(cont.) Management of land and water areas (cont. CU13)

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! In the report, there is a motion from a party colleague of mine, Lili André, regarding the reinvestments in the water network. I intended to reason a bit regarding this.

The industry organization Svenskt Vatten has, with the help of Sweco, produced a report released in 2020: Investment needs and future costs for municipal water and sewage - an analysis of investment needs 2020 - 2040.

Today, the investment expenditures for the municipalities amount to a total of 16 billion kronor per year. The assessment according to the report is that this level should rise every year to 23 billion by 2040.

When it comes to the water system, the reinvestments would need to increase from 3 billion to 5 billion per year just to maintain today's level, and if the renewal of the system is to keep pace with the wear and tear, a nearly twice as high reinvestment level is required.

Anyone can understand that this is not possible with today's water and sewage fees, and the municipalities must either, in general, raise their water and sewage fees quite significantly in the coming years or find an alternative financing for this.

The motion addresses an alternative form of investment through funds over a longer period, which is a good idea and a way to be able to plan for reinvestments. I believe that municipalities will have this problem in their laps quite soon, and I believe that at the national level we must begin to consider and discuss how we can finance this, both through tax changes and through other changes in the legislation so that reinvestments can be made in a purposeful and good way.

For me, it is completely clear that Sweden will use more electricity in the future. Almost all answers to our environmental problems are that we should use more electricity. I am thinking of electric cars, electric bicycles and other such things.

The small-scale hydropower plants have been and are a great asset for Sweden, among other things by contributing to jobs and development throughout the country. They also contribute to electricity production and have created unique cultural environments. These cultural environments will undergo a radical change if it is decided that the hydropower plants are not granted permission to remain.

For me, it becomes very strange if one does not see the small-scale hydropower plants as part of the solution, as they produce electricity and could produce even more electricity in the future if things are done correctly. I see with pleasure that several motions in today's report have the same starting point, that is, that small-scale hydropower must be able to remain and contribute to electricity production. Anything else would be strange.

In the current situation, we have paused this, and hopefully the time is used in the best way to ensure that small-scale hydropower can be granted reasonable conditions to continue for a long time to come.

The Social Democratic Member Denis Begic presented an argument here before the break regarding the announcements that this Riksdag made during the previous term. We made two of them, where we told the government that we believe small-scale hydropower is needed in Sweden and that this should be paused. This government has done that.

However, the Riksdag decided earlier during the previous mandate period that the announcements were finalized. It was the previous government that did this. Fortunately, the Social Democrats have had second thoughts in this report. It is pleasing, for I believe we need to be in agreement on this.

Enough about hydropower! Is the right to one's own home, the right to a roof over one's head, a national interest just like cultural environments and outdoor life? Perhaps that is where we must go to fulfill the mission of building more homes and for people to have a roof over their heads.

I assert that national interest areas, as they are currently used and in the extent they currently exist, create a problem when one tries to build new housing. Politics is, more often than not, all about weighing different interests against one another. In my view, the interest in new housing has been hindered by other interests being given a special status that prevents housing construction, as we cannot weigh different interests against one another in a correct way.

A national interest is a geographical area that has been designated as worthy of protection because it contains nationally important values and qualities. National interests can be designated by many authorities, and once an area has been designated as a national interest, it cannot be changed.

In my opinion, there has been an inflation in the number of areas of national interest and their scope, while housing construction is expensive and complicated and far too few homes are being built. The areas of national interest are far too many and the housing construction far too small.

The number of designated areas of national interest has also increased significantly on areas that could instead be used to build housing. This system is not compatible with the situation we have today.

The national interest system should be weighed against the housing interest, which, in my view, should also be given status as a national interest. In this way, housing construction will receive a clearer priority in trade-offs between the interest in building housing and other national interests.

