Management of land and water areas

Lars Beckman (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Civil Affairs' report on the management of land and water areas. I believe it has become obvious to many that this is becoming an increasingly important political area.

Not least in my home municipality Gävle, one could see what happens when a municipality neglects the municipal water network. What happens when a municipality does not listen to the warnings that the County Administrative Board gives? I do not know if it was for three years in a row that it was told to the Civil Affairs Committee when we visited the County Administrative Board, but for a number of years, Gävle municipality was warned and told: We see deficiencies in Gävle municipality. You must rectify this. But the municipality did not do that, and it naturally became devastating when heavy rainfall occurred.

Just now I saw a media report that in the worst-case scenario it will cost the taxpayers in Gävle 1.3 billion, that is 1,300 million, because the municipality, for example, did not repair a culvert. The local population in that area had warned Gävle kommun and said: You must ensure that the culverts are not clogged, because it becomes a dam when it rains! And indeed, that is what happened.

The management of land and water areas

How could one end up in this situation? How have we been able to end up in a situation where the maintenance debt in the municipal water and sewage network in Sweden is estimated at hundreds of billions? There are different figures, 800 billion and 500 billion, but we are talking about an extremely large amount of money because municipal politicians have not managed the municipal water and sewage network. How could one have ended up in that situation?

When we discuss these issues, even with party friends, we realize that the voters may have a share of the blame in this, Mr. Speaker. The voters in, for example, Gävle have indeed desired ice rinks and other sports arenas. Culture houses are being built in Gävle at a cost of perhaps up to 1 billion – instead of managing something that belongs to society's absolute core tasks, namely the municipal water and sewage network.

We believe in local self-government. The Moderates do not believe at all in a model that some advocate - that we should have some kind of uniform waste fee across all of Sweden or that the state should provide large subsidies. I do not believe at all that this is a good model.

However, we must find a model for how little Ockelbo in Gästrikland is to afford to renovate its water network. It is a small municipality, and this also concerns several other rural municipalities. There, one might perhaps have to look at alternative financing solutions. This could, for example, involve pension companies being able to provide financing. This is something we will work even more on in national politics, at all different levels.

The municipalities must also engage in a different type of societal planning. If you have, for example, been to Florida, you have seen that the societal planning looks completely different there. It rains significantly more in Florida than in Sweden. They have different solutions in the form of ponds and large areas where water is to flow to. We must now plan society in a significantly better way. This will only happen; it must happen. The maintenance debt for the municipal water and sewage network is, however, deeply worrying.

Another issue that concerns very many is mandatory connection to municipal water and sewage networks. We have now, in broad agreement here in the Swedish Riksdag, given the municipalities an opportunity not to mandate connection for households. If one has a well-functioning water and sewage solution, one should therefore not have to be mandatorily connected.

It seems that the municipal water companies and local politicians have not grasped the legislative change that we have made here in the Swedish Riksdag in sufficient extent. I want to flag that if the development continues and people and households are forced into municipal water networks, we may have to tighten the legislation here in the Swedish Riksdag.

There is a case in Sandviken, in my constituency. Sandviken Municipality intends to force 40 property owners in Järbo into the municipal water network. They have functioning water networks; they have perfect values when measured. But they are to be forced into the municipal network. What upsets the property owners most, apart from the cost, is that this is directly indecent from an environmental perspective.

In my private three-chamber well or tank, everything works very well. But there is something called overflow, which the municipal sewage networks around Sweden engage in. The headline for an article in Arbetarbladet is "So much of our shit is poured into ditches and lakes". In Sandviken, 460,982 cubic meters of wastewater have been overflowed. Arbetarbladet has calculated that this corresponds to 2.7 server halls; server halls are enormously large.

Strangely enough, these discharges are not regulated in the environmental permits. This means that no one actually knows how much sewage is discharged around the country when the sewers are overflowed. If, however, an individual property owner were to overflow their tank and discharge sewage, this would likely be an environmental crime. There is therefore a very skewed legislation here.

The politicians in Sandviken are therefore planning to force 40 property owners who have functioning sewage systems into the municipal network. In the municipal network, sewage is discharged straight out into Storsjön or into the ditch. It is called somewhat prettily that one "discharges." More people around Sweden have called me about the same situation.

One might wonder what the municipal politicians are thinking then. If a property has a functioning sewage system that is very good, why should it be forced into the municipal system, where, according to Arbetarbladet and Sandviken Energi, sewage is pumped into Storsjön? This is, of course, nothing that builds respect.

