Next Article in Journal
Modeling of Heavy Metal (Ni, Mn, Co, Zn, Cu, Pb, and Fe) and PAH Content in Stormwater Sediments Based on Weather and Physico-Geographical Characteristics of the Catchment-Data-Mining Approach
Next Article in Special Issue
Assessing the Efficiency of Alternative Best Management Practices to Reduce Nonpoint Source Pollution in a Rural Watershed Located in Louisiana, USA
Previous Article in Journal
Water is Medicine: Reimagining Water Security through Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in Relationships to Treated and Traditional Water Sources in Yukon, Canada
Previous Article in Special Issue
Socioeconomic Factors Affecting Water Access in Rural Areas of Low and Middle Income Countries
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 11
Issue 3
10.3390/w11030625
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Water and Sewage Management Issues in Rural Poland

by
Adam Piasecki
Faculty of Earth Sciences, Nicolaus Copernicus University, 87-100 Torun, Poland
Water 2019, 11(3), 625; https://doi.org/10.3390/w11030625
Submission received: 19 December 2018 / Revised: 7 March 2019 / Accepted: 22 March 2019 / Published: 26 March 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Water Allocation in Rural Area: Economic Influences and Better Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Water and sewage management in Poland has systematically been transformed in terms of quality and quantity since the 1990s. Currently, the most important problem in this matter is posed by areas where buildings are spread out across rural areas. The present work aims to analyse the process of changes and the current state of water and sewage management in rural areas of Poland. The author intended to present the issues in their broader context, paying attention to local specificity as well as natural and economic conditions. The analysis led to the conclusion that there have been significant positive changes in water and sewage infrastructure in rural Poland. A several-fold increase in the length of sewage and water supply networks and number of sewage treatment plants was identified. There has been an increase in the use of water and treated sewage, while raw sewage has been minimised. Tap-water quality and wastewater treatment standards have improved. At the same time, areas requiring further improvement—primarily wastewater management—were indicated. It was identified that having only 42% of the rural population connected to a collective sewerage system is unsatisfactory. All the more so, in light of the fact that more than twice as many consumers are connected to the water supply network (85%). The major ecological threat that closed-system septic sewage tanks pose is highlighted. It is pointed out that they are mainly being replaced by household wastewater treatment systems with ineffective filtering drainage. Furthermore, recommendations were also made for the future development of selected aspects of water and sewage management, including the legal and the political.

1. Introduction

Water and sewage management is one of the most important elements of any country’s ecological, social and economic policy. Proper water and sewage management relies on the sustainable development of both components. In Poland, for many years, environmental aspects have only marginally been included in investment processes. As a result, there is still a significant imbalance in the development of infrastructure between that for the supply of water (water intakes, treatment stations, water supply network) and that for its later collection (sewage network, pumping stations) and treatment. The lack of a sense of social responsibility for the poor condition of the natural environment, especially on a local level, was also significant. It was therefore common for domestic sewage to be drained into the soil or to a nearby stream in order to save on the cost of emptying a holding tank [1]. The period of political and economic transformation in Poland that began at the turn of the 1990s initiated a slow evolution in environmental protection. Poland’s desire to join the European Community (later the European Union (EU)) played a significant role in this respect. The country had to meet a number of criteria regarding, among other things, the economy, finance, politics and law. There were also criteria relating to environmental protection, including the improvement of water quality and water and sewage management. Poland obtained significant financial resources for these purposes under pre-accession funds (about 7 billion euros in the years 1990–2003) and post-accession funds (member funds after 2004).
The socialist economy that prevailed in Poland in the years 1945–1989 significantly polluted the aquatic environment. In the 1990s, more than 35% of the total length of rivers in Poland was considered excessively polluted (not meeting the norms) and more than 80% failed sanitary norms. In the years 1991–1995, over one third of the number and total volume of the lakes examined failed to meet the standards and lakes in the first (best) cleanliness class accounted for only approx. 1.5% [2]. Poland was the country that supplied the most pollution to the Baltic Sea, mainly as phosphorus and nitrogen compounds. Therefore, the EU countries were keen to improve the condition of Polish rivers as quickly as possible. The Accession Treaty contained detailed related requirements, which Poland pledged to complete. Important guidance is contained in the Directive Water Framework (DWF) number 2000/60/EC [3]. In general terms, the DWF set the goal (for all EU Member States) of achieving good ecological status for all water types by 2015 [4]. Poland implemented the EU law in this area back in 2001, amending the Water Law Act [5] and the Environmental Protection Act [6]. In 2017, for substantive and formal reasons (introducing internal consistency to the water law), a new Water Law Act [7] was passed. The requirements for sewerage systems and municipal sewage treatment plants came mainly from Directive 91/271/EEC [8]. The basic instrument for implementing the Directive is the National Programme for Municipal Waste Water Treatment (NPMWWT) [9]. The goal of the NPMWWT is to reduce discharges of insufficiently treated wastewater and to thereby protect the aquatic environment. Eliminating the largest point sources of pollution was the most urgent task but also, relatively, the easiest (and the most expensive). It was necessary to build new wastewater treatment plant (WWTP)) serving cities and industrial plants or to thoroughly modernise old ones. This goal was achieved and now all cities and plants are serviced by WWTPs. Over half of them provide an increased level of nutrient removal. Industrial plants have been modernised or closed, minimising possible emissions of untreated sewage into the environment. Currently, the biggest problem remains the elimination of pollution from dispersed sources in rural areas. Other Central and Eastern European countries have similar problems related to water and sewage management as Poland. According to estimates, over 80% of the Central and Eastern Europe’s rural population in small, remote settlements are not connected to sewage treatment systems. Moreover, according to expert assessments, by 2030, more than 22 million inhabitants of Central and Eastern Europe will still not be connected to centralised sewage treatment plants [10]. This may be of great significance to the natural ecosystems of such areas, primarily as a result of the solutions that are used in small, decentralised sewage treatment systems [11,12,13].
The present work aims to analyse the process of changes and the current state of water and sewage management in rural Poland. The author’s intention was to present the aforementioned issues in a broader context, taking into account local, natural and economic conditions. It was the author’s intention to present these issues in the broader context, taking into account local, natural, economic and legal conditions. Furthermore, recommendations were also made for the future development of selected aspects of water and sewage management, including the legal and the political.

