Dutch water authority Delfland has publicly identified Mircan B.V. in a greenhouse water-discharge enforcement case and imposed a new conditional penalty order that could reach €500,000 if further breaches occur. In its 12 October 2026 announcement, the authority said this was the first time it had published both a grower’s name and the full enforcement decision in this way.
Mircan grows cucumbers, peppers and chillies at several locations in the Woudse Droogmakerij area of the Netherlands. Delfland said inspectors had recorded repeated unauthorised discharges at company sites, including surplus nutrient solution from cultivation. According to the water authority, this drainwater should be collected and recirculated rather than discharged to surface water, where nutrients and crop-protection residues can affect water quality.
How the conditional penalties work
The latest order does not mean Mircan has already paid €500,000. Delfland says a further illegal drainwater discharge would trigger €200,000, and a subsequent breach would add €300,000, bringing potential payments under the new order to €500,000. The amounts are intended to compel compliance, not to describe a fine already collected.
The authority also reported a separate earlier enforcement measure: a €100,000 penalty order imposed in 2025 was triggered by another infringement in spring 2026, and the company had to pay that amount. Delfland said enforcement had escalated over time, beginning with an earlier €5,000 order. These historical amounts must not be confused with the new conditional €500,000 ceiling.
Company response and disclosure precedent
The company disputes an implication of deliberate wrongdoing. In original reporting published by HortiDaily and GroentenNieuws on 15 October, the grower described the mistakes as unintentional and said they had been resolved. HortiDaily, citing Dutch newspaper AD, also reported that Mircan had engaged a lawyer to contest the new order. No outcome was reported.
Delfland says it does not routinely name businesses subject to enforcement measures. Its decision to disclose Mircan’s identity and the enforcement order was based on an individual assessment of the reported violations, their environmental effects and the enforcement history. Publication of the order is an administrative step; it should not be described as a criminal conviction.
Why greenhouse operators should pay attention
For commercial greenhouses, the case illustrates the financial and reputational exposure associated with nutrient-solution collection, recirculation and discharge controls. The regulator’s description concerns specific inspected sites and enforcement decisions, not a blanket finding about Dutch greenhouse production. Whether Mircan’s reported corrective action satisfies the authority, and whether the latest order is ultimately changed after any challenge, remain open questions.
