicator 

parameter is a signal that there may be a problem with the supply that needs investigation and 

consideration as to whether or not human health is at risk. 

3.  The Directive provides for the possibility for Member States to temporarily depart from 

the required water quality standards by means of derogation. These derogations may last up 

to three years and may be extended twice (an additional three years for every extension). 

Monitoring and reporting arrangements 

4.  Member States have an obligation to establish water supply zones and appropriate 
monitoring programmes in accordance with the minimum requirements set in the DWD5
. 

The DWD distinguishes between: 

-  water supply zones supplying more than 1 000 m3 of water a day as an average or 

serving more than 5 000 persons, commonly referred to as "large water supply zones" 

(LWSZ), 

-  water supply zones supplying less than 1 000 m3 of water a day as an average or serving 

less than 5 000 persons, commonly referred to as "small water supply zones” (SWSZ), 

and 

-  water supply zones providing less than 10 m³ of water a day as an average or serving 

fewer than 50 persons, commonly referred to as "very small water supply zones”. 

5.  In addition, the DWD requires that up-to-date information is available to consumers6

 and 

that Member States publish a report on the quality of water intended for human 

5 

Article 7 and Annexes II and III of the DWD. 

 
 
                                                       
13 

consumption every three years, covering the three years that have passed. These reports 

should be published within one calendar year of the end of the reporting period and should 

be sent to the Commission within two months of their publication. 

6.  The European Environment Agency (EEA) collects the data on the quality of water from 
Member States on behalf of the Commission via an online reporting tool7

. The EEA is also 

responsible for the quality check of the information in the database and prepares national 

databases, which are verified by the Member States. Based on this data, the Commission 

publishes a synthesis report on the quality of water intended for human consumption in the 

Union as a whole within nine months of receiving the Member States’ reports. 

7.  In this report, which is the main tool to detect non-compliance with the parametric 

values laid down in the DWD, each Member State should report on the quality of water in all 

LWSZ. Reporting on SWSZ is voluntary. Member States may exempt from the provisions of 

the DWD very small water supply zones, i.e. individual supplies providing less than 10 m³ of 

water a day as an average or serving fewer than 50 persons. 

The quality of drinking water in the EU 

8.  As part of the requirement of the DWD to assess drinking water quality, several million 

analyses are carried out annually across the Member States. For example, during the 

2011-2013 reporting period, 4.1 million analyses were carried out on microbiological 

parameters, 7.1 million on chemical parameters and 17.5 million on indicator parameters 

(see Box 1

). If at least 99 % of all analyses done in a given year meet the given standard, the 

Member State is considered to be compliant with the parametric value laid down in the 

DWD. 

9.  In the case of indicator parameters, the fact that a standard is exceeded does not 

necessarily mean a non-compliance with the DWD because in most cases there is no direct 

threat to human health. Even though most indicator parameters do not pose a direct threat 

to human health, they might impact indirectly on water quality through the appearance, 

6 

7 

Article 13 of the DWD. 

http://rod.eionet.europa.eu/obligations/171. 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                         
14 

taste or odour of the water and hence influence the acceptability to the consumer. For 

example, the threshold set in the DWD for iron is 200 µg/l. With Iron concentration of 

300 µg/l, water has a noticeable taste and becomes turbid and coloured. Consequently, this 

result is distasteful to consumers. The health-based value is 2 000 µg/l, therefore much 

higher than what is actually acceptable to consumers. Indicator parameters might also 

interfere with proper treatment. For example, the presence of organic matter might result in 

inadequate disinfection. 

10. In general, drinking water quality in the EU is good8. In particular, the vast majority of 

large water supply zones (LWSZ) show high compliance with the microbiological and 

chemical parameters set in the DWD (see details in Table 1). In addition, the overall 
compliance in the EU improved significantly compared to the 2008-2010 reporting period9
. 

8 

9 

COM(2016) 666 final of 20.10.2016 ‘Synthesis Report on the Quality of Drinking Water in the 
Union examining Member States' reports for the 2011-2013 period, foreseen under Article 
13(5) of Directive 98/83/EC’. 

COM(2014) 363 final of 16.6.2014 ‘Synthesis Report on the Quality of Drinking Water in the 
Union examining Member States' reports for the 2008-2010 period, foreseen under Directive 
98/83/EC’. 

 
 
                                                       
15 

Table 1 - Member States1 and compliance rate 

Overall compliance rate of Microbiological parameters 

2008-2010 

2011-2013 

> 99 % 
95 % < X < 99 % 
< 95 % 

23 
4 
- 

Overall compliance rate of Chemical parameters 

> 99 % 
95 % < X < 99 % 
< 95 % 

11 
11 
5 

Overall compliance rate of Indicator parameters 

> 99 % 
95 % < X < 99 % 
< 95 % 

7 
10 
10 

27 
- 
- 

26 
12 
- 

21 
53 
14 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Croatia, having joined the EU on 1 July 2013, was exempted from the 2011-2013 reporting 
process. 
Hungary. 
Denmark, Cyprus, Latvia, Hungary and Slovenia. 
For indicator parameters, Malta reported a compliance rate of around 90 % because of very low 
compliance rates on chloride. 

Source: ECA elaboration based on data published in Synthesis Reports on the Quality of Drinking 
Water in the Union. 

11. Concerning SWSZ (which serve about 65 million people in the EU as a whole), the 
average compliance rate for the 2011-2013 reporting period was above 98 %10. This overall 

figure indicates progress compared to the 2008-2010 reporting period when, on average, 
only around 59 % of all SWSZ were in full compliance with DWD requirements11

. For the 

2008-2010 period, all Member States, except the Czech Republic, reported on SWSZ. For the 

2011-2013 reporting period, however, only about half of the Member States (representing 

about 34.6 million consumers served by SWSZ) provided information. This is due to the fact 

that the reporting for SWSZ is not compulsory. 

10 

11 

COM(2016) 666 final, p. 2. 

Data extrapolated from the 2008-2010 fact sheets per Member State on Small Water Supply 
Zones, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-drink/reporting_en.html. 

 
 
 
                                                       
16 

12. Shortcomings in the monitoring of SWSZs were also recognised in the 7th Environmental 

Action Programme (EAP), which called for increased efforts in the implementation of the 
DWD, in particular for SWSZ12
. 

Losses in drinking water supply systems 

13. An important issue affecting drinking water supply is the high rate of physical water loss. 

This is mainly due to leakages from distribution networks that have been poorly maintained 

or that need to be renewed. The percentage of water losses is calculated as the ratio 

between non-invoiced water and the total amount of water entering the supply network. 

14. According to data published in 2014 referring to the 2008-2010 period, in about half of 

the Member States, more than 20 % of clean drinking water was lost in the distribution 

network before it could reach consumers’ taps, while for some Member States the 
proportion was as high as 60 %13

. For the 2011-2013 period, unlike for the previous period, 

neither the Synthesis Report nor the Member States’ reports provided any information 

concerning water losses. 

15. Reducing losses is important from an environmental perspective (resource savings) and 

fundamentally affects the performance of water utilities. The Europe 2020 strategy places a 

high focus on resource efficiency, and this implies increasing water resource efficiency with 

additional benefits of less energy use for treating and transporting water and reduced water 

bills and water losses
need to increase efficiency by the renewal of infrastructures15
. 

14. Also the 7th Environmental Action Programme puts forward the 

12 

13 

14 

15 

Decision No 1386/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
20 November 2013 on a General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 ‘Living well, 
within the limits of our planet’, Priority Objective 3, point 54 (iii) (OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 171). 

COM(2014) 363 final. 

European Council of 17 June 2010, Conclusions further to COM(2010) 2020 final of 
3 March 2010 “EUROPE 2020, A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth”. 

Decision No 1386/2013/EU, Priority Objective 2, point 41. 

 
 
                                                       
17 

EU funding mainly through ERDF and CF 

16. The main source of EU funding for water infrastructures are the European Structural and 

Investment Funds (ESIF). In particular, projects have been financed through the European 

Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund (CF). 

17. Many projects involving drinking water are carried out jointly with waste water 
projects16. During the 2007-2013 programme period, more than 7.3 billion euro was 

allocated to projects involving drinking water. Out of this, about 4 billion euro was dedicated 

to the EU13 Member States. For the 2014-2020 programme period, the total allocation to 

drinking water is about 4.7 billion euro, out of which about 3.4 billion euro is earmarked for 

the EU13 Member States (see Annex I

). 

Access to drinking water 

18. The availability of safe drinking water throughout the EU is high. However, there are still 

regions that do not provide citizens with access to water supply services. According to 
Eurostat data17, the rate of population connected to public water supply differs significantly 

among Member States. Romania has the lowest rate with just 62 % of the population 

connected to the public water supply (see Figure 1). Annex II

 provides background 

information on the sources of drinking water in the EU. 

16 

17 

The overall EU allocation for waste water projects during the 2007-2013 programme period 
was about 14.6 billion euro, out of which about 10 billion euro for the EU13 Member States. 
For 2014-2020 the allocation is about 10 billion euro, out of which 7 billion euro for the EU13 
Member States. 

Eurostat - Population connected to public water supply, code ten00012. 

 
 
                                                       
Figure 1 - Rate of population connected to public water supply in 2013 in the visited 
Member States 

18 

Hungary

Bulgaria

Romania

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Source: Eurostat. 

19. In December 2013, the EU citizens’ initiative “Right2Water” collected nearly 1.9 million 

signatures across all Member States. This initiative invited the Commission "[…] to propose 

legislation implementing the human right to water and sanitation, as recognized by the 

United Nations, and promoting the provision of water and sanitation as essential public 
services for all"18. In 2014, the Commission published its assessment of the support already 

provided by the EU for good quality drinking water and encouraged Member States to 
ensure access to a minimum water supply to all EU citizens19
. 

18 

19 

http://www.right2water.eu/ 

COM(2014) 177 final of 19.3.2014 Communication from the Commission on the European 
Citizens’ Initiative “Water and sanitation are a human right! Water is a public good, not a 
commodity!”. 

 
 
 
                                                       
19 

Water tariffs 

20. The principles to be applied in the setting of water tariffs, namely cost-recovery and 
affordability of water services, were set in the 2000 Water Framework Directive20

. In 

practice, tariffs should at least cover operating and maintenance costs, as well as a 

significant part of the assets’ depreciation to be able to contribute to the sustainability of 

the water infrastructures. 

21. At the same time, water services must be socially affordable to customers. When 

determining the water tariff, Member States may take into consideration the social, 

environmental and economic effects in an effort to ensure that water services remain 

affordable. Commission guidance refers to 4 % of household income as a commonly 

accepted affordability ratio, i.e. the total water bill (drinking water and waste water) can 

represent 4 % of household income

21
. 

Previous ECA audits and other recent studies on water policy 

22. In recent years, we have published several reports on water policy and EU investments in 
drinking and waste water infrastructure22. Annex II

 summarises their main conclusions. 

23. In May 2015, the European Parliamentary Research Service published a report 

concerning the DWD

23
. 

20 

21 

22 

Article 9 of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy 
(OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1). 

European Commission, "The new programming period 2007-2013 - Guidance on the 
methodology for carrying out cost-benefit analyses - working document No 4", 8/2006. 

Special Report No 9/2010 “Is EU Structural measures spending on the supply of water for 
domestic consumption used to best effect?”; Special Report No 4/2014 “Integration of EU 
water policy objectives with the CAP: a partial success”; Special Report No 2/2015 “EU-funding 
of urban waste water treatment plants in the Danube river basin: further efforts needed in 
helping Member States to achieve EU waste water policy objectives”; Special Report 
No 23/2015 “Water quality in the Danube river basin: progress in implementing the water 
framework directive but still some way to go”; and Special Report No 3/2016 “Combating 
eutrophication in the Baltic Sea: further and more effective action needed” 
(http://eca.europa.eu). 

 
 
                                                       
20 

AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH 

24. Through this audit, we assessed whether EU actions improved the safe access of citizens 

to quality drinking water in Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania. In particular, we examined 

whether: 

- 

- 

the requirements of the Drinking Water Directive have been met; 

the examined ERDF/CF-funded projects improved the quality of drinking water and the 

access to its supply; 

- 

the revenues generated and the additional national public funding are adequate to 

ensure the maintenance and sustainability of the EU-funded investments in drinking 

water supply infrastructure. 

25. We decided to focus on the EU13 Member States because in 2010 we already published 

a Special report covering the theme of drinking water in the 2000-2006 programme period, 
which focused on the EU15 Member States24. The selected Member States had been chosen 

mainly because of the amount of EU funds allocated to them between 2007 and 2020 

(3.7 billion euro) which represent about 50 % of the total EU allocations to the management 

and supply of drinking water for the EU13 Member States (see Annex I

), the limited access 

to drinking water (in the case of Romania) and because of the high level of water losses 

reported during the 2008-2010 period. 

26. The audit was based on evidence provided by the Commission and the visited Member 

States. In particular, it was carried out through: 

- 

interviews with representatives of the Directorate-General for Environment and the 

Directorate-General for Regional and urban policy; 

- 

an analytical review of relevant EU and national documentation; 

23 

24 

EPRS, Water legislation, Cost of Non-Europe Report, May 2015. 

Special Report No 9/2010. 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                         
21 

- 

interviews with representatives from the Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Health, 

Managing Authority, regulatory bodies, etc., of the selected Member States; 

- 

visits and reviews of nine ERDF/CF projects (three in each of the three visited Member 

States), including project documentation such as applications, grant agreements, 

reports and other documents related to project implementation; 

- 

interviews with water operators, project beneficiaries and managing authorities of the 

nine projects examined. 