We have seen in Ukraine how it is also good from a civil defense perspective to have individual sewage systems and wells. We have seen how Russia, during its unjust invasion and its war of aggression, systematically attacks energy supply and water and sewage networks. From many different aspects, society becomes less vulnerable when one can have individual water and sewage facilities.

Now it is a bit up to our municipal politicians. If you do not understand the legislator's intention, which was to ensure in broad political agreement that people are not forced into municipal water and sewage systems, perhaps we have to enact a lex Sandviken so that I, just as in the case of district heating networks or during fiber expansion, shall have the right to opt out. It is not impossible; we shall look into it.

I regret from an environmental point of view that Sandviken Municipality pumps so much sewage straight out into Storsjön, where there are very nice swimming spots. It is naturally not so fun for the children who are going to swim this summer. The municipal politicians who are now forcing these property owners, whose wastewater is handled well today, perhaps should think one more time.

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

Denis Begic (S)

Mr. Speaker! In this debate, I will say a few times what I said during last year's discussion at approximately the same time. Much of what needs to be done has not been done; it would be needed. I agree - to my amazement - with Lars Beckman that these are incredibly important issues, above all for the future, which we perhaps have not handled in a good way in the Riksdag and the government.

As I mentioned earlier here in the speaker's chair, we are facing a critical point regarding our national water and sewage network. It is between 500 and 800 billion that is at stake. How shall we handle this issue?

It is clear that the solutions to these problems cannot fall solely on a single actor. This is not an issue where only the state should do its part, but also the municipalities, the individuals, and everyone else who works with these issues. This is not least about the citizen groups that there are more and more of all around the country. We must discuss how we should design a sustainable financing model.

Today I do not have a definitive answer to that question because it concerns an incredible amount of money. But I am firmly convinced that through dialogue and cooperation we can certainly find solutions to the problem of funding and ensure that necessary investments in our water infrastructure are made. We need to explore all possible paths for sustainable funding when it comes to this problem.

But we must also ensure that these investments in our country are fair and that the costs do not unfairly burden the municipalities that are already economically vulnerable. How shall we solve this problem? We must take our responsibility to ensure that access to clean water, a fundamental human right, does not become an unfair economic burden for our citizens.

Mr. Speaker! A critical question that this report addresses is the management of our national interests. When the system for national interests was originally established, it was with a clear ambition: to only include the most unique and valuable areas in our country, in order to ensure that we preserve the most important resources for our national welfare and our national heritage.

Boverket has, together with other relevant authorities, carried out a comprehensive review of these areas of national interest. The result of this review has been enlightening but, above all, concerning. Attempts have been made to clarify and specify the criteria for what exactly defines an area of national interest. Despite these efforts, the review shows that there is still a significant discrepancy between current practice and the original intentions of the national interest system.

The report from the review indicates that all participating authorities agree that an additional review needs to be conducted. What is concerning is that four out of five of these authorities have found that their current claims of national interest do not fully align with the established criteria. This is not only unreasonable; it undermines the very purpose of the system and risks weakening the protection of our most valuable areas.

It is therefore of the utmost importance that we address these deficiencies. We must ensure that the national interest system functions as intended: to protect and safeguard the areas that are of fundamental importance for our nation, both now and for future generations.

As I mentioned last year, the management of areas of national interest requires a careful balancing. We must review the number of national interests to make room for new initiatives that can strengthen our society's economic and social structure. It is of the utmost importance that we find a balance that both protects our valuable resources and promotes growth and development.

Mr. Speaker! As I also emphasized last year, the EU plays an ever-increasing role in shaping our national policy, especially regarding the environment and climate. Together, the EU's member states have taken large steps forward regarding water issues, particularly through the introduction of the Water Framework Directive. This directive challenges us to achieve good ecological and chemical status in our aquatic environments, a challenge that Sweden stands in the middle of.

For us Social Democrats, it is of utmost importance to ensure a secure drinking water supply for all citizens. It is an issue that is becoming increasingly critical in light of climate change and potential crises. During our time in power, we took decisive action to improve our country's drinking water and water supply. We implemented extensive measures to combat eutrophication, we introduced new technologies to reduce pharmaceutical residues in wastewater, and we invested in research programs focusing on water. These steps are important, but they are only the beginning of a long journey.

Mr. Speaker! It is clear that our work is not finished. Continued improvements of, for example, wastewater treatment are necessary to reduce emissions and eutrophication. We must also give our drinking water sources a stronger legal protection. This protection is fundamental to ensure that clean drinking water continues to be an asset for all Swedes, now and in the future.

It is the government's responsibility to initiate the necessary measures to meet these challenges. As elected representatives of the people, it is our duty to support and push forward these initiatives. Therefore, I urge the Riksdag to make the government aware that a great deal of work needs to be done on these measures. Strengthen the protection of our water resources, and ensure that every step is taken to preserve and improve the quality of our water!