2. Materials and Methods

The main research material for the analyses was data from the Central Statistical Office in Warsaw and supplementary information from other Polish institutions for environmental protection (including Provincial Inspectorates for Environmental Protection) and agriculture (including the Agency for Restructuring and Modernisation of Agriculture). A database of the information most important to the issues being addressed was created. The time span of the data is inconsistent, which is mainly due to changes in reporting methodology over the last few decades. For each issue, the researchers tried to obtain the longest time series of data for the fullest possible depiction of the change process. The database contains information on the following topics:
  • length of water supply and sewage network,
  • percentage of people using the water supply and sewage treatment plants,
  • amount of water consumed by households,
  • amount of treated wastewater (including type of treatment) and untreated wastewater,
  • pollutant load in treated wastewater,
  • number of sewage treatment plants, including type,
  • capital costs of investments for water and sewage management,
  • consumption of mineral fertilisers,
The collected data allowed us to trace the water and sewage management modernisation process in rural Poland. Thus, it was possible to determine trends and directions of changes, as well as assessing the current status.
The paper also takes into account state institution studies and reports on water and sewage management in rural areas of Poland. These allowed the analysed changes to be analysed in depth, including from the perspective of legal and political conditions.

3. Results and Discussion

In 1989–2017, household water consumption in rural areas grew systematically (Figure 1). At the same time, the opposite trend was observed nationwide [14,15]. This was caused by the closure of many unprofitable industrial plants, which often had high water consumption. In the case of households, one important factor that reduced consumption was the widespread metering of tap water consumption and its increased price, as was the spread of water-saving sanitary installations and household appliances [16]. Rural areas’ increased water consumption was due to two main factors. Firstly, in the period in question, the water supply network in rural areas was dramatically extended (Figure 1). Water intakes were also modernised in many places to enable increased water production and to ensure adequate quality. The length of the water supply network increased by almost 350% (from 52,600 km to 235,000 km). As a result, the percentage of people using the water supply network increased from around 30% in 1989 to over 85% in 2017. Earlier, the rural population used household intakes (wells), which were usually poor in quality [17,18,19,20]. The second factor was the systematic increase in rural populations. This was partly due to natural growth but also to increased migration from urban to rural areas [21]. As a result, the share of rural population in the total population of Poland increased from around 38% in 1989 to 39.9% (15.3 million people) in 2017.
In the research period, a several-fold greater increase (of around 3000%) was recorded in the length of the sewerage network (from 2900 to 92,000 km). The annual average rate of change in length of the sewerage network was over 2.5 times that of the water supply network. In the years 1989–2017, the average annual increase in the length of the sewerage network was 13%, with the greatest growth (of over 20%) in the years 1995–2003. Increased investments in this period resulted from the need to adapt to the accession requirements imposed on Poland by the EU. In recent years, the rate of change in the length of both networks has weakened notably. However, this is mainly due to the base line being so high. In the last 10 years, the length of the sewerage network has increased annually by an average of 4800 km and waterworks by 3500 km. However, in the last two years, this increase was only 2800 and 1600 km for the sewerage network and 2.2 and 1.8 for the water supply system. There is still a clear disproportion between the lengths of the two networks, at 1:2.5 in favour of the water supply system (in 1989 this figure was 1:18). That such a large discrepancy between the two types of infrastructure has persisted for many years is due to the significantly lower costs of building the water supply network and to social considerations. In the rural population’s hierarchy of needs, increasing infrastructure for supplying drinking water was much higher than for waste carrying away impurities [22]. To a large extent, this can be explained by the low ecological awareness of rural communities. For this reason, after joining the EU, alongside infrastructure investments, educational activities were also carried out. The latest results of research commissioned by the Ministry of the Environment confirm the effectiveness of these activities and a significant increase in public environmental awareness [23].
The slowing growth of the sewerage network in recent years suggests saturation with this type of infrastructure. However, the percentage of people using the sewerage network in rural areas only slightly exceeds 42% (in 1989 it was about 5.7%). In the coming years, one can expect a further increase in the length of the sewerage network but it will probably never approach the length of the water supply network. The reasons are both technical and economic. Rural buildings are much more spread out than urban buildings, which in many cases removes the economic justification for investment [24]. It should be remembered that WWTP is both the most important and the most expensive feature of wastewater management. There are also often technical limitations on constructing infrastructure in areas of diverse relief [25] and the risk of sewage standing in channels (in cases of low-volume discharge). The NPMWWT [9] update (2017) is also of importance to the further development of the sewage network in rural areas. The document assumes that plans to invest in extending the mains sewage network will be restricted to cases in which at least 90 residents per planned kilometre of network will be served. On this basis, it was only proposed to construct a sewage system in areas meeting the above criterion. According to [9] 14,661.2 km of sewerage network are planned for construction, of which over 6300 km will be within the smallest agglomerations (≥ 2000 <10,000 population equivalent (PE)).
Due to these factors, in most cases the only solution is individual sewage management systems. Two solutions dominate in Poland and other countries. The first consists in the storing wastewater in holding tanks, which appropriate service providers or companies are commissioned to empty. In this case, sewage is only treated once it arrives at an WWTP. This solution is widely criticised because it does not dispose of wastewater but only retains it temporarily. In addition, these tanks often leak, which is a serious threat to surface and underground waters and land, lowering their quality [26,27,28]. Meanwhile, the high cost of emptying tanks encourages users to greatly reduce water consumption, which significantly increases the concentration of pollutants contained in them. In addition, excessively large intervals between emptying tanks mean that the waste is generally transported in a septic state. Biological treatment processes (which are used by most WWTPs in Poland) are sensitive to large changes both in quantity and in quality of sewage. Therefore, transported sewage can be a major threat to WWTPs [29]. Therefore, many authors emphasise the need to be very careful when dispensing this type of wastewater into the total amount of sewage being treated [30,31,32,33].
