Pollution of ground-and surface waters with nitrates from agricultural sources poses a risk to drinking water quality and has negative impacts on the environment. At the national scale, the gross nitrogen budget (GNB) is accepted as an indicator of pollution caused by nitrates. There is, however, little common EU-wide knowledge on the budget application and its comparability at the farm level for the detection of ground-and surface water pollution caused by nitrates and the monitoring of mitigation measures. Therefore, a survey was carried out among experts of various European countries in order to assess the practice and application of fertilization planning and nitrogen budgeting at the farm level and the differences between countries within Europe. While fertilization planning is practiced in all of the fourteen countries analyzed in this paper, according to current legislation, nitrogen budgets have to be calculated only in Switzerland, Germany and Romania. The survey revealed that methods of fertilization planning and nitrogen budgeting at the farm level are not unified throughout Europe. In most of the cases where budgets are used regularly (Germany, Romania, Switzerland), standard values for the chemical composition of feed, organic fertilizers, animal and plant products are used. The example of the Dutch Annual Nutrient Cycling Assessment (ANCA) tool (and partly of the Suisse Balance) shows that it is only by using farm-specific “real” data that budgeting can be successfully applied to optimize nutrient flows and increase N efficiencies at the farm level. However, this approach is more elaborate and requires centralized data processing under consideration of data protection concerns. This paper concludes that there is no unified indicator for nutrient management and water quality at the farm level. A comparison of regionally calculated nitrogen budgets across European countries needs to be interpreted carefully, as methods as well as data and emission factors vary across countries. For the implementation of EU nitrogen-related policies—notably, the Nitrates Directive—nutrient budgeting is currently ruled out as an entry point for legal requirements. In contrast, nutrient budgets are highlighted as an environment indicator by the OECD and EU institutions.

Land use changes and the intensification of agriculture since the 1950s have resulted in a deterioration of groundwater quality in many European countries. For the protection of groundwater quality, it is necessary to (1) assess the current groundwater quality status, (2) detect changes or trends in groundwater quality, (3) assess the threat of deterioration and (4) predict future changes in groundwater quality. A variety of approaches and tools can be used to detect and extrapolate trends in groundwater quality, ranging from simple linear statistics to distributed 3D groundwater contaminant transport models. In this paper we report on a comparison of four methods for the detection and extrapolation of trends in groundwater quality: (1) statistical methods, (2) groundwater dating, (3) transfer functions, and (4) deterministic modeling. Our work shows that the selection of the method should firstly be made on the basis of the specific goals of the study (only trend detection or also extrapolation), the system under study, and the available resources. For trend detection in groundwater quality in relation to diffuse agricultural contamination, a very important aspect is whether the nature of the monitoring network and groundwater body allows the collection of samples with a distinct age or produces samples with a mixture of young and old groundwater. We conclude that there is no single optimal method to detect trends in groundwater quality across widely differing catchments.

Diffuse nitrogen (N) pollution from agriculture in groundwater and surface water is a major challenge in terms of meeting drinking water targets in many parts of Europe. A bottom-up approach involving local stakeholders may be more effective than national- or European-level approaches for addressing local drinking water issues. Common understanding of the causal relationship between agricultural pressure and water quality state, e.g., nitrate pollution among the stakeholders, is necessary to define realistic goals of drinking water protection plans and to motivate the stakeholders; however, it is often challenging to obtain. Therefore, to link agricultural pressure and water quality state, we analyzed lag times between soil surface N surplus and groundwater chemistry using a cross correlation analysis method of three case study sites with groundwater-based drinking water abstraction: Tunø and Aalborg-Drastrup in Denmark and La Voulzie in France. At these sites, various mitigation measures have been implemented since the 1980s at local to national scales, resulting in a decrease of soil surface N surplus, with long-term monitoring data also being available to reveal the water quality responses. The lag times continuously increased with an increasing distance from the N source in Tunø (from 0 to 20 years between 1.2 and 24 m below the land surface; mbls) and La Voulzie (from 8 to 24 years along downstream), while in Aalborg-Drastrup, the lag times showed a greater variability with depth—for instance, 23-year lag time at 9–17 mbls and 4-year lag time at 21–23 mbls. These spatial patterns were interpreted, finding that in Tunø and La Voulzie, matrix flow is the dominant pathway of nitrate, whereas in Aalborg-Drastrup, both matrix and fracture flows are important pathways. The lag times estimated in this study were comparable to groundwater ages measured by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs); however, they may provide different information to the stakeholders. The lag time may indicate a wait time for detecting the effects of an implemented protection plan while groundwater age, which is the mean residence time of a water body that is a mixture of significantly different ages, may be useful for planning the time scale of water protection programs. We conclude that the lag time may be a useful indicator to reveal the hydrogeological links between the agricultural pressure and water quality state, which is fundamental for a successful implementation of drinking water protection plans.