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, it is our duty to act decisively and with vision. We must move forward with a policy that is sustainable, just, and future-oriented. It is our duty not only towards the current generation but also towards future generations.

Therefore, I would like to move for approval of reservation 2.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by trying to correct my colleague, who in the speaker's chair gave the impression that no investments are being made in the water networks. We are quite in agreement that there is a large deficit, which is also accumulating over time. But it is approximately 21 billion per year that is invested in the water networks; I would still like to emphasize that.

Another thing that was interesting in the debate is the question: Why is nothing happening regarding the mandatory connection issue despite the Riksdag's clear decision? The question is whether it is a reluctance from the municipal side or if it is a lack of information. I would argue that it is the former. Connections to municipal water and sewage networks also involve revenue for the municipalities, which also participate in financing others. One has to ask if we should have done this differently when we sent the signal.

What I want to highlight in the report is that, just like with pretty much everything else that this committee makes decisions on, it is referred to various things at the Government Offices that we have not yet seen any smoke of. It makes it difficult for opposition parties to be constructive. As soon as we raise an issue, it is referred to an ongoing work, and it becomes problematic.

Let me take some examples: preliminary study on national physical planning, investigation on an ordered review of offshore wind power, government review investigation, investigation on simplified and shortened permit processes according to the Environmental Code, investigation on water issues in planning and construction, and assignments on new areas for energy development in the marine plans.

It is, therefore, quite a lot that locks the other parties when we find ourselves in the limbo that Lars Beckman's party has somehow put us in.

All investigations are important, I want to emphasize that, but the National Interest Investigation is of particular interest given that this is the state's way of keeping track of the municipalities. This means that this has swollen into something that was not intended from the beginning. We would like to see what proposals the government will come up with, perhaps in about ten years at this rate.

In conclusion, I would like to highlight a few things that the Center Party has raised in its motion, which have been simplified. We have, for example, written that the Water Services Act should be amended so that it allows for external financing of the water and sewage infrastructure. I believe there is a consensus on this with, among others, the Moderates. It is also about that an investment support for individual water and sewage investments should be introduced. We have, for example, written that national interests should not apply to land that is already protected through other legislation. We have written that the distribution of responsibility between state agencies, county administrative boards, and municipalities in the work to ensure that national interest claims are kept current should be improved and clarified. We have written that, in connection with any exploitation of farmland, one defines, among other things, significant public interest. There is also a set of other proposals in our motion report.

But now we are here again. The debates are unfortunately becoming quite stale in anticipation of better times, I guess. I hope that next year, when we stand here again, we will not have to wonder if we will need to dust off last decade's speeches on the same subject or if we will actually have the opportunity to debate some new things and get some vigor into the debate. Or what do you think, Lars Beckman?

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

Martin Westmont (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Members and listeners! I want to begin by moving for the approval of our reservation 5, but I want to point out that we, of course, stand behind all our reservations.

Mr. Speaker! Extensive maintenance of our water infrastructure awaits in the near future. The investment need is great, and the costs will be significant. What is needed is long-term planning for the maintenance and installation of new socially important infrastructure across the entire country.

We can already see today that a majority of municipalities have large investments ahead of them in the coming years. The age of the existing mains - often installed sometime between the 1950s and the 1970s - is beginning to take its toll. Water and sewage pipes must be continuously replaced. In ten years, Mr. Speaker, the question of our water and sewage systems will be one of the absolutely most important infrastructure issues to be solved in Sweden.

The Sweden Democrats want us to act today and not tomorrow. And the government must work preventatively, so that we are well prepared for this great challenge.

Already today we have problems with water and sewage pipes. We know that large amounts of drinking water leak out through substandard pipes and connections on the way to the final consumer. It is water that has gone through a purification process, and it is a great waste of resources that purified drinking water flows straight into the ground. Patching and repairing these leaks becomes both costly and unsustainable in the long run.

In our neighboring country Denmark, there are rules regarding water leakage from water pipes and requirements that leakage exceeding a certain limit must not occur and must be rectified promptly. Such a regulation is a way to control water leakage and thereby improve the water supply in the municipalities.

We believe that the government should investigate the possibility of introducing a percentage limit for water leakage from water pipes similar to the regulatory system that exists in our neighboring country Denmark.

Mr. Speaker! If we are to be able to carry out this extensive work, we must ensure that the competence that Sweden needs exists. Let us not be naive like previous governments, but let us act today.

