Implementation of the EU's new drinking water directive

Johanna Hornberger (M)

Madam Speaker! Today we are going to debate one of the most important things there is: our drinking water. It is vital for us. And we are going to discuss how the EU, in its collective work, has proceeded to ensure exactly this for everyone within the EU.

Rent, good water directly from the tap is something that we here in Sweden often take for granted. But it is a luxury that really does not exist everywhere.

As early as 1998, the EU adopted a directive with minimum requirements for the quality of tap water to protect people from harmful contaminants in drinking water. Right to Water was a citizens' initiative that led to the European Commission deciding to evaluate the directive. The result of that is what we are debating here today: a new and more ambitious directive for safer drinking water.

In Sweden, drinking water is our most controlled food.

Madam Speaker! What does the new directive that we are to decide on here in the Riksdag entail? Well, just as before, there are requirements for what the drinking water must not contain and requirements that the member states shall ensure that this is followed. The difference and the increased ambition is that the drinking water shall now also be secured by identifying risks to the drinking water. Also new are rules to address water leakage. It also concerns materials that come into contact with the drinking water during construction and in installations. Furthermore, the member states shall secure and improve access to drinking water and promote the use of drinking water from the tap.

It will also be new that risk assessment and risk management shall be carried out regarding the area where the drinking water is taken. This means that the drinking water is not only protected per se. One also looks at the drinking water from where it comes. A clearer upstream perspective is therefore being introduced. Risks shall, to the greatest extent possible, be managed already where the contamination of the water can occur and not when the drinking water is treated in the waterworks.

The new risk-based method points increasingly clearly towards the main principle that it is the polluter who pays for the measures against pollution. Furthermore, the measures will probably become cheaper than if the interventions are made in retrospect. Consideration must also be taken of climate change and how it affects water resources.

Madam President! Member States will now also have an obligation to assess water leakage levels and how much the leakage can be reduced. The assessment shall cover water suppliers that provide at least 10,000 cubic meters per day or that supply at least 50,000 inhabitants. The results shall be submitted to the Commission no later than 12 January 2026. Based on that, a common threshold value will then be set that we have to adhere to.

Madam Speaker! We also receive new regulations concerning materials that come into contact with drinking water. Materials used in new installations shall meet certain requirements. This also applies to materials used in repairs or renovations of existing installations that come into contact with drinking water.

In the Planning and Building Act, a provision on market control is introduced. Building products on the market intended to come into contact with drinking water will be subject to conditions.

Harmonized regulations for products and materials used in construction and that come into contact with drinking water facilitate things for Swedish companies. Equal regulations contribute to a more functioning internal market. It is also positive for competition within the sector. Furthermore, it gives consumers access to a wider range of safe products.

The rules on safer drinking water are expected to have positive effects for both public health and the environment.

Madam Speaker! When we now implement the new drinking water directive in Sweden, it will mean safer drinking water. And safe and secure drinking water is something that this government prioritizes.

It has probably not escaped anyone that the deteriorating security situation in Sweden's immediate vicinity requires a strong civil defense and a strong crisis management capability. A secured drinking water supply is a very important part of the preparedness. And as part of strengthening resilience, the government allocated funds in last year's autumn budget to expand and reinforce the emergency water supply.

The new drinking water directive implies changes in the work with preparedness issues. The previous drinking water directive focused primarily on the quality of the drinking water at the tap, but with the new directive, a broader and more ambitious approach to the issue is now taken. The implementation of the new drinking water directive further strengthens and secures our drinking water.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision. To further strengthen and secure our most important food source, drinking water, is fundamentally vital.

(Applause)

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I counted, and "ordförande" was said five times. It is talman here in the chamber. I do not usually point this out, but now I did because it was so frequent.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! I have just listened to Johanna Hornberg's speech. The Member of Parliament highlighted that the government truly prioritizes the issue of drinking water and high state of alert. But the reality looks somewhat different.