I also believe that it should be possible to a greater extent to review and revoke previous national interest classifications. Such a review could, for example, take place when a municipality adopts a comprehensive plan. Furthermore, the protection for certain national interests, for example cultural environments and outdoor life, should be limited in favor of building housing.

I therefore move that the proposal be approved.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Westmont (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation number 2, but I want to emphasize that we stand behind all our reservations.

Madam Speaker! We are debating here and now the management of land and water areas, which are important building blocks for a functioning society.

It is of great importance that we ensure functioning water supply and good access to drinking water, today and for future generations of Swedes. Our water is part of a cycle; it is affected by external circumstances. Increased understanding of good and responsible water management contributes to reducing the effects that affect our water cycle negatively.

Events such as war in our immediate vicinity imply an increased focus on defense and increased civil preparedness. War can be waged in different dimensions. Historically, we know that it is a part of warfare to disrupt ecosystems. In an attack on Swedish territory, the risk of environmental crimes and attacks against our drinking water reserve is high. We must consider the total defense aspect, and increased awareness regarding the protection of our water supply is necessary.

Madam Speaker! Large maintenance costs for our water infrastructure await in the near future. The greatest challenges and costs may not be at the door tomorrow or in a year, but in ten or twenty years, the water system in many places in our country faces extensive costs. We must work preventatively so that we are well prepared for this great challenge.

Just over two weeks ago, we could read about problems with the availability of drinking water in Gävle due to water leaks. It is one of many examples that show that the issue of our water and sewage system is highly relevant.

That is why it is important for municipalities to have water and sewage plans in order to create long-term sustainability and good socio-economic effects and to protect the interests of individual property owners.

Today's rules regarding the connection of individual sewage systems to municipal sewage networks involve disproportionately high costs for an individual homeowner.

We view parts of the investigation *Vägar till hållbara vattentjänster*, which concern planning for water and sewage solutions, positively. It is stated there, among other things, that the municipality shall take special consideration of the conditions for meeting the need for a water service through an individual facility. A property owner who has already invested hundreds of thousands of kronor in a fully functioning water and sewage system shall not be forced to connect to the municipal water and sewage network, provided that the private sewage system meets applicable environmental and health requirements.

We believe that the current rules should be reviewed so that individual property owners are not automatically forced to abandon an existing facility in favor of a municipal water and sewage system. This, Madam Speaker, is a good measure for all of us who want to promote a living countryside where people want to live and where people want to move.

Madam Speaker! I also want to take the opportunity to speak a little about water treatment. Not infrequently, preparedness for major weather changes is lacking, and in many municipalities, there is a lack of planning for weather-related events such as heavy rainfall and flooding. The sewage systems in Sweden are old and are not always intended to handle large water flows.

Regarding the risks of heavy rainfall and flooding, we share Svenskt Vattens objections that the risks of heavy rainfall and flooding cannot be managed solely as a water and sewage issue. The Water Act should be reviewed regarding these aspects. It needs to be adapted to new challenges regarding how the water supply is secured, as well as how we, from a resource-conscious perspective, utilize water in a more environmentally friendly and cost-effective way.

Municipalities' preparedness for floods needs to maintain a high level of security as the risk of waterborne bacteria and diseases spreading to our drinking water is imminent, which in turn can have devastating consequences, not least for small children, the elderly and the sick.

Madam Speaker! Less than half of the population today receives drinking water from a water protection area with protection according to the Environmental Code. The purification of the water must keep pace with other developments to ensure good water purification.