To ensure the supply of knowledge and the education level in the area, cooperation between the parties involved is needed. Since large parts of the infrastructure for water and sewage need to be replaced in the future, the demand for labor with the right competence will increase moving forward. We already know this today, and strategic work is required to secure the supply of competence in competition with other industries. It is a task for the government to take the initiatives required to take these necessary measures, and the Sverigedemokraterna will closely follow this work.

Mr. Speaker! A question that has been raised earlier in the debate is that many property owners are affected when those who already have a fully approved water and sewage system are nevertheless forced to connect to the municipality's water and sewage network. Today's rules on connecting individual sewage systems to municipal sewage networks involve disproportionately high costs for an individual homeowner. In the worst case, one may be forced to move from their home.

It is not reasonable that a property owner who has already invested hundreds of thousands of kronor in a fully functioning water and sewage system should be forced to connect to the municipal water and sewage network. Property owners with a private sewage system should not be forced to connect to the municipality's water and sewage network, this of course provided that the private sewage system meets applicable environmental and health requirements.

Mr. Speaker! If we want to promote a vibrant countryside and make it easier for people to live in and move to smaller towns, we should not make it more expensive and more difficult for people to live in the countryside. When the municipality expands water and sewage systems, the households that have a fully functioning water and sewage system should therefore be allowed to decide for themselves whether they want to connect to the municipal water and sewage network or not.

Furthermore, the regulatory framework for inspections of individual sewage systems must be clear enough so that municipalities treat property owners in a similar manner across the entire country, which unfortunately is not the case today.

Mr. Speaker! War can be waged in different forms. Historically, we know that a part of warfare is to disrupt ecosystems. In the event of an attack on Swedish territory, the risk of environmental crimes and attacks on our water and sewage systems is high, which is also one of several arguments for why a certain part of individual sewers in a municipality is good from a preparedness point of view. We must consider the total defense aspect and an increased awareness when it comes to the protection of our water supply.

Maintaining and protecting the availability of drinking water is also of great importance from a health perspective, and it is necessary for the municipalities to protect and manage strategic drinking water sources and act promptly if elements are discovered that can spread contaminants in the drinking water or that can otherwise damage our water resources.

The amount of chemicals used in our daily lives is increasing. A large part of these chemicals end up in the water resources. Medicines, microplastics, and antibiotics follow along in the wastewater, and the risk is imminent that they are taken into our bodies.

The municipalities' preparedness needs to maintain a high level of security, as the risk of waterborne bacteria and diseases spreading to our drinking water is imminent during heavy rainfall and flooding. This, in turn, can have devastating consequences for the elderly, small children, and sick people.

Not infrequently, preparedness for major weather changes is lacking in our municipalities. The sewage systems are old and are not always intended to handle large water flows.

In Sweden, different authorities, municipalities, and county administrative boards are responsible for water management throughout our country, which is not optimal. Sverigedemokraterna want to see increased coordination regarding these important issues so that a policy can be developed that minimizes the risk of double work and provides a clearer holistic perspective on Sweden's water supply when it comes to availability, preparedness, and maintenance.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! This debate is about the management of land and water areas. It is one of my favorite debates. There is therefore a risk that I will become a bit scattered and disorganized, because there is an incredibly large amount of interesting things to talk about in this area.

I intended to try to focus on talking about three different areas that all belong together in their own way: the protection of drinking water, infrastructure for water management, and finally, Sweden's only national city park. We shall see if I succeed in tying these things together at the end.

I want to start with a question that is extremely close to my heart, and that is the protection of our drinking water.

I come from a place outside Ronneby called Kallinge. That is where I grew up, and that is where my family and my friends still live. In my heart, Kallinge is still my home. But for many others, Kallinge is now associated with the chemical PFAS and a toxic scandal.

In December last year, after many years of struggle, the PFAS group in Kallinge finally received the right to compensation for personal injury after the Supreme Court ruled that one can be poisoned when having high levels of a toxic substance in the body regardless of whether one has become ill from it or not. This is a very important game changer. PFAS is, in fact, everywhere, and it does not break down. This means that the chemical risks increasing everywhere, as we have not yet succeeded in banning it.

But how could it be that an entire society could be poisoned by its drinking water in modern times?

Drinking water is our most important food. Clean drinking water is not available in unlimited quantities, and when drinking water is contaminated or poisoned, it has extremely serious consequences, as we have seen, for example, in Kallinge. We also know that with climate change, which causes longer periods of drought and heavier rain when it does rain, the pressure on our existing water sources can increase, and it can become more difficult to regulate water levels and quality in our water sources.

There are different ways today to protect a drinking water source, but even designating an area as a water protection area is not sufficient for the area and the water to receive a secure protection. It is also far from all drinking water sources that have a protection today. In the past, our water was often used as a landfill, but that our drinking water sources today do not have a better protection is both incomprehensible and frightening.

In Kallinge, the Armed Forces conducted fire drills with toxic fire-fighting foam in direct connection to one of Sweden's best drinking water sources in Brantafors and Bredåkra, a drinking water source that has now become unusable for all time. Listen to that – unusable for all time!

To avoid the risk of more poisoned drinking water sources, we must protect our drinking water much better than we do today. We need to do this in many different ways. To prevent harmful chemicals from ending up in our drinking water, new legislation is needed, and that is what we need to provide for here. We need, for example, to stop the use of poisons used in a way that risks contaminating soil and water. We also need a strong ban on handling dangerous chemicals in the vicinity of drinking water sources.

We therefore consider that the government must return with proposals to strengthen the protection of surface and groundwater by introducing a regulation of these into the Environmental Code. We also believe that the government needs to take initiatives so that also lakes and natural gravel deposits shall be managed as drinking water reserves and not be exploited or polluted. Drinking water is a prerequisite for us, and protecting our drinking water should be one of the government's highest priorities. I will therefore vote in favor of reservation 3 in the report, which concerns exactly this.

On the same theme, I also want to highlight the importance of us taking care of our technical systems for drinking water and sewage, our water and sewage systems (va-system). We have heard a bit about this earlier here. In a simple way, we can call the water and sewage systems the connection between our drinking water sources and our glasses of juice. We know that many of our water and sewage systems are starting to get old and need to be upgraded, and that a lot of money will need to be spent on this in the future. As we heard earlier, it is important to secure both the water and sewage networks, and this must be a high-priority issue even for our civil defense and for our disaster preparedness.

I mentioned earlier that climate change risks affecting our water bodies, but we already see that variations in weather and heavy rain are putting our water and sewage systems under hard pressure. When a lot of water, such as during downpours, is simultaneously forced into our sewers and treatment plants, our sewage treatment, for example, deteriorates, and contaminated water can end up in our lakes and seas - just as in Sandviken and Gävle, which we have heard about previously. Here we need ways to keep rainwater in the ground, but we also need to adapt our water and sewage networks for new circumstances.

Miljöpartiet therefore wants the government to produce a new national strategy for the expansion, upgrading, and climate adaptation of our water and sewage infrastructure. We also want to see the introduction of a new municipal stormwater tax that can fund the measures needed to manage the rainwater that today burdens our sewage systems. The distribution of responsibility for measures to ensure that sewage treatment and stormwater management function well throughout Sweden is also an issue that should be investigated from the ground up, as well as financing solutions that ensure upgrading can be carried out in a broad and sustainable way across all of Sweden.

Finally, I also want to say a few words about Sweden's only national theme park on the topic of land use. We have touched upon water earlier, and nature is an important and good solution when it comes to both purifying rainwater and retaining water in the ground during heavy rainfall. Therefore, for example, near-city nature is important for the city's infrastructure but no less important for people who live in the cities.

In Sweden, we have both national parks and nature reserves, but only one national urban park, with unique legislation. On the edge of Norrmalm in Stockholm, where I now live, lies Hagaparken, which is part of the larger national urban park that extends through both Stockholm, Solna, and Lidingö. The park is a very popular green lung that gives the city's inhabitants access to nature, fresh air, exercise, and recreation. Additionally, the park keeps down the temperature during heatwaves and can hold large amounts of rainwater.

Throughout the year, the national park is filled with activity, from sledding, mushroom picking, and kayaking to hot dog grilling and romantic dates. At the same time, the park has a rich biodiversity and contributes many cultural values such as buildings and ruins. It is a fantastic place that is well worth protecting.

The management of land and water areas

Mr. Speaker! The legislation on the national urban park was adopted by a unanimous Riksdag 30 years ago with the aim of being able to preserve larger areas in cities as historical landscapes. After 30 years, however, there is still only one national urban park in all of Sweden, even though more cities could perhaps contribute more. We therefore desire an evaluation of how the legislation surrounding the national urban park works and has worked in order to be able to draw lessons from this moving forward.

As you can see, there is a lot to discuss. I could talk about this for another 20 minutes, or perhaps for several hours, but I don't think that is what you want. I also believe that my speaking time for today is almost up.

In the report, there are many important proposals that I would have liked the committee to have raised and the government to have taken further, but since I truly consider it to be of the utmost importance that we as soon as possible increase the protection for our drinking water sources, I choose today, as stated, to move for approval of the Miljöpartiets reservation number 3 in the report.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be made on 2 May.)

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