27. The ERDF/CF drinking water projects examined for this audit relate to all aspects of the 

infrastructure linked to the drinking water cycle. They encompass the creation or 

rehabilitation of catchments (see Picture 1), treatment plants (see Picture 2), storage and 

transmission through pipes (see Picture 3

) and pumping stations. Each of the selected 

projects was among the 20 projects having received the highest EU co-financing during the 

2007-2013 programme period in each Member State. They were chosen to illustrate key 

aspects of the fulfilment of the DWD objectives and issues of access, losses and quality. 

Picture 1 - Floating intake of water in Călăraşi (Romania) 

Source: ECA. 

 
 
 
Picture 2 - Treatment machinery at the Bogyiszló treatment plant in Szekszárd (Hungary) 

22 

Source: ECA. 

Picture 3 - Excavation works in Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) 

©Managing Authority of the operational programme “Environment” in Bulgaria. 

 
 
  
  
28. The audit covered the period from the accession of the visited Member States to the EU 

23 

until the end of 2016. 

OBSERVATIONS 

The 1998 Drinking Water Directive had been implemented in most respects by the end of 

2016 

29. The European Union cannot achieve its policy goals if Member States do not apply EU 

law effectively on the ground. The Member States are responsible for accurately transposing 

directives into their national law within the timeframe required. In addition, they are also 
responsible for correctly applying and implementing the entire body of EU legislation25. The 

Commission has the responsibility for monitoring the Member States’ efforts and ensuring 
compliance with EU law, including the resort to formal legal procedures26
. 

30. The main EU legislation concerning the quality of drinking water is the DWD. Accordingly, 

we assessed whether: 

- 

the visited Member States correctly transposed the DWD into national legal frameworks 

and fulfilled its requirements; 

- 

- 

- 

- 

25 

26 

adequate drinking water is available for all consumers in the visited Member States; 

the monitoring arrangements provide information on the implementation of the DWD; 

updated information on the quality of drinking water is available to consumers; 

the Commission regularly reviews the scientific and technical aspects of the DWD. 

Article 291(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). 

Article 17 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). 

 
 
                                                       
24 

National legislation in the Member States visited is in compliance with the requirements of 

the Drinking Water Directive 

31. The effective transposition of the DWD into national legislation is a necessary step to 

ensure that drinking water satisfies a common safety level across the EU. From the date of 
accession27

, the Commission had to ensure that the national legislations complied with the 

provisions of EU framework laws, except in case of specific derogations granted in the 

accession treaties. 

32. The Commission carries out conformity studies by comparing the EU obligations with the 

text of the relevant articles of national legislations to assess their compliance with the 

requirements of EU Directives. This was done in 2004 for Hungary and in 2007 for Bulgaria 

and Romania. 

33. For the three Member States visited, the Commission identified that the national 

legislations did not comply in every respect with the DWD and therefore infringement 

procedures (see Box 2) were launched in 2008 against Hungary and in 2009 against Bulgaria 
and Romania28 (see Annex III

). 

Box 2 – Infringement procedure 

Where it detects a failure to comply with European Union law, the Commission may initiate a 

procedure for failure to fulfil an obligation provided for in Article 258 of the TFEU. 

In the first stage of the procedure, the Commission sends the Member State a letter of formal notice 

inviting it to submit its observations within two months. This exchange of views is not normally 

publicised. 

Where the observations submitted by the Member State fail to persuade the Commission to change 

its point of view or where the Member State fails to respond to the request, the Commission may 

issue a reasoned opinion, allowing the Member State an additional two-month period within which 

27 

28 

1st May 2004 for Hungary and 1st January 2007 for Bulgaria and Romania. 

Infringement procedures 2008/2247 for Hungary, 2009/2259 for Bulgaria and 2009/2260 for 
Romania. 

 
 
                                                       
25 

to comply. At this stage the Commission issues a press release informing the EU's citizens of the 

purpose of the procedure. 

If the Member State fails to conform with European Union law, the Commission can take the case to 

the Court of Justice, whose judgment is binding. 

If the Member State fails to comply with the Court's judgment, the Commission may, after sending a 

further letter of formal notice, bring the matter before the Court of Justice a second time, seeking 

the imposition of a lump sum or penalty payment under Article 260 of the TFEU. 

34. As a result of infringement procedures, the three Member States amended their national 

legislation. Consequently, the cases were closed in 2009 for Hungary and in 2010 for 

Romania. For Bulgaria, because of the magnitude of the amendments, the Commission 

updated its conformity study in 2012 detecting further non-compliances, and therefore the 

infringement procedure was only closed in 2015. Our review showed that, overall, the 

national legislation in the three Member States visited currently complies with the 

requirements of the DWD. 

Derogations from Drinking Water Directive granted in Hungary and Romania, but not in 

Bulgaria 

35. Member States may provide for derogations from the parametric values, up to a 

maximum value to be determined by them, provided that no derogation constitutes a 

potential danger to human health and if the supply of water intended for human 

consumption in the area concerned cannot otherwise be maintained by any other 

reasonable means (see Box 3

). 

Box 3 - Derogations - Article 9 of the DWD 

Any derogation granted either by the Member States or the Commission should specify: 

(a)  the grounds for the derogation; 

(b)  the parameter concerned, previous relevant monitoring results, and the maximum permissible 

value under the derogation; 

 
 
26 

(c) 

the geographical area, the quantity of water supplied each day, the population concerned and 

whether or not any relevant food-production undertaking would be affected; 

(d)  an appropriate monitoring scheme, with an increased monitoring frequency where necessary; 

(e)  a summary of the plan for the necessary remedial action, including a timetable for the work and 

an estimate of the cost and provisions for reviewing; 

(f) 

the required duration of the derogation. 

36. These derogations should be limited to as short a time as possible and can last for a 

maximum of three years. If after this first period, issues leading to the derogation are 

persistent, Member States can extend the derogation for an additional period of up to three 

years, informing the Commission. In exceptional circumstances, a Member State may ask the 

Commission for a third derogation for a further period not exceeding three years. 

37. Member States are required to inform the Commission within two months of any 

derogation concerning LWSZ. Derogations concerning SWSZ need only to be communicated 

as and from the second derogation. 

38. In Hungary, at the end of the third derogation, lasting until the end of 2012, almost 80 % 

of the water supply zones under derogation (289 out of 365) were still not compliant with 

the Directive. Eventually, the measures taken by the Hungarian authorities to improve the 

situation in the zones under derogation started to deliver. In April 2016 there were 66 out of 

365 WSZ that did not comply with the DWD. In the meantime, given the missed deadline, 

the Commission launched an infringement procedure against Hungary in May 2016. 

39. Romania was also granted derogations in the accession treaty29

, which lasted either until 

the end of 2010 or until the end of 2015. Since accession, Romania has notified the 

Commission of seven subsequent derogations (i.e. second derogation) with deadlines 

between 2014 and 2018. But, according to the Romanian Ministry of Health, at the end of 

2015 there were still 335 water supply zones, supplying water to approximatively 762 000 

people (about 3.8 % of the total population of Romania), where the quality standards had 

29 

Annex VII Chapter 9 Environment, part C - Water quality (OJ L 157, 21.6.2005, p. 166-171). 

 
 
                                                       
27 

still not been completely achieved for some parameters. According to the Romanian 

authorities, further measures to ensure compliance with the DWD are planned in the 

2014-2020 period through the operational programme “Large Infrastructures”, the National 

Rural Development Programme (NRDP) and the National Programme for Local Development. 

40. In Bulgaria, no derogations have been granted up to the time of this report. 

Nevertheless, according to the Bulgarian Ministry of Health, there are several areas of the 

country with compliance issues. The most serious ones are related to nitrate/nitrite and 

involve about 300 SWSZ. For about 150 of these, non-compliance is persistent and relates to 
agricultural practices30

. As a consequence, it can be estimated that about 124 000 people, 

i.e. 1.7 % of the total population, is using drinking water which is not in full compliance with 

the requirements of the DWD. 

41. Whether covered by a derogation or not, all three Member States have consumers who 

still do not have access to drinking water of an adequate quality. Member States are taking 

mitigating actions but sometimes these are late, as in the case of Hungary. In Romania such 

actions are currently being implemented but it is too early to judge as to their effectiveness. 

Shortcomings in the Drinking Water Directive monitoring arrangements 

Some Member States are late in reporting monitoring data 

42. The three synthesis reports (see paragraphs 5 to 7) covering the years from 2002 to 2013 

were published with an average delay of more than 17 months. Table 2

 shows the due dates 

and the actual publication dates of the synthesis reports covering the years from 2002 to 

2013. 

30 

For detailed information about pollution of water due to agricultural practices, refer to the 
Court’s Special Reports No 23/2015 and No 3/2016. 

 
 
                                                       
28 

Table 2 - Due dates and actual publication dates of the synthesis reports 

Synthesis report 

Date due 

Date published 

Delay 

2002-2004 

November 2006 

December 2007 

13 months 

2005-2007 

November 2009 

December 2011 

25 months 

2008-2010 

November 2012 

June 2014 

19 months 

2011-2013 

November 2015 

October 2016 

11 months 

43. According to a study published in 201331

, this was due to the complexity of the 

information to be provided by Member States (in terms of number of parameters and 

amount of detailed information) which led to incomplete and late contributions from 

Member States. 

44. For the 2011-2013 reporting period, the majority of the Member States provided their 

data within the required deadline (February 2015)

32

. However, two Member States (Greece 

and Italy) necessitated up to six additional months to deliver their data, and one Member 

State, Hungary, only finalised its reporting in April 2016, i.e. more than a year later than 

required. 

Member States visited have not complied with all monitoring obligations 

45. The DWD allows the reduction or the removal of monitoring for certain parameters, 

especially indicator parameters. In general, a Member State may reduce the number of 

samples to be tested for certain parameters if: 

(a)  the results of samples tested during a period of at least two successive years are 

constant and significantly better than the limits, and 

31 

32 

Development of a Concept for the Future of Reporting under the Drinking Water Directive - 
critical analysis report, May 2013. 

http://rod.eionet.europa.eu/obligations/171/deliveries. 

 
 
                                                       
29 

(b)  no factor is likely to cause a deterioration of the quality of the water beyond the point 

where the sample is taken33
. 

46. With the transposition of the Commission Directive (EU) 2015/1787, Member States 

have the possibility of derogating from the parameters and sampling frequencies, provided 

that a risk assessment is performed

34

 (see paragraphs 61 to 63). 

47. The national legislations of the three Member States visited comply with the monitoring 

requirements of the DWD. However, we detected several non-compliances in the actual 

monitoring carried out. The tri-annual reporting provides the percentage of LWSZ that has 

been monitored for each parameter. In the 2011-2013 reporting, we noted that in all the 

three visited Member States, not all the parameters had been monitored in all the LWSZ, 

without any justifications or explanations about possible monitoring exceptions. For 

example, trace elements

35

 were reported to be monitored on average in 81 % of the LWSZ in 

Bulgaria and Hungary and in only 41 % of the LSWZ in Romania. 

48. This was also confirmed for some of the ERDF/CF projects examined where we noted 

that the monitoring was not carried out in accordance with the DWD. In particular, fewer 

parameters than required in the DWD were tested. 

49. In Bulgaria, the issue of insufficient monitoring is recognised by the national authorities. 

As mentioned in the Bulgarian National report on Environment for 2012, most of the water 

operators, for some parameters (such as benzo(a)pyrene, antimony, mercury and polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons) do not comply with the monitoring requirement of the DWD in 
terms of volume and frequency36

. In addition, not all the large water supply zones were 

33 

34 

35 

36 

Note 4 to Table B1 of the DWD. These provisions will be replaced by the new Annex II of the 
DWD as modified by Commission Directive (EU) 2015/1787 (OJ L 260, 7.10.2015, p. 6), which 
must be transposed by Member States at the latest by October 2017. 

Commission Directive (EU) 2015/1787 of 6 October 2015 amending Annexes II and III to 
Council Directive 98/83/EC on the quality of water intended for human consumption (OJ L 260, 
7.10.2015, p. 6). 

Arsenic, boron, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, nickel, lead, antimony and selenium. 

On p. 102 of the Bulgarian National report on Environment for 2012. 

 
 
                                                       
30 

monitored for all the parameters. The above-mentioned parameters were monitored on 

average in only 66 % of the LWSZ. 

50. Moreover, according to preliminary data for 2014 and 2015, some parameters such as 

chromium, iron and enterococci were not monitored in all the SWSZ: iron was monitored in 

about 90 % of the SWSZ and chromium and enterococci in about 80 % of the SWSZ. As the 
population served by SWSZ in Bulgaria is about 1.7 million37

, this means that an estimated 

330 000 people were served by SWSZ not tested for enterococci. At the same time, in the 

tested SWSZ the level of non-compliance was above 2 %. 

51. According to the Bulgarian authorities, there is a lack of sufficient laboratory capacity: 

full checks of the samples can only be made in six of 28 Regional Health Inspectorates’ 

laboratories and bromate can only be tested for in two of them. A procedure for improving 

the analysis capacity of Regional Health Inspectorates is ongoing under the 2014-2020 

Operational Programme “Environment”. 