The amount of chemicals used in our daily lives is increasing, and a large part of these chemicals end up in the water resources. This concerns medicines, microplastics, and antibiotics that accompany the wastewater, and the risk is imminent that they then enter our bodies. We have seen the problems in Ronneby, where PFAS substances were spread in the drinking water, which could have had devastating consequences. We must never forget that if small children, when they drink or bathe, ingest water that is full of bacteria or chemicals, it can have devastating consequences, not least because children do not have a fully developed immune system.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that drinking water is our most important food source. Maintaining the quality and availability of drinking water is of great importance from a health perspective, and it is necessary for the municipalities to protect and manage strategic drinking water sources and to act promptly if elements are discovered that can spread contaminants in the drinking water or otherwise harm our water protection areas.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! It is now spring. The sun is melting the snow - not outside this house but in our northern regions - and it is now that spring floods shall rush forward in our rivers, streams, and watercourses. But there are today approximately 2,100 hydropower plants that cause spring floods not to flow in the same way. Most of our hydropower plants are operated under a hundred-year-old permits, and several hydropower plants and dams lack permits entirely. All of us who have paddled or plan to paddle in any river or lake in our elongated, water-rich land have, of course, encountered these hydropower plants.

Madam Speaker! There is no one in this room who does not consider that hydropower has had and still has a decisive importance for our country's development and energy supply. Even though the government has now chosen to pause the work so that our hydropower can receive modern environmental conditions, it will be taken up again, and reassessments will take place according to the national plan. The purpose of this pause is to map the effects of the reassessments that have been carried out so far and to review the need for changes to the current system. The energy crisis has not escaped anyone, and we therefore now see a necessary pause of twelve months so that it can be reviewed what effects this has had.

We are also now in a new defense policy situation, and therefore our hydropower has a new and important function from a readiness perspective.

Madam Speaker! I also want to remind that our nature and environment are incredibly important. The physical impact from our hydropower plants and dams has a major impact on the ecosystems. In short, they cause damage in streams and rivers but also in lakes and seas. Measures for hydropower are needed so that we can reach the environmental quality goals for living lakes and watercourses that we have set up. There are also binding requirements for improvements in the aquatic environment in the EU's Water Framework Directive.

Even though hydropower is one of our most important renewable energy sources, it has led to many flowing environments disappearing; I want to remind of that in the debate here today. Several different good aspects of hydropower are highlighted, but precisely this is something that we Liberals have always protected. Running water is biologically comparable to coral reefs. Even the shoreline environment that exists along smaller watercourses is incredibly species-rich, and it disappears when dams are built.

We have a shortage today of such environments in Sweden due to the many dams that have been created for hydropower. They create barrier effects and hinder the migration of fish and other aquatic organisms, but also the transport of sediment, nutrients, and other important substances downstream. Only 10 percent of the Swedish power plants have fish passages. Thus, the migration and spawning of fish are hindered, which affects our entire coast and the availability of fish, especially predatory fish. Where these fish passages exist, they unfortunately function poorly.

The natural water flows are changing, and the effects for our biodiversity will be significant. Most extreme, of course, it becomes where one chooses not to release any water at all in a riverbed, so-called zero release. The focus has instead been on the lowest water flows in the form of minimum releases, which obviously can never be natural.

The impact of hydropower on the environment and ecosystems is very negative. But there are opportunities; we can take measures. And that is what these environmental adaptations aim for: that we should become better, that our 2,100 hydropower plants can remain, and that we can also reach the environmental goals we have set. There are good solutions in the form of inclined screens and bubble barriers that can be installed so that fish do not risk being harmed or killed and to facilitate our eel's migration. Therefore, the Liberals are positive towards this government both protecting hydropower and simultaneously protecting the fish's migration routes.

Re-evaluations shall take into account these matters - hiking trails and the restoration of flowing water in several previously drained watercourses. And we have a timetable, which started in February last year and shall apply for approximately 20 years forward. We have a great task ahead of us. Therefore, it is also justified that we take a break so that we have time to synchronize the work for our over 2,000 hydropower plants.

Madam Speaker! This is about small structural changes so that the operation of hydropower plants can yield great gains for the environment. In other words, we can say that everything has its time. After the government's pause, the reassessments will continue so that we get better freshwater ecosystems. Then we will have a better picture of how this is to be implemented so that we can both retain the important hydropower's energy supply and review our ecosystems and the fish's migration routes. It is now time to do over and do right.