Despite the unfavourable consequences of using holding tanks, they are still the most widespread form of wastewater management in rural areas (Table 1). According to a Supreme Audit Office (SAO) report [34], holding tanks are one of the main causes of underground water pollution in rural areas [34]. This is due to property owners’ failure to empty tanks with the appropriate frequency. SAO inspection results have shown that local authorities often do not even know how many tanks there are in their jurisdiction. Incorrect wastewater management in areas not covered by central sewerage causes measurable economic and ecological losses. According to [34] estimates, in the analysed communes, 80.5–99.9% of sewage was discharged untreated into the ground and waters. At the same time, existing treatment plants were not being used to their full capacity. Local authorities lacked basic information and so were unable to take well-substantiated decisions on developing the sewage infrastructure.
In recent years, the number of holding tanks has gradually been decreasing. They are being replaced by household sewage treatment facilities or connection to the sewage network. The speed of this process, however, seems unsatisfactory.
The aforementioned household sewage treatment facilities should be counted as the second solution for private sewage disposal. The number of household sewage treatment facilities has increased almost fourfold in the last 10 years (Table 1). This is despite this investment being significantly more expensive than holding tanks. However, according to many authors [35,36,37], running costs are significantly lower for household sewage treatment facilities than for holding tanks (taking into account the cost of periodic removal of waste to communal sewage treatment plants). Therefore, the high initial investment cost is quickly returned. At the same time, it should be noted that this solution is certainly environmentally better, because it removes a lot of pollution. Detailed requirements for wastewater treatment levels are contained in the Regulation of the Minister of Environment of 2014 [38]. It sets requirements for household treatment facilities that are decidedly lower than the requirements for WWTPs serving a larger number of residents. The most common technologies used in household wastewater treatment plants in Poland are filtering drainages, sand filters and hydrobotanic beds [39]. According to Błażejewski [40], 63% of household installations are household sewage treatment facilities with a septic tank and filtering drainage. Many authors [41,42] believe that sewage treatment facilities with infiltration drainage pose a serious threat to the quality of surface waters and groundwater. They should not be used in isolation to treat sewage but only for discharging biologically treated sewage. In addition, constructing such treatment facilities makes it impossible to monitor processes occurring in sewage introduced into the soil, so it is difficult to say whether they meet the applicable standards. These systems are now undesirable and are even banned in some EU Member States, due in part to problems related to the lack of control over their operation [43]. In France, following a detailed study showing a deterioration in groundwater quality in areas using this type of sewage treatment system, their construction was banned [44].
Undoubtedly, newly emerging household sewage treatment systems should be counted among the positive changes in water and sewage management in rural Poland. However, more attention should be paid to the type of technology they use. All the more so that domestic sewage treatment plants in Poland receive higher concentrations of pollutants than comparable treatment plants in Europe or the USA [45]. In addition, the proper operation of household treatment systems is essential, regardless of the technologies they employ. Incorrect use significantly reduces the effectiveness of pollutant removal from sewage [42,46]. It is estimated that the sustainable management of sewage and waste in rural Poland will require a further 700,000 systems to be constructed, to service approx. 3.8 million inhabitants [47].
As a result of the dynamic increase in the length of the sewerage network, it has been necessary to build new WWTPs in the last ten to twenty years. The total number of WWTPs increased from 451 in 1995 to 2068 in 2017 (Table 2). However, the quantitative increase aside, the change in quality should also be looked at. This is seen in the departure from the simplest and least effective wastewater treatment methods: in the years 1995–2017, the number of mechanical WWTPs decreased by more than half. However, until 2004, they were growing dramatically in number (in 2004 there were over 80). Only after Poland’s accession to the EU did they begin to systematically decrease in number. At the same time, there was an increase in biological WWTPs (four-fold) and in WWTPs with increased nutrient removal (eighteen-fold). The increase in this last type of WWTP should be considered the most valuable in terms of environmental protection.
The construction of new sewage treatment plants and the expansion of the sewer network was required in order to comply with the Directive 91/271/EEC. It should be noted that for a long time Poland misinterpreted one of the directive’s main provisions concerning reducing biogenic pollutants. Poland assumed that it would reach the required level of reduction by implementing Art. 5 (4) of Directive 91/271/EEC (enhanced nutrient removal in all sewage treatment plants over 15,000 PE). The European Commission (EC) questioned this approach. According to the EC, Poland should have implemented a law based on Art. 5 (2) of Directive 91/271/EEC. Therefore, Poland is currently obliged to use enhanced nutrient removal for all sewage treatment plants in agglomerations of over 10,000 PE. Furthermore, it needs to be highlighted that in agglomerations of over 10,000 PE with several sewage plants of various sizes, each one must have enhanced nutrient removal technology. The change in interpretation of the provisions of Directive 91/271/EEC significantly increased its cost of implementation. This is also one of the main reasons why Poland has not yet fulfilled all of its conditions. It should be noted that a similar problem of legal implementation also occurred with Council Directive 91/676/EEC [48] (the nitrates directive). In this case Poland, too, was forced to change its current approach [49].
Constructing a new network of sewers and WWTPs increased the amount of treated wastewater nearly nine-fold. It also reduced the amount of untreated sewage. In 2017 this totalled 121,000 m3, compared to more than 24,900,000 m3 in 1998. Currently, more than half of treated sewage undergoes a treatment process with increased nutrient removal, while the remaining sewage is biologically purified (Figure 2). The change in the breakdown of the degree and method of sewage treatment is particularly important given the widespread threat of surface water eutrophication and the need to reduce it.
There is reason to doubt the statistics given on untreated sewage. As demonstrated by the SAO report [34], the amount of treated wastewater relative to amount of generated wastewater averaged 8.4% (from 0.1 to 29.5%) in the inspected municipalities. Bearing in mind that the local authorities in most of the municipalities in the report did not keep reliable records, the information they submitted to the statistical offices must also have been imprecise. It should be emphasised that the low values of this indicator relate only to areas not covered by the sewage system. However, this shows that there is a serious problem despite the official good statistics. Despite the increasing number of wastewater treatment plants, their capacity continues frequently to be a problem. This problem is currently hidden in many municipalities. This is due to the aforementioned low ratio of wastewater treated to wastewater generated. However, it becomes visible when municipal authorities begin enforcing regulations on waste removal among property owners. Then, analyses show, in many communes the sewage treatment plant will turn out to have insufficient capacity [34].
