In 2014, Minister Schultz-Van Hagen of Infrastructure and the Environment stated the following in her response to Parliamentary questions on the disconnection of water due to non-payment:
“That drinking water is a basic necessity of life is still government policy. The Drinking Water Act therefore gives the right of access to drinking water and the obligation for drinking water companies to prevent the disconnection of a small-scale consumer as much as possible. The fact that drinking water is a human right does not mean that it should be free.”
This position is incorrect. Indeed, human rights do not entitle everyone to free drinking water. But the consequences of the current arrangement – children not having access to drinking water at home – do violate children’s rights and human rights, according to Defence for Children and the NJCM. Moreover, the payment and delivery of water can be split. Children can be protected and the water company’s claim on parents remains.
Shut-off policy
On July 1, 2018, the new Disconnection Policy for Small Users of Drinking Water (“the Regulation”) came into effect. Based on this regulation, households can be disconnected from water. Only vulnerable consumers for whom water disconnection poses serious health risks are excluded from water disconnection. Children are not identified as vulnerable consumers in the disconnection regulation. Thus, this regulation still allows households with children to be cut off from water. Since this regulation has been in place, households that are disconnected from water when they request it are given a water bag containing 12 liters of water per person to get through the first four days. Specifically, a child disconnected from water has access to 3 liters of water per day. This is well below the 50 to 100 liters of water each person needs per day, according to the World Health Organization.
Lawsuit
The NJCM and Defense for Children have started a lawsuit against the State and drinking water companies Dunea and PWN, asking the court to prohibit water disconnections at children’s homes.
They are targeting the proceedings against water companies Dunea and PWN, because they know these water companies cut off families with children. In addition, they are targeting the State, because the State allows and enables the violation of children’s and human rights with the regulation on the disconnection of water. The procedure aims to prohibit water disconnections when it comes to a household with children. Cutting off water is invasive and risky for families with children and denies the child’s right to water. Children have an independent right to water and they should not be denied access to water because their parents cannot pay the bill.
PILP, together with de Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, is acting as lawyers in this case.