It is a circulatory system we have in our country - rivers, streams and brooks in the Swedish nature. It is the water of life.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! This was truly amusing! I do not quite agree with everything that Member Olofsgård said, but it was wonderful to hear this praise of running water.

I also intend to speak about water. First, however, I wonder if I was the only one who noticed that it was reported that there was a grass fire in southern Stockholm yesterday. The reporting ended quite quickly, but a grass fire in May is a rather unusual occurrence.

For me, who has already started watering my rhubarb on my allotment, it feels like a very dry spring in Sweden. But looking at Europe, it is actually primarily in Spain, Italy, France, and Germany that the spring of 2023 has been very dry. The EU Commission warned in a report in March that the drought could affect the water supply, energy production, and agriculture. In the report, calls were made to closely monitor the water situation and to conserve water resources as early as in February. They also underlined the importance of cooperation, as climate and weather phenomena are expected to become more common in the future.

In France, President Macron has often asked citizens to save energy over the past year. Now he also wants them to save water. At an agricultural fair at the end of February, Macron stated that France needs a savings plan for water, and his government is now in the process of working out just such a plan.

Just this morning, May 10, the sale of garden pools was prohibited in parts of southern France. It will also not be permitted to wash cars, water gardens, or fill up an existing pool. Last year was the driest summer ever in France, and it is estimated that 2,000 villages or towns in France could lose their water supply this summer. Spain's third deputy prime minister Ribera also warns that Spain must prepare long-term for recurring extreme weather, and now 23 billion euros are to be invested in protecting and improving the water supply throughout the country.

But the risk of water shortages does not only concern Southern Europe and other warmer countries in the world. Even in Sweden, we have had to take water-saving measures when it becomes warm and dry. Water availability also looks very different in different parts of Sweden. In Örebro, SGU is searching for new groundwater sources, while in Stockholm, at the current stage, it is more the capacity of how quickly we can purify the drinking water from Mälaren that determines when we need to be frugal with water use in Stockholm.

It is very interesting to hear that so many parties are raising the water issue in today's debate, because it is a very important issue to take into account. We simply cannot take our drinking water for granted. Saving water can become a very pressing issue even in those parts of the country where the access to drinking water is good. I therefore think that it is high time for Sweden that we develop a strategy for the water supply in a changed climate.

I would also like to flag the somewhat narrower proposal to investigate the possibility of a differentiated water tax, where those who use more water than what is calculated to be normal consumption for a household should pay a little extra for the extra water they use. Watering the lawn and filling a pool is currently a possibility, but it does not need to occur at the same cost for those who do not use water to the same extent. It could also be a way to achieve a more just distribution and payment model for our most important life-source, the water.

We know today that with climate change will come longer periods of heat, drought, and less precipitation than before. In Sweden, we have high-quality water in many places, and we should be very happy about that. It is incredibly valuable. But when we look up, we see that the system is fragile. Some of our drinking water sources have also been destroyed by new and old pollutants.

The groundwater in Stockholm city is unusable due to old contamination. In my hometown Kallinge, which Martin Westmont also mentioned, the drinking water source was destroyed by the toxic chemical PFAS from fire drills.

We need to be afraid for our water, and that should be a strong argument for giving our existing water bodies and our groundwater a strong protection for the future. I believe that the water bodies and the groundwater need to be protected against pollution. To ease environmental permits instead of strengthening them is the wrong way to go when it comes to our drinking water. That the Armed Forces should be allowed to use Vättern as a shooting range and be allowed to continue releasing PFAS from the airfield in Karlsborg is in itself a security risk for the water supply. We need to take more measures to protect our water, not fewer.

More wetlands need to be protected and also newly established to delay the runoff from heavy rainfall, to improve water purification, and to retain water in the ground during droughts. Additionally, more functional reserve water sources are needed that can be put into operation on short notice.

