Different regulatory approaches to enhanced water protection in selected European jurisdictions

ABSTRACT This paper presents the results of the analysis of initiatives taken by selected European Union member states concerning enhanced water protection with respect to ownership and management of water resources and water distribution systems. Two of the countries studied have recently enacted their constitutional protection of water (Slovakia and Slovenia), one country is planning to reinforce the protection of water in its constitution (Czech Republic) and one state found the constitutional protection of water unnecessary (Finland). Whereas the reasons for (not) protecting water at the constitutional level vary widely, the common denominator is a strong support for protecting water as resource.


Introduction
Outside Europe, legislative efforts strive for enacting the right to water and implementing water security (Parmar, 2008;Upadhyay, 2011;Good, 2011;Abdel-Gawad, 2007;Movik, 2011;Arden, 2016;Takacs, 2016;Martínez Moscoso et al., 2018;Wilder et al., 2020). Recently, efforts have risen also in Europe to elevate the protection of water to the highest legal hierarchical position. This paper presents the results of the analysis of initiatives taken at the level of selected European jurisdictions to reinforce their protection of water by amending their constitution (Slovakia and Slovenia), planning it (Czech Republic) or by relying on sub-constitutional means of pursuing a public goal (Finland). We selected these four jurisdictions because they feature the most recent developments with respect to water protection in the European Union (EU) region.
In the selected European jurisdictions, water security and water safety are currently not predominant issues. Water is generally largely available in wholesome quality. What seems to trouble EU citizens the most is the price they must pay for water distribution. The ownership of water resources and water distribution systems are central issues in this regard as well as the 'separation between ownership and usufructuary rights' (Mechlem, 2016). Where water is distributed by private corporations on a profit basis rather than by public entities on a non-profit basis, market forces may produce a situation where Europeans have to pay more than a fair price for obtaining water.

Materials and methods
We analyse and compare the different regulatory models concerning the ownership of water resources, on the one hand, and the ownership of water distribution systems, on the other. In doing so we aim at answering the following research questions: • Have the enacted constitutional or other legal amendments lived up to the expectations with respect to the different objectives they have pursued? • Can the enacted constitutional amendments serve as a model for countries seeking a reinforced legislative protection of water?
Having outlined the methods and the objective of the paper, its structure will focus on individual approaches to water protection in selected EU member states, in particular Slovakia, Slovenia, the Czech Republic and Finland (in chronological order of the enacted amendments or legislative discussions). Subsequently, the approaches taken by different states will be compared and their common denominators, if any, identified. The discussion section will answer the research questions outlined above.

Results
This section will present a description and analysis of the different regulatory approaches to water protection adopted at the level of selected EU member states, in particular Slovakia, Slovenia, the Czech Republic and Finland, following a chronological order of legislative developments in the respective jurisdictions.

Constitutional ban on water exports in Slovakia
Slovakia is a Central European country with a population of 5.5 million and with sufficient water resources (Zeleňáková & Fendeková, 2018). In 2014, Slovakia introduced a constitutional ban on water exports via tanks and underground pipelines. Water may continue to be exported from Slovakia if it has been bottled in consumer packaging as well as for humanitarian purposes. Reminding of the landmark Gabčíkovo/Nagymáros dispute between Slovakia (then Czechoslovakia) and Hungary on the management of the borderline water dam (International Court of Justice (ICJ), 1997), this time the Slovak and Polish border was at the root of amending the Slovak constitution. A Polish corporation wished to export Slovak mineral water to Poland via tanks and underground pipelines (Ratajczak, 2016) to bottle the water and subsequently to sell it on the market.
The water exports ban is now part of Article 4(2) of the Slovak Constitution and reads as follows: The transport of water taken from water bodies situated in the territory of the Slovak Republic across the borders of the Slovak Republic by means of transport or by pipeline shall be prohibited; the prohibition does not apply to personal water consumption, drinking water packaged in consumer packaging in the territory of the Slovak Republic and natural mineral water packaged in consumer packaging in the territory of the Slovak Republic and to the provision of humanitarian and emergency assistance. Details of the conditions for the carriage of water for personal consumption and water for the provision of humanitarian and emergency assistance shall be laid down by law.