In 1998–2017, the main organic and inorganic pollutant loads in treated sewage were reduced in Poland by between 53.5% and 84.2%, respectively (Table 3). In rural areas, the opposite trend was observed. Chemical oxygen demand almost quadrupled. The smallest increase was recorded in biochemical oxygen demand (an increase of 85%). The reason for such large increases is the aforementioned several-fold increase in the amount of sewage treated in rural areas. For this reason, the increase in pollutant loads should not raise any objections. There may be anxiety at the fact that this sewage is usually fed into small watercourses. Due to their size, they are the most exposed to the effects of climate fluctuations, which have become increasingly significant in recent years. Long drought periods that significantly reduce river discharges (deep and long-lasting low flows) are particularly dangerous. In the case of low river flow, discharges of treated wastewater still containing a certain amounts of pollution may disturb local aquatic ecosystems [50]. There is no similar threat in larger urban centres, as their sewage is usually discharged into large rivers.
The development of the sewerage network resulted in more complex systems and certain negative phenomena, including increased susceptibility to failures. The network’s sensitivity to short-term but intense precipitation also increased. Such extreme rainfall phenomena are increasingly common, which is most often associated with climate change. Rainwater and snowmelt get into sewers through openings and gaps in manhole hatches or through roof drains and gully traps being illegally connected to sewers [51,52,53,54]. They are detrimental not only to sewers and network facilities but also the operation of WWTPs. Sanitary sewage that is significantly influenced by rainfall sewage has a different composition and is more oxygenated and dilute. Excessive amounts of wastewater flowing in a short time causes hydraulic overloading of sewage treatment plant equipment or the leaching of activated sludge from a bioreactor [55,56]. This disrupts the proper process of nutrient compound removal [57]. Meltwater and rainfall significantly cool sewage [54]. This reduces the effectiveness of biological purification processes, which are at maximal efficiency at around 20°C [58,59]. Diluted wastewater has lower 5-d biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) values—which inhibit denitrification processes—as well as reduced chemical oxygen demand (COD) and total suspended solids [60]. Total nitrogen and total phosphorus are also lower in raw sewage [61].
The opposite problem to that described above is hydraulic underloading of WWTPs in dry periods. In rural areas, this is a very common situation due to the amount of sewage flowing into WWTPs being highly variable over time. This may affect subsequent wastewater treatment stages, because the contaminant removal processes require a certain volume of wastewater [62,63,64].
There are also many problems with the water supply network. Water quality analyses conducted in 2015–2016 in rural communes of four provinces (Mazowieckie, Podkarpackie, Śląskie and Zachodniopomorskie) showed poor quality in approximately 4500 samples (14%). Of those, in about 1300 cases, decisions were issued that the water’s use was conditional and in 277 cases the water was found to be entirely unfit for use. The poor water quality was mainly caused by the poor condition of the technical water supply infrastructure. In many cases, it continues to deteriorate, resulting in a growing number of failures. The blame for this should mainly be attributed to local authorities, which often fail to comply with their statutory obligation to develop a long-term plan for the development and modernisation of water-supply and sewage facilities [65]. Frequent failures and the poor technical condition of some part of the water supply system result in major water losses. The percentage water loss for 11 companies audited by the SAO [66] ranged from 4.4% to 48.5% of produced water volume. In addition, the [66] uncovered inefficient use of water for its own needs among water and sewage companies (flushing the water supply system, rinsing filters, etc.). Another significant irregularity lies in the lack of water quality assessment when events occur that may damage it (e.g., water supply system failures). This is in spite of water supply companies being obliged by law to do so [67].
As recipients of sewage, surface waters in rural areas can take in pollutants coming not only from WWTPs but also from pollution flowing off arable land. This is particularly significant in Poland, because, since the beginning of the 1990s there has been a systematic increase in the use of mineral fertilisers (Figure 3). This applies first of all to nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus fertilisers, that is, those that have the greatest impact on the eutrophication of surface waters. As a result, surface waters in agricultural areas are threatened by increasing pollution loads [68]. In the event of the aforementioned harmful climate fluctuations (long-term droughts), this threat increases. In Poland, the eastern part of the Wielkopolska-Kujawy Lake District is particularly predisposed to such a state of affairs. The region is one of intensive agriculture, with quite a high population density and a very unfavourable vertical exchange index. In some years evaporation is more than double total atmospheric precipitation [69,70]. An additional problem is drainage associated with the operation of open-pit mines lowering the water table and forming cones of depression [71,72,73]. For these reasons, the region is widely recognised as Poland’s most problematic in terms of water resources. This example perfectly highlights the special role of water and sewage management, which must take into account local conditions. Otherwise, it may exacerbate the pressure on a region’s aquatic ecosystem.
Water and sewage infrastructure is one of the most expensive and, at the same time, most fundamental parts of economic infrastructure. The amount of funding needed to implement investments in this type of infrastructure is often beyond the means of local authorities. Therefore, the development of water and sewage infrastructure in rural areas has mainly been possible through additional funding from the state budget or other external sources. For Poland, the significant external funding sources include EU funds [74,75,76]. In 2003–2017 Poland allocated 10 billion euros to developing rural water and sewage infrastructure. That is approximately 30% of the revenue for the 2003 national budget. More than half of the funds were allocated to expanding the sewerage network and the least to individual sewage treatment systems (Figure 4). In recent years, the funds allocated to investment have clearly decreased. One of the main reasons is that most of the most socially, ecologically and economically important investments have been completed. The other investments are technically difficult to implement due to the terrain being varied and buildings being spread out. As a result, the outlays required for these investment are significantly higher. They often outweigh municipalities’ current financial means, which means that in the coming years no further rapid development of water and sewage infrastructure should be expected [77].
The estimated cost of investment in sewage infrastructure by 2021 according to the [9] is approximately EUR 6.4 billion. This amount includes investments for towns and cities. Forecasts indicate that, despite these large expenditures, the requirements [8] will be fully met in only about 65% of agglomerations, which corresponds to 80% of the rural equivalent.