Boverket has previously conducted a mapping of which measures need to be implemented to ensure a secure drinking water supply regarding physical planning. They have also assessed that the management of land and water areas needs to be developed. Boverket states in its report that a national strategy for water supply is needed, that the drinking water supply should be given a clearer role in physical planning, and that the regulatory framework surrounding stormwater issues needs to be clarified. In the report, Boverket also proposed a clarification of strengthened protection of water in physical planning through a review of PBL.

I would therefore like to move for approval of reservation 13 on water supply, water management and the development of a strategy for water supply in a changing climate.

Our waters circulate and are interconnected. Droughts in French villages can be due to a lack of snow in the Alps. Poor water quality can be due to reduced water inflow. Everything is connected. Therefore, the issue of environmental assessment of hydropower also needs to be raised. The environmental assessment of hydropower is intended to make our waters healthier and to ensure that the biodiversity in our waters can increase. It will benefit us, both now and in the long run.

There is no reason to take a break in the environmental assessments after years of investigations. I also want to emphasize the importance of our protected waters, for example, the national rivers. Today, there are a total of 42 watercourses that are protected against hydropower development. The national rivers are a matter of concern for both current and future generations. I therefore believe that the untouched rivers and watercourses should be preserved untouched.

I therefore also wish to move for approval of reservation 9 on hydropower.

(Applause)

In this speech, Rebecka Le Moine (MP) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! The report we are debating has a rather dull title. It is quite confusing, because once you start reading it, you see that there are extremely important issues hidden behind the dull title. I intended to touch upon some of those matters today.

To begin with, it is about the farmland, which is an invaluable resource for Sweden. We need to strengthen the protection for valuable farmland. Just between 2016 and 2020, 3,000 hectares of agricultural land were exploited. That may sound like a lot or a little depending on which perspective one has, but one must also see it in the security policy context we find ourselves in and from a food security perspective.

The second part I want to touch upon is the National Interest Inquiry. It is being prepared at the Government Offices, as I understand it. I look forward to the bill in due course.

But it is unreasonable that half of this elongated country should be considered a national interest. It is important to remember that a national interest should be precisely a national interest and not a regional matter, as it is sometimes used as.

National interests should, in normal cases, not be used to protect land that is already protected through other legislation. One might think that this should be a self-evident matter, but it is not today. National interests should also be repeatedly updated, and a provision should also be introduced stating that national interests that are not updated or utilized within a certain period are written off, i.e., a so-called sunset clause.

In my last two minutes, I intended to speak about a hidden cost bomb in Sweden, namely the water infrastructure. As a former head of municipal administration, I know that there are huge costs hidden there that I am not sure the municipalities have the preparedness to handle moving forward.

Water supply is a central part of our way of life. We simply cannot manage without water. We also want to ensure that the water that is distributed maintains the quality that we expect. I hope that the government actually starts to look at this issue, how to ensure that basic social infrastructure holds up even during the coming years.

I and the Centre Party naturally stand behind all our motions. I normally move for the approval of a reservation, but today I actually want to move for the approval of two reservations - reservation number 3 and reservation number 5. These are very important issues that I believe we should vote on.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! It is exactly as Alireza Akhondi says. The Swedish maintenance debt regarding the water network is brutal, and it will be a major challenge for our municipal politicians to handle that issue. You in the Center Party address this, among other things, in your party motion. I requested a reply because I am a bit curious about how it will work in practical terms with your proposals.

You want to introduce the possibility of charging an extra supplementary fee for public water. You have exemplified that there are various such proposals across the EU, and you say that the price mechanism is one of the most effective steering instruments when it comes to conserving a scarce resource. This would lead to increased incentives to choose water-saving products, you write. You compare it with electricity consumption, and you want to investigate how the law can be amended. I then wonder how this is to take place in practical terms.