The Polish company concerned did not obtain a water extraction permit. Subsequently, it reported the situation via Polish Members of the European Parliament (European Parliament, 2015) to the European Commission which launched an infringement procedure against Slovakia justified by breaching the rules of the internal market of the EU by allegedly violating the free movement of goods (European Commission, 2015). The aim of the infringement procedure under Article 258 Treaty on the Functioning of the EU is to determine if the member state concerned breached its legal duties resulting from the EU treaties. In a pre-judicial phase of this procedure, the European Commission provides extra time to the member state concerned to comply with EU law. If this proves of no avail, the European Commission acting as the Guardian of the Treaties can refer the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) (Craig & de Búrca, 2011). In case of Slovakia's alleged breach of the rules of the internal market the European Commission did not refer this country to the Court of the Justice of the EU. The European Commission dropped its legal case against Slovakia in October 2021 without stating its reasons for doing so. The authors believe that striking the infringement procedure from Commission Infringements Register (File No. 20,154,225) was triggered by an arbitral award rendered in the Polish-Slovak dispute under the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law rules.
The arbitration procedure was launched in 2016 (PCA Case No. 2017-08) by the Polish investor Muszynianka against the Slovak Republic under the bilateral investment treaty (BIT) concluded between Poland and Slovakia in 1994. Slovakia has challenged the applicability of this BIT from the outset of the arbitration procedure recalling the 2018 Achmea judgement rendered by the CJEU (2018), under which BITs among EU member states should be terminated and no longer relied upon. However, the arbitration tribunal argued that this judgement cannot be applied retroactively and confirmed its jurisdiction to deal with the case. In its application for the arbitration procedure, the Polish company alleged the breach of one of the usual investment standards protected by the BITs, namely fair and equitable treatment. The Muszynianka company believed that the constitutional amendment banning water exports was targeted at its business activities in Slovakia and indirectly expropriated its investment in the host country. The Polish lawyers stressed that high-standing Slovak politicians repeatedly provided assurances to grant a water extraction permit, but that was finally denied. The arbitration tribunal being composed of three arbitrators found that Slovakia was faulty in delaying its administrative procedure on granting the water extraction permit until the Constitutional amendment of water ban had been enacted. However, the tribunal believed that the constitutional amendment was not targeted at the Muszynianka company but aimed at ensuring that the state keeps firm control over its water resources for future generations in view of the occurring climate change. In this respect, the arbitral tribunal found the wording of the constitutional amendment proportional to its objective (keeping sufficient water resources within the territory of Slovakia). This objective was also stressed in the explanatory statement to the draft constitutional amendment (Maslen, 2017). Also, the arbitration tribunal investigated the possibility of discrimination based on nationality against the Muszynianka company. Since Polish companies receive national treatment in Slovakia, that is, they can set up a corporation or a subsidiary established in Slovakia and create jobs in Slovakia that rely on water extraction without facing any discrimination whatsoever, no discriminatory conduct by Slovak authorities was determined. Moreover, water occurring within natural water systems cannot be privately owned. Under Article 4 of the Slovak Constitution, it is exclusively owned by the Slovak state. Hence, no discrimination based on nationality is possible if we compare Slovak businesses and Polish businesses based in Slovakia. The arbitration tribunal finally concluded that by not granting the water extraction permit which was promised in statements made by prominent Slovak politicians, Slovakia had indeed breached its duty under the BIT to provide fair and equitable treatment, but the violated obligations under the BIT were not serious enough to cause the Slovak Republic to pay damages to the Polish investor. The arbitral award rendered on 7 October 2020 is very extensive (Muszynianka v. Slovakia. Award, 2020), covering more than 200 pages of legal arguments of both parties and conclusions made by the arbitrators. The arbitrator selected by the Polish party expressed his dissenting opinion as he believed that Slovakia's breach of its duties under the BIT was significant enough to make it compensate the damages caused to the Muszynianka company. The dissenting opinion does not, however, change the outcome of the arbitration procedure.
The arguments voiced during the arbitration procedure largely mirror scholarly writings commenting on the constitutional amendments banning water exports from Slovakia. Legal doctrine dealing with permit-based systems similar to those in place in Slovakia, recognizes that private and public interests must be balanced stressing that 'in water resources legislation drinking and domestic uses have to take priority over other uses' (Mechlem, 2016, p. 347). Expected water scarcity combined with foreign business efforts seem to have contributed to Slovakia adopting the ban on water exports.