4. Conclusions

Adapting to EU requirements has been the main driver of positive change in Poland’s water and sewage management in recent years. EU financial support in this regard has also been important. In most cases, EU law has been properly implemented. Attention has been drawn to problems in the implementation of provisions from two directives (91/676/EEC and 91/271/EEC). Poland’s different interpretation of the regulations was motivated by a desire to reduce costs. Ultimately, Poland was obliged by the EC to implement solutions that would ensure fuller environmental protection. Nevertheless, the implementation of EU regulations into Polish legislation should be evaluated very positively. Without the requirement to quickly adapt to EU regulations, water and sewage management would probably have made far less progress.
Water and sewage management in rural Poland has greatly developed, both quantitatively and qualitatively, since the early 1990s. The length of the water supply and sewage system has increased many-fold, which has increased its accessibility for rural society. The amount of water consumed and wastewater treated has increased. This required investment in water intakes and WWTPs. There has been very great progress, particularly in WWTPs. Over 2000 new WWTPs were built, including more than 400 providing increased nutrient removal. This significantly reduced the discharge of untreated or partially treated wastewater into surface waters.
Despite the undoubted progress that has been made in water and sewage infrastructure, there are still some areas needing improvement. Furthermore, the conducted analysis demonstrated irregularities in the management, inspection and enforcement of the law. The introduction of improvements must be deemed necessary. The following recommendations were formulated in this regard:
  • Consolidation of small water and sewage companies. As research results indicate, large enterprises in the sector are better managed and have modern tools. This allows them to provide higher quality services. They also have more opportunity to raise external funds for investments and to attract highly qualified employees.
  • Implementation of solutions to reduce water losses in the water supply network. This could include installing flow recorders and introducing pressure regulation. Enterprises that have applied this solution have recorded a significant reduction in water losses [59]. Because the costs of implementing this solution are relatively low, legal requirements on the use of these devices should be considered.
  • Introduction of the requirement to provide up-to-date tap-water-quality information using media, in particular the Internet (websites, social media). At the same time, an increase in number of tap-water-quality inspections by external state institutions.
  • A detailed inventory of water and sewage management facilities in rural communes. Development of a long-term plan for the development and modernisation of water supply and sewage facilities—implementation of the statutory obligation [66]. Introduction of restrictions on applications for funds to invest in water and sewage management for the fulfilment of the aforementioned conditions. At the same time, free (or subsidised) help for municipalities to be provided by external water and sewage management specialists. Analyses show that some municipalities are unable to meet statutory requirements due to human resources issues.
  • Introduction of legal regulations requiring the removal of existing holding tanks within a particular timeframe (e.g., 15 years) and prohibiting the construction of new ones. Comparable regulations should be introduced for household sewage treatment plants that do not provide an adequate level of wastewater treatment or those for which wastewater treatment cannot be inspected. At the same time, during the transitional period, it is necessary to introduce the obligation for municipalities to collect sewage and sludge (generated by the technological processes of household wastewater treatment plants). Property owners would be required to bear the cost of these services. This solution would be similar to that in operation since 2011 in the field of municipal waste collection [78]. In the case of municipal waste, it has had very good results.
  • Development and dissemination of new solutions in the field of individual wastewater management. One of these might be to create a group system in which several farms are connected to a system supplying sewage to a shared treatment plant that is based on a simplified technology, for example, constructed wetland [79].
  • Introduction of obligatory training in the field of domestic wastewater treatment and proper operation of implemented systems for owners of individual wastewater treatment plants. The training would include knowledge about the ecology of water and sewage management in the broader sense.
  • Introduction of financial incentives (discounts and rebates) for customers connected to the sewerage network to collect and use rainwater (e.g., for watering lawns).
  • Water-quality control of rivers that receive treated wastewater during periods of low water levels. In the case of permissible pollution values being significantly exceeded, the obligation of enterprises to develop appropriate solutions.
The presented recommendations are very wide in scope and concern various aspects of water and sewage management. However, their implementation depends mainly on two questions. The first is financial resources. Without additional external funds, it will be impossible to improve water and sewage management in rural areas. It should be remembered that many municipalities are already in significant debt. In large part, this is the result of investments made in recent years involving EU funds. Currently, despite the possibility of co-financing projects with external funds, many rural communes cannot implement them due to not being able to provide their own required share. This is a very serious problem that needs to be solved by authorities at the central level.
The second equally important question is of how self-government authorities operate. Even the most well-constructed law is irrelevant in the absence of proper enforcement. In Poland, there are currently a number of good solutions addressing the issues at hand. Unfortunately, as research has shown, many laws are simply not being put into effect. As a result, water and sewage management is unsatisfactory in many rural communes. In addition, the failure of self-governmental administrations to properly execute their statutory duties may increase inappropriate behaviour among citizens. This can manifest as a lack of respect for established law and pro-ecological policy. It is therefore necessary to significantly improve water and sewage management at the local government level.
It should be emphasised that, despite being focused on Poland, the issues raised in this study are of much broader import. The majority of Central and Eastern European countries have a similar situation in terms of the number of people living in rural areas. This is a consequence of the common political and economic system (communism) that dominated this part of Europe until the 1990s. Therefore, with some local modifications, some of the conclusions and recommendations contained here could also be applied in those countries.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Mikosz, J. Wastewater management in small communities in Poland. Desalin. Water Treat. 2013, 51, 2461–2466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Piasecki, A.; Marszelewski, W. Development of Water and Sewage Infrastructure in Poland during the Cooperation with the EU. Wasserwirtschaft 2016, 106, 34–38. [Google Scholar]
