204
9 Water Quality Management
Quality Regulation by the MOHURD; the 2017 Pollutant Discharge Permit Management Methods (temporary) by MEE; the 1999 Environmental Standard Management
Method by the SEPA; and the 1989 Management Regulation on Pollution Control
in Drinking Water Sources Protection Zone by SEPA, the Ministry of Health, the
Ministry of Construction, MWR, and the Ministry of Mineral Resources.
The legal framework for water quality management in China can be divided into
three groups: those for the protection of water bodies, wastewater discharge management, and drinking water sources protection. Based on these groups, legislation has
aimed at developing a framework to solve cross-cutting issues, such as the relation
between discharges and water bodies, river basins and jurisdiction, WAD and EPAD,
and so on.
In spite of these efforts, the current legislation faces problems related to overlapping between functions and responsibilities and a frequent lack of coherence between
them (Li and Cai 2011). For example, all the laws mentioned previously have been
approved by the Standing Committee of the NPC, and all of them have the same level
of power and importance. For example, there is some overlap between the 2016 Water
Law and the Water Pollution Control Law. Article 16 of the 2017 Water Pollution
Control Law establishes that “the water pollution control shall be planned at the river
basin or region levels,” while Articles 14 and 15 of the 2016 Water Law state that
“development, use, conservation and protection of water resources and control of
water disasters shall be planned at the level of the river basins and regions” and that
“regional plans shall be subject to river basin plans and special plans shall be subject
to the comprehensive plan in the river basins.” These definitions raise a question
about the relationship between the water pollution plan, the water resources protection plan, and the water disasters plan. Generally, the water resources protection
plan includes water pollution considerations. However, with two laws addressing
this issue, it is difficult to decide which law should take priority. Equally, Article
34 of the 2016 Water Law and Articles 63–69 of the 2017 Water Pollution Control
Law define a drinking water source protection zone, which might result in an overlap
in responsibilities between MWR and MEE. These overlaps and conflicts resulting
from the interests of the different institutions are not legally dealt with properly.
An additional problem is the lack of coherence between the different laws and the
corresponding decrees and regulations. Many decrees and regulations are formulated
to support the implementation of laws, but many water quality management decrees
and regulations have not been elaborated, although some laws have been in place for
more than 20 years, such as those related to the pollutant discharge permits. Without
systematic legally binding decrees and regulations, it is difficult to implement any
legal action related to water quality management.
9 Water Quality Management
Quality Regulation by the MOHURD; the 2017 Pollutant Discharge Permit Management Methods (temporary) by MEE; the 1999 Environmental Standard Management
Method by the SEPA; and the 1989 Management Regulation on Pollution Control
in Drinking Water Sources Protection Zone by SEPA, the Ministry of Health, the
Ministry of Construction, MWR, and the Ministry of Mineral Resources.
The legal framework for water quality management in China can be divided into
three groups: those for the protection of water bodies, wastewater discharge management, and drinking water sources protection. Based on these groups, legislation has
aimed at developing a framework to solve cross-cutting issues, such as the relation
between discharges and water bodies, river basins and jurisdiction, WAD and EPAD,
and so on.
In spite of these efforts, the current legislation faces problems related to overlapping between functions and responsibilities and a frequent lack of coherence between
them (Li and Cai 2011). For example, all the laws mentioned previously have been
approved by the Standing Committee of the NPC, and all of them have the same level
of power and importance. For example, there is some overlap between the 2016 Water
Law and the Water Pollution Control Law. Article 16 of the 2017 Water Pollution
Control Law establishes that “the water pollution control shall be planned at the river
basin or region levels,” while Articles 14 and 15 of the 2016 Water Law state that
“development, use, conservation and protection of water resources and control of
water disasters shall be planned at the level of the river basins and regions” and that
“regional plans shall be subject to river basin plans and special plans shall be subject
to the comprehensive plan in the river basins.” These definitions raise a question
about the relationship between the water pollution plan, the water resources protection plan, and the water disasters plan. Generally, the water resources protection
plan includes water pollution considerations. However, with two laws addressing
this issue, it is difficult to decide which law should take priority. Equally, Article
34 of the 2016 Water Law and Articles 63–69 of the 2017 Water Pollution Control
Law define a drinking water source protection zone, which might result in an overlap
in responsibilities between MWR and MEE. These overlaps and conflicts resulting
from the interests of the different institutions are not legally dealt with properly.
An additional problem is the lack of coherence between the different laws and the
corresponding decrees and regulations. Many decrees and regulations are formulated
to support the implementation of laws, but many water quality management decrees
and regulations have not been elaborated, although some laws have been in place for
more than 20 years, such as those related to the pollutant discharge permits. Without
systematic legally binding decrees and regulations, it is difficult to implement any
legal action related to water quality management.