Advances in Water Resource and Protection (AWRP) Volume 2, 2014 www.seipub.org/awrp
A Comparative Study of Drinking Source Water Protection Management System Li Ye1, Bian Hongfeng*2, Chen Hongshan3, Feng Jiang4 State Environmental Protection Key Laboratory of Wetland Ecology and Vegetation Restoration, School of Environment Northeast Normal University, Changchun ,130117, China 1,2,3,4
liy570@nenu.edu.cn; 2*bianhf108@nenu.edu.cn; 3 chenhs161@nenu.edu.cn; 4fengj@nenu.edu.cn
1
Abstract Source water protection (SWP) is the first protective barrier for the safety of potable water that ensures cost‐effective subsequent treatment process and lowers the implementation difficulty. There is a big gap of SWP and management among different countries. This paper suggests that building optimal model based on diversified protection targets can meet the needs of various regional characteristics, and also can provide a better understanding of SWP. Keywords Source Water Protection; Management ;Difference; Integrate
Introduction The potable water safety has a bearing on the human health and long‐term development. There are one ‐five people in the risk of the water shortage problems, and 300‐400 million are dying from contaminated water annually all round the world (Chen, X., 2010). The containment of the source water pollution is imminent. Source water protection is crucial for the entire water supply chain, which is the key of water security. Multi‐country’s practical experience shown working to optimize the source problem is more efficient than to rehabilitate, it should be paid close attention to protecting source water during drinking‐water management. Concerning the legislative, institutional and policy system, the application of technology, professional guidance and education, it is necessary to protect source water from multi‐factor, multi‐angle and multi‐ target, Which can prudently propel management decisions so as to ensure the feasibility and effectiveness on operation of the project. In the last century, it has accumulated lots of experiences in the development of water conservation in the US, Japan, Australia, China and some European countries. This paper presents a result of comparative analysis on potable water source in maintenance and management so as to get new ideas to develop the framework and
adjustment measures. TABLE 1 ABOUT WATER CONSERVATION LAWS REGULATIONS
coun‐ try
laws and regulations
coun‐ try
Water act Water Management Act Groundwater source protection zone ordinance Germ‐ 1994 Japan any Reservoir water source protection zones Regulations Water source protection zones Regulations 1975 Safe Drinking Water Act1974 Clean Water Act 2006 The State of emergency law China U.S. The federal water pollution control act amendment1972 Drinking water safety law amendments1996
Can‐ ada EU
laws and regulations River Act Water Pollution Control Act Water Resources Development Promotion Law Water Resources Development Public Corporation Act Water Pollution Control Act Water act Environmental Protection Law Soil and Water Conservation Act Water Pollution Control Act Urban water management regulations
Safe Drinking Water Act Water and pollution Singa‐ Water pollution control system sustainable pore and drainage development method Drinking Water Directive
Laws and Regulations Legislation of SWP is extremely important for human activities, zoning division, potable water quality standards, exploitation and legal responsibilities. There are a few countries with special legislation in protecting source water, and only a small part out of the SWP terms. By comprising the existing laws and regulations, we found many differences among countries in emphasis on source water conservation. (Table 1 lists relative laws and regulations (Wang, R, 2012; Hou, J., 2009; Xu, Q, X., 2003). Facing serious source water pollution and water crisis, we need to innovate new event‐driven policies to deal
75
www.seipub.org/awrp Advances in Water Resource and Protection (AWRP) Volume 2, 2014
with the new crisis. There are many successful mature international typical examples which could be assimilated and transformed, including U.S. primary legislation on SWP, Japanʹs stringent water quality standards and monitoring systems, as well as management of source water pollution control in Singapore, regional legislative protection of source water in Germany. It is necessary to emphasize potable water monitoring, emergency warning systems, water disputes and public participation (Hou, J. et al, 2009) in the legislative process.
Australia are epitomizing such management type, but the federal government has not set up a special agency to manage water resources in Canada, where water management authority was delegated to most provinces (Wang, C, F., 2010). Catchment management is operated better in Canada and some EU countries (Germany, Britain, the Netherlands, etc.) (Che, Y. et al., 2007).
