The European Commission has decided to make an application to the European Court of Justice against Ireland for non-respect of the European Union's Drinking Water Directive. This action relates to the widespread non-compliance of Irish drinking water supplies with the standards set out in the directive, as well as weaknesses in the Irish legislation relating to privately-run supplies in rural areas (group water supplies).The Drinking Water Directive (Council Directive 80/778/EEC relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption) is a key instrument for safeguarding public health, establishing quality standards that must be respected where water is supplied for consumption. These standards extend to a range of substances, properties and organisms (called parameters). The directive fixes standards of zero presence for the organisms, total coliforms and fecal coliforms. While these are not necessarily harmful in themselves, they are good indicators of contamination of the water and the possible presence of human pathogens such as salmonella, and their presence is effectively a warning of a risk to public health. The directive therefore stresses the need for strict compliance with the standards. The compliance deadline was 1985.
The decision to make a Court application against Ireland reflects in particular the widespread persistent micro-biological pollution of group water supplies as evidenced by the presence of total and faecal coliforms. It also reflects the failure of the Irish implementing legislation to adequately ensure that group water supplies are required to comply with the standards of the directive.
As regards the first failure, the Irish authorities have in place a good reporting system (which in itself is a positive achievement for the Irish Department of the Environment and the Irish Environmental Protection Agency), and over a period of 10 years have published annual drinking water reports highlighting the extent and persistence of problems(1). The evidence points to the need for much greater source protection (for example, from septic tanks and agricultural facilities) as well as for better treatment and supply management. The approach recently developed by the Irish authorities involves a national investment package, strategic water plans at the level of individual counties, clean-up programmes at the level of polluted supplies and awareness-raising by the federation representing group water schemes. While this approach is welcome, as is the work of the federation, many key measures are envisaged rather than actually in place, and what ultimately counts is the quality of the water supplied, which should have been compliant since 1985.
As regards the second failure, the Irish authorities have recently notified new legislation(2). Where monitoring shows a problem with a group water scheme serving more than 50 people, the new legislation provides for notice to be served on those responsible requiring them to "prepare, in consultation with the sanitary authority, an action programme for the improvement of the quality of the water as soon as practicable." However, this does not properly reflect the binding character of the directive's standards: for example, the legislation speaks of improvement rather than compliance and the criterion of "as soon as practicable" is not satisfactory for standards which became obligatory in 1985 and which have a serious public health dimension. Additionally the Directive does not set a minimum number of people where it is applicable.
Commenting on the decision, Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom said: "Safe drinking water should be a first priority. While the Irish authorities now seem to be moving in the right direction, persistently bad monitoring results point to years of neglect, and it is clear that much more needs to be done in terms of improved source protection and water treatment before all Irish consumers receive the quality of drinking water to which they have been entitled since 1985".
(1)The reports are published by the Irish Environmental Protection Agency
(2)S.I. No 350 of 1999, adopted 3 November 1999