EEA checks on Member State reporting on compliance did not detect inconsistencies 

52. The compliance monitoring data provided by Member States are verified by the EEA on 

behalf of the Commission. The desk verifications by the EEA do not include on-the-spot 

verifications and are therefore by definition limited in scope. There are also cases where 

plausibility checks could have allowed the EEA to detect inconsistencies in Member States’ 

reporting: 

- 

inaccuracies concerning the total number of analysis (and the consequent frequency of 

exceedance) for the parameter “coliform” in Romania (see Box 4

), and 

- 

an error concerning the parameter “nitrites” in Bulgaria, which refers in reality to the 

parameter “nitrates”. 

37 

Overview of the drinking water quality in Bulgaria, reporting 2011-2013 under DWD, p. 12. 

 
 
                                                       
Box 4 - Example of inconsistencies in Member States’ reporting on compliance with the DWD that 

31 

could have been detected by the EEA 

In the 2011-2013 reporting38
: 

- 

the total number of analyses reported for 2013 for the parameter coliform is 7 717

39

 and 

- 

the frequency of exceedance for this parameter is around 15.5 %. 

However, the Annual report on the quality of drinking water for 201340

 specifies correctly that: 

- 

the total number of analyses for the parameter coliform in 2013 was 67 475 and therefore 

- 

the correct frequency of exceedance was around 1.8 %. 

As the total number of analyses reported for the parameter coliform for 2011 and 2012 was 

respectively 65 871 and 71 877, and the reported number for 2013 was only about one tenth of 

these numbers, this error could have been easily detected. 

Moreover, also for several other parameters such as iron, manganese and colony count, the number 

of analysis reported in the Results of the reporting 2011-2013, and therefore also the frequency of 

exceedance, are different from those published in the Annual report for 2013. 

Information on the fulfilment of monitoring requirements for Small Water Supply Zones is 

lacking 

53. SWSZ provide drinking water to approximately 65 million people in the EU. Based on 

2010 data, the Commission estimated that, in the EU as a whole, more than one third of 

SWSZ were not properly monitored or the drinking water supplied was not complying with 

38 

39 

40 

Overview of the drinking water quality in Romania - Results of the reporting 2011-2013 under 
the Drinking Water Directive 98/83/EC. 

Table 3-2. 

Calitatea apei distribuite în sistem centralizat în zonele cu peste 5000 de locuitori sau cu un 
volum de distribuţie de peste 1000mc/zi în anul 2013 (ZAP mari) – Raport sintetic, published on 
the website of the National Centre for Monitoring Community Environment Risks. 

 
 
                                                       
32 

all quality standards41

. In 2010, for the three Member State visited, the percentage of SWSZ 

that were not properly monitored was high: 44 % in Romania, 60 % in Hungary and nearly 

100 % in Bulgaria, as compared to the EU average of 27 %. 

54. For the 2011-2013 reporting period, about half of the Member States provided 

information on SWSZ and reported an overall (all parameters included) compliance above 

98 %

42

. The Commission followed-up compliance in SWSZ through a survey during the 

summer of 2016. 21 Member States replied to the survey and confirmed an overall 

compliance for microbiological indicators of 98 %. 

55. However, according to the DWD, reporting on SWSZ is not mandatory. The Commission 

cannot check whether the monitoring takes place in accordance with the way it is reported 

and must assume that Member States report in good faith, in accordance with the principle 

for sincere cooperation

43
. 

56. Whether this is the case is however less clear and the Commission has taken a number of 

initiatives in recent years to incentivise Member States to properly monitor their SWSZ. In 

2011, the Commission published a study concerning the implementation of a Risk 

Assessment for small water supplies
document including best practices for small supplies45

44. Moreover, in 2014 the Commission issued a Guidance 

. The outcomes of this guidance in 

terms of improved monitoring of SWSZ will only be visible once Member States send their 

data for the next reporting period (2014-2016), towards the beginning of 2018. 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-drink/reporting_en.html and 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-drink/small_supplies_en.html. 

COM(2016) 666 final, p. 2. 

Article 4.3 of the Treaty on European Union. 

Towards a Guidance Document for the implementation of a risk-assessment for small water 
supplies in the European Union, Overview of best practices. November 2011. 

Small drinking water supplies: a “Framework for action” to improve management - ISBN 978-
92-79-44633-7 (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-
drink/pdf/Small%20drinking%20water%20supplies.pdf). 

 
 
                                                       
33 

Information to consumers on the quality of drinking water is not easily accessible 

57. Member States are required to take the measures necessary to ensure that adequate 

and up-to-date information on the quality of water intended for human consumption is 
available to consumers46

. In the three Member States visited, this requirement is correctly 

transposed in the national legislations. 

58. We noted however that the Commission did not publish any guidance to Member States 

on how to meet the requirements of the DWD in this respect. A 2016 evaluation study found 

that practices in making such information available to customers differ significantly between 

Member States and even between water suppliers within a single Member State

47
. 

59. For the ERDF/CF projects examined, we found that the consumers do not always have 

easy access to such information, unless requested by the citizens themselves or in cases of 

accidents to the water network. In Hungary, information available to consumers in 2017 

dates from 2014
information to consumers was dated 2015. For another project in Romania51

48. In one project in Bulgaria49 and one in Romania50, the available 

, the 

information was not published at all, but only provided upon request. In this case, following 

the audit visit, the website of the water operator was updated and as of February 2017, data 

covering the year 2016 have been published. 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

Article 13 of the DWD. 

Study supporting the revision of the EU Drinking Water Directive, Evaluation Report, Ecorys, 
May 2016. 

In Hungary, the public is informed on the website of the National Public Health and Medical 
Officer Service (“ÁNTSZ”) (www.antsz.hu) and on the website of the National Institute of 
Environmental Health (“OKI”) (https://oki.antsz.hu). Websites consulted on 25 January 2017. 

Project BG161PO005-1.0.06-0073-C0001, Municipality of Panagyurishte. 

Project CCI 2007RO161PR003, Călăraşi county. 

Project CCI 2009RO161PR005, Constanța region. 

 
 
                                                       
34 

A revision of the Drinking Water Directive has been included in the Commission Work 

programme for 2017 

Commission reviews in 2003, 2008 and 2013 have resulted in a first revision of the DWD in 

October 2015 

60. The Commission reviews the Annexes of the Directive in the light of scientific and 

technical progress at least every five years and must make proposals for amendments, 
where necessary52

. The first review took place in 2003. In the context of that review, the 

Commission organised a consultation with representatives of Ministries of Health or 

Environment, water associations and research groups which highlighted that microbiological 

surveillance should be given more attention since consumers suffer more from infections 

than from intoxications. 

61. In 2008, in the context of the second review, the Commission ordered an external study 

concerning possible revisions of the DWD

53. This study recommended the inclusion of 

drinking water safety planning (DWSP) into the DWD. The concept of DWSP, introduced by 

the World Health Organisation (WHO) in 2004, consists of a comprehensive risk assessment 

and risk management approach that encompasses all steps in water supply from catchment 
to consumer54

. The study was updated in 2010 with a focus on DWSP. Following these two 

studies, in November 2010, the Commission concluded that a legislative revision of the DWD 

was not necessary at that time. 

62. Starting from 2013, the Commission organised a series of meetings and workshops in 

relation to the implementation and possible revision of the DWD for the third review

55
. 

52 

53 

Article 11 of the DWD. 

European Commission DG Environment, “Impact Assessment of possible Revisions to the 
Drinking Water Directive. Final report”, September 2008. 

54  World Health Organisation, Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality, third edition, 2004 

(www.who.int). 

55 

Informal expert group on the implementation of Directive 98/83/EC (Drinking Water Directive). 

 
 
                                                       
35 

Based on this third review the Commission decided to revise the text of Annexes II and III of 

the DWD. 

63. The Directive revising Annexes II and III of the DWD was adopted in October 2015 and 
Member States need to transpose it into national legislation within a period of 24 months56
. 

The new Annex II provides an option to perform drinking water monitoring in a more flexible 

way, provided a risk assessment is performed following the principle of the water safety plan 

approach laid down in the WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality. This will allow 

focusing monitoring resources where they are most needed and, when the outcome of the 

risk assessment permits, a reduction of monitoring can be considered. The new Annex III 

provides for revised specifications for the analysis of parameters. 

The Commission has identified the need for a further revision of the DWD to address 

additional shortcomings 

64. In December 2014, following the European Citizens’ Initiative Right2Water (see 

paragraph 19), and in the context of the regulatory fitness (REFIT) programme, the 

Commission launched a study on the DWD. This study aimed at supporting an evaluation of 
whether the DWD needed to be revised, and was published in May 201657
. 

65. On the basis of this study, the Commission adopted in December 2016 a Staff working 

document which concluded that the DWD fulfilled its objectives of contributing to the 

protection of human health

58

. In parallel, it also identifies several areas for improvement, 

notably the need to: 

- 

- 

56 

57 

58 

revise the parameters, to better consider safety planning and risk-based approach; 

reinforce the provisions in the DWD to ensure the availability of up-to-date information 

to consumers; and 

Commission Directive (EU) 2015/1787. 

Study supporting the revision of the EU Drinking Water Directive, Evaluation Report, Ecorys, 
May 2016. 

SWD(2016) 428 final, “Refit Evaluation of the Drinking Water Directive 98/83/EC”. 

 
 
                                                       
36 

- 

tackle the issue of materials in contact with drinking water. 

66. In November 2015, the Commission launched a study on materials in contact with 
drinking water which was published in March 201759. Currently, an impact assessment is 

being carried out, which is also planned to be published by the end of 2017. It will assist the 

Commission in its revision of the DWD, which has been included in the Commission Work 
programme for 201760
. 

67. In addition, in December 2015, the Commission has launched the “Drinking Water 

Parameter Cooperation Project”, implemented by the WHO Regional Office for Europe. The 

18 month project will review and evaluate the latest evidence available in order to have a 

basis for proposing a revised list of parameters to be included in Annex I of the revised 

DWD

61
. 

All ERDF/CF projects examined improved drinking water in the areas concerned, but water 

losses remain a common problem 

68. We examined nine ERDF/CF projects during this audit, three in each of the Member 

States visited, to assess the contribution provided by EU funded projects to the fulfilment of 

the DWD objectives. Figure 2 provides an overview of the examined projects. Additional 

information on each project is available in Annex V
. 

59 

60 

61 

Support to the implementation and further development of the Drinking Water Directive 
(98/83/EC): Study on materials in contact with drinking water, March 2017. 

COM(2016) 710 final of 25.10.2016 “Commission Work Programme 2017 - Delivering a Europe 
that protects, empowers and defends”. 

Information note, WHO Regional office for Europe, CIRCABC. 

 
 
                                                       
Figure 2 - Overview of projects examined 

37 

City:  Gyömrő
Inhabitants:  15 290
Objectives:  Addition and 
replacement  of water  wells  and 
replacement  of pipelines
Total  cost: 2.4 million  euro

City:  Békés county
Inhabitants:  304 767
Objectives: 
Decommissioning   and 
replacement  of 101 wells
Total  cost: 114.5 million 
euro

City:  Szekszárd
Inhabitants:  34 415
Objectives:  Change  of the 
water  base
Total  cost: 16.4 million  euro

City:  Panagyurishte
Inhabitants:  18 229
Objectives:  Rehabilitation  of 
drinking  water  network  pipes
Total  cost: 19.8 million  euro

Source: ECA. 

City:  Cluj- Sălaj county
Inhabitants:  144 101
Objectives:  Extension  and 
rehabilitation  of well  fields,  pipes, 
treatment  plants,  reservoirs  and 
pumping stations
Total  cost: 131.1 million  euro

City:  Constanța region 
Inhabitants:  569 302
Objectives:  Extension  and 
rehabilitation  of well  fields,  pipes, 
treatment  plants,  reservoirs  and 
pumping stations
Total  cost: 136.6 million  euro

City:  Călărași county
Inhabitants:  114 880
Objectives:  Rehabilitation  of water 
sources,  reservoirs,  pumping  stations 
and pipes  in six towns
Total  cost: 73.6 million  euro

City:  Gabrovo
Inhabitants:  62 561
Objectives:  Rehabilitation  of 
drinking  water  treatment  plants, 
pumping stations  and pipelines
Total  cost: 35.2 million  euro

City:  Veliko Tarnovo
Inhabitants:  62 000
Objectives: Rehabilitation  of 
drinking  water  network  pipes
Total  cost: 12.6 million  euro

69. For these projects, we checked whether they were suitable options for improving access 

to good quality drinking water or for reducing water losses. Our assessment has been based 

on: 

- 

a review of project documentation such as applications, grant agreements, final reports, 

laboratory protocols and other documents related to the project implementation; and 

- 

interviews with water operators, project beneficiaries and managing authorities. 

 
 
 
38 

70. Project beneficiaries were municipalities or associations of municipalities or counties. All 

the projects in Bulgaria and Romania were mixed projects: in addition to drinking water, 

they also addressed issues concerning waste water, which was also a priority in both 

countries. 

71. Five of the nine projects examined were major projects. For these five projects, 
JASPERS62

 (the common technical service established between the Commission, the 

European investment Bank and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development) was 

involved in the project preparation and provided independent advice to help the 

beneficiaries and the competent national administrations. 

72. For all projects examined we found that the situation before their implementation, 

including information on the quality of water, the population connected and the status of 

the supply network (such as the age of the infrastructure and the percentage of water 

losses), had been properly assessed and described in the grant application. 

Overall, the completed ERDF/CF projects examined achieved most of their objectives, but 

were sometimes delayed 

Projects’ achievements 

73. We checked the targets and indicators set for the completed ERDF/CF projects 

examined. We concluded that they achieved their main objectives of improving the water 

quality, increasing access to drinking water or of reducing water losses as set out in their 

respective cost-benefit analyses, feasibility studies, grant agreements or project applications 

(see Table 3

). 

62 

JASPERS is a technical assistance partnership between three partners (the European 
Commission, the European investment Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and 
Development). It provides independent advice to beneficiary countries to help prepare high 
quality major projects to be co-financed by two EU Structural and Investment Funds (the 
European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund). 

 
 
                                                       
Table 3 - Main objectives of the ERDF/CF projects examined 

Member 
State 

Main objectives addressed by the 
projects examined 

Main activities related to drinking water 

39 

Bulgaria 

Improve water quality 
Reduce water losses 

Hungary 

Improve water quality 

Romania 

Improve water quality 
Increase access to drinking water 
Reduce water losses 

Reconstruction of a water treatment plant and 
pumping stations (major project) and 
replacement of old pipelines.  
Rehabilitation of the water distribution 
network and development of new pumping 
stations, construction of a connection system 
between the existing distribution network and 
the new water production systems, 
construction of new wells to exploit new 
water bases and construction of new water 
treatment plants. 
Rehabilitation and construction of water 
treatment plants, construction of water wells 
and reservoirs, extension and rehabilitation of 
the distribution network. 

74. In Bulgaria, the treatment plant and pumping stations for the major project in Gabrovo 

were reconstructed (see Picture 4

). Moreover, for all three projects, the network pipes were 

rehabilitated and operational permits were obtained. 

Picture 4 - Water treatment plant in Gabrovo (Bulgaria) 

©Managing Authority of the operational programme “Environment” in Bulgaria. 

 
 
 
40 

75. In the case of Hungary, the results of the test runs showed an improvement in water 

quality for all three projects examined. However, two projects (Békés and Szekszárd) were 

not yet in operation at the time of the audit visit. Moreover, for one of the projects 

(Szekszárd) further investments will be needed for ensuring long-term compliance with the 

DWD. This was due to poor planning (see Box 5

). 

Box 5 - Additional investments needed for one CF project in Hungary (Szekszárd) 

The very low level of the Danube in recent years (medium water level of 124 cm in 2015 versus 

150-250 cm in previous years) resulted in higher than normal concentrations of Iron and Manganese 

in raw water. This led to non-compliant samples for the parameter manganese and the concentration 

of iron close to the threshold in the drinking water provided. To ensure long-term compliance, the 

need for additional iron and manganese removal capacity emerged, which will be co-financed by the 

EU during the 2014-2020 period, through a project of HUF 876 million (2.8 million euro). 

However, the water level in the Danube, which, according to the project operator led to this 

situation, is not uncommon and the additional investment could have been anticipated. Similar low 

levels had been already registered in 2003 and 201163
. 

63 

Hungarian Hydrological Forecasting Service (

http://www.hydroinfo.hu). 

 
 
                                                       
Picture 5 - Well providing bank filtered water from the Danube, Hungary 

41 

Source: ECA. 

76. In the case of Romania, of the three projects examined, the project in Cluj and Sălaj 

counties, which had the objectives of improving drinking water treatment and distribution, 

achieved its objectives and the one in Călăraşi only partially achieved them (see Box 6

). 

Box 6 - Partial achievement of objectives in a Romanian project (Călăraşi) 

One of the objectives of the projects was to reduce water losses to 19 %. The target for the 

performance indicator “Physical water losses” was not achieved due to an underestimation of the 

water losses before the project. In fact, the estimates (34 %) referred only to water losses in the 

distribution network, and were based on 2006-2007 data when the metering system for water 

catchment, pumping and distribution was not in place and when not all the customers were 

metered. 

At project completion (July 2016), water losses were reported to be around 56 %. At the end of 2016 

water losses were reduced to less than 51 %. The value reported after the project represents the 

water losses in the whole water system, including abstraction and treatment. In addition, a second 

cause for the high value of water losses reported in the final report is the fact that a works contract, 

which was supposed to finish in March 2013, was concluded only in June 2016 because of insolvency 

of the company that was originally awarded the contract. 

 
 
 
42 

Concerning the objective of improving drinking water quality, the results of the tests done after the 

project’s implementation showed that the quality of water met the required standard in all but one 

of the municipalities (Lehliu), where, in 2015, the analyses for free residual chlorine and for 

ammonium reported values above the thresholds respectively in more than 9 % and nearly 17 % of 

the cases. According to the project beneficiary, these parameters have been exceeded during the 

summer (July, August), when the quantities of water treated for human consumption reached the 

plant’s maximum capacity and the pre-treatment dose for chlorine was not sufficient. 

77. The third project, in the Constanța region, also achieved its output indicators concerning 
the rehabilitation or construction of the physical infrastructure64

, but the fulfilment of the 

performance objectives will only be able to be verified when the part of the works funded 

under the 2014-2020 period will be completed in 2019 (see paragraph 79). 

Picture 6 - Laboratory analyses in Călăraşi (Romania) 

Source: ECA. 

64 

Km of transmission and distribution pipes, rehabilitation or construction of wells, reservoirs, 
pumping stations and chlorination and treatment plants. 

 
 
 
                                                       
43 

78. The project beneficiaries in Bulgaria were required to report at completion stage to their 

managing authorities on outputs and financial implementation of the projects, but not on 

project impacts. For example, water losses and disruption of service were the main problems 

concerning drinking water that the projects in Bulgaria were planned to solve. Nevertheless, 

there were no specific indicators concerning these two aspects in the grant agreements. Our 

audit could however confirm that all ERDF/CF projects examined contributed to a reduction 

of water losses and of service disruptions. 

Delays in the implementation of the projects 

79. All the projects examined in Hungary and Romania finished later than planned. The 

Hungarian projects ended with a delay between six and eight months compared to the 

timeframe stipulated in the initial grant agreements. Two of three Romanian projects had a 

delay of more than 30 months. The third project, which was supposed to end in 

November 2015, was extended to the 2014-2020 programme period because of the 

insolvency of the entrepreneur and the forecasted completion date is now the end of 2019. 

The situation was appreciably better in Bulgaria where two of the projects were completed 

with a small delay of three months and the third one was finished on time. 

Financial implementation of the projects 

80. In Hungary, only one of the projects examined respected the initial cost estimates. For 

the other two projects examined (Békés and Szekszárd), final costs were more than 20 % and 

9 % higher than the total costs set in the grant agreement. In both cases, following a public 

procurement procedure, the increases were related to higher than estimated costs of 

construction. The managing authority accepted these cost increases and amended several 

times the grant agreement. This also led to corresponding increases in the EU funding. 

81. On the other hand, for the projects examined in Bulgaria and Romania, the final costs 

were significantly lower (between 19 % and 33 %) than the amount budgeted in the grant 

agreement. This was mainly due to savings in the public procurement procedures. In the 

case of one major project in Bulgaria (Gabrovo) the cost reduction resulted also from the 

revision of the scope of the project (see Box 7). 

 
 
44 

Box 7 - Cost reduction in a major project in Bulgaria (Gabrovo) 

The cost-benefit analysis, annexed to the project application, incorrectly assumed an increase in 

water consumption which would follow an increase of the population. In fact, however, the 

population decreased. Based on this incorrect assumption, the volumes of water needed, as well as 

the required investment for the water treatment plant were over-estimated in the proposal. During 

the implementation of the project, the project planning was adjusted to a more realistic 

demographic scenario and water consumption. This, along with savings from the public procurement 

procedures, resulted in a cost reduction of 33 %. 

Losses in the drinking water supply system are still high 

82. Water losses consist mainly of water leaking from the system before it reaches the end 

consumer (technical or physical losses), and of water consumed without being properly 

billed, for example, through illegal connections or improper metering of consumption 
(commercial or apparent losses)65

. While the former unnecessarily increases production 

costs (because more water than necessary must be produced), the latter means foregone 

revenues. Water losses are normally estimated on the basis of the balance of water inflows 

and outflows in the system. 

83. According to a 2015 World Bank study

66, the average level of water loss in the EU in 2012 

was about 34 %. Of the visited Member States, only Hungary reports a lower percentage 

(24 %). Romania reports water losses in the order of 40 % and Bulgaria over 60 % 

(see Figure 3

). In all three Member States, water losses have actually increased from 2005 

(or 2007 for Romania) to 2013. The increase in reported water losses, especially in Romania, 

is mainly due to the improvement of metering, which led to a more accurate measurement 

of leakages. 

65 

The technical term is “nonrevenue water” as it is water that is not or cannot be billed. For 
simplification purposes and because water operators do not always provide details about the 
different types of nonrevenue water, we will use the term “water losses” in all instances in this 
report. 

66  Water and Waste water Services in the Danube region, May 2015 (http://sos.danubis.org/). 

 
 
                                                       
Figure 3 - Proportion of water losses (%) - Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary 

45 

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

2005

2013

2007

BG

RO

HU

For Romania, data refers to 2007. 

NB:  
Source: Data gathered from Member States (ministries, national statistical offices and association of 
water utilities). 

84. For the 2014-2020 period, the Commission identified, for the three visited countries, the 
need to increase the efficiency of water use, including the reduction of water losses67. In 

addition, the Commission published in 2015 an EU Reference document on Good Practices 

on Leakage Management, to help Member States overcome these issues and provide 

guidance for the design of policies to improve efficient water use by utilities throughout the 
EU68. For Bulgaria, the need to improve water management has also been stressed since 
2012 in the Council’s country-specific recommendations69
. 

85. In Hungary, the Association of Water Utilities carried out a benchmarking exercise in 

2008 which concluded that average water losses in Hungary were around 15-17 % in 2008 

67 

68 

69 

Country position papers for Bulgaria - Ref. Ares(2012)1273775 - 26/10/2012; Hungary - Ref. 
Ares(2012)1286381 - 30/10/2012; Romania - Ref. Ares(2012)1240252 - 19/10/2012. 

Other CIS thematic documents ”Good Practices on Leakage Management”, 2015, ISBN 978-92-
79-45069-3 (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-
framework/facts_figures/guidance_docs_en.htm). 

Council recommendations 2012/C 219/03, 2013/C 217/03, 2014/C 247/02, 2015/C 272/08 and 
2016/C 299/08. 

 
 
 
                                                       
46 

(around 10-13 % for the best four performing service providers, and 40 % for the worst). 

During the 2007-2013 programme period, the reduction of water losses, to a level below 

20 %, was one of the selection criteria for EU co-financed projects. 

86. In Romania, the water losses in the network are considered acceptable if they are below 
15 % of the total quantity entered in the distribution system70

. Rehabilitation or 

modernisation works, as appropriate, are compulsory if the water losses (from the 

abstraction to the user) are above 20 %. However, because of the limited funding in the 

2007-2013 programme period, priority was given to increasing access to water and thus to 

the extension of the water network. 

87. In Bulgaria, water losses of 60 % are very high compared to other EU countries. Individual 

targets in terms of water losses have been set for each water operator to be achieved by 

2021. There is also a national target of 49 % to be achieved by 2026

71. In addition, the 

2014-2023 Strategy for water supply and sanitation set the target to be achieved at national 
level for water losses at 30 % by 203972
. 

88. 

Table 4 shows the situation concerning water losses before and after the 

implementation of the projects examined. Concerning the nine ERDF/CF projects examined, 

all but one, resulted in a reduction of water losses (see paragraph 76 and Box 6

). However, 

according to more recent information, water losses in this project have decreased since the 

project completion. 

70 

71 

72 

Article 116 of the Annex to the order 88-2007 of the regulator. 

Decision of the State regulator ПК-1/22.06.2016. 

Strategy for Development and Management of the Water Supply and Sanitation Sector in the 
Republic of Bulgaria 2014-2023 (approved by Council of Ministers decision No 269 of May 7, 
2014) (http://www.mrrb.government.bg/?controller=articles&id=5265). 

 
 
                                                       
47 

Table 4 - Water losses before and after the implementation of the projects examined 

Member State 

Projects 

Water losses before 
the project 

Project 1 (Gabrovo)1 

73 % 

Bulgaria 

Project 2 (Veliko 
Tarnovo)1 

Project 3 
(Panagyurishte)1 

Project 1 (Békés) 

Hungary 

Project 2 (Szekszárd) 

70 % (in the area of 
the project) 

60 % (in the area of 
the project) 

30 % 

13 % 

Romania 

Project 3 (Gyömrő) 

8.8 % 

Project 11 (Călăraşi) 

34 % (in the 
distribution system) 

Project 21 (Constanța) 

Project 31 (Cluj) 

64 % 

42 % 

Targets 

39 % 

20 % 

Not set 

Not set 

Not set 

Not set 

19 % 

45.2 % 

36 % 

Water losses after 
the project 

44 % 

20 % (in the area of 
the project) 

44 % (in the area of 
the project) 

28 % 

10.9 % 

7.7 % 

50.4 % (for the whole 
system, including 
abstraction and 
treatment) 

44 % 

36.9 % 

1  These projects involved the refurbishment of only a part of the network whereas the data on 

water losses are only available for the entire network. 

Significant funds in addition to EU co-financing is still needed to provide access to quality 

drinking water and to ensure that EU-funded investments can be adequately maintained 

89. We assessed whether the visited Member States identified the additional funding needs 

to ensure the supply of good quality drinking water to its citizens and the extent to which 

this can be provided from national public and private resources. In addition, we examined 

whether the cost-recovery principle was duly taken into consideration when setting water 

tariffs so that the existing infrastructure can be properly maintained. 

 
 
48 

The investment gap for the three visited Member States up to 2020 is estimated at 

6 billion euro 

90. Financial support from the EU budget should not replace national public expenditure73
. 

This means that sufficient national public and private resources must be available to ensure 

an adequate level of investments in the long run and to maintain the infrastructure already 

put in place thanks to EU funding since they are excluded from future EU financing. 

91. Moreover, the same expenditure can receive support from only one EU fund or 

instrument

74

. For drinking water projects, which are considered revenue generating, only 

eligible expenditure reduced by potential net revenue can be financed. The net revenue 

takes account of not only the cash in-flows but also cash out-flows, such as operating 

(including maintenance) costs and the replacement cost of the investment over a specific 

reference period. 

92. Overall, ERDF/CF allocations to drinking water related investments in the EU13 Member 

States had been about 4 billion euro in the 2007-2013 programme period and about 

3.4 billion euro are planned for the 2014-2020 programme period. The ERDF/CF allocations 

to drinking water related projects in the three visited Member States for both the 2007-2013 

and 2014-2020 programme periods amount to around 3.7 billion euro (

Table 5

). 

73 

Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development 
Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural 
Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general 
provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the 
Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 320). 

74 

Article 65(11) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013. 

 
 
                                                       
49 

Table 5 - ERDF/CF allocations for drinking water related projects in Bulgaria, Hungary and 
Romania 

Amounts in million 
euro 

2007-2013 

2014-2020 

Total 

Bulgaria 

Hungary 

Romania 

Total 

166 

529 

1 388 

2 083 

145 

216 

1 261 

1 622 

311 

745 

2 649 

3 705 

93. In 2014, Bulgaria adopted the 2014-2023 Strategy for water supply and sanitation75 with 

the aim of improving the quality of water services and achieving the EU environmental 

standards. According to this document, for the 2014-2023 period, the investment needs for 

drinking water (abstraction, treatment, transmission and distribution) have been estimated 

at about 2.5 billion euro (BGN 5.0 billion). In comparison, the EU funding allocated to 

drinking water related investments in Bulgaria for the 2014-2020 period amount to about 
145 million euro. This indicates an investment gap of around 1 600 million euro76

 in the case 

of Bulgaria until 2020. 

94. In Romania, to ensure compliance with quality standards and the deadlines of the DWD, 

the authorities adopted in 2004 an “Implementation Plan on the quality of water intended 

for human consumption”, identifying the necessary actions regarding the supply of drinking 

water and the related financial needs up to the end of 2015, which were estimated at 

5.6 billion euro. This amount was later revised, in the Operational Programme “Large 

Infrastructures” for 2014-2020, to 5.8 billion euro, on top of the investments already made 

during the 2007-2013 period (EU contribution of 1.38 billion euro). In comparison, the EU 

funds allocated to investments related to drinking water in Romania for the 2014-2020 

75 

76 

Strategy for Development and Management of the Water Supply and Sanitation Sector in the 
Republic of Bulgaria 2014-2023. 

The need of 2 500 million euro is for 10 years, therefore the needs can be estimated at 
250 million euro per year. For the seven years up to 2020, the needs can consequently be 
estimated at 1 750 million euro, from which to deduct the 145 million euro of EU funding. 

 
 
                                                       
50 

period amount to about 1.26 billion euro. This indicates an investment gap of around 

4 540 million euro in the case of Romania until 2020. 

95. Finally, although of a much lesser magnitude, in Hungary additional national or other 

resources will be needed to fulfil the needs for improving water quality. According to an 

evaluation carried out in 2013, the investment needs to improve water quality in Hungary up 

to 2020 were estimated between 415 million and 460 million euro (HUF 130 000 - 

140 000 million) whereas the EU allocation for the 2014-2020 programme period amounts to 
216 million euro (HUF 67 634 million)77

. This indicates an investment gap of up to 244 million 

euro in the case of Hungary until 2020. 

User fees are not sufficient to ensure the sustainability of the projects 

96. The financial sustainability of the provision of water services is ensured when the 

revenues from these services are sufficient to cover both operating and maintenance costs 

and to recover capital costs and thus allow investments to be renewed. This is the cost 

recovery principle. 

97. For both the 2000-2006 and 2007-2013 programme periods, Commission guidance 

proposes that water tariffs should cover at least operating and maintenance costs, as well as 
a significant part of the depreciation charge on assets78

. Depreciation can be considered as a 

proxy of the cost needed to renew the infrastructure in the future. 

98. For the 2014-2020 programme period, the approval of operational programmes is 

subject to an ex ante conditionality on cost-recovery, where there must be an adequate 

77 

78 

Aspects of water and waste water improvements - final evaluation report No 101/2012 - ÖKO 
Zrt -Budapest, 2013 (Msz.: 101/2012. Ivóvíz és szennyvíz fejlesztések egyes kérdései - 
Értékelési zárójelentés ÖKO Zrt -Budapest, 2013. Március). 

For the 2000-2006 programme period: Technical paper 1 - Application of the polluter pays 
principle - Differentiating the rates of Community assistance for Structural Funds, Cohesion 
Fund and ISPA infrastructure operations (6.12.99). For the 2007-2013 programme period: 
Guidance on the methodology for carrying out cost-benefit analyses, working document No 4, 
8/2006. 

 
 
                                                       
51 

contribution of the different water uses to the recovery of the costs of water services79

. The 

definition of what is an adequate contribution is, however, at the Member States’ discretion. 

99. In Bulgaria, according to the 2014-2023 Strategy, in a large number of Bulgarian water 

companies, operating costs are not covered by the revenues generated from water tariffs, 

despite the increases in rates since 2008 (water supply tariffs increased by 16 % from 2008 
to 2011, passing from 1.19 BGN/m3 to 1.38 BGN/m3). In fact, according to all scenarios 

developed in the strategy, the average combined tariffs for water and waste water would 

need to increase by 2024 to approximately the double of the tariffs in place in 2011 to 

achieve the objective of compliance and sustainability. 

100. The non-respect of the cost recovery principle carries a significant risk for the 

sustainability of EU co-financed infrastructures. For example, in Bulgaria, on average, more 

than 400 million euro (BGN 800 million) would be needed annually, just to maintain the 

length and average age of the network in the current condition. However, between 2007 

and 2011 less than 100 million euro (BGN 200 million) have been invested on average each 
year80
. 

101. At the same time, water services must be socially affordable for customers. Commission 

guidance

81 refers to 4 % of household income as a commonly accepted affordability ratio, 

i.e. the total water bill (drinking water and waste water) can represent 4 % of household 

income. The principle of affordability is taken into account in the legislation of the three 

visited Member States. In Bulgaria, affordability is ensured when the invoice cost of the 

water services does not exceed 2.5 % of the average monthly income of a household in the 
district concerned82

. In Romania, the recommended general affordability level for the water 

79 

80 

81 

82 

Ex ante conditionality 6.1 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013. 

Strategy for Development and Management of the Water Supply and Sanitation Sector in the 
Republic of Bulgaria 2014-2023. 

European Commission, "The new programming period 2007-2013 - Guidance on the 
methodology for carrying out cost-benefit analyses - working document No 4", 8/2006. 

Additional provisions, paragraph 1, point 4 of the Law on the regulation of the water and 
sewerage services. 

 
 
                                                       
52 

supply and sanitation is 3.5 % of the average monthly household income at national level 
(separate for urban and rural areas)83. Based on the information included in the project 

applications, tariffs had been set at approximately 2 % - 2.5 % of the net income of an 

average income household. Finally, in Hungary, although the principle of affordability is 
mentioned in the legislation84

, no specific affordability rate has been defined. 

102. In Bulgaria and Romania, water supply tariffs are established by the water operator and 

endorsed by the regulator

85. In both countries, national legislation provides that the tariffs 

should cover the costs of providing the service, ensure the effective and secure operation of 

the service, environmental conservation and protection, and public health, discourage 

excessive consumption and encourage capital investment, to ensure the respect of the 
operator’s financial autonomy and ensure continuity of the service86
. 

103. In addition, in Romania, water operators implementing projects financed from EU funds 

are required to establish a reserve fund for maintenance, replacement and development for 

the whole period of investment. It should be supplied from the revenues of the water 

services and thus taken into account when establishing the tariffs

87

. However, two of the 

three projects examined did not take into consideration the reserve fund when determining 

these tariffs. According to the water operator of one of the projects examined (in Călăraşi), 

the inclusion of this fund in the tariff structure would have led to charges which would have 

been too high for the residential consumers to afford. This may result in sub-standard 

maintenance and the impossibility of replacing the installation in the longer term and put 

the sustainability of water infrastructure at risk. 

83 

84 

85 

86 

87 

According to the National Strategy for the acceleration of development of the public utility 
community services, Approved by GD 246/2006. 

Law CCIX on water utility services. 

Energy and Water Regulatory Commission in Bulgaria and National Regulatory Authority for 
the Public Services of the Communal Management in Romania. 

Ordinance regulating the quality of water and sewerage services in Bulgaria and Law 241/2006 
in Romania. 

Article 8(1) of the Annex to the ANRSC order No 65/2007 approving the methodology for the 
establishment, adjustment or modification of prices/tariffs for public services in the water 
supply and sanitation. 

 
 
                                                       
53 

104. In Hungary, full cost-recovery is required and from 2012 onwards detailed requirements 
for tariff setting at national level are to be set by Decree of the Minister in charge88. The 

same legislation specified that for 2012 the tariffs could only be increased by a maximum of 
4.2 % compared to the 2011 tariffs. A subsequent law of 201389

 specified that the tariff 

should be decreased by 10 % compared to the 2012 tariffs as from July 2013. Since then, as 

no Decree for setting tariffs has yet been adopted, tariffs have remained unchanged. 

105. For the three projects examined in Hungary, the tariffs in place in 2016 were on average 

15 % lower than those announced in the applications and used to assess the projects. This 

implies that cost-recovery may not be achieved and thus that the maintenance may not be 

carried out properly and there might not be enough reserves in place for the replacement of 

equipment in the long term and thus ensuring the sustainability of water infrastructures. 

106. Similar issues as regards the risk of revenues generated being insufficient to ensure the 

operation and maintenance of EU-funded infrastructure have already been highlighted in 
several of our previous reports90
. 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

107. Overall, we found that citizens’ access to and supply of quality drinking water in 

Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania has improved. This is to a large extent due to the significant 

ERDF and CF investments made in recent years. Nevertheless, there are still areas where 

citizens are supplied with water from the public supply network that is not fully in 

compliance with the EU standards set out in the 1998 Drinking Water Directive. Moreover, 

significant further national public and private investments are and will be needed to ensure 

access to good quality water to all citizens in these Member States and to ensure that 

EU-funded investments in water facilities can be adequately maintained. 

88 

89 

90 

Law CCIX on water utility services. 

Article 4 of Law LIV (2013) of 1.11.2013. 

Special Reports No 9/2010 and No 2/2015. 

 
 
                                                       
54 

The 1998 Drinking Water Directive had been implemented in most respects by the end of 

2016 

108. The Commission has closely monitored the compliance with the DWD’s requirements 

and where necessary has used infringement procedures in all the three Member States 

visited. A number of derogations were granted to Hungary and Romania at the time of their 

accession to the EU, and additional derogations were put in place by these Member States at 

a later stage. Member States must immediately inform the Commission of these derogations 

whenever they concern large water supply zones (LWSZ), but only from the second 

derogation in case of small water supply zones (SWSZ). By 2016, the national legislations in 

all three Member States visited were in compliance with the requirements of the Drinking 

Water Directive. Nevertheless, and despite the significant improvements in water quality in 

the three Member States visited in recent years, some citizens are still confronted with 

drinking water that does not meet all EU quality standards (see paragraphs 31 to 41). 

109. The reporting by Member States on the quality of water intended for human 

consumption, published every three years, is the main tool used by the Commission to 

detect non-compliance with the parametric values laid down in the DWD. We identified a 

number of shortcomings in the current monitoring arrangements. First, Member States are 

late in reporting data to the EEA based on which the Commission assesses the 

implementation of the DWD. For example, Hungary only provided its data for the 2011-2013 

reporting period in April 2016, more than one year later than required. Second, the EEA 

(which checks monitoring compliance on behalf of the Commission) did not detect 

inconsistencies in the data for the 2011-2013 period reported by Member States. Third, in all 

the three visited Member States, we found that not all the parameters required under the 

DWD had been monitored, without any justifications or explanations about possible 

monitoring exceptions. This was also confirmed for some of the ERDF/CF projects examined 

where we noted that the monitoring was not carried out in accordance with the DWD and 

fewer parameters than required in the DWD had been tested. Finally, according to the DWD, 

reporting on SWSZ is not mandatory. The Commission does not have investigative powers 

and cannot check whether the monitoring takes place in accordance with the way it is 

 
 
55 

reported. It is assumed that Member States report in good faith, in accordance with the 

principle for sincere cooperation (see paragraphs 42 to 56). 

110. Member States are required to take the measures necessary to ensure that adequate 

and up-to-date information on the quality of water intended for human consumption is 

available to consumers. In the three Member States visited, we found that this requirement 

had been correctly transposed in national legislation, but practices in making such 

information available to customers differ significantly and in general, up-to-date information 

on the water quality is not systematically provided to citizens. There is currently no 

Commission guidance on this aspect (see paragraphs 57 to 59). 

111. A revision of the Drinking Water Directive has been included in the Commission Work 

programme for 2017 to address a number of shortcomings identified by the Commission on 

the basis of the Member States’ reporting and scientific advice (see paragraphs 60 to 67). 

Recommendation 1 

The Commission should follow-up gaps in Member States’ monitoring based on existing 

reporting and enforce the requirements of the Drinking Water Directive in this respect. 

Implementation date: by the end of 2018 (at the end of the current reporting period). 

Recommendation 2 

The Commission, in the context of the current revision of the DWD, should address the 

following issues in a proportionate manner: 

(a) 

improving the provision of information from Member States to the Commission about 

derogations concerning SWSZ; 

(b) 

the extension of the reporting requirements to SWSZ; 

(c) 

regular reporting ensuring that up-to-date information on the compliance with the 

DWD is collected from Member States. The Commission should consider options such 

as alternative IT tools (e.g. data harvesting from national administrations) to facilitate 

 
 
 
56 

the reporting exercise, make it swifter and to ensure availability of up-to-date 

information; 

(d) 

improving the requirements for the provision of adequate and up-to-date information 

on the quality of water intended for human consumption available to consumers. 

Implementation date: by the end of 2017. 

All ERDF/CF projects examined improved drinking water in the areas concerned, but water 

losses remain a common problem 

112. Overall, the ERDF/CF projects examined achieved their main objectives of improving the 

water quality, increasing access to drinking water or of reducing water losses as set out in 

the grant agreement or the project application. All but one of the ERDF/CF projects 

examined were implemented according to the most-suitable option for fulfilling the 

identified needs. Moreover, the completed ERDF/CF projects examined achieved most of 

their objectives, but were sometimes delayed (in particular in Hungary and Romania). Costs 

higher than those initially budgeted were noted for two of the three projects examined in 

Hungary (see paragraphs 73 to 81). 

113. In 2012, the average level of water losses in Hungary was around 24 %, in Romania 

around 40 % and in Bulgaria over 60 %. This compares to an EU average of about 34 %. In all 

three Member States, the water losses have actually increased from 2005 (or 2007 for 

Romania) to 2013. The increase in reported water losses, especially in Romania, is linked to 

the improvement of metering, which led to a more accurate measurement of leakages. For 

Bulgaria, the need to improve water management has also been stressed since 2012 in the 

Council’s country-specific recommendations. Concerning the nine ERDF/CF projects 

examined, all but one, resulted in a reduction of water losses. However, according to more 

recent information, water losses in this project have decreased since the project completion. 

Overall, water losses, especially in Bulgaria and Romania, remain high and this impacts on 

the overall efficiency of the water system and increases costs for both consumers and 

society as a whole. During the 2007-2013 programme period, only Hungary had used the 

 
 
 
planned reduction of water losses as selection criteria for EU-funded projects (see 

57 

paragraphs 82 to 88). 

Recommendation 3 

Member States should require that plans to reach a certain level of reduction of water losses 

are included as selection criteria for all water facility projects that allow the meeting of 

national targets. 

Implementation date: by the end of 2017. 

Recommendation 4 

The Commission should support Member States in promoting actions aiming at the 

reduction of water losses. This could be achieved, for example, by including water loss 

reduction in the scope of EU funding in the field of drinking water infrastructure, or by 

enhancing transparency on water losses. 

Implementation date: for the next programme period. 

Significant funds in addition to EU co-financing still needed to provide access to quality 

drinking water and to ensure that EU-funded investments can be adequately maintained 

114. Sufficient national public and private resources must be available to ensure an adequate 

level of investments in the long run and to maintain the infrastructure put in place thanks to 

EU funding. Financial support from the EU budget should not replace public expenditure by a 

Member State. The ERDF/CF allocations to drinking water related projects in the three 

visited Member States for both the 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 programme period amount to 

around 3.7 billion euro. This means that overall, the visited Member States will be required 

to invest more than 6 billion euro to cover their estimated needs by the end of 2020. This 

indicates that not all of the needed investments in water facilities are likely to be made, in 

particular in Bulgaria and Romania (see paragraphs 90 to 95). 

 
 
 
58 

115. The financial sustainability of the provision of water services is therefore only ensured 

when the revenues from these services are sufficient to cover both operating and 

maintenance costs and to recover capital costs and thus allow investments to be renewed. 

This is the cost recovery principle. At the same time, water services must be socially 

affordable to the customers. For the 2014-2020 programme period, the respect of the cost-

recovery principle was made mandatory through the necessity to fulfil an ex ante 

conditionality. This means that the approval of operational programmes for the 2014-2020 

programme period is subject to the existence of an adequate contribution of the different 

water uses to the recovery of the costs of water services. The definition of what is an 

adequate contribution is, however, at the Member States’ discretion. Overall, in none of the 

three Member States will the level of user fees be sufficient to cover the operational and 

maintenance cost of the drinking water facilities (see paragraphs 96 to 106). 

Recommendation 5 

Member States should: 

(a)  ensure that water tariffs provide for the sustainability of water infrastructure, including 

its maintenance and renewal; 

(b)  while ensuring the full cost-recovery in the water tariffs structure, consider, if necessary, 

granting financial or other forms of support to households for which the cost of water 

services is above the affordability rate. 

Implementation date: immediately. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This Report was adopted by Chamber II, headed by Mrs Iliana IVANOVA, Member of the 

Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 5 July 2017. 

For the Court of Auditors 

59 

Klaus-Heiner LEHNE 

President 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ERDF/CF spending on the management and supply of drinking water (2007-2013 and 2014-2020 programme periods) 

Country 

2007-2013 

2014-2020 

Amounts in million euro 

Code 45 
Management and 
distribution of 
drinking water 

Code 020 
Provision of water for human 
consumption (extraction, 
treatment, storage and 
distribution infrastructure) 

Code 021 
Water management and drinking water conservation (including river basin 
management, water supply, specific climate change adaptation measures, 
district and consumer metering, charging systems and leak reduction) 

Total codes 
020 and 
021 

1 

ANNEX I 

Total 
allocation 
2007-13 and 
2014-20 

RO 
PL 
HU 
LV 
CZ 
LT 
SI 
BG 
EE 
SK 
HR 
MT 
CY 
Total EU13 
Total EU28 

1 388 
478 
529 
563 
251 
153 
226 
166 
204 
86 
16 
6 

4 066 
7 394 

239 
155 

115 
101 
125 
55 
46 
68 
169 
29 

1 103 
1 761 

1 261 
266 
60 
122 
77 
127 
14 
89 
35 
82 
40 
59 
20 
2 252 
2 972 

1 261 
505 
216 
122 
192 
227 
139 
145 
81 
150 
209 
87 
20 
3 355 
4 733 

2 650 
983 
744 
685 
443 
381 
365 
311 
285 
236 
225 
94 
20 
7 421 
12 127 

 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
1 

ANNEX II 

Sources of drinking water in the EU 

About 50 % of drinking water is taken from groundwater and about 40 % from surface 
water1. The remaining 10 % of drinking water is obtained from other sources, like artificial 
groundwater recharge2 or bank filtration water3
. 

The amounts of water abstracted (all water uses included) vary immensely among EU13 

Member States ranging from 100 cubic metres per capita in Malta to 1 300 cubic metres per 

capita in Estonia (see 

Figure 1

). 

Figure 1 - Amount of m3 of water abstracted per capita in 2013 

Malta
Slovakia
Latvia
Croatia
Czech Republic
Lithuania¹
Cyprus
Poland
Romania
Hungary¹
Slovenia
Bulgaria
Estonia

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1 

Data for Hungary and Lithuania refer to 2012. 

Source: Eurostat. 

Supplying drinking water for domestic consumption accounts for less than a fifth of all water 
use4 (see Figure 2

). 

1 

2 

3 

European water policies and human health - EEA Report No 32/2016, page 18, 
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/public-health-and-environmental-protection. 

Artificial recharge is the planned, human activity of augmenting the amount of groundwater 
available through works designed to increase the natural replenishment or percolation of 
surface waters into the groundwater aquifers. 

Bank filtration is a type of filtration that works by passing water to be purified for use as 
drinking water through the banks of a river or lake. It is then drawn off by extraction wells 
some distance away from the water body. 

 
 
 
                                                       
Figure 2 - Water use in the EU 

2 

Source: EEA. 

4 

Results and lessons from implementing the Water Assets Accounts in the EEA area - EEA, 
Technical Report No 7/2013 of 22 May 2013, p. 71. 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                         
1 

ANNEX III 

Previous ECA reports and their main conclusions 

Audit scope 

Conclusions 

Special Report No 9/2010 - Is EU Structural measures spending on the supply of water for domestic consumption used to best effect? 

The focus of the audit is on the infrastructures exclusively dedicated to 
domestic water supply co-financed by the ERDF/CF and completed 
during the 2000–2006 programme period. 

We concluded that whilst structural measures’ spending has 
contributed to improving the supply of water for domestic use, better 
results could have been achieved at a lower cost. 

Special Report No 4/2014 - Integration of EU water policy objectives with the CAP: a partial success 

This audit addressed the question as to whether the objectives of EU 
water policy had been successfully integrated into the Common 
Agricultural Policy (CAP). 

We concluded that cross-compliance and rural development funding 
have thus far had a positive impact in supporting the policy objectives 
to improve water quantity and quality, but these instruments are 
limited relative to the policy ambitions set for the CAP. 

Special Report No 2/2015 - EU-funding of urban waste water treatment plants in the Danube river basin: further efforts needed in helping 
Member States to achieve EU waste water policy objectives 

This audit analysed the progress with regard to the implementation of 
the urban waste water treatment directive and, for a sample of 28 
EU-co-financed waste water treatment plants, assessed the 
performance in treating waste water, the way of handling sewage 
sludge produced and the financial sustainability of the infrastructure. 

We concluded that ERDF/CF spending during the 2007-13 programme 
period has played a key role in bringing forward waste water 
collection and treatment, however not sufficient to meet the 
deadlines regarding waste water treatment. 

Special Report No 23/2015 - Water quality in the Danube river basin: progress in implementing the water framework directive but still some 
way to go 

This audit focused on whether Member States’ implementation of the 
water framework directive lead to an improvement in water quality. 

We concluded that the implementation of the measures has led to 
little improvement in water quality. Member States exempted a 
significant number of water bodies from the 2015 and 2021 deadlines 

 
 
Special Report No 3/2016 - Combating eutrophication in the Baltic Sea: further and more effective action needed 

The aim of the audit was to assess whether the EU actions have been 
effective in helping Member States to reduce nutrient loads into the 
Baltic Sea. 

We concluded that the implementation of the nitrates directive by 
Baltic Sea Member States is not fully effective. The EU actions have led 
to limited progress towards nutrient reduction in the Baltic Sea. 

for reaching good status. 

2 

 
 
 
1 

ANNEX IV 

Infringement procedures concerning the Drinking Water Directive in the visited Member States 

Member State 

Infringement procedure 

Date of Formal notice 
Article 258 TFEU 

Reasons 

Date of closure 

Bulgaria 

2009/2259 

20.11.2009 
Additional formal notice on 
26.9.2013 

Incorrect and/or 
incomplete transposition 
of the DWD 

26.2.2015 

Hungary 

2008/2247 

18.9.2008 

Incomplete transposition 
of the DWD 

8.10.2009 

Hungary 

2016/2047 

27.5.2016 
(preceded by a “Pilot” 
opened in December 2013) 

Non-fulfilment of the 
requirements of the DWD 

Active procedure 

Romania 

2009/2260 

8.10.2009 

Incorrect and/or 
incomplete transposition 
of the DWD 

28.10.2010 

 
 
 
 
Overview of projects examined 

Project 

Total cost 
(euro)1

EU 
contribution 
(euro) 

% of EU 
contribution 

Start date 

End date 

Objective 

35 193 027 

33 458 011 

95 % 

23.2.2010 

31.10.2016 

Bulgaria 

12 556 568 

12 459 867 

99 % 

15.12.2008 

15.12.2013 

19 755 571 

19 144 663 

97 % 

14.9.2012 

31.3.2016 

Project 1 -
BG161PO005-
1.0.02-0077-C0003 
Town of Gabrovo 
(major project) 

Project 2 - 
BG161PO005-
1.0.02-0058-C0002 
Municipality of 
Veliko Tarnovo 

Project 3 - 
BG161PO005-
1.0.06-0073-C0001 
Municipality of 
Panagyurishte 

The improvement of the water cycle of the concerned 
area: from treatment and supply of drinking water to 
conduct and treatment of waste water. 

Concerning drinking water, the project included a 
reconstruction of the drinking water treatment plant, 
the rehabilitation of four pumping stations and the 
construction of a new one, and replacement of old 
pipelines. 

The aim of the project was to improve the quality, 
effectiveness, efficiency and ecological aspect of the 
water and sewerage services in the concerned area. 

Measures related to drinking water included the 
construction of 4.26 km of pipelines and the 
rehabilitation of existing pipelines for 5.35 km. 

The focus of the project was to improve and develop 
the waste water infrastructure in the concerned area. 

The activities included the rehabilitation of 23.7 km of 
drinking water network pipes. 

1 

ANNEX V 

Total number 
of inhabitants 
covered by 
the project 

Cost/ 
Inhabitants 
(euro) 

62 561 

562.54 

62 000 

202.53 

18 229 

1 083.74 

 
 
 
114 528 040 

86 480 346 

76 % 

30.9.2013 

28.12.2015 

Hungary 

16 428 142 

10 834 606 

66 % 

27.3.2012 

19.10.2015 

2 357 403 

1 661 194 

70 % 

3.1.2011 

21.1.2013 

Project 1 - KEOP-
1.3.0/09-11-2012-
0009 – Békés 
county (major 
project) 

Project 2 - KEOP-
1.3.0/B/2F/09-11-
2011-0002 – 
Szekszárd town 

Project 3 - KEOP-
1.3.0/2F/09-2010-
0009 – Gyömrő 
town 

2 

304 767 

375.79 

34 415 

477.35 

15 290 

154.18 

The supply of good quality drinking water for the 66 
water supply zones in the concerned county, which 
were not meeting the standards set in DWD (generally 
for arsenic, iron, manganese, ammonium and in some 
respects for COD, boron, iodium and nitrates). 

The project involved the de-commissioning of 101 
independent water production wells that had been 
replaced by increased centralised production, 
treatment and subsequent transmission of treated 
water. 

The change of the water bases of the concerned city 
due to the danger of contamination from volatile 
chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbon deriving from a 
disused industrial site. According to studies, 
remediation was not feasible in the short-term. 
Therefore, to ensure the continuous supply of good 
quality drinking water for the city, the project included 
the construction of new wells on the banks of Danube 
along with a new water treatment plant. A main 
pipeline of 20.8 km had to be constructed between 
the water treatment plant and the city. 

The change of the water bases in the concerned city 
due to bad quality of raw water (the water from the 
old wells of the south side of the city contained more 
Ammonium than the thresholds permitted). 

The project involved the development of new water 
wells as well as the expansion of the capacity of 
existing wells already providing good quality water. In 
addition, old lead and asbestos-cement pipelines had 
to be replaced and new chloral disinfection equipment 
had to be installed to enable protection against 
bacterial infection of water. 

 
 
73 583 449 

62 983 433 

86 % 

9.10.2008 

31.7.2016 

Romania 

136 610 301 

120 978 394 

89 % 

22.11.2010 

31.7.2016 

131 085 082 

105 280 052 

80 % 

1.10.2008 

30.6.2016 

Project 1 - CCI 
2007RO161PR003 
Călăraşi county 
(major project) 

Project 2 - CCI 
2009RO161PR005, 
Constanța region 
(major project) 

Project 3 - CCI 
2007RO161PR009 
Cluj- Sălaj area 
(major project) 

3 

114 880 

640.52 

569 302 

239.96 

144 101 

909.68 

The rehabilitation of the water supply and waste 
water collection systems in six towns. Concerning 
drinking water, the main measures were: 

- the rehabilitation of groundwater and surface water 
sources, water transmission pipes, and water 
treatment plants; 

- the rehabilitation and extension of water reservoirs, 
pumping stations, water metering and distribution 
networks. 

The development of a sustainable water and waste 
water system in the concerned counties (Constanța 
and Ialomita) by improving the quality of the existing 
services and reducing the negative impact of waste 
water discharges. 

Concerning drinking water, the main measures 
involved extension and rehabilitation of well fields, 
water main pipes, water treatment plants, 
chlorination plants, extension and rehabilitation of 
water reservoirs, pumping stations, distribution 
networks and the installation of new water metering. 

The improvement of drinking water treatment and 
distribution, as well as waste water collection and 
treatment, in eight agglomerations located in the 
concerned counties. Concerning the drinking water 
supply, the project included the construction and 
modernization of water sources intended for drinking 
water abstraction, rehabilitation of water treatment 
plants, distribution network extension and 
rehabilitation, metering and acquisition of laboratory 
and leakage detection equipment. 

 
 
 
1 

All the grant amounts are originally expressed in the national currencies. For the projects in Bulgaria, the amounts in euro have been calculated with the 
exchange the fixed exchange rate of 1.95583 BGN/euro. For the projects in Romania, the amounts in euro have been calculated with an average exchange 
rate between the Inforeuro exchange rate in place at the time of the projects approval and the Inforeuro exchange rate in place when the projects were 
completed. For the projects in Hungary, the amounts in euro have been calculated with the exchange rate of 313.12 HUF/euro that was the official exchange 
rate in place on 31.12.2015. 

4 

 
 
                                                       
REPLIES OF THE COMMISSION TO THE SPECIAL REPORT OF THE EUROPEAN 
COURT OF AUDITORS 

"IMPLEMENTING THE DRINKING WATER DIRECTIVE: WATER QUALITY AND 
ACCESS TO IT IMPROVED IN BULGARIA, HUNGARY AND ROMANIA, BUT 
INVESTMENT NEEDS REMAIN SUBSTANTIAL" 

REPLIES OF THE COMMISSION 

II. The Commission recalls that 'safe access of citizens to quality drinking water' is not part of the 
objectives of the current Drinking Water Directive.  

V.  

(a) The Commission partially accepts the recommendation and will implement it as follows: 

The Commission will focus on main gaps identified affecting the quality of the drinking water but 
cannot systematically follow up on all monitoring gaps due to resource limitations. 

It will look at how to improve reporting provisions as part of the on-going revision of the Drinking 
Water Directive. 

(b) The Commission accepts recommendations (b1) to (b4) in substance. However, this is subject 
to  the  outcome  of  the  Drinking  Water  Directive  revision,  which  is  not  known  at  the  time  of  this 
report,  and  the  content  of  the  proposal  amending  the  DWD  depends  largely  on  the  impact 
assessment  conclusions.  The  proposal  is  not  yet  finalised  and  the  Commission  is  looking  into 
options to improve the identified shortcomings. In this context, the proposal will have to be in line 
with  the  objectives  of  the  "Better  Regulation"  guidelines1  that  the  Commission's  proposals  "meet 
policy  goals  at  minimum  cost  and  deliver  maximum  benefits  to  citizens,  businesses  and  workers 
while  avoiding  all  unnecessary  regulatory  burdens",  in  particular,  as  far  as  small  entities  are 
concerned. 

(b)1- The Commission will overall consider, in the framework of the revision of the Directive, how 
to improve information, monitoring and reporting from SWSZ. 

(b)2- The Commission will overall consider, in the framework of the revision of the Directive, how 
to  improve  information,  monitoring  and  reporting  for  SWSZ,  using  the  risk-based  approach  for 
monitoring also for SWSZ. 

(b)3-  The  Commission  will  overall  consider,  in  the  framework  of  the  revision  of  the  Directive, 
amendments to reporting provisions of the Directive.  

Reporting should ideally focus on information necessary for the compliance check (incidents, new 
substances, etc.). 

(b)4- The Commission will consider how to improve access to information for consumers as part of 
the Drinking Water Directive revision as the issue has been identified as an area for improvement in 
the Commission Staff Working Document on REFIT of the Drinking Water Directive 98/83/EC2. 

(c) The Commission accepts this recommendation.  

1  

2  

http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/docs/swd_br_guidelines_en.pdf 

SWD(2016) 428 final 

2 

 
                                                       
The  Commission  is  sensitive  to  the  issue  of  water  losses  and  intends,  within  the  revision  of  the 
Drinking  Water  Directive,  to  promote  action  at  Member  States  level  in  line  with  the  subsidiarity 
principle. 

However, reducing water losses by EU-funded activities might lead to funding maintenance, which 
is  not  always  an  investment  priority,  especially  for  Member  States  where  there  is  not  sufficient 
supply network to cover the population. 

VI. The Commission notes that these recommendations are addressed to the Member States. 

7.  The  reporting  exercise  is  the  main  policy  tool  for  Member  States  to  ensure  that  monitoring  is 
carried  out  and  that  monitoring  information  on  the  quality  of  water  intended  for  human 
consumption is available.  

Detected  non-compliance  with  the  parametric  values  of  the  Directive  is  usually  followed  up 
immediately by Member States.  

11. The Commission followed-up on the fact that only half of the Member States reported on small 
water supply zones by launching a voluntary 'lighter' reporting exercise (survey) on SWSZ in 2016, 
using  a  simplified  methodology  (average  Member  States'  compliance  for  microbiological  and 
chemical parameters). The results of this survey confirm an overall compliance for microbiology on 
average above 98% for SWSZ across Member States.  

The Czech Republic reported for the 2008-2010 period that according to the national authorities the 
level  of  compliance  was  high,  and  provided  sample  compliance  data  only  for  a  selection  of  8 
parameters for reference year 2011. 

14. The information on losses in the distribution network was mentioned in the 2008-2010 report in 
the  chapter  'challenges'  as  a  one-time  example  amongst  several  others. Water  losses  are  currently 
not part of drinking water reporting. The Commission will consider how to improve transparency 
on water losses as part of the Drinking Water Directive revision. 

15. See reply to paragraph 14. 

18. The Commission recalls that the existing Drinking Water Directive 98/83/EC regulates only the 
quality  of  water  intended  for  human  consumption:  it  sets  minimum  quality  criteria  for  the  water 
provided at the tap. It does not regulate the supply of drinking water, nor the quality or quantity at 
the source. Options to improve access to water will be considered in the revision of the Directive 
subject to the results of the impact assessment. 

20. The principle of cost-recovery of Art. 9 WFD refers also to environmental and resource costs, 
not only financial costs. 

21.  The  Commission  considers that  the  4  %  affordability  level  is  indicative  and  was  used  for  the 
purpose  of  cost  benefit  analysis.  The  Commission  points  out  that  conditions  vary  across  Europe, 
therefore any affordability threshold for water tariffs should be established on a case-by-case basis 
by water operators/regulators. 

30.  

Second indent: The Commission recalls that the Drinking Water Directive only regulates the quality 
of water intended for human consumption.  

See also reply to paragraph 18. 

38.  According  to  a  report  received  from  Hungary  in  February  2017,  showing  the  situation  on  31 
December  2016,  18  municipalities  were  still  reported  as  being  non-compliant.  The  Hungarian 
authorities also informed the Commission of further delays in the expected compliance timeline in a 

3 

 
recent meeting. The Commission has taken due account of this latest information and is considering 
the necessary steps in that regard. 

39. The Commission notes that these derogations most likely concerned on average small to very 
small water supplies.  

According to the regular reporting cycle provided for in the Directive, the 2015 data will only be 
reported to the Commission early in 2018, together with 2016 data.  

However,  in  accordance  with  the  reporting  requirements  of  the  Directive,  Member  States  can 
choose whether to report data on small water supplies.  

It is therefore difficult for the Commission to detect such situations, but the Member State should be 
taking remedial action.  

40. See reply to paragraph 39  

In  addition, Bulgaria  did  not  report any  data  on  SWSZ  for  the  parameters  nitrate/nitrite,  but  only 
average compliance rate of measured drinking water quality parameters: 2011: 97.8%, 2012: 97.7%, 
and 2013 97.8%.  

41. Where the Commission had the necessary information, as in the case of Hungary, it has taken 
appropriate legal action.  

42.  The  Commission  notes  that  there  has  been  a  reduction  in  the  delays  of  the  publication  of  the 
report since 2005.  

Late publication was partly due to timing, completeness and quality of Member States' reporting. 

43.  The  reporting  is  indeed  complex.  For  example  within  the  2011-2013  reporting  period  a  very 
large number of analyses have been carried out in Member States: 4.1 million on microbiological 
parameters, 7.1 million on chemical parameters and 17.5 million on indicator parameters.  

47.  Member  States  have  the  possibility  to  reduce  the  monitoring  frequency  in  case  they  consider 
that a parameter is not present in a WSZ, in accordance with note 4 table B1 of Annex II (until 27 
October 2017) or in accordance with Part C of Annex II of the Directive (after 27 October 2017). 

Moreover, the Commission does not have investigative powers and cannot therefore check whether 
the  monitoring  takes  place  in  accordance  with  the  way  it  is  reported.  It  is  assumed  that  Member 
States report in good faith, in accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation. 

49. Member States can make use of the general derogation in Annex II, Part 2, Audit Monitoring 
that all parameters set in accordance with Article 5(2) and (3) must be subject to audit monitoring 
unless it can be established by the competent authorities, for a period of time to be determined by 
them, that a parameter is not likely to be present in a given supply in concentrations which could 
lead  to  the  risk  of  a  breach  of  the  relevant  parametric  value.  Member  States  are  not  required  to 
report to the Commission on the use of this general derogation. 

50. The Enterococci group can be used as an E. coli indicator of faecal pollution. As the numbers of 
intestinal enterococci in human faeces are generally about an order of magnitude lower than those 
of E.coli, E.coli is used more frequently than Enterococci to test water. 

See also reply to paragraph 49. 

52.  The  Commission  has  been  informed  by  the  EEA  that  it  will  no  longer  perform  these  tasks 
(quality control of data, repository, etc.) and will – due to resource constraints - stop supporting the 
Commission  for  the  next  drinking  water  reporting  exercises,  despite  Commission's  demand  to 
continue  this  exercise  at  least  until  the  forthcoming  revision  of  the  Directive.  The  Commission 
services will look into alternatives for the data collection, quality check and preparation of national 

4 

 
databases  for  the  last  exercise  before  the  revision  of  the  Directive  which  will  include  a 
simplification of the reporting obligations.  

Some errors (e.g. typos) may happen even though the data undergoes a quality control by the EEA 
and  is  double-checked  by  the  Member  State.  Such  isolated  errors  do  not  put  into  question  the 
accuracy of the reporting as a whole. 

Box 4 - Example of inconsistencies in Member States’ reporting on compliance with the DWD 
that could have been detected by the EEA 

The error in Table 3-2 of the Romanian Country Report, was overlooked in spite of a quality control 
by  the  EEA  and  double-checking  by  the  Member  State.  In  the  national  report  for  Romania,  the 
figure presented in graph 2.2 indicates a 100% monitoring for coliform, which indicated there was 
no issue. This may be the reason why the mistake was not spotted in the table. 

The quality of data provided by Member States to the Commission was controlled by the EEA and 
double-checked  by  the  Member  State.  Therefore  no  additional  comparison  with  national  reports 
which may differ was carried out. 

53.  The  Commission  has  already  in  the  past  taken  action  in  response  to  concerns  about  small 
supplies: A workshop was organized on 9 November 2011, a study "Best Practices for conducting a 
risk-assessment  for  small  water  supplies",  specific  Member  States  factsheets  in  addition  to  the 
Synthesis  report,  and  a  brochure  "Framework  for  Action  for  the  management  of  small  drinking 
water supplies" were published. The 2016 survey indicated that the situation is better than in 2010-
2013, and improving.  

In  addition,  the  Commission  also  noted  in  its  Staff  Working  Document  on  the  Evaluation  of  the 
REFIT  of  the  Drinking  Water  Directive3  that  preventive  safety  planning  and  risk-based  elements 
were  under-exploited in the current DWD and that this represented a weakness.  The Commission 
intends  to  tackle  this  in  the  revision  of  the  Directive,  and  is  currently  assessing  the  impacts  of  a 
potential  introduction  of  risk-based  approach  for  large  and  small  water  supplies,  which  offers 
opportunities for simplification to concentrate time and resources on main risks and cost-effective 
source measures, and to reduce the administrative burden. 

58. According to the current Drinking Water Directive, a certain degree of variability between the 
practices  regarding  the  availability  of  information  is  acceptable.  The  Commission  already 
identified, in its Staff Working Document on REFIT of the Drinking Water Directive 98/83/EC, that 
a more active dissemination of relevant information would be beneficial.  

69. The Commission is already considering options to address leakages, which represent a problem 
that impedes efficient drinking water supply, as mentioned in the inception impact assessment4 of 
the Drinking Water Directive.  

75. The Szekszárd project is expected to achieve its objectives in 2014 – 2020 programming period. 

Box 5 - Additional investments needed for one ERDF/CF project in Hungary (Szekszárd) 

Even though low levels of Danube occurred in the past, the exact occurrence and magnitude cannot 
be  foreseen,  which  influences  predictability  of  the  concentrations  for  certain  parameters  and 
therefore  makes  it  harder  to  design  works  as  regards  long-term  compliance.  However,  during  the 

3  

4  

SWD(2016) 428 final 

http://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2017-1061434_en 

5 

 
                                                       
2014 – 2020 period Hungary intends to take climate change into consideration in the evaluation of 
projects even more. 

76. See below under the box 6. 

Box 6 - Partial achievement of objectives in a Romanian project (Călăraşi) 

The investments in the water sector co-financed by the Cohesion Fund during the 2007-2013 period 
improved the capacity of the operators to provide more accurate measurements and monitor better 
the overall performance of the utilities and infrastructure constructed. As a result, the assumptions 
and the objectives on which the expected investments under 2014-2020 will be based are expected 
to be more reliable. This clearly demonstrates a positive impact of the EU investment and ability of 
the Member States to learn from the mistakes and introduce appropriate measures to reduce these 
problems in future. 

79.  The  Commission  considers  that  the  projects  financed  in  Hungary  and  Romania  were  delayed 
due to their complexity and design. However, the beneficiaries generally reached their objectives. 

In  addition,  for  Romania,  water  operators  encountered  numerous  problems  resulting  in  delays 
during the procurement procedures. 

To  mitigate  the  negative  impact  of  poor  quality  contracts  on  project  implementation,  the 
Commission promoted different horizontal initiatives to support beneficiaries such as development 
of standardised procurement documents, benchmarking of water operators and technical assistance.  

80. Initial assumptions as regards the project costs are rather indicative. The two mentioned projects 
conducted  proper  public  procurement  and  subsequently  the  contract  price  was  the  result  of  the 
competition  on  the  market.  To  face  this  volatility  on  the  market,  under  each  of  the  projects  the 
contingency is introduced in order to provide a margin for the variation of costs as a result of public 
tender. 

93. In total for the period 2014-2020 the Strategy quantifies the investment needs to around EUR 
6.1  billion  split  as  follows:  EUR  2.5  billion  for  drinking  water,  EUR  2.2  billion  for  wastewater 
collection and EUR 1.4 billion for wastewater treatment. Comparing the needs of EUR 6.1 billion 
with the EU funds allocation to water and wastewater in the programming periods 2007–2013 and 
2014–2020,  it  may  be  calculated  that  EU  funds  may  be  able  to  finance  from  30  percent  to  40 
percent of the estimated WSS total capital expenditure needs. 

Indeed under OPE 2014-2020, some EUR 145 million are allocated for investments in provision of 
water for human consumption and water management and drinking water conservation, out of the 
total  of  EUR  1.016  billion  CF  allocation  for  water  sector  in  Bulgaria.  This  sectors'  allocation 
focuses  on  bridging  the  compliance  gap  with  the  UWWT  Directive,  given  its  high  compliance 
investment needs as presented above. 

Common reply to paragraphs 94 and 95. 

In  the  context  of  the  need  for  additional  resources  to  fulfil  the  requirements  for  improving  water 
quality, the national investments should cover the investment gap. 

96. See reply to paragraph 20. 

98. While implementing an appropriate water tariff policy is a responsibility of Member States, the 
ex-ante  conditionality  stipulates  that  the  recovery  of  costs  needs  to  be  consistent  with  the  first 
indent  of  Article  9(1)  of  Directive  2000/60/EC  having  regard,  where  appropriate,  to  the  social, 
environmental  and  economic  effects  of  the  recovery  as  well  as  the  geographic  and  climatic 
conditions of the region or regions affected. 

6 

 
100. The Commission notes in this regard that the pace of EU funds spending picked up towards the 
end  of  the  programming  period  2007-2013,  which  allowed  Bulgaria  to  claim  almost  95  %  of  the 
respective priority axis allocation (amounting to around EUR 969 million). 

101. The Commission considers that the 4 % affordability level is indicative.  

See reply to paragraph 21. 

103. The Commission observes that a common tariffs strategy to support long term sustainability of 
investments  and  considering  affordability  issues  was  introduced  in  Romania  as  an  element  of  the 
CBA analysis for EU funded projects under 2007-2013 periods.  

Under  2014-2020  period,  water  operators  will  adjust  and  consolidate  the  methodology  for  tariffs 
structure to support the extension of compliant water services to additional areas and to cover the 
requirements of revised CBA guidance as regard full cost recovery and depreciation of the assets. 
Projects design will be developed accordingly. 

105.  The  Commission  observes  that  tariffs  in  place  were  lowered.  Consequently  the  Commission 
monitors the situations and provides recommendations to the HU authorities to ensure the financial 
resources required for the sustainability of the upgraded assets. However, it might be important, in 
individual cases, for the tariff policy adjustments to be introduced carefully and gradually over the 
longer period of time to reduce abrupt distortion of the social affordability of the water investment 
for the population.  

Also please see replies to paragraphs 98 and 101. 

109.  The  Commission  is  considering,  as  part  of  the  Drinking  Water  Directive  revision, 
modifications to the provisions on reporting.  

The  Commission  wishes  to  ensure  that  reporting  focuses  on  information  necessary  for  the 
compliance  check  (incidents,  new  substances,  etc.).  The  Commission  intends  to  look  into  options 
such  as  alternative  IT  tools  (e.g.  data  harvesting  from  national  administrations)  to  facilitate  the 
reporting exercise, make it swifter and to ensure availability of up-to-date information. 

110.  In  light  of  the  existing  legislative  framework,  the  Commission  considers  that  a  guidance  on 
requirements regarding information made available to consumers may be best addressed at national 
level. 

Recommendation 1 

The Commission partially accepts the recommendation and will implement it as follows: 

The Commission will focus on main gaps identified affecting the quality of the drinking water but 
cannot systematically follow up on all monitoring gaps due to resource limitations. 

It will look at how to improve reporting provisions as part of the on-going revision of the Drinking 
Water Directive.  

Recommendation 2 

The  Commission  accepts  Recommendation  2  a-d  in  substance.  However,  this  is  subject  to  the 
outcome  of  the  Drinking  Water  Directive  revision,  which  is  not  known  at  the  time  of  this  report, 
and  the  content  of  the  proposal  amending  the  DWD  depends  largely  on  the  impact  assessment 
conclusions.  The  proposal  is  not  yet  finalised  and  the  Commission  is  looking  into  options  to 
improve the identified shortcomings. In this context, the proposal will have to be in line with the 

7 

 
objectives  of  the  "Better  Regulation"  guidelines5  that  the  Commission's  proposals  "meet  policy 
goals  at  minimum  cost  and  deliver  maximum  benefits  to  citizens,  businesses  and  workers  while 
avoiding all unnecessary regulatory burdens", in particular, as far as small entities are concerned.   

(a) The Commission will overall consider, in the framework of the revision of the Directive, how to 
improve information, monitoring and reporting from SWSZ. 

(b) The Commission will overall consider, in the framework of the revision of the Directive, how to 
improve  information,  monitoring  and  reporting  for  SWSZ,  using  the  risk-based  approach  for 
monitoring also for SWSZ. 

(c)  The  Commission  will  overall  consider,  in  the  framework  of  the  revision  of  the  Directive, 
amendments to reporting provisions of the Directive.  

Reporting should ideally focus on information necessary for the compliance check (incidents, new 
substances, etc.). 

(d) The Commission will consider how to improve access to information for consumers as part of 
the Drinking Water Directive revision as the issue has been identified as an area for improvement in 
the Commission Staff Working Document on REFIT of the Drinking Water Directive 98/83/EC. 

112. Please see comments for the paragraphs mentioned. 

Despite  the  delays  most  of  the  objectives  were  achieved  or  helped  to  improve  the  situation  in 
respective  area.  The  unforeseeable  events  (decrease  in  water  level  in  Danube)  were  behind  not 
fulfilling long-term compliance objectives under one mentioned project.  

113.  Despite  of  the  preference  given  to  compliance  and  the  construction  of  the  new  network 
infrastructure,  the  Commission  observes  that  part  of  the  investments  co-financed  through  major 
projects  during  2007-13  periods,  if  properly  justified,  included  a  component  of  rehabilitation  of 
existing infrastructures in order to mitigate the negative impact of water losses on the performance 
of new investments.  

During 2014-2020 period, the same approach is maintained in all of the countries where leakage is 
considered to be an important factor. 

Recommendation 3 

The Commission takes note that this recommendation is addressed to Member States. 

Recommendation 4 

The Commission accepts this recommendation.  

The  Commission  is  sensitive  to  the  issue  of  water  losses  and  intends,  within  the  revision  of  the 
Drinking  Water  Directive,  to  promote  action  at  Member  States  level  in  line  with  the  subsidiarity 
principle. 

However, reducing water losses by EU-funded activities might lead to funding maintenance, which 
is  not  always  an  investment  priority,  especially  for  Member  States  where  there  is  not  sufficient 
supply network to cover the population.  

114. The Commission is aware that investment needs in the water sector (covering drinking water, 
waste  water  collection  and  treatment,  actions  to  combat  floods,  etc)  could  be  significant  in  some 
Member States in the coming years. The future priorities in terms of EU funding should be defined 

5 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/docs/swd_br_guidelines_en.pdf 

8 

 
                                                       
taking  into  account  Member  States  real  needs.  The  Commission  has  launched  initiatives  to  get  a 
better view on investments needs in the water sector.  

115. The Commission notes that according to the Water Framework Directive cost recovery should 
include also environmental and resource costs. 

Recommendation 5 

The Commission notes that this recommendation is addressed to the Member States. 

9 

 
Event 

Date 

Adoption of Audit Planning Memorandum (APM) / Start of audit 

20.4.2016 

Official sending of draft report to Commission (or other auditee) 

19.5.2017 

Adoption of the final report after the adversarial procedure 

5.7.2017 

Commission’s (or other auditee’s) official replies received in all 
languages 

11.8.2017 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Q
J
-
A
B
-
1
7
-
0
1
2
-
E
N
N

-

This report examines whether EU actions improved the 
quality of drinking water in Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania 
as required by the 1998 Drinking Water Directive.
Overall, we conclude that the situation has improved 
significantly. Nevertheless, there are still areas where 
citizens are supplied with water from the public supply 
network that is not fully in compliance with EU standards. 
Moreover, significant further national public and private 
funding will be needed to ensure access to good quality 
water to all citizens in these Member States and to ensure 
that EU funded investments in water facilities can be 
adequately maintained.
Among other things, we recommend that several remaining 
issues are addressed in the context of the current revision of 
the Drinking Water Directive and that the sustainability of 
water infrastructure is ensured while safeguarding the 
affordability of the service.

1977 - 2017

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS 
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi 
1615 Luxembourg 
LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1 

Enquiries: eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/ContactForm.aspx 
Website: eca.europa.eu
Twitter: @EUAuditors

©European Union, 2017.

ISBN 978-92-872-7887-6
doi:10.2865/920145

For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the European Union copyright, permission 
must be sought directly from the copyright holders.