It is the municipalities that are the primary authorities for the water supply in Sweden. And just as it is when it comes to welfare, the question of water infrastructure is a major challenge for our municipalities, given the economic situation with high inflation and the fact that the government has not increased the state grants to cover the cost increases that the municipalities have.

We have also listened to other representatives for the Moderaterna who, in a rather high tone, have spoken about the importance of high preparedness, but where the focus lies on the individual raising their own preparedness. And a lot of pressure is placed on the importance of high preparedness when it comes to municipalities and other authorities. But the government does not seem to want to take any responsibility itself.

My question to the member is: How do the Moderaterna plan to ensure that the municipalities have sufficient resources to carry out the necessary investments in the water infrastructure and maintain preparedness, given the current economic burden that inflation and insufficient state grants impose on the municipalities?

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

Johanna Hornberger (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Järrebring for the question. It is a question that is debated relatively often in this chamber - the resources to municipalities and regions - especially in light of the inflation that has occurred and the burden and challenge that it entails for most parts of our society.

This government has provided resources to municipalities and regions. This includes a number of different things. And just as the member mentions, a large part of the responsibility for preparedness regarding drinking water falls on the municipalities. And as the member explains, the municipalities are also the primary authority for the water supply to the citizens.

With this said, I have nothing more to add than that I know it has been stated several times in this chamber that sufficient resources, which can be allocated in the economic situation that Sweden is currently in, are nevertheless being allocated to municipalities and regions so that the municipalities, with their right of self-determination, can decide at what pace they implement the preparedness measures they need to carry out in relation to other welfare and tasks that fall upon the municipalities.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Johanna Hornberger for the answer. But we must still be able to agree that the resources from the state to the municipalities, and the regions for that part, are insufficient. We see the effects of the state's budget when it comes to welfare and to healthcare. It is well obvious that the state does not fully finance the welfare.

When there are insufficient resources in the municipalities, and if the focus is to be on strengthening preparedness and securing the water supply, is it the Moderaternas view that the municipalities are allowed to cut even more than they already do on schools and on elderly care? Or how is this supposed to add up?

One could have chosen to prioritize differently and not lowered the tax for high-income earners by 13 billion kronor. One could have done as we have proposed and introduced a bank tax that could have brought in an additional 10 billion kronor to the state and ensured to secure the economic conditions and thus also the conditions for the municipalities to actually meet the preparedness requirements that the government says are so important but does not follow up with sufficient resources.

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

Johanna Hornberger (M)

Mr. Speaker! We cannot agree on this scenario. My perception is that the government is providing good resources to regions and municipalities. The economic situation is strained. We know that, and it is a known fact for all of us.

I mean that there are municipalities that have good financial management and that take into account different things and prioritize in the situation we are currently in, and therefore actually manage to fulfill their task, to ensure that they have a high quality in welfare and also, at the pace that the economy allows, take large steps forward to prepare and strengthen our preparedness. This also applies to the water supply.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the EU's new water directive. And I must begin by saying that I am incredibly happy that we finally have this directive in place, at least after today's vote. But it will also require efforts to get this implemented.

Water management has today many profound deficiencies. There is much that actually needs to be addressed even in Sweden so that we can achieve a secure quality and quantity of drinking water in Sweden.

When we introduce this new drinking water directive, it requires a step up in the Swedish work. Just as the member before me pointed out, the new directive entails that we are to have clean and healthy drinking water throughout the EU. It shall be free from harmful pollutants, free from microorganisms, free from parasites and substances harmful to health. It may sound obvious, but that is not the case everywhere today.

It is also new that it covers the entire path of the drinking water from a drinking water source, through pipes, through treatment, and all the way out to the tap and up to a glass of water.

One must also take into account how climate change affects water resources, and one must use the knowledge of the measures that have been implemented within the Water Framework Directive.