In contrast, the Polish view bases its arguments on the rules governing the EU's internal market as follows: From the point of view of EU law, the requirement that spring water exported outside Slovakian borders be bottled is a restriction on the free movement of goods by favouring companies located in Slovakia. This means discrimination against enterprises outside this market which deal with the exploitation and distribution of Slovak natural mineral water. (Grochowska & Ambroziak, 2018, p. 89) Yet, it is questionable whether water occurring in natural water bodies can be considered a good at all, as it would normally be considered a natural resource until it has been bottled. The traditional rules of Public International Law recognize the right of the state to manage the natural resources found within its territory (United Nations, 1962).
From a broader perspective, the Slovak constitution does not incorporate the right to water to everyone; rather, it provides sustainable use of existing water resources which may be used to meet the state's obligation to provide supplies of water to its population.
Since the European Commission's action for infringement against Slovakia was abandoned, Slovakia did not have to change its constitution to repeal its water exports ban (Ľalík, 2017). The authors presume that having dropped its legal case against Slovakia, the European Commission considers the Slovak water exports ban compliant with the rules governing the EU's internal market.
The Slovak Constitution does not incorporate the right to water to everyone. In granting ownership of water to the state and in prohibiting exports, the constitution does provide the framework for sustainable use of water resources and for providing water to citizens.

Constitutional protection of water in Slovenia
Slovenia is a European country that has abundant water resources and a population of 2 million. Water distribution became the subject of public debate after private companies had gained legal rights over managing a large part of Slovenian water resources, and some Slovenian water companies had been taken over by global companies. A large Dutch brewery company took over two local breweries and obtained water allowances for a local water supply in Laško, causing a 30% increase in drinking water costs for the city's inhabitants. Another company acquired a concession for a water purification plant leading to a deteriorated water quality. These facts triggered the civil society to join forces with the Members of the Slovenian Parliament (Eman & Meško, 2020). Citizens started to worry about their access to drinking water and wanted to strengthen the public control of water. The unprecedented mobilization of citizens and their interplay with politicians has been examined in literature (Loen & Gloppen, 2021).
The Slovenian Constitution (1991) allows a citizens' initiative for amending the constitution, requiring the signatures of 30,000 voters. An initiative on water rights by deputies (National Assembly members) was tabled in 2014 and again in 2015. This led to the establishment of an ad hoc group of experts attached to the constitutional commission of the National Assembly. Its task was to study the need and possible wordings of a legislative reform. In 2016, a citizens' initiative, 'The Civilian Initiative for Slovenia and Freedom' (Civilna iniciativa za Slovenijo in svobodo), collected the required 30,000 signatures under six weeks. In March 2016, the ad hoc expert group published its opinion, according to which an amendment was urgent. At the same time, the citizens' initiative was handed over to the National Assembly with 56,000 signatures. In May 2016, the constitutional commission presented its proposal for the amendment (Contitutionnet.org, 2016). In June 2016, the National Assembly accepted the citizens' initiative. In November 2016, the final text was adopted by the National Assembly by a majority of 64 out of 90, and it entered into force. No members of the Slovenian National Assembly voted against the amendment, but the opposition party abstained from voting.
The amendment makes water a public trust. This means that nobody can own Slovenian water resources, not even the state (see Art. 70A of the Slovenian Constitution below). The state has the duty to manage water resources sustainably and to exercise control over the extraction of drinking water. This means the state cannot grant water extraction rights to private companies. Previously, Article 70 of the Slovenian Constitution governed the Public Good and Natural Resources as follows: Special rights to use a public good may be acquired, subject to conditions established by law. The conditions under which natural resources may be exploited shall be established by law. The law may provide that natural resources may also be exploited by foreign persons and shall establish the conditions for such exploitation.
The amendment added Article 70A entitled 'Right to Drinking Water' which reads as follows: Water resources shall be a public good managed by the state. As a priority and in a sustainable manner, water resources shall be used to supply the population with drinking water and water for household use and in this respect shall not be a market commodity. The supply of the population with drinking water and water for household use shall be ensured by the state directly through self-governing local communities and on a not-for-profit basis.
The amendment includes transitional provisions. In 2016, 16 out of 212 local communities had a private provider of drinking water. The amendment made this state of affairs unconstitutional. The contracts concluded before the constitutional amendment will last until their end, and they cannot be renewed. The EU directive governing public procurement excludes water supplies from its scope of application, so there are no EU law limits or rules on tendering out water distribution services (Kynast, 2015). In Slovenia, the private sector continues to use water in daily business, but the state must see that such use does not deprive any Slovenian citizens and inhabitants of their basic rights. The state must respect, protect and fulfil the right to drinking water. To sum up, in line with Burchi and Nanni (2003), the Slovenian constitution follows the general trend to keep the right to the distribution of water resources in the hands of the state.