We in the Tidö parties recently visited Järva together with the Minister for Housing. In Järva, there are different types of households. It could be a family in one apartment. It could be two people in another apartment. And in some apartment, perhaps there are eight people, a large family with children. Then I wonder how it will work in practical terms with your extra surcharge when it comes to water consumption.

Today it is very fair. The one who consumes 1 liter pays for 1 liter. The one who consumes 100 liters pays for 100 liters. But in your party motion, you want an extra fee for heavy consumers. I am just wondering how that is intended. How is that system supposed to be? That is what I am a bit curious about. How much extra revenue do you in Centerpartiet expect to get with that substantial increase in the water tax that you want to implement?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! I do not need to make study visits in Järva. I actually grew up in Tensta, so I know what the conditions are like there.

I want to turn the question around. The member started by stating that there is an enormous maintenance debt that needs to be handled. As far as I know, the Moderaterna do not own any extra printing press. Then one also needs to consider the financing of the proposals that one puts forward. As an economist, I think it is a sound principle that one also considers how one will handle the costs for one's proposals.

Now, I am not saying that the Centerpartiet's proposal is the world's best proposal. There may be other good proposals - so be it. But the question must be taken seriously and handled in a reasonable way. One way could be this extra addition. It may not be the only way, but it is primarily through taxes and fees that we have the possibility to handle this type of expenditure. And in this case, it is enormous expenditures.

I remember that a few years ago it was super easy to borrow at negative interest via Kommuninvest – one was actually paid to borrow money. But now that those times are over, one needs to consider how one is to de facto handle hundreds of billions of kronor in direct expenditures.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! Alireza Akhondi spoke for two minutes without answering my question. The point was not that it was Järva - I understand that the member is well acquainted with Järva. The point was that there are different apartments in the building.

The Green Party has previously in this debate been on similar lines of thinking. I am curious about how this will work in practical terms. Who decides what is normal consumption for a family? Who decides that? Are we to have some new agency that establishes what the normal consumption is for two people? Should that then be reported to Skatteverket? I do not know how you have planned this.

Today we have a fair water fee that is paid according to consumption. It is not the case that any person turns on the tap and thinks that the water is cheap. I do not know anyone who thinks so, at least. But we all have different friends.

It is naturally important that we solve the financing issue for the municipalities. One proposal that has circulated in the debate is, for example, that the AP funds should be allowed to lend money to municipalities. Little Ockelbo will not have a chance to finance this. They must, of course, be able to borrow money from someone to renovate the water and sewage network.

How could it have become like this? As I said earlier in the debate: It is probably because the voters have demanded ice rinks instead of water networks. It is an important debate, and that is one we shall lead. But now I am a bit curious about the thoughts on having a water fee based on something other than actual consumption. That is what you in Centerpartiet are talking about.

We have a consumption, and today we have a water fee that is totally equivalent. But you want an extra fee. Then I am a bit curious about how this will work in practical terms. Who is going to calculate this? How is it going to be administered? What can be simpler than a straight and honest water fee where one pays according to consumption? You want an extra fee in some way. Then I am seriously curious about how this is going to work practically. And how much revenue do you expect?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! I am not a believer, but I usually take an example when I feel that it is needed. Today I feel that it is needed. God has given us two ears and one mouth. There may be a reason why that design looks the way it does.

The chairman claimed to listen to what I said but still heard something else. I did not speak about taxing or fee-financing two equivalent dwellings, so to speak, within the same housing complex. The proposal is that those who consume extremely much water should pay a little extra for it. It is something completely different from what Lars Beckman claims the Centerpartiet wants. I want to be super clear about that.

Then there is something called statistics. It is good stuff. I like to read statistics. I usually do, however, assert that statistics is among the hardest things one can engage in. One can basically get what one wants and how one wants. What is important is that we are a knowledge nation with very much statistics. Then one can also quite easily determine normal consumption. It is not exactly rocket science, Lars Beckman.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 10 May.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)