There are big things to be done, and it is the entire chain. And many stakeholders are involved, often from the municipality's water utility which must ensure that one has drinking water there to the treatment plant, the National Food Agency, the Swedish Chemicals Agency and others who shall monitor this. They shall even ensure that there are no leakages in the chain, and they also determine which materials shall be present in the chain for the water. These are, as said, very good things. Drinking water is perhaps the most important foodstuff that we have and the basis for everything.

But I think the government is missing several things that should have been included when this is now being implemented.

Mr. Speaker! A well-functioning water system for drinking water and sewage treatment is also the foundation for a functioning and healthy society. A large part of the system that we have in Sweden today came into being in the 50s and 60s, and now we see that we have an urgent need to renew, maintain, and improve these systems. We see that many cities are growing. And as more people move in, we also get greater pressures on the systems, but they are not expanded for this.

The industry organization Svenskt Vatten says that the investment rate in Sweden for the water and sewage infrastructure is around 20 billion kronor per year. That is a lot of money. But according to the same organization, it would require 31 billion kronor to modernize it. Thus, more than 50 percent is missing. If one were to renew at the rate that is being done today, it would take 200 years before the system has been expanded and renewed to the standard that is needed. It speaks for itself that it is not enough. Postponing the maintenance of water and sewage pipes is expensive economically, and it can also have serious consequences for both the environment and people's health.

If we are to manage to live up to the new drinking water directive, Miljöpartiet believes that the municipalities and other contracting authorities need clearer frameworks.

Unlike the government, we believe that it is the responsibility of the principals, most often the municipalities, to provide maintenance. This needs to be clarified in the law on public water services. We also think that a review point is needed three years after implementation to see how the directive has come into force and whether results have been achieved.

Another part of the implementation of the directive where we want things to be different concerns the provisions on certain substances, for example when it comes to risk assessments and limit values for certain substances. One thing we see that the government has missed, and which has been pointed out by several referral bodies, is that there are no limit values regarding endocrine-disrupting substances such as bisphenol A. It is often used in so-called relining in various piping systems and is an endocrine-disrupting substance that we are to phase out. But it is not included as one of the substances to be monitored. We think this is wrong – it should be introduced.

Another thing that we also think should be included is how drinking water sources are monitored and which substances are allowed to be there. Just this past autumn, substances such as PFAS may have become common knowledge in people's minds. In our drinking water sources, there are incredibly many foreign substances that then end up in our drinking water but are not included on the list of what should be monitored. We think that a national list should be developed and both Livsmedelsverket and Kemikalieinspektionen should be tasked with ensuring that there is always a list of what should be monitored, with limit values based on the current state of knowledge and recommendations from Efsa, which one can call our European Chemicals Agency. This does not exist today, but we know that we are constantly getting new substances. What happened in, for example, Kallinge, with PFAS in drinking water sources, must never happen again.

Mr. Speaker! When it was realized at some point in 2013-2014 that there were PFAS in the drinking water in Kallinge, not many knew what PFAS was. Now we see that it is a substance that we use everywhere, so to speak. It is in our medicines. It is probably in heaps in a telephone. And it is carcinogenic.

There are over 10,000 different types of PFAS. It is primarily released into nature near fire training sites, defense activities, and other training sites - at least what we have seen in Sweden. Now it is also being released in other places. The levels can be enormous. The people in Kallinge have therefore ingested this carcinogenic substance unknowingly by drinking tap water.

Mr. Speaker! In the autumn, the Supreme Court ruled that the 150 residents in Kallinge who brought the claim are entitled to compensation. It is the municipal company that is held responsible for compensating these persons for the damage that has occurred. This should not have to happen again. We think it is good that they have been granted the right, but we must ensure that we do everything we can so that it does not happen again. We need to prevent the spread of PFAS. We need to stop the spread of further PFAS. We need to have rules that design how an individual citizen shall be compensated if they are affected and what happens if they get PFAS in their well. We also believe that the municipalities, which perhaps do not have the economic possibilities to achieve purification, should receive help from the state in order to be able to purify the water. There we differ from the government.

