“Article 1 Purpose The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater which: … (c) aims at enhanced protection and improvement of the aquatic environment, inter alia, through specific measures for the progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of priority substances and the cessation or phasing-out of discharges, emissions and losses of the priority hazardous substances; …”
“… ‘Body of surface water’ means a discrete and significant element of surface water such as a lake, a reservoir, a stream, river or canal, part of a stream, river or canal, a transitional water or stretch of coastal water.”
“Article 4 Environmental Objectives 1. In making operational the programme of measures specified in the river basin management plans: (a) for surface waters (i) Member States shall implement the necessary measures to prevent deterioration of the status of all bodies of surface water, subject to the application of paragraphs 6 and 7 and without prejudice to paragraph 8; (ii) … (iii) Member States shall protect and enhance all artificial and heavily modified bodies of water, with the aim of achieving good ecological potential and good surface water chemical status at the latest 15 years from the date of entry into force of this Directive, in accordance with the provisions laid down in Annex V, subject to the application of extensions determined in accordance with paragraph 4 and to the applications of paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 without prejudice to paragraph 8; [emphasis added] …”
“1.5 Assessment of Impact Member States shall carry out an assessment of the susceptibility of the surface water status of bodies to the pressures identified above. Member States shall use the information collected above, and any other relevant information including existing environmental monitoring data, to carry out an assessment of the likelihood that surface water bodies within the river basin district will fail to meet the environmental quality objectives set for the bodies under Article 4. Member States may utilise modelling techniques to assist in such an assessment. For those bodies identified as being at risk of failing the environmental quality objectives, further characterisation shall, where relevant, be carried out to optimise the design of both the monitoring programmes required under Article 8, and the programmes of measures required under Article 11.”
“…shall ensure the establishment for each river basin district, or for the part of an international river basin district within its territory, of a programme of measures, taking account of the results of the analyses required under Article 5, in order to achieve the objectives established under Article 4. Such programmes of measures may make reference to measures following from legislation adopted at national level and covering the whole of the territory of a Member State. Where appropriate, a Member State may adopt measures applicable to all river basin districts and/or the portions of international river basin districts falling within its territory.”
“Where monitoring or other data indicate that the objectives set under Article 4 for the body of water are unlikely to be achieved, the Member State shall ensure that: - the causes of the possible failure are investigated, - relevant permits and authorisations are examined and reviewed as appropriate, - the monitoring programmes are reviewed and adjusted as appropriate, and - additional measures as may be necessary in order to achieve those objectives are established, including, as appropriate, the establishment of stricter environmental quality standards following the procedures laid down in Annex V.”
“The programmes of measures shall be reviewed, and if necessary updated at the latest 15 years after the date of entry into force of this Directive and every six years thereafter. Any new or revised measures established under an updated programme shall be made operational within three years of their establishment.”
“RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT PLANS … 2. a summary of significant pressures and impact of human activity on the status of surface water and groundwater, including: … 5. a list of the environmental objectives established under Article 4 for surface waters, groundwaters and protected areas, including in particular identification of instances where use has been made of Article 4(4), (5), (6) and (7), and the associated information required under the Article; … 7. a summary of the programme or programmes of measures adopted under Article 11, including the ways in which the objectives established under Article 4 are thereby to be achieved;[emphasis added] …”
“1(c) draft copies of the river basin management plan, at least one year before the beginning of the period to which the plan refers. On request, access shall be given to background documents and information used for the development of the draft river basin management plan.”
“Duties on ministers and regulators 3(1) The Secretary of State, the Welsh Ministers, the Agency and NRW must exercise their relevant functions so as to secure compliance with the requirements of the WFD, the EQSD and the GWD.”
“Procedure for setting environmental objectives and programmes of measures 12(1) The appropriate agency must, by such date as the appropriate authority may direct, prepare and submit to the authority proposals for (a)environmental objectives for each river basin district, in accordance with regulation 13, and (b) a programme of measures to be applied in order to achieve those objectives, in accordance with regulation 20. [emphasis added] (2) In preparing proposals under paragraph (1), the appropriate agency must (a)take account of the characterisation of, and economic analysis of water use in, the relevant river basin district carried out or updated under regulations 5 and 7, and (b) take such steps as the appropriate agency thinks fit, or the appropriate authority may direct, to (i) provide opportunities for the general public and those persons likely to be interested in or affected by the appropriate agency's proposals to participate in discussion and the exchange of information or views in relation to the preparation of those proposals, (ii) publicise the appropriate agency's draft proposals to those persons, and (iii) consult those persons in respect of those proposals. … (6) The appropriate authority must ensure that, for each river basin district, the environmental objectives and programme of measures are periodically reviewed and, where appropriate, updated (a) by22nd December 2021 , and (b) subsequently, by 22nd December of the sixth year following that date and of each sixth year following that.”
“The environmental objectives 13(1) The environmental objectives referred to in regulation 12 are, subject to regulations 14 to 19, the following objectives for the relevant type of water body or area. (2) For surface water bodies, the objectives are to— (a) prevent deterioration of the status of each body of surface water; (b) protect, enhance and restore each body of surface water (other than an artificial or heavily modified water body) with the aim of achieving good ecological status and (subject to paragraph (3)) good surface water chemical status, if not already achieved, by22nd December 2021 ; (c) protect and enhance each artificial or heavily modified water body with the aim of achieving good ecological potential and (subject to paragraph (3)) good surface water chemical status, if not already achieved, by22nd December 2021 ; (d) aim progressively to reduce pollution from priority substances and aim to cease or phase out emissions, discharges and losses of priority hazardous substances.”
“Extended deadlines for environmental objectives 16(1) The deadline by which an environmental objective referred to in regulation 13(2)(b) or (c), (5)(c) or (6) must be achieved may be extended for the purposes of the phased achievement of the environmental objectives for a body of water if the conditions in paragraphs (2) and (3) are or will be met. … (6) Where a deadline is extended under paragraph (1), the relevant river basin management plan must set out (a) the extended deadline and the reasons for it, (b) a summary of the measures to be applied to achieve the environmental objectives set pursuant to regulation 12 which are envisaged as necessary to bring the body of water progressively to the required status by the extended deadline, and (c) the reasons for any significant delay in making these measures operational and the expected timetable for their implementation.”
“(7) Following an extension under paragraph (1), the next update of the relevant river basin management plan must include a review of the implementation of the measures referred to in paragraph (6)(b) and a summary of any additional measures necessary for the purpose set out in that paragraph.”
“Content of programmes of measures 20(1) Each programme of measures proposed and approved under regulation 12 must include basic measures and, where necessary, supplementary measures (see paragraph (4)).”
“20(2) The basic measures must comply with Article 11.3 of the WFD and must, in particular include the following – […] … (g) for point source discharges liable to cause pollution, a requirement for prior regulation or prior authorisation which sets emission controls for the pollutants concerned;”
“Action where environmental objectives are unlikely to be achieved Where monitoring or other data indicate that the environmental objectives set for a body of water under regulation 12 are unlikely to be achieved, the appropriate agency or, where relevant, the appropriate authority must ensure that – (a) the causes of the possible failure are investigated, (b) relevant permits and authorisations are examined and reviewed as appropriate, (c) the monitoring programmes under regulation 11 are reviewed and adjusted as appropriate, and (d) such additional measures as may be necessary to achieve those objectives (subject to the application of regulations 15 to 19) are included in the programme of measures applying to that body of water.”
“Supplementary plans 32(1) The appropriate agency may prepare a supplementary plan for the purposes of supplementing the river basin management plan for a river basin district. (2) A plan prepared under paragraph (1) may, for example, relate to— (a) a particular description of body of water; (b) a particular catchment or geographical area; (c) a particular matter relating to, or aspect of, the water environment; (d) a particular description of user of water resources. (3) The appropriate agency must, in relation to the preparation of a supplementary plan, consult such of the persons referred to in regulation 29(4) and such other persons likely to be interested in or affected by that plan as the appropriate agency thinks fit, and must take into account any views expressed by those consulted.”
“Consequently, those projects are covered by the obligation, laid down in Article 4 of Directive 2000/60, to prevent deterioration of the status of bodies of water. However, the projects may be authorised pursuant to the system of derogations provided for in Article 4.”
“It follows that, unless a derogation is granted, any deterioration of the status of a body of water must be prevented, irrespective of the longer term planning provided for by management plans and programmes of measures. The obligation to prevent deterioration of the status of bodies of surface water remains binding at each stage of implementation of Directive 2000/60 and is applicable to every surface water body type and status for which a management plan has or should have been adopted. The Member State concerned is consequently required to refuse authorisation for a project where it is such as to result in deterioration of the status of the body of water concerned or to jeopardise the attainment of good surface water status, unless the view is taken that the project is covered by a derogation under Article 4(7) of the directive.”
“4. First, even though the WFD sought to establish a fundamental common basis to coordinate the patchwork of Community and national legislation in force, the fact remains that the WFD is a complex and particularly elaborate measure which is unusually difficult to understand. In particular, many difficulties are raised by the legislative drafting technique of making numerous references from one provision to another and to other measures and of laying down several derogations the scope of which cannot be clearly identified. In that regard, it is symptomatic that the water management system stemming from the WFD has led to the adoption of a great number of explanatory measures, to the creation of specialised databases and to water research in the context of the European Union’s Seventh Research Framework Programme. 5. Secondly, in conjunction with the abovementioned difficulties, the present case reveals a confrontation between two entirely opposed visions of the WFD. The first approach could be classified as minimalist since the WFD would be reduced to a tool for large-scale water management planning. By contrast, under the second approach, with which I concur, the WFD represents a new methodology for water management covering not only the level of planning but also the level of implementation of the binding environmental objectives, which results in the adoption of specific measures to ensure good water status and avoid a deterioration of water status. Therefore, the answer to the questions referred requires an in-depth analysis of the purely technical, or even scientific, terms, methods and parameters that form the basis of the system enabling water status to be identified.”
“128 In the present case, the Commission contests, in the first place, a series of individual measures established by the Kingdom of Spain, … . However, the Commission has not adduced any evidence to show that the contested measures are not appropriate for achieving ‘good quantitative status’ of the bodies of groundwater concerned, for the purposes of Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 2000/60. 129 Nor does the Commission explain the reasons why the Kingdom of Spain infringed Article 11(3)(a), (c) and (e) and (4) of Directive 2000/60 by adopting the contested measures or the reasons why such measures are alleged to be insufficient in the light of that provision. The Commission merely contests the fact that the measures established are intended essentially to address the problem of illegal water abstraction, that the 2014 Special Irrigation Plan for Doñana attaches excessive importance to water transfers, that the resources allocated are not sufficient, and the lack of transparency on the part of the Spanish authorities concerning the inspection and closure of illegal wells and the problem of excessive water use as a result of tourism. However, it neither explains nor demonstrates why those contested actions or measures are contrary to or insufficient under Article 11(3)(a), (c) and (e) and (4) of Directive 2000/60. 130 Finally, the Commission maintains that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to apply and implement a series of measures. However, as that Member State has demonstrated, both in writing and at the hearing, measures have been established and implemented, in particular control and inspection measures. In that regard, it is apparent from the file submitted to the Court, more specifically from the annexes to the defence and rejoinder, that that Member State established a series of control and inspection measures, including penalties, with a view to halting illegal water abstraction.”
“The WFD Reporting Guidance 2016 notes that reporting should be based on the obligations of the WFD. The guidance makes clear the difference between the information expected to be presented and reported at water body scale and the summary nature of the programmes of measures: • Water body level The water body is the assessment level of the WFD. It is the basic physical unit of the Directive to which characterisation, pressures, impacts, objectives, monitoring and assessments are attached. It is, therefore, the main reporting unit for these components of WFD implementation. • River Basin District or Sub-unit level Methodologies and approaches are usually developed at (the national part of) RBD or national level, hence this is the appropriate level for reporting. In addition, measures are reported at (the national part of) RBD or sub-unit level, in accordance with the WFD’s requirements to include a summary of the programme of measures in the RBMPs. Reporting of measures at water body level would be disproportionate and not useful at EU level. (A footnote on the same page in the guidance defines a sub-unit as an intermediate reporting scale between water bodies and RBDs for cases where RBDs are very large).”
“The WFD Regulations 2017 and RBMPs, in and of themselves, do not enable the delivery of any actions to achieve the environmental objectives in the RBMP. Implementation of the programmes of measures happens through the exercise of regulatory functions (duties and powers) and application of policies on the ground, in order to enable the Environment Agency to fulfil its duty to secure compliance with the requirements of the WFD. The Environment Agency exercises functions contained in the Acts and Statutory Instruments listed in Parts 1 and 2 respectively of Schedule 2 to theWFD Regulations 2017 . These Acts and Statutory Instruments also form part of the Summary Programmes of Measures).”
“This section describes how the summary programmes of measures were developed. The development of measures is an integral part of the catchment planning processes. Section 2.4 of the river basin planning process overview outlines the stages in this process. It involves assessing compliance with local water body objectives, investigating any reason for failure, and developing local actions to resolve those failures. Much of this is done in collaboration with partners (for example catchment partnerships).”
“Review and enforce applicable permits – tbc [to be confirmed] Costa Beck investigations – To understand the links between the operation of discharges from Pickering STW, the formation of organic rich sediments, the resuspension of sediment / organic material under different flow conditions, the effect of sediment oxygen demand on dissolved oxygen in the water column and, compliance with WFD standards throughout Costa Beck. Identify any assets needing improvement. This investigation should include monitoring of dissolved oxygen conditions in the mixing zone of Pickering discharge in both dry and storm conditions.”
“1. The Claimant is wrong in its assertion that the Agency has acted unlawfully in its application of the WFD/WFD Regs. There has been a review of the programme of measures for all water bodies in general and Costa Beck in particular as is required by regulation 12(6) WFD Regs. The Agency is fully aware of the need to undertake such a review and has not misdirected itself. The wording of our letter dated18 January 2022 was not accurate in that respect and thus your assumption in paragraph 32 of your pre-action letter is not correct.”
“9. The updated RBMPs comprise a number of documents and sub-documents, datasets and an online mapping tool (Catchment Data Explorer). These provide different information for different audiences, from headline information about the pressures on the water environment for the ordinary reader, through to specialised content on what measures need to be taken to improve individual water bodies. These documents are available to the viewer on gov.uk. More information is in the attached Annex B. The proposed plans follow the priorities set out in the Ministerial Guidance to the EA, approved by Minister Pow and published in 2021. … 11. These RBMPs comprise the final planning cycle envisaged under the Water Framework Directive in which the deadline for achieving good ecological status can be extended (i.e. to the end of 2027). They set out the latest evidence on the state of the water environment together with the programmes of measures which show how we aim to achieve good ecological status by the end of 2027. They will note that (as is widely known) we have only low confidence that this target can be met by the deadline. … 15. Given the reference to these mitigating measures, we recommend approval of the RBMPs as they are the best product that EA can produce at this stage; both aiming to remain compliant with the underlying legislation and recognising the gap in progress towards 2027.”
“The target date is the year by which the future status is predicted to be achieved. The date is determined by considering when the measures needed to achieve the planned status were, or will be, in place and, once implemented, the time taken for ecology or the groundwater to recover. The target dates generally reflect the 6-yearly dates associated with the review and update of the river basin management plans i.e. 2015, 2021, 2027.”
“In line with this guidance, an indication of the level of confidence associated with the objectives being set was introduced for the first time in the 2022 river basin management plans. Therefore, the objectives set for 2027 are expressed in two ways in the RBMP: • ‘good by 2027’ where there is confidence that the target status will be met by 2027, based on a reasonable expectation that all the necessary measures will be in place • ‘good by 2027 (low confidence)’ where there is still uncertainty about whether all the necessary measures will be in place to achieve target status by 2027”
“[t]he Courts will presume that Parliament did not intend a statute to have consequences which are objectionable or undesirable; or absurd; or unworkable or impracticable; or merely inconvenient; or anomalous or illogical; or futile or pointless… The more unreasonable a result, the less likely it is that Parliament intended it [on this latter point referring to Lord Reid’s judgment in Wickham Machine Tool Sales Ltd v L Schuler AG[1974] AC 235 at page 251].”
"8.7. The main purpose of the consultation is to bring about transparency and facilitate public engagement in the river basin planning process. To help achieve this, the consultation should include workings and explanations of the reasons for the proposed planning cycle objectives, including the considerations which have informed proposals for the use of the alternative objectives. This should help those likely to be affected to understand the reasoning behind the proposed changes. 8.8. The consultation should propose environmental objectives for each water body in the river basin district and programmes of measures to achieve those objectives. The consultation should also provide an estimate of the scale of actions and improvements that might be delivered. This estimate should be based on an assumed level of available national funding related to the most directly relevant programmes and an assumed level of additional voluntary action through local efforts. 8.9. The consultation on the draft updated plans should include: • an assessment of the costs and benefits of the proposed programmes of measures • the information listed in paragraph 14.23"