On 8 October 2024, the General Secretariat of the Council circulated comments from 13 member states on European Parliament amendments to the Priority Substances in Water directive, following a call for comments with a deadline of 30 September 2024. The delegations—Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Slovakia, Finland, and Sweden—submitted a table of positions on each EP amendment, using options such as support, not support, neutral, scrutiny reservation, or partial support.
no delegated acts for adopting environmental quality standards (EQS) or methods (e.g., for total PFAS, Bisphenol); no addition of "total PFAS" to the groundwater annex; no introduction of "groundwater ecosystems" or "groundwater ecological status"; no reference to agriculture; no minimum number of watch-list substances; no sulphates in the watch list; no mandatory reporting of all deviations; no change to the 6-year river basin management plan cycle for monitoring; and no joint monitoring facility without prior assessment. Support is expressed for updating the Drinking Water Directive reference, digital tools, increasing competences and access to information, and a joint monitoring facility subject to Commission assessment. Several delegations note that certain EP amendments are already in the compromise proposal.
Stakeholder impact The positions reflect a cleavage between member states seeking to limit EU-level regulatory powers (rejecting delegated acts and new groundwater concepts) and the European Parliament's push for stronger EU oversight and environmental protection. The rejection of delegated acts for EQS and methods would maintain the current legislative procedure, preserving member state control over technical standards. The opposition to adding "total PFAS" to the groundwater annex and to introducing groundwater ecological status would delay or prevent stricter regulation of PFAS and broader groundwater protection, benefiting industrial sectors that use PFAS but disappointing environmental NGOs. Support for digital tools and a joint monitoring facility (with assessment) could improve data sharing and efficiency for water authorities, but the condition of prior assessment may slow implementation. The rejection of a minimum number of watch-list substances and mandatory reporting of deviations reduces administrative burden for member states and industry, but may weaken early warning systems for emerging pollutants.
Institutional follow-up The Council's comments will feed into ongoing trilogue negotiations with the European Parliament and the Commission. The next step is likely a political agreement in the Council's Environment Working Party, followed by a vote in the Committee of Permanent Representatives before final adoption. The Parliament's amendments that are not supported by member states face significant hurdles, potentially leading to a conciliation procedure if no compromise is reached.