Mr. Speaker! Last but not least, we must have functioning environmental monitoring. Unfortunately, this is an area where I see that the government has cut back in many places. We have raised this in many debates with the Committee on Environment and Agriculture. In this case, it is the same thing. If we are to know what is out there and which measures help, we must have functioning environmental monitoring. We also have a reservation on this.

Mr. Speaker! I naturally stand behind all our reservations in this report, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 4 under point 5. It is a reservation concerning state support to remove PFAS from drinking water.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! When we gather here today, we do so not only as decision-makers and politicians but also as stewards of a future that is changing faster than ever before. We face one of our time's most pressing issues: climate change and its profound impact on our most fundamental resource, namely water.

Climate change is no longer a distant concern; it is an immediate reality. They affect everything from the smallest ecosystems to the large water cycles that govern our planet. Floods, droughts, and extreme weather are becoming increasingly common and in this way challenge our ability to ensure clean and accessible water supply for all.

The implementation of the EU's new drinking water directive in Swedish law is therefore not just a matter of policy adjustment. It is a necessity to secure a resilient infrastructure that can withstand the unpredictable consequences of climate change. This directive gives us the tools to not only protect our water quality but also to build a system for water management that is adapted for a world where the climate is no longer stable.

In our discussion today, we must keep in mind the central role of climate change. Our decisions, our preparedness, and our will to act decisively will define our ability to not only meet today's challenges but also secure a sustainable and just future for future generations.

Mr. Speaker! It is therefore distressing that the government's climate policy action plan has been allowed to be watered down by the Sweden Democrats to such an extent that it in practice consists only of hopes and investigations. The SD-led government is thus, in reality, pushing the responsibility forward to future generations.

Let us therefore approach this discussion with a sense of urgency and a common determination to act. Our water, our planet and our future demand no less of us.

We Social Democrats have two reservations in this report. These reservations concern developed water management and crisis preparedness in relation to climate change.

Our first reservation underlines the need for a developed water management. We face a time when water resources are becoming increasingly strained, not only due to a growing population and industrial development but also due to the stress factors that climate change entails. Ensuring a sustainable and equitable access to clean drinking water requires an active approach and a holistic view of water management.

We mean that water management must be holistic and future-proof. This means that one should not only protect water quality from pollution but also actively manage water resources to secure them against droughts, floods, and other climate-related events. It requires innovative solutions, increased research and development, and strong cooperation between municipalities, government agencies, and private actors.

As an example of the previous S-led government's measures in this area, I would like to mention that the Va-beredskapsutredningen was commissioned to review and improve our preparedness within the water supply. The investigation was actually supposed to be presented today according to the initial schedule, but the current government has extended the time to November 30 this year. We will have to wait a bit longer to see what measures the government may eventually present to the Riksdag.

We can observe that the county administrative boards have indeed been allocated 80 million kronor per year for 2022 and 2023 to work with precisely drinking water supply and water protection. The problem is that the county administrative boards, with the combined appropriations in the government's budget, are underfunded in relation to their tasks. But it is important that the work in this area quickly leads to both concrete and measurable improvements.

The Social Democrats' second reservation concerns crisis preparedness in relation to climate change. We cannot ignore that the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events are increasing. This is something Norway is noticing, not least today.

Every such event constitutes a potential crisis for our water supply, whether it is a flood that contaminates water sources or a drought that empties them. The Social Democrats argue that a robust and well-prepared crisis preparedness is needed to handle these challenges. This does not only mean having plans in place to be able to respond quickly to an acute water crisis, but also building an infrastructure and a society that is resilient to these changes. Incorporating climate adaptation strategies into our water management can no longer be seen as an option, but it must be a requirement.