Organizational Types
Patten of organization
Governments set up administrative organization accor ding to legislative authority, including three types wit h different degree of centralized management structur e: government‐driven approach, participation approac h and cooperation approach. Government‐driven Approach Government‐driven approach is defined by the centralized organization of government involvement at all levels of decision‐making, management of SWP planning and implementation, as well as formulating concrete measures. This management approach is practiced in highly centralized states, or countries. In general, China and Japan are both in this organizational type. Japan maintains a combination of coordinative centralized and the sub‐sector administrative management model in SWP (Lan, N., 2007). Significant issues concerning SWP are directly controlled by the Prime Minister in Japan, including environmental management authority concentrated in unified leadership (Wang, C, F., 2010). National Land Agency can control the watershed planning, however, just ask other departments for advice. Currently, in China, central administration directly makes plans on the comprehensive water management, no particular laws for potable water source management system, but the provision of ʺWater Lawʺ, ʺWater Pollution Prevention Lawʺ and other regulations already established the frame ʺintegrated watershed management of water environmentʺ. While Japan also focuses on the combination of management and administrative in watershed management. Participation Approach Participation approach means central government departments can make all decisions of water management while introducing the local stakeholders to participate in decision‐making. Canada and
76
Cooperation Approach TABLE 2 COUNTRIES ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF WATER SOURCES
Government Cooperation ‐driven Participation approach approach approach A certain degree of Unified decentralization leads decisions more stakeholders and planning Various involved in SWP work, by the stakeholders and has part national fully advantages from authority participated in cooperation approach organization SWP Advantage and government‐ targeted and management driven approaches highly process, be (accept opinions of all efficient tailored to local parties to a certain easy to conditions, high extent, concerning manage, and operability. local characteristics High planning decisions consistency with operability, etc.) Decentralization thorough, did not participate Highly and in local decision‐ unified making, lack of planning technical decisions support. considers the Not fully Different social lack of local decentralization in groups make a Drawback information, place, face the kind of reasonable which is management formation of difficult to fit constraints in SWP. consensus local extremely conditions, difficult and operability usually lead to a weak. waste of time, resources and money. Typical The U.S., China, Japan Canada, EU counties example Australia
This organization type co‐develops planning and decision‐making process among local governments, communities, non‐governmental organizations (NGO) participation. Emphasizing the importance of cooperation among local government and residents, also allows stakeholders to participate in SWP management process in the U.S. and Australia (Yu, X, B., 2003). Admittedly, long‐term SWP manage‐ment
Advances in Water Resource and Protection (AWRP) Volume 2, 2014 www.seipub.org/awrp
can not separate from national development planning (Tai, K, D, M., 2011). A robust leadership requires comprehensive consideration of crosscutting areas (Head, 2013). According to the national SWP strategies, decentralizing power to basic departments brings more advantages and effects. Non‐profit organization management plays a vital role in paying attention to a wide range of crisis in New York (Xu, Q, X., et al, 2003)and German areas, (Zhang, J. et al., 2005), then supervised by the national committee and the public together. In this system, all the supervisors must reach a consensus on suggestion of exchange and planning cooperation. Table 2 lists the characteristics of these three types of organizational structure (Wei, X, H., 2009; Che, Y., 2007): Institutions and Managed Collaboration To achieve a healthy function of management system of organization, reasonable institutional settings (size, internal settings), departmental cooperation (e.g. lateral negotiations at the same level, and vertical communication within the department) and conscientiousness with each responsibility is necessary. No single system can either complete the process or ensure effective SWP management. (Daniel I. Jalba et al., 2009; OʹConnor, 2002; Davison et al, 2005). District integrate Watershed Management Unreasonable institutional settings cannot facilitate effective departmental co‐operation (directly or indirectly). As stipulated in the clause 12 of the term of new water law, water resources management for river basin which integrates district controlment is the China Water Management System while district management is predominated in these years (Lan, N., 2013). Watershed management institutions and administrative bodies have function overlaps or gaps in some regions. For example: set Valley Authority and Hydrological Bureau in the same place with same functions; the Ministry of Environmental Protection and the Ministry of Water Resourcesʹ Co‐leader results in discord coordination in Huai River pollution problems for 10 years (Ji, P, C. et al, 2009).The problem involves scattered institutional settings; decentralized water management agency unit; and water quality and quantity management split. Water quality separating from land use agencies leads to increased difficulties in integrated management of coordination in Alberta, Canada (J. L. Ivey et al, 2006).
