Projects

Home

 

 

Is the Water Food?

The reason why there is no centralized electronic data base with
updated information about the quality of drinking water

Diana Bancheva

Civil Association “Public Barometer”

Since 2000, the mission of the association is monitoring and enhancing the transparency in the work of the municipalities in the region of Sliven; encouragement of civil participation and control over the making of local financial and social policies with the purpose of preventing wrongdoings and corruption practices.

“Public Barometer” seeks and analyzes information related to the economic development of Bulgaria and specific regions, makes the information public with the purpose to present a snap shot of the economic and social situation, evaluates the activities of different public bodies and the level of corruption.

The association has actively used the APIA and successfully litigated for access to information. The projects it has implemented are related to the encouragement of the dialogue between the local authorities and the citizens, the increase of transparency in local institutions, building the citizens capacity on corruption issues, the duties and powers of the local authorities and mechanisms for civil control and participation, establishment of conditions for fighting corruption on a local level. The long-terms efforts of the association aimed at the increase of transparency in the management of municipal companies in the region of Sliven. It published the book “Corruption practices in Municipal Companies – Region of Sliven.”

The association is a recipient of two diplomas and a “Golden Key” Award for the Right to Know Day organized by the Access to Information Programme.

It has been several years that the Civil Association “Public Barometer” – Sliven is trying to find a way for improving the quality of the drinking water and to achieve transparency in the process of providing the public service in the region of Sliven. The association has started a number of court cases against the refusals of responsible public bodies to provide information about the price forming and the way the control over the work of the Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Ltd – Sliven is being exercised.

Yurii Ivanov, a chairperson of the association, has turned to AIP for assistance in finding answers about the legal acts regulating the provision of the water supply and sanitation services in Bulgaria. Since the water supply companies are not obliged to provide information under the Access to Public Information Act as they are trade companies, AIP tried to find the answers from the control authorities.

Above all we wanted to make clear the status of the water that we drink from the tap, how its quality is guaranteed and how the provision of that quality is controlled.

Article 3, Para. 1 of the Law on the Regulation of the Water Supply and Sanitation Services defines the water for domestic purposes as “a basic life need under the meaning of the Law on Social Assistance.” The latter says that “the basic life needs are food, clothing and shelter in accordance with the social and economic development of the country.”

Following the logic and the definition provided by Art. 2 of the Law on Food that food is any substance or product which is meant to be consumed or could be used for consumption by the individual no matter if it is processed, partly processed or non-processed, we were convinced that the water provided by the water supply company and that we drink from the tap is exactly food under the meaning the Law.

That is why we turned to the Ministry of Healthcare as the principal control body on the quality of food.

This is the answer of doctor Ivo Atanasov, senior expert in the “Public Health” Directorate.
Of course, the water is an immediate basic need. Together with food it has a significant meaning for human health. However, it is water, not food, and is subject to different regulation. The Law on Food does not cover water that runs from the tap, only water that is used for the production of food. The tap water is regulated by the Law on Waters. In the European Union, the water that runs from the tap is not food pursuant to the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and to the Drinking Water Directive 98/83/EC. Regulation No. 9/2001 on the Quality of the Water for Household Purposes adopted in line of the Law on Waters in Bulgaria transposes the EU Directive. According to the Regulation No. 9, the monitoring on the quality of the water that runs from the tap is performed by the Regional Inspections on Environment and Waters and the water supply companies.

Doctor Atanasov emphasized that the monitoring on the quality of water in Europe is performed by the water supply companies who are solely responsible for the quality of the water – as it is in the production of food. The Ministry of Healthcare as a principal control body and the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works as the principal of the water supply companies make a joint report on the base of data received from the Regional Inspectorates on Environment and Waters,

We inquired the health expert why the chlorination is still used as way to disinfect water when the chloride is a toxic substance used as a chemical weapon because of its proven negative effects on human health. Who and how controls the process of chlorination of the water supplied by the companies for household needs.

Chlorination is used as a method in the world since the substance is the most efficient disinfecting agent. It has this residual effect in the pipeline network. This is important considering the conditions of our pipeline network. If the water is chlorinated within certain limits, there is no threat to human health. The limits are different in different countries. In the USA, the residue of 1 mg chloride is permissible. In Bulgaria, the permissible value is up to 0.4 mg. The value may increase in cases of epidemics to the maximum of 1 mg. In France, however, the limit is very strict – 0.1 – 0.2 mg. There exists a risk of secondary products at the chlorination, but such risks exist at the ozonization as well. At the chlorination, these are three chloromethanes which are subject to monitoring and control under the Regulation No. 9. It is recommended that the water is filtered in advance in order to decrease the organic substance in it. It is the organic substance that reacts with the chloride and forms the three chloromethanes. The limit values are defined in such a way that there will be no negative effect on human health at an everyday consumption during one’s life.

Doctor Atanasov promised that the Ministry of Healthcare will consider the inclusion of information about the limits of these indicators and the consequences of their exceeding in the web sites of the Regional Inspections on Environment and Waters, as well as in the National Centre of Hygiene.

We wanted to know who is responsible for making sure that we are not poisoned after the chlorination of the water.

The control over the disinfection is performed by the Regional Inspections on Environment and Waters. At their field inspections, the control body is obliged to check the condition of the chlorination equipment, to see how the chlorinators comply with the requirements. The Inspections have the right to request information from the water supply company about the qualification of the staff that is doing the disinfection. At a lot of places in the world the disinfection with chloride is automatic and does not depend on the qualification of a person. Modern chlorination stations have electronic sensor at the exit which measures the chloride residue and automatically increases or decreases the amount of chloride.

Under the Law on Waters, the Ministry of Healthcare has the obligation to oversee the quality of the water for household purposes. However, the control over the quality of the service “Provision of water for household purposes” falls in the prerogatives of the Commission for Consumers Protection.

Doctor Ivo Atanasov assures us that the water supply companies have the obligation to inform the population at any deviation from the limits and to undertake measures for bringing the indicators within the permissible limits. If the company does not do that, it is subject to sanction from the State Energy and Water Regulatory Commission.

Pursuant to Art. 15 of the Regulation No. 9, the water supply company is obliged to publish information about the results from the self-monitoring on the quality of the water.

I agree that the water supply companies have to publish updated information about the quality of the water, d-r Atanasov says, but we cannot oblige them to do that on their web sites. Moreover, they decide by themselves what type of information to upload. The information that should be published under Art. 15 of the Regulation is not specifed, nor where and how.

We are thankful to d-r Atanasov for the time, but we are not satisfied with the answers we received. Firstly, we still do not understand how is it possible that the water we drink from the tap is not food under the definition given by the Law on Food. We believe that if the water that we drink from the tap was considered food, the control over its quality would have been bigger. We would also want to stress on the fact that the Regulation No. 9 introduces a definition for household water different from the one set forth by the Drinking Water Directive 98/83/EC. The latter “guarantees the healthiness and pureness of the water,” while the Regulation No.9/2001 introduces an obligation for the water supply organizations “to undertake all necessary measures in order to ensure the provision of safe and pure drinking water to the population,” i.e. not to get poisoned when drinking it. We wonder in whose favor (or detriment) is the definition of obligations changed.

Moreover, for the customers, updated information means information that is valid for the current moment. Information about summarized results from the monitoring performed during the year in the Green Book of the Environmental Agency even if it is online available does not satisfies us. It is an obligation of the companies to provide access to such information, while we, the customers, will choose the moment and the way we would exercise our right of access. We believe that the most efficient way to ensure such access is by an electronic data base that contains updated and significant information on the quality of water that we drink.

May 2007

 

This case is part of the book "Civil Participation and Access to Information (15 Years of the APIA, 37 stories of NGOs)" published by AIP within the implementation of the project “Enhancing the Capacity of Nongovernmental Organizations to Seek Public Information” supported with a grant under the NGO Programme in Bulgaria under the Financial Mechanism of the European Economic Area 2009 – 2014 (www.ngogrants.bg).

The whole responsibility for the content shall be taken by the Access to Information Programme Foundaiton and it cannot be assumed under any circumstances that the document reflects the official stance of the  Financial Mechanism of the European Economic Area and the Operator of the Programme for NGO support in Bulgaria.

 

 

 


HOME | ABOUT US | APIA | LEGISLATIVE BASE | LEGAL HELP | TRAININGS | PUBLICATIONS | FAQ | LINKS
English Version • Last Update:
18.02.2016 • © 1999 Copyright by Interia & AIP