To achieve this, we must invest in research and technology that can help us predict and manage these risks. We must strengthen cooperation between different levels. The Government has a special responsibility to ensure that our preparedness is integrated and effective.

From this perspective, it is alarming that six out of ten municipalities today lack a water service plan, which underscores the need for the government to increase its focus at the local and regional level. To strengthen our ability to manage water crises, we need not only national guidelines and resources but also strong local management and planning. The fact that the government has not fully compensated the municipal sector in this cost crisis naturally has negative effects on all welfare areas – so also on crisis preparedness. Sweden is becoming poorer and more dangerous with the SD government's policy.

The Social Democrats have presented their positions. They are based on science, proven policy, and an unwavering commitment to our planet's and our people's welfare. I wish to move for approval of reservation 8, Mr. Speaker, regarding crisis preparedness and climate change.

I now turn directly to the representatives of the government parties. The questions I have raised today – the need for a developed water management and a robust crisis preparedness in the face of climate change – should not be partisan issues. They are issues that affect us all, regardless of political affiliation, and it is therefore of the utmost importance that you take the criticism and the proposals we present most seriously.

We stand at a crossroads in several policy areas. The decisions we make today will have far-reaching effects for future generations. Therefore, I urge you to return to the Riksdag with measures to create a future where water management is not just a matter of reacting to crises, but a matter of building a society that is both resilient and just. Let us ensure that our children and grandchildren inherit a world where clean water is a given for everyone and not a luxury for a few.

(Applause)

In this speech, Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S) agreed.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Initially, I would like to take the opportunity to move for approval of reservation 6.

Today we have to take a position on the government's proposition which aims to implement the EU's new water directive. The Sweden Democrats have no strong views on the proposed legislative changes. What we are doing now in the Riksdag is to administer decisions that have been made at a supranational level.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have for many years highlighted criticism regarding how these issues have been handled at the EU level and not least how we in Sweden have chosen to implement the EU legislation. The implementation goes back quite a long way - it was the Persson government that was in power when the water directive was first incorporated into Swedish law, and even then it went wrong.

Even though we do not have any views on the implementation in substance, Mr. Speaker, the Riksdag can, of course, comment on water management in general today. That is also the reason why the Sverigedemokraterna has a reservation in this report.

The criticism of the water management has been intense, both from municipalities and regions as well as from the land-based industries. It is obvious that today's system does not work. The fundamental problem is that one does not manage to account for values that are in conflict with one another. This leads to negative consequences for agriculture, hydropower, other cultural values, and so on.

It is also evident that the environmental quality standards as they stand today create problems in application. The process is extremely complex today. The EU provides the possibility for less stringent standards if the costs are disproportionate, but in Sweden we have set the bar higher – here the costs must be unreasonable.

The result has been that Sweden's application differs from how it is done in other member states. This disadvantages, for example, Swedish agriculture and Swedish cultural values. If no change occurs, these values may be affected even more negatively. It is, for example, unreasonable that the same measures should be taken in sparsely populated forest areas as in densely populated areas and that they should cost the same amount.

Mr. Speaker! The system for deciding on measures under the EU's Water Framework Directive must be fundamentally changed. This has already been investigated by the Water Management Inquiry, which proposed that the water authorities be abolished and that their tasks be distributed among agencies and county administrative boards. Unfortunately, the Social Democratic government did not implement these proposals.

The Sweden Democrats, as is well known, have a cooperation with the government, but this cooperation does not today include water issues. We have, however, utilized the forms of cooperation that exist to talk with the government about the importance of achieving measures in these issues. Now we have received clarity that active work is ongoing at the ministry. It is pleasing and positive, but it is clearly not sufficient.

What the government intends to do is still unclear, and there is also no timetable. We therefore see that it is important that the Sweden Democrats and other parties in the Riksdag push. That is why we have voted in favor of the motion for announcement to the government to implement the change that the Water Management Inquiry has already proposed and in that way create better conditions for land-based industries with better opportunities to weigh interests against one another.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! I have the same questions for Martin Kinnunen as I asked of Johanna Hornberger.