Centralized Coordination and Sub‐sector Management The government‐ driven approach like the Japanese‐‐ coordinated and centralized management, sub‐sectors is fiercely competitive. Based on the different application of water such as residential water, industrial water, agriculture and forestry, water and flood control construction were undertaken by four departments under the coordination of the National Land Agency, which has expressed provision about the responsibilities, reduced the nature and life waste and also saved funds to some extent. The Water Resources should take seamless cooperation with other departments. Especially in the regulatory processing, similar situation also exists in some regions of Canada, Australia, the U.S. and the U.K. The problem between the communication and collaboration departments gradually be exposed, for instance, without obligation which cannot be given at the risk of timely response. On the contrary, the lack of a clear mandate (partial decentralization) will cause local government’s movements being restricted despite of responsibility. When the pollution incidents happen, local unilateral action could not inform regulators in time. Ineffective cooperation among the various departments and the deficient precautions might worsen the urgency situation when the danger is confirmed. Departments have not prior agreement or contradiction, uncompromising. Ignoring the rights and duties, administrative department only expects others to solve the problem, while neglecting the action limit which is the key to the process of potable water (Daniel I. Jalba et al, 2009). Conclusion SWP relates to human life and health, which should be conformed to the philosophy of preventative, social entirety and balance in maintenance process. However, how to start simultaneously from the management, technology and awareness in the three aspects, and seek for the optimal management mode of potable water sources in line with the local characteristics still need further exploration. Insisting on improving legislative blind spots both with coordination and organization of the division, besides, to give full play to the advantages on each type of organization, sharing their experience in SWP planning and management based on local conditions, which help to offer creative ideas renewing urban policies and
77
www.seipub.org/awrp Advances in Water Resource and Protection (AWRP) Volume 2, 2014
planning ways according to new policy strategies. In particular, we emphasize that SWP management is essential for understanding and maintaining drinking water services and deserves a further exploration.
legal system.ʺ Journal of Wuhan Technical College of Communications 2(2007): 41‐45. Lan, N., ”Refer the Legislation of Underground Drinking Water protection in America and France to Study
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Countermeasures of Underground Drinking Water
This work was supported by Major Science and Technology Program for Water Pollution Control and Treatment of China (grant no.2014ZX07201‐011).
Protection in China”.
O’Connor, D.R., ”Report of the Walkerton Inquiry 2: A
Che, Y,. Wu, A, N,. and Yang,K, ʺStrategies and inspiration of drinking water source protection in Canada.ʺ China Water & Wastewater, 23.8 (2007): 19‐22.
Strategy for Safe Drinking Water.“ Ministry of the Attorney Genera, Toronto. 2002. Tai, K, D, M.and Sheng, Y, M., ”Japan Water Management
Chen, X.”Study on protection and management of drinking water in city.” PhD diss., China University Geosciences, 2010.5.
Framework.” Express Water Resources & Hydropower Information,4(2011):29‐32. Wang,R.,Wang,Y.,Tang De‐wang, ”Research on Standards
Daniel I. Jalba et al,” Safe drinking water: Critical components of effective inter‐agency relationships.” Environment International 36 (2010):51–59.
for Drinking Water Sources Protection at Home and Abroad”, China Standardization,8(2012):105‐110. Wang, C, F., ʺForeign legislative experience to protect
Davison, A.et al. ”Water Safety Plans: Managing Drinking‐ Water Quality From Catchment To Consumer.” WHO, Geneva.2005.
drinking water sources.ʺEvironmental Potection 12(2010): 65‐66. Wei, X, H., Sun, G., ”Watershed ecosystem processes and
”Legal
system
for
drinking water source protection in China”, Water Resources Protection,25(2009):79‐85. J.L.Ivey, R.de Loë, Kreutzwiser, C. and Ferreyra, ”An institutional perspective on local capacity for source water protection.” Geoforum,37(2006):944‐957. Ji, P, C., and Sun, C, X., ”Institutional mechanisms for water pollution prevention and control research”M, Intellectual property publishing house ,2009.10. Lan, N., ʺSino‐Japanese drinking water source protection management system and comparative analysis of the
78
drinking water source in China.ʺ Science and technological management of resource. 30(2013):123‐129.
REFERENCES
Hou,J.,Wang,C.,Lan,L.,Wan,L,M.,
Lan, N.,and Liu, Y, L., ʺManagement system reform of
management”, Higher Education Press, 2009. Xu, Q, X., Che, Y. and Yang, K., “Comparative study on area of water source management system,” Shanghai environment science.7 (2003):487‐490. Yu, X, B.,”The Lessons Learned from River Basin Management of Murray‐Darling Basin Australia,” Jiang xi Science,9(2003):151‐155. Zhang, J. Wu, P., and Tian, Y, P. ʺEnvironment protection of regional and valley water bodies in Germany.ʺ Environmental science