  3. Directive, Water Framework. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Off. J. Eur. Communities 2000, 22.2000, L327. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:5c835afb-2ec6-4577-bdf8-756d3d694eeb.0004.02/DOC_1&format=PDF (accessed on 18 January 2019).
  4. Walega, A.; Chmielowski, K.; Satora, S. Water and wastewater management condition in Poland regarding water framework directive implementation. Infrastruct. Ecol. Rural Areas 2009, 4, 57–72. Available online: http://www.infraeco.pl/pl/art/a_15483.htm?plik=569 (accessed on 18 January 2019).
  5. Regulation (PL) no 115/2001 of the Minister of Environment on Water Law. Official Journal No 115 Item 1229. Warsaw. Available online: http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20011151229/U/D20011229Lj.pdf (accessed on 19 January 2019).
  6. Regulation (PL) no 62/2001 Environmental Protection Law. Official Journal No 62 Item 627. Warsaw. Available online: http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20010620627/U/D20010627Lj.pdf (accessed on 19 January 2019).
  7. Regulation (PL) no 1566/2017 of the Minister of Environment on Water Law. Official Journal No 1566. Warsaw. Available online: http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20170001566/U/D20171566Lj.pdf (accessed on 19 January 2019).
  8. Directive, Urban Waste Water Treatment. Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban wastewater treatment. J. Eur. Commun. 1991, 34, 40. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31991L0271&from=EN (accessed on 19 January 2019).
  9. Minister of Environment. National Programme for Municipal Waste Water Treatment. 2017. Available online: http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WMP20170001183/O/M20171183-02.pdf (accessed on 19 January 2019).
  10. Istenic, D.; Bodík, I.; Bulc, T. Status of decentralised wastewater treatment systems and barriers for implementation of nature-based systems in central and eastern Europe. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 12879–12884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Vymazal, J. Long-term performance of constructed wetlands with horizontal sub-surface flow: Ten case studies from the Czech Republic. Ecol. Eng. 2011, 37, 54–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Paruch, A.M.; Maehlum, T.; Obarska-Pempkowiak, H.; Gajewska, M.; Wojciechowska, E.; Ostojski, A. Rural domestic wastewater treatment in Norway and Poland: Experiences, cooperation and concepts on the improvement of constructed wetland technology. Water Sci. Technol. 2011, 63, 776–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bodík, I.; Boscornea, C.; Istenič, D.; Zakharchenko, M. GWP CEE Regional Study. Natural Processes of Wastewater Treatment—Actual Status in CEE Countries. 2012. Available online: https://www.gwp.org/globalassets/global/gwp-cee_files/regional/q-study-report-cee.pdf (accessed on 4 March 2019).
  14. Heidrich, Z.; Jędrzejkiewicz, J. Analysis of water consumption in Polish cities in the time span of 1995–2005. Environ. Prot. 2007, 29, 29–34. Available online: http://www.os.not.pl/docs/czasopismo/2007/Heidrich_4-2007.pdf (accessed on 18 August 2018).
  15. Hotloś, H. Variations in water consumption observed in some municipalities in the time span of 1990 to 2008. Environ. Prot. 2010, 32, 39–42. Available online: http://yadda.icm.edu.pl/baztech/element/bwmeta1.element.baztech-article-BPOB-0031-0007/c/Hotlos_3-2010.pdf (accessed on 14 September 2018).
  16. Nawrot, T.; Matz, R.; Błażejewski, R.; Spychała, M. A Case Study of a Small Diameter Gravity Sewerage System in Zolkiewka Commune, Poland. Water 2018, 10, 1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Raczuk, J.; Sarnowska, K. Water quality of some rural wells in the chosen communes of the Lublin Province. Arch. Environ. Prot. 2002, 28, 63–75. [Google Scholar]
  18. Skorbilowicz, M.; Skorbilowicz, E. Macroelements: Zinc and iron in well water in the Upper Narew River catchment. J. Elem. 2008, 13, 109–116. Available online: http://yadda.icm.edu.pl/yadda/element/bwmeta1.element.agro-article-f649c62d-5ed8-4e0c-ac6e-dd10bae9afd2/c/109-116.pdf (accessed on 19 September 2018).
  19. Raczuk, J. Nitrogen compounds in well water as a factor of a health risk to the Maciejowice commune inhabitants (Mazowieckie Voivodeship). Arch. Environ. Prot. 2010, 36, 31–39. [Google Scholar]
  20. Paweska, K.; Malczewska, B.; Zyglinska, B. The characteristics of water from well with taking into account phosphorus compounds form Przezdziedza village set as an example. Infrastruct. Ecol. Rural Areas 2011, 7, 169–177. Available online: http://yadda.icm.edu.pl/agro/element/bwmeta1.element.dl-catalog-ba1b6fd4-2111-493f-af0c-8605d28416b6/c/Paweska.pdf (accessed on 19 September 2018).
  21. Biegańska, J.; Szymańska, D. The scale and the dynamics of permanent migration in rural and peri-urban areas in Poland–some problems. Bull. Geogr. Socio-Econ. Ser. 2013, 21, 21–30. Available online: https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/bog.2013.21.issue-1/bog-2013-0017/bog-2013-0017.xml (accessed on 20 September 2018). [CrossRef]
  22. Kłos, L. Condition of water and sewage infrastructure in rural areas in Poland and the requirements of the water framework directive. Stud. Res. FEM SU 2011, 24, 75–87. Available online: http://wneiz.univ.szczecin.pl/nauka_wneiz/sip/sip24-2011/SiP-24-6.pdf (accessed on 18 September 2018).
  23. Ministry of the Environment. Badanie Świadomości i Zachowań Ekologicznych Mieszkańców Polski, Badanie Trackingowe. 2018. Available online: https://www.mos.gov.pl/fileadmin/user_upload/mos/srodowisko/edukacja/Swiadomosc_ekologiczna_Polakow_2018_raport_graficzny_fin_pdf.pdf (accessed on 18 November 2018).
  24. Boguniewicz-Zabłocka, J.; Capodaglio, A.G. Sustainable Wastewater Treatment Solutions for Rural Communities’: Public (Centralized) or Individual (On-Site)–Case Study. Econ. Environ. Stud. 2017, 17, 1103–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kłos, L. Water and sewage management in rural districts of West Pomerania province. J. Agribus. Rural Dev. 2013, 2, 133–141. Available online: http://yadda.icm.edu.pl/yadda/element/bwmeta1.element.agro-96465482-995d-4842-92b9-e87beda12b13/c/14_2_2013_pl_133.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2018).
  26. Karolinczak, B. Septage management in Poland. In Interdisciplinary Problems in Environmental Protection and Engineering; Traczewska, T.M., Kaźmierczak, B., Eds.; Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Wrocławskiej: Wrocław, Poland, 2014; pp. 387–396. Available online: http://www.eko-dok.pl/2014/38.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2019).
  27. Pryszcz, M.; Mrowiec, B.M. Operation of the household sewage treatment plants in Poland. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 41, 133–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Obarska-Pempkowiak, H.; Gajewska, M.; Wojciechowska, E.; Kołecka, K. Sewage gardens—constructed wetlands for single family households. Environ. Protect. Eng. 2015, 41, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bugajski, P.; Chmielowski, K.; Cupak, A.; Wąsik, E. Influence of sewage from septic tanks on the variability concentration of pollutants in sewage undergoing purification processes. Infrastruct. Ecol. Rural Areas 2016, 2, 517–526. [Google Scholar]
  30. Krzanowski, S.; Wałęga, A. Effectiveness of organic substance removal in household conventional activated sludge and hybrid treatment plants. Environ. Prot. Eng. 2008, 34, 5–12. Available online: http://epe.pwr.wroc.pl/2008/Krzanowski_3-2008.pdf (accessed on 19 November 2018).