I recoiled at something the member said in their speech linked to what is reasonable regarding measures to guarantee water quality. The member complained that unreasonable costs are exempted in our legislation. I do not quite understand that criticism. The opposite of unreasonable costs is, after all, reasonable costs. It sounds reasonable to me that it is reasonable costs to guarantee water quality that is the legal requirement.

One can also reflect on how the Sweden Democrats sometimes choose to be in opposition and sometimes choose to be those who, in practice, run this government. We have seen a number of issues that were not initially regulated in the so-called Tidö Agreement but which later, after pressure from the Sweden Democrats, perhaps – I do not know – with threats of withdrawing from the cooperation, were forced into, for example, the climate action plan. This is apparently an issue that the Sweden Democrats do not care about quite as strongly, since they are now taking a position in opposition.

It would be somewhat interesting to hear how Martin Kinnunen reasons regarding these questions. He is welcome to clarify this with reasonable and unreasonable costs and what is so wrong with that definition.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! As I said earlier: If the costs are disproportionate, the EU allows for the norms to be changed. In Sweden, the bar has been set higher. Other definitions could be used, but the fundamental problem is that we have set the bar differently than other countries. I mentioned disproportionate costs because that is exactly what is stated in the EU regulations. Sweden has set the bar higher, and both we and, for example, Svenskt Vatten consider that regrettable.

The Sweden Democrats have no formal cooperation with the government on water issues. However, we have an ongoing cooperation, and the Sweden Democrats are a constructive force in trying to achieve as much positive political change as possible. We have also raised the water issues with the government, as recently as last week here in the chamber and in other ways, which is why we have been able to assure ourselves that an active work is now underway at the Government Offices on these issues. The problem previously was that not so much happened during the Social Democrats' eight years in power. The problems that I highlighted have indeed occurred during all the ten years I have sat in the Riksdag.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! Martin Kinnunen says that the Sweden Democrats are a constructive force in cooperation with the government. Yes, possibly a constructive force for Sweden Democrat politics, but they have not been particularly constructive when it comes to the climate action plan. Now we have a climate action plan that is a castle in the air, or rather a carbon dioxide castle, because carbon dioxide levels are increasing with the government's and the Sweden Democrats' policy.

As the largest party in the government base and with significant influence on the state budget, how do the Sverigedemokraterna intend to ensure that the municipalities, which are already struggling with economic challenges due to the insufficient inflation protection in the state grants, receive the necessary resources to manage water management effectively and maintain necessary crisis preparedness?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The member mentioned the climate action plan, and we will have an exciting debate about it in the chamber ahead. I assert that the Sweden Democrats have been an extremely constructive force in this work and have succeeded in achieving the best climate action plan that has ever been placed on the Riksdag's table. I therefore do not share the member's view of this process.

The Social Democrats themselves have been out on some kind of tour and apologized for all the shortcomings that existed during their eight years in power. One such shortcoming was precisely the climate policy because they did not listen to ordinary people. We are now addressing these shortcomings in the climate action plan, and the Social Democrats should also think this is positive because popular anchoring is now a fundamental part of the climate action plan, which, as mentioned, was not the case during the Social Democrats' years in power.

Mr. Speaker! Järrebring also brings up inflation protection. One might wish that there were an inflation protection in the budget so that no one would be affected, but that is not how it works. The politicians and the Riksbank cannot work on pushing down inflation if we simultaneously hit a large budget item called inflation protection. If we increase all state expenditures with inflation, we will not succeed in defeating inflation.

Municipalities and regions have received increased state grants, which is positive, and the Sweden Democrats have fought hard for this. But the grants cannot offset all cost increases in society, as they hit broadly. The municipalities must have better preparedness and become better at managing their resources.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! Vänsterpartiet welcomes the EU's new drinking water directive. Managing and caring for our water resources is crucial for us to have access to high-quality drinking water today and in the future. This presupposes that we have good water quality in lakes, rivers, streams, and groundwater.

The need for control and preventive measures increases as the climate crisis worsens. In general, we support the proposals in the government's bill on how the new drinking water directive shall be implemented in Sweden. We consider, however, that there is a need for additional measures to protect people's health from the harmful effects of pollutants in drinking water.

Sweden has historically had high quality drinking water. But today, many lakes that are also important drinking water sources are contaminated with both pharmaceutical residues and PFAS. This includes, for example, Vänern, Vättern, and Mälaren.

I, who was born, grew up, and live in Stockholm, have drunk water from Mälaren my entire life. Since I realized a few years ago that these forever chemicals are in my drinking water, I have not been able to stop thinking about it from time to time when I pour a glass of water. There are poisons in here that can harm me, but what choice do I have? That one should have to think that thought is a scandal. Sweden should be able to do better, and we must take better care of our drinking water now that we know the extent of the problem. Clear regulations are needed regarding what should be included in risk assessments to achieve healthy and clean water.

The Drinking Water Directive covers a list of substances to be monitored. However, it is only a fraction of the hazardous substances that occur in drinking water sources and can therefore be present in the drinking water that are included on the list. It is therefore not enough to rely solely on it. The minimum requirements for chemical parameters contained therein also do not reflect the latest state of research and therefore risk not staying within safe limits. Denmark, for example, has chosen to introduce a stricter limit value for PFAS at the national level.

In the new drinking water directive, it also appears that the Member States shall establish values for additional parameters if the protection of human health requires it. The Left Party therefore believes that there are strong reasons to introduce a national list containing more substances and lower limit values than in the drinking water directive. I therefore move for approval of reservation 2.

Mr. Speaker! The new drinking water directive also contains provisions regarding risk assessment and measures for property installations. This can, for example, concern pipes installed between drinking water taps and the distribution network. The risk assessment includes monitoring of Legionella bacteria and lead, but bisphenols are missing from the list of substances to be considered in the risk assessment of property installations. Bisphenol A is an endocrine disruptor and can affect the ability to have children. Even small doses are judged to be able to harm fetuses and small children. Other bisphenols affect us in similar ways. In Sweden, it is common to have performed relining of water pipes with bisphenols. In that case, it is reasonable that the risk assessment should also cover the presence of bisphenols in the drinking water. Therefore, these substances should be added to the list and limit values for bisphenol A in tap water should be set in line with the authorities' assessment of what is a safe level.

Mr. Speaker! No one should have to worry that the water from the tap is not safe to drink. Unfortunately, we do not reach that today. The PFAS contaminations that affected the residents in Kallinge in Blekinge are the worst example, but there are many more places in Sweden where the water is contaminated by toxic substances.

Many of us probably thought that contaminated water in Sweden was something that belonged to a bygone era. That could also have been the case if it weren't for unscrupulous chemical companies that manufacture and sell hazardous substances and if it weren't for deficient legislation that allows the companies to do so. A long series of measures are required to put a stop to it and clean up after them, but one important thing we can do to protect our health is to ensure that we have better oversight and stricter rules for drinking water.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Drinking water is our primary and most important food source. Despite that, we take it for granted all too often. Water is a prerequisite for all life and one of our major climate challenges. In Sweden, we have a very good supply of clean water. Many tourists and long-distance guests look with envy at our good supply of clean water in the tap.

We must be careful with the water, be mindful and use it for the right things - not fill the pool, for example, with drinking water in the spring when it is at its driest. Every person consumes approximately 140 liters of water per day. By, for example, turning off the tap while brushing your teeth or taking a shower instead of a bath, we can all save a lot of water. Most of the water goes to personal hygiene and toilet flushing. Only a small part, about 10 liters, goes to food and drink.