Draft constitutional protection of water in the Czech Republic
The Czech Republic, having a population of 10.7 million inhabitants, is a Central European country with a decreasing amount of water resources available (Sedmidubský & Grmelová, 2018). So far there is no specific protection of water in the Czech Constitution. Yet, water is protected at a constitutional level as part of protecting the environment. In 2019, several Communist members of the Czech Parliament proposed to incorporate state ownership of water into the Czech Constitution (Czech Parliament, Lower Chamber, 2019). The draft wording of the proposal has been opposed by many constitutional lawyers, as it would be directly linked to expropriating soil where water is located and would also trigger additional obligations for the Czech state to compensate damages caused by water (Kudrna, 2019). Currently, water enjoys the status of res nullius under the Czech law. This is detailed in the Water Act (Act No. 254/2001 OJ), which states that neither underground nor surface waters are subject to ownership, nor do they pertain to the land over which or under which they are found. Water becomes subject to ownership once it has been extracted (Jančárová et al., 2015).
The Czech Constitution is rather principle based; hence, it would not be technically feasible to incorporate detailed rules governing the protection of water into this legal instrument. A specific constitutional act would therefore be more apt to achieve the purpose of reinforcing the protection of water in the Czech Republic (Charles University Law School, 2019). In September 2020, the Czech Ministry of Agriculture tabled a constitutional act protecting water to the Czech Parliament. The objective of the proposal was to give precedence to the public interest in water protection for human use over all other public interests. The constitutional act was supposed to grant the right to water to all inhabitants of the country from available water resources under socially acceptable conditions. The draft proposal featured ten articles and incorporated most of the proposals made by Czech members of parliament who wish to regulate water at constitutional level. In terms of ownership of water resources, the proposal would ban the sale of water reservoirs aimed at mass supplies of water and it would introduce the principle of public ownership of water supplies and sewer systems. These should only be owned by the state or by a region (Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic. 2020. Press Release of 15 January, 2020). The proposal did not follow the Slovak trend of prohibiting water exports. Following the autumn 2021 elections in the Czech Republic, the political parties that tabled these amendments (the Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party) are no longer represented in the Czech Parliament. These proposals are thus unlikely to be discussed by the Czech legislator, however, they have served as a platform to trigger a wider political and expert debate and will contribute to a more sustained proposal in the future. The new Czech government has already announced its intention to table a future proposal to enact a constitutional protection of water in its statement of priorities made on 7 January 2021. It plans to submit a government proposal which will stress the retention of water in the landscape in a holistic manner by supporting wetlands, small water reservoirs, greening measures, reviving the variety of tree species in the woods, revitalizing water courses and creating corridors for the migration of fishes (Czech Government, 2022). Furthers details on the future proposal for a constitutional protection of water have not yet been disclosed.

Finland: citizens' initiative for public governance of water
Finland is a Northern European country with 5.5 million inhabitants. Even though -or exactly because -Finland may be the water-richest country in the world (Sullivan et al., 2002), water has raised debate. Already in 2013, a Finnish parliament member, Ari Jalonen, presented his written question to that legislative body asking whether groundwater ownership and the right to water should be regulated in the Finnish Constitution. Jalonen was inspired by the European citizens' initiative and mentioned the threat that drinking water privatization could be required by financers such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. At that time, Minister of Agriculture and Forestry Jari Leppä answered that the constitutional right to social security and the constitutional right to a healthy environment also cover access to drinking water, and that the permit procedure for groundwater extraction guarantees that Finnish citizens cannot run out of water. Under the Finnish Water Act, groundwater is owned by no one, but it can be governed in terms of rules stipulating water extraction permits. Extraction of groundwater at the rate of over 250 m 3 per day is subject to a permit under the Finnish Water Act. Extraction of water to be used non-locally is always subject to a permit. If a project is a threat to national water reserves or citizens' access to water, an extraction permit cannot be granted (Finnish Parliament, 2013).