  31. Ladu, J.; Lü, X. Effects of hydraulic retention time, temperature and effluent recycling on efficiency of anaerobic filter in treating rural domestic wastewater. Water Sci. Eng. 2014, 7, 168–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Elmitwalli, T.A.; Ralf, O. Anaerobic biodegradability and treatment of grey water in upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor. Water Res. 2007, 41, 1379–1387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Shibao, L.; Liang, P.; Xiao, B. Study on method of domestic wastewater treatment through new-type multi-layer artificial wetland. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2015, 40, 11207–11214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. SAO. Sewage Management of Communes not Served by the Mains Sewage System in 2009–2011 (Q1 and Q2), Warsaw. 2012. Available online: https://www.nik.gov.pl/plik/id,3794,vp,4835.pdf (accessed on 19 January 2019).
  35. Karolinczak, B.; Miłaszewski, R.; Sztuk, A. Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Different Technological Variants of Single-house Sewage Treatment Plants. Annu. Set Environ. Prot. 2015, 17, 726–746. Available online: http://ros.edu.pl/images/roczniki/2015/044_ROS_V17_R2015.pdf (accessed on 19 November 2018).
  36. Bogon, B.; Cupak, A.; Walega, A. Concept of Improvement of Municipal Sewage Management in Baranow Sandomierski Commune. Infrastruct. Ecol. Rural Areas 2011, 2, 83–97. Available online: http://yadda.icm.edu.pl/agro/element/bwmeta1.element.dl-catalog-bea48829-b3f5-48e1-b40a-3b1959f90a27/c/Bogon.pdf (accessed on 21 November 2018).
  37. Kundziewicz, A.; Miłaszewski, R. Costs-effectiveness analysis of individual wastewater disposal and treatment systems. Ecol. Eng. 2011, 24, 174–183. Available online: http://www.archive.ineko.net.pl/pdf/24/17.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2018).
  38. Ministry of the Environment. Rozporządzenie Ministra Środowiska z dnia 18 Listopada 2014 r. w Sprawie Warunków, Jakie Należy Spełnić przy Wprowadzaniu Ścieków do Wód lub do Ziemi, oraz w Sprawie Substancji Szczególnie Szkodliwych dla Środowiska Wodnego. 2014. Available online: http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20140001800/O/D20141800.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2018).
  39. Wałęga, A.; Chmielowski, K.; Młyński, D. Influence of the Hybrid Sewage Treatment Plant’s Exploitation on Its Operation Effectiveness in Rural Areas. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Błażejewski, R. The current status of domestic sewage treatment plants and prospects of their development. Wodociągi–Kanalizacja 2005, 1, 24–25. [Google Scholar]
  41. Jóźwiakowski, K.; Steszuk, A.; Pieńko, A.; Marzec, M.; Pytka, A.; Gizińska, M.; Sosnowska, B.; Ozonek, J. Evaluation of the impact of wastewater treatment plants with drainage system on the quality of groundwater in dug and deep wells. Ecol. Eng. 2014, 39, 74–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Obarska-Pempkowiak, H.; Kołecka, K.; Gajewska, M.; Wojciechowska, E.; Ostojski, A. Sustainable wastewater management based on the example of rural areas. Annu. Set Environ. Prot. 2015, 17, 585–602. Available online: http://ros.edu.pl/images/roczniki/2015/036_ROS_V17_R2015.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2018).
  43. Jóźwiakowski, K.; Mucha, Z.; Generowicz, A.; Baran, S.; Bielińska, J. The use of multi-criteria analysis for selection of technology for a household WWTP compatible with sustainable development. Arch. Environ. Prot. 2015, 41, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Jóźwiakowski, K. Household sewage treatment systems in rural areas–Part II. Inżynier Budownictwa 2012, 10, 57–60. Available online: http://www.inzynierbudownictwa.pl/technika,materialy_i_technologie,artykul,przydomowe_oczyszczalnie_sciekow_na_terenach_wiejskich___cz_i,5927 (accessed on 21 November 2018).
  45. Obarska-Pempkowiak, H.; Gajewska, M.; Wojciechowska, E. Efficiency of wastewater treatment in single-family constructed wetlands in Kaszuby Lake District. Annu. Set Environ. Prot. 2013, 15, 81–95. Available online: http://ros.edu.pl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=40:efficiency-of-wastewater-treatment-in-single-family-constructed-wetlands-in-kaszuby-lake-district&catid=22&Itemid=119&lang=pl (accessed on 20 November 2018).
  46. Jakubaszek, A.; Stadnik, A. Evaluation sewage treatment plants BIO-DUO in the first months of operation. Quaterly Environ. Eng. Des. 2015, 160, 45–55. Available online: https://eed.com.pl/resources/html/article/details?id=156087 (accessed on 20 November 2018).
  47. Obarska-Pempkowiak, H.; Kowalik, P.; Gajewska, M.; Tuszyńska, A. Constructed Wetland Systems: Experiences from the Past and Future Needs. Civ. Environ. Eng. 2003, 16, 192–202. [Google Scholar]
  48. Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 Concerning the Protection of Waters against Pollution Caused by Nitrates from Agricultural Sources. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31991L0676&from=EN (accessed on 5 March 2019).
  49. SAO. Prevention of Water Contamination with Nitrogen Compounds of Agricultural Origin. 2018. Available online: https://www.nik.gov.pl/kontrole/P/17/051/LLO/ (accessed on 5 March 2019).
  50. Bielski, A. Influence of Untreated Sewage Discharge on the Aquatic Environment of the Watercourse. Eng. Prot. Environ. 2012, 15, 119–142. Available online: https://ios.is.pcz.pl/images/ios_repo/2012/zeszyt2/2012_nr2_2-Bielski.pdf (accessed on 22 November 2018).
  51. Rauch, W.; Harremoes, P. The importance of the treatment plant performance during rain to acute water pollution. Water Sci. Technol. 1996, 34, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Stricker, A.; Lessard, P.; Heduit, A.; Chatellier, P. Observed and simulated effect of rain events on the behavior of an activated sludge plant removing nitrogen. J. Environ. Eng. Sci. 2003, 2, 429–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kaczor, G.; Bugajski, P.; Bergel, T. Application of the triangle method for the calculation of the infiltration and inflow volume in a sanitary sewer system. Infrastruct. Ecol. Rural Areas 2013, 3, 263–274. Available online: http://yadda.icm.edu.pl/yadda/element/bwmeta1.element.agro-318b55e1-a918-4657-beb1-1d8c9f813b57/c/Kaczor.pdf (accessed on 23 November 2018).
  54. Kaczor, G. Impact of spring snowmelt on inflows to the household sewage treatment plant. Acta Sci. Pol. Form. Circumiectus 2011, 10, 27–34. Available online: http://www.formatiocircumiectus.actapol.net/tom10/zeszyt2/10_2_27.pdf (accessed on 23 November 2018).
  55. Toet, S.; Van Logtestijn, S.P.; Kampf, R.; Schreijer, M.; Verhoeven, J.T.A. The effect of hydraulic retention time on the removal of pollutants from sewage treatment plant effluent in a surface-flow wetland system. Wetlands 2005, 25, 375–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Xu, J.; Zhang, G.; Liu, J.; Zhu, Y. Effect of hydraulic loading rate on the efficiency of effluent treatment in a recirculating puffer aquaculture system coupled with constructed wetlands. J. Ocean Univ. China 2015, 13, 146–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Zawilski, M.; Brzezińska, A. Analyzing the efficiency of a biological wastewater treatment plant during periods of overloading caused by storm or thaw water inflow. Environ. Prot. 2003, 2, 37–42. Available online: https://www.infona.pl/resource/bwmeta1.element.baztech-article-BPOB-0003-0013# (accessed on 23 November 2018).
  58. Brzezińska, A. Variability of combined wastewater temperature on the basis of on-line measurements. Ecol. Eng. 2011, 26, 290–302. Available online: http://yadda.icm.edu.pl/baztech/element/bwmeta1.element.baztech-article-BPWR-0003-0050/c/httpwww_ineko_net_plpdf2628.pdf (accessed on 22 November 2018).
  59. Bugajski, P.; Chmielowski, K.; Wąsik, E. Influence of atmospheric precipitations on temperature and volume of wasteaeter in small sewage system. Infrastruct. Ecol. Rural Areas 2015, 4, 1057–1066. Available online: http://dx.medra.org/10.14597/infraeco.2015.4.1.084 (accessed on 26 March 2019).
