Romania has submitted comments opposing most of the European Parliament's proposed amendments to the Priority Substances in Water directive, instead backing the Council's negotiating mandate. The contribution, dated 13 July 2026, follows the Working Party on the Environment meeting of 3 September 2024 and signals a clear split between the Parliament's ambition for stricter rules and member states' concerns over costs and scientific justification.
Romania rejects key EP amendments including the introduction of "PFAS total" as a groundwater pollutant, preferring the Council's "Sum of PFAS" approach. It also opposes stricter quality standards for Carbamazepine and other pharmaceuticals, arguing they are not scientifically justified, and rejects the inclusion of sulphates in the groundwater watch list, noting they are already covered elsewhere. The country further objects to setting national thresholds for non-relevant substances and to groundwater quality standards that are ten times lower than surface water values, citing inconsistency with the Drinking Water Directive and added analytical costs.
recitals 21, 31, 32c, 34a, and 34b; definitions aligned with Directive (UE) 2020/2184; and the precautionary principle, but only when combined with the Council position. It maintains scrutiny reservations on continuous real-time pollution monitoring (due to cost concerns), joint monitoring facilities, and delegated acts. The country strongly prefers maintaining the six-year review cycle for pollutant lists and quality standards, resisting any move to shorter cycles that would increase regulatory burden.
The contribution underscores a broader cleavage between the Parliament's push for more stringent environmental protections and the Council's focus on cost-effectiveness, scientific evidence, and alignment with existing EU water legislation. For EU regulatory bodies, the Romanian position reinforces the Council's negotiating stance, potentially slowing the adoption of stricter rules. National authorities in other member states may share similar concerns about implementation costs and analytical feasibility. EU water utilities and industries that could face higher compliance costs under the EP's proposals stand to benefit from the Council's more measured approach. Environmental NGOs, however, may view Romania's opposition as a setback for stronger water protection, particularly regarding PFAS and pharmaceuticals. The next step is for the Council to formalise its negotiating mandate, after which trilogue negotiations with the Parliament will begin.