The privatization of drinking water distribution became a topical issue again in 2020 as the city of Jyväskylä was planning to sell a part of its water supply company to a private company. A citizens' initiative 'Water is ours' (Vesi on meidän) was handed over to the Finnish Parliament in March 2020. The initiative had gathered the required 50,000 signatures in just one day. The initiative proposed the preparation of law to prohibit the sales of publicly owned water supply infrastructure to private companies. Two months earlier in January 2020, a member of parliament had published his statement on the same issue, proposing the speedy enactment of law to prohibit an even partial privatization of water companies. Kärnä stated that water supply is a natural monopoly: the pipes are in the ground and no new actor can compete with this state of affairs (Suomenmaa, 2020). Another member of parliament, Honkasalo, had published her initiative for prohibiting privatization in February 2020. Multiple initiatives on the same topic were evidence of broad support. The citizens' imitative was indeed accepted at the Finnish Parliament in September 2021, all parties unanimously supporting the initiative. A law prohibiting the privatization of water supplies is to be prepared in 2022. The parliamentary committee (Finnish Parliament, 2021) highlighted that water supplies are a basic necessity connected to health protection, environmental protection, societal development and national security.
As important background, Finland has negative experiences from partly privatizing the national electricity grid in 2013, which was mentioned in Honkasalo's initiative and the consequences of which have been broadly discussed in public. Two largest grid companies operating in Finland are privately owned by international investors. The privatization decision and the grid companies continue to receive criticism (e.g., Kuokkanen, 2020), as the transfer prices of electricity have increased significantly, and keep rising (Finnish Energy Authority, 2019). Customers can choose their electricity producer, but not the transfer company, which is a natural monopoly. A competitive price of electricity is one of the goals for the Electricity Market Law 588/2013. The maximum yearly increase in transfer prices is 15%. A legal reform where the maximum raise would be lowered to 12.5% or even to 5% has been delayed. The Electricity Market Law mandates the grid companies to invest in underground cables, and the grid companies use this as a justification for raising prices. The problem, however, is that under a natural monopoly, there is no competition in the market, and thus, there is no genuine market price. A natural monopoly means that it is economically most efficient to have only one provider at the market. This is the basic reason for recommendations that natural monopolies should always be under control of the state or public utilities (e.g., Stiglitz & Rosengard, 2015).
Water prices in Finland are regulated similarly to electricity prices. The Finnish Competition Act No. 948/2011 prohibits the abuse of dominant market position (Section 7), and the Finnish Water Services Act No. 119/2001 aims to ensure access to good-quality water at reasonable costs. According to the Water Services Act, water charges should cover the costs as well as investments and repairs in the long term. The charges must be 'reasonable and equitable', and they may include 'no more than a reasonable return on the capital' (Water Services Act, Section 18). The Finnish legislators that accepted the citizens' initiative obviously did not trust this law to protect citizens from the abuse of private companies in monopoly positions, everyone remembering the case of electricity grids.
Compared with the written question in 2013, the 2020 citizens' initiative did not suggest water as a human right to be added to the constitution, nor a clarification that groundwater cannot be owned. The prohibition of exports is not suggested. Finns seem to trust that public ownership of water distribution systems is the main issue: municipalities or publicly owned water distribution companies will provide water for a fair price to citizens. Securing basic rights is expected without being enshrined in the constitution. Private agents can be granted fixed-term access rights, but they cannot own the water or the distribution systems. In the future, defining water rights in the constitution might be reconsidered if multinational companies become increasingly interested in Finland's national wealth and strategic resources.

Discussion
EU law does not interfere with the constitutional traditions of its member states. The national states compared in this paper are thus free to decide whether water is owned by no one, by the state, by the public or privately owned. Water distribution services tend to create a monopoly, of which private companies could take advantage. The approaches of selected EU member states discussed in this paper feature significant differences in their efforts to avoid companies making excessive profits on water, which would lead to exorbitant consumer prices. The specific constitutional amendment on water export bans adopted in Slovakia has not been paralleled in the other examined jurisdictions. Slovenia has banned private ownership of water in its constitution. Finland has an established tradition of popular trust in the public administration, hence no legal changes banning private distribution of water have been perceived as necessary following parliamentary debates. Finland is now banning the privatization of water distribution. In the Czech Republic, price abuses by water distribution companies are dealt with by law courts. The Truth about Water foundation managed to challenge successfully in law courts the validity of some local water distribution contracts (concluded using corruption practices) between several municipalities and a French multinational company distributing water in many Czech cities (Pravdaovode.cz, 2022). What Slovakia and Slovenia achieved in common by means of their last constitutional amendment on water was a driver to sustainable water management. If water ownership is under state control and/ or it cannot be exported as a natural resource, these states can guarantee a safer supply of water for their population in future should water scarcity occur. The Finnish decision to prohibit the privatization of water distribution has the same goal.
Returning to the research questions made at the beginning of the paper, the following results have been reached. The enacted constitutional amendment lived up to the expectations in Slovakia, which managed to defend its water export ban successfully in an investment arbitration and caused the European Commission to stop its action for an alleged infringement of the rules of the EU's internal market. In the case of Slovenia, the functioning of the constitutional amendment is more ambiguous. Although it has resolved the issue of water ownership, the right to water has not been defined sufficiently to provide for an unconditional direct application. Implementing legislation that would define the circumstances under which the right to water must be guaranteed is still missing. Case law has demonstrated that this right cannot be perceived as absolute and exceptions to the rule apply. This can be witnessed in a recent judgement delivered by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, in which this judicial body of the Council of Europe decided that 'Slovenia did not violate its positive obligation to provide access to drinking water and sanitation for Roma communities living in informal settlements' (European Court of Human Rights, 2020, p. 45). The Czech proposals for constitutional protection of water will not be pursued any further due to the changed composition in the Parliament following the autumn 2021 elections, however, the new government declared its intention to introduce a new proposal to protect water constitutionally, yet as of early December 2022 this promise has not materialized. Finland has abandoned the idea of constitutional protection of water, based on the trust of its people in the efficiency of the public administration. This cannot be said about the other three countries (Slovenia, Slovakia and Czech Republic) which share a common Communist past and the persisting corruption rate in the public administration (compared with the Finnish standard) makes legislators believe that constitutional amendments are more efficient than changes to the functioning of the public administration.
The second research question inquired whether the enacted constitutional amendments serve as a model for countries seeking a reinforced legislative protection of water. Having examined the different contents of the constitutional amendments in Slovakia and Slovenia, the answer is no. Both constitutional amendments sought to resolve different issues and the Czech Republic does not face the same factual circumstances to transplant the foreign models into its own legislation. Perhaps the Slovenian model can serve as an example of undone legislation, in terms of missing implementing provisions which would make the constitutional right to water function properly, setting the conditions and limits for its application. Since the Czech constitution is principle based, implementing rules to make the constitutional changes operative in practice will be required as well as an effective supervision system to oversee the compliance with the applicable rules. Table 1 summarizes the existence of an explicit recognition of the right to water in the four jurisdictions under scrutiny as well as the water ownership system and the water distribution systems currently in place.

Conclusions
Having compared the current constitutional rules governing the ownership of water, and the ownership of water distribution systems and the (lack of) right to water, it is difficult to find a common denominator as all the jurisdictions discussed display a different focus. Whereas Slovakia prohibited the exports of water in a constitutional amendment, it did not specifically consider water distribution rights at constitutional level and it did not change its original concept of state ownership of water. Slovenia recognized water as a human right and a resource that cannot be privately owned in its constitution. The Czech Republic plans to introduce a constitutional protection of water; however, the details of the future proposal have not yet been disclosed. In Finland, water is not subject to ownership, and there is a proposal in place to prohibit the privatization of water distribution, however, not at the constitutional level. The compared EU member states demonstrate a very different idea of how water protection should be reinforced. Finland even dropped its original idea of incorporating water protection into its constitution: the population largely relies on the good intentions and practices of the public administration. This is not the case of the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia, where corruption and conflicts of interest may still be an issue, despite their membership in the EU. Hence, there is a popular distrust in the public administration in these countries that have joined the EU later than Finland.
Governing the protection of water at constitutional level appears to be a trend in many jurisdictions. However, constitutional protection of water alone will not ensure the provision of water having high quality, sufficient quantity and a fair price to all consumers. Very often, an efficient system of observing compliance with applicable rules has to be developed to provide for an equally efficient enforcement, should these rules be breached. As the EU lacks an exclusive power to regulate the protection of water in a uniform way across all its 27 member states, some EU member states have decided to incorporate their own approaches to water protection at constitutional level with different ends. Whereas Slovakia prohibited water exports, Slovenia declared water to be a state-owned good and the Czech Republic is planning to introduce a constitutional protection of water in the future. Finland resigned on a constitutional protection of water for the time being, yet it may reinforce the legal status of water by means of an ordinary legislative act. Thus, finding a common denominator of the examined regulatory frameworks is difficult, but there is an emerging trend towards shifting the water distribution rights from private corporations to public entities. While the selected jurisdictions approach their specific problems differently, each has demonstrated its strong interest in, and support for, protecting water and maintaining it as a public good or a public resource. This applies to both water as the resource itself and the water supply system. To this end, most jurisdictions discussed in this paper have opted for framing the debate in terms of protecting water as a human right.