Not so long ago, we received reports that many municipalities lack preparedness for the drinking water supply in the event of a crisis or war. Several municipalities also lack reserve water sources. In the past week, we could all see images on the news of very high flows in many watercourses and a red warning in Kävlingeån - in my home municipality. I can tell you that the water level is still very high.

Sydvatten opened the dam gates in Vombsjön more than normally to secure the drinking water. Otherwise, there was a risk that the dam walls would burst and that we would get a free flow from the lake, and that 400,000 people would thus be left without water in the tap. In this case, we see a clear example of what we must be prepared to do - risk houses and property to secure the drinking water.

Access to clean drinking water is one of the planet's great challenges, and it will become even greater given the climate changes. This autumn, we received reports of flooding from, among other places, Dalsland, where the water became contaminated. It required remediation of the pipe network, and residents were referred to drinking water tanks. In Dagens Nyheter yesterday, the headline of an article was "'Drinking water for 30,000 threatened' - residents fight against mining company". A company in Jämtland wants to establish a mine, and many residents are critical of how it will affect the surrounding area and nature. The greatest concern is the risks surrounding the drinking water. The case is now with the Land and Environment Court, so we shall see how it lands this autumn.

Extreme drought also affects the availability of clean drinking water. Experiences from Öland during dry years with water trucks around the clock have today forced large investments in water and sewage activities in, among other places, Kalmar. Therefore, it is important that there is preparedness and a plan for how we can secure the availability of drinking water both during droughts and during floods.

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party holds water in high regard. We have presented proposals to secure the renovation of the sewage network and to manage climate change through climate adaptation, and we have set requirements that the polluter shall pay for the purification required when it comes to, for example, pharmaceutical residues.

In today's report, there are a couple of issues that are worth highlighting in particular. The government has chosen to give the water authorities additional tasks despite the fact that there is a completed investigation that has reviewed the fragmented organization of water management and proposed that the water authorities should be abolished. This abolition has been supported by several other parties previously, not least those who now sit in government positions. When it came down to it, however, they fell silent one by one - so also the Sverigedemokraterna when it became apparent in the committee that the government could face a motion against it. They apologize with vague formulations about the fact that preparation is ongoing within the Government Offices, but neither the government nor the Sverigedemokraterna can answer concretely on how the preparation is taking place and what it is expected to result in.

We in the Center Party, however, maintain our position that the Water Management Inquiry's proposals should be implemented and that the water authorities should be abolished. This is important, not least for the work with small-scale hydropower, which has had major problems with fragmented administrative actions and dubious interpretations of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker! Access to almost unlimited clean water has long been a given in Sweden. When we turn on the tap at home or at the workplace, we are used to getting drinking water of high quality. However, the last decade has given us reason to realize that we cannot take all of this for granted. Our water infrastructure is outdated and needs to be climate-adapted, groundwater levels have dropped, and traces of chemicals, for example PFAS, as well as pharmaceuticals and microplastics, are more commonly occurring in the drinking water than before. Also from a preparedness and vulnerability perspective, the availability of clean drinking water is an important issue, not least in the ongoing total defense planning.

Implementation of the EU's new drinking water directive

For these reasons, I and the Center Party consider it relevant to develop a national water resource strategy that, in times of great water scarcity, takes a holistic approach to who or whom should receive water, at what time, and how much. The more robust the basic water infrastructure is, the lower the risk that the drinking water will become unusable.

Mr. Speaker! I stand behind all of the Center Party's reservations but wish to move for approval of reservation 9.

A secure water supply and wise water management are something that is prioritized by us in Centerpartiet. More parties should adopt that perspective. Hopefully, concrete proposals can then also come from the government rather than referring to yet another investigation without concrete results.

As said: Access to drinking water is one of the planet's great challenges, and given the climate changes, it will become even greater in the future.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 11.)

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