  60. Bugajski, P.; Chmielowski, K.; Kaczor, G. Influence of the size of flow of rainwater on the composition if raw wastewater in small sewer system. Acta Sci. Pol. Form. Circumiectus 2016, 15, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Kaczor, G. The effect of infiltration water on the concentration of biogenic compounds in raw and tread sewage during wet weather. Infrastruct. Ecol. Rural Areas 2012, 3, 179–191. Available online: http://yadda.icm.edu.pl/yadda/element/bwmeta1.element.agro-7f1e1904-3edb-457d-9324-b68b8e521bac/c/16.pdf (accessed on 22 November 2018).
  62. Bugajski, P. Dynamics flow to sewage treatment plant in Głogów Małopolski. Infrastruct. Ecol. Rural Areas 2007, 2, 103–109. Available online: http://www.infraeco.pl/en/art/a_15091.htm?plik=279 (accessed on 23 November 2018).
  63. Giokas, D.L.; Vlessidiis, A.G.; Angelidis, M.O.; Tsimarakis, G.J.; Karayannis, M.I. Systematic analysis of the operational response of activated sludge process to variable wastewater flows. A case study. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2002, 4, 183–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Spellman, F.R. Handbook of Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant Operations, 3rd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2013; p. 923. [Google Scholar]
  65. Regulation (PL) no 72/2001 on Collective Water Supply and Collective Waste Water Discharge. Official Journal No 72 Item 747. Warsaw. Available online: http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20010720747/U/D20010747Lj.pdf (accessed on 23 January 2019).
  66. SAO. The Supplying of Mains Water to Rural Commune Residents, Warsaw. 2018. Available online: https://www.nik.gov.pl/kontrole/P/17/107/ (accessed on 23 January 2019).
  67. Regulation (PL) no 2294/2017 of the Minister for Health on the Quality of Water Intended for Human Consumption. Official Journal No 2294. Warsaw. Available online: http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20170002294/O/D20172294.pdf (accessed on 23 January 2019).
  68. Lee, C.M.; Hamm, S.Y.; Yun, S.M.; Oh, J.E.; Kim, M.; Kim, H. Indication of Groundwater Contamination Using Acesulfame and Other Pollutants in a Rural Area of Korea. Water 2018, 10, 1731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Piasecki, A.; Marszelewski, W. Dynamics and consequences of water level fluctuations of selected lakes in the catchment of the Ostrowo-Gopło Channel. Limnol. Rev. 2014, 14, 187–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Kędziora, A. Water balance of Konin strip mine landscape in changing climatic conditions. Soil Sci. Annu. 2008, 59, 104–118. Available online: http://ssa.ptg.sggw.pl/files/artykuly/2008_59/2008_tom_59_nr_2/tom_59_nr_2_104-118.pdf (accessed on 22 November 2018).
  71. Piasecki, A.; Rajmund, S. Changing the geometry of basins and water resources of Lakes Gopło and Ostrowskie under the influence of anthropopressure. Limnol. Rev. 2014, 14, 33–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Marszelewski, W.; Ptak, M.; Skowron, R. Anthropogenic and natural conditionings of disappearing lakes in the Wielkopolska-Kujawy lake district. Soil Sci. Annu. 2011, 62, 283–294. Available online: http://ssa.ptg.sggw.pl/files/artykuly/2011_62/2011_tom_62_2/tom_62_2_283-294.pdf (accessed on 22 November 2018).
  73. Ilnicki, P. The influence of drainage in mine of lignite on values the recreational Lake district Gnieźnieńskie. Aura 1996, 11, 10–12. [Google Scholar]
  74. Marszelewski, W.; Piasecki, A. Analysis of the development of wastewater infrastructure in Poland in ecological and economical aspects. Eur. Policies Financ. Mark. 2014, 11, 127–137. Available online: http://sj.wne.sggw.pl/pdf/PEFIM_2014_n60.pdf (accessed on 22 November 2018).
  75. Piasecki, A. The Water Framework Directive and the development of water and sewage infrastructure-in Kujawsko-Pomorskie. Eur. Policies Financ. Mark. 2013, 9, 351–360. Available online: http://yadda.icm.edu.pl/yadda/element/bwmeta1.element.agro-206b7f83-f8a4-40b9-80ad-184f0caf5ff4/c/351-360.pdf (accessed on 22 November 2018).
  76. Gorączko, M.; Pasela, R. Causes and effects of water consumption drop by the population of cities in Poland-selected aspects. Bull. Geogr. Socio-Econ. Ser. 2015, 27, 67–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Sierak, J. Development and spatial differentiation of water and sewage infrastructure in Poland in the years 1995–2014. Soc. Inequal. Econ. Growth 2017, 49, 302–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Regulation (PL) no 132/1996 on Maintaining Cleanliness and Order in Communes. Official Journal No 132 Item 622. Warsaw. Available online: http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU19961320622/U/D19960622Lj.pdf (accessed on 23 January 2019).
  79. Wierzbicki, K.; Eymontt, A.; Świgoń, Z. Legal and technical aspects of the construction and operation of individual waste water treatment plants. Maz. Stud. Reg. 2017, 23, 69–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Water 11 00625 g001 550
Figure 1. Water consumption and length of sewerage and water supply networks in rural Poland.
Figure 1. Water consumption and length of sewerage and water supply networks in rural Poland.
Water 11 00625 g001
Water 11 00625 g002 550
Figure 2. Wastewater requiring treatment fed into surface water or soil, 1998–2017 Explanations: 1 - mechanically treated wastewater; 2 - chemically treated wastewater; 3 - biologically treated wastewater; 4 - treated wastewater with increased nutrient removal; 5 - raw sewage.
Figure 2. Wastewater requiring treatment fed into surface water or soil, 1998–2017 Explanations: 1 - mechanically treated wastewater; 2 - chemically treated wastewater; 3 - biologically treated wastewater; 4 - treated wastewater with increased nutrient removal; 5 - raw sewage.
Water 11 00625 g002
Water 11 00625 g003 550
Figure 3. Amount of fertiliser (kg) per hectare in Poland.
Figure 3. Amount of fertiliser (kg) per hectare in Poland.
Water 11 00625 g003
Water 11 00625 g004 550
Figure 4. Expenditure on selected elements of water and sewage management in rural Poland.
Figure 4. Expenditure on selected elements of water and sewage management in rural Poland.
Water 11 00625 g004
Table
Table 1. Number of holding tanks and household sewage treatment facilities in rural Poland.
Table 1. Number of holding tanks and household sewage treatment facilities in rural Poland.
2008201220172008–2017 (%)
independent wastewater treatment facilities45,225114,214214,225373.7
holding tanks1,978,6731,903,0551,806,228−8.7
Table
Table 2. Number of sewage treatment plants by type.
Table 2. Number of sewage treatment plants by type.
Wastewater Treatment PlantsNumber of Plants1995–2017 (%)
1995200420132017
mechanical23823911−52
chemical4----
biological402153720142082418
with increased nutrient removal223274384261836
Table
Table 3. Change in pollution loads in treated sewage, 1998–2017.
Table 3. Change in pollution loads in treated sewage, 1998–2017.
Territorial UnitBiochemical Oxygen DemandChemical Oxygen DemandTotal SuspensionTotal Nitrogen
kg·year−1%kg·year−1%kg·year−1%kg·year−1%
Poland−62,088,255−84.2−93,388,192−53.5−44,563,460−71.6−21,283,030−54.7
Poland - city−63,503,374−88.0−110,136,935−64.8−47,477,235−78.4−23,701,159−63.0
Poland - village1,415,11985.416,748,743369.22,913,775168.12,418,129192.5

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Piasecki, A. Water and Sewage Management Issues in Rural Poland. Water 2019, 11, 625. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11030625

AMA Style

Piasecki A. Water and Sewage Management Issues in Rural Poland. Water. 2019; 11(3):625. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11030625

Chicago/Turabian Style

Piasecki, Adam. 2019. "Water and Sewage Management Issues in Rural Poland" Water 11, no. 3: 625. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11030625

APA Style

Piasecki, A. (2019). Water and Sewage Management Issues in Rural Poland. Water, 11(3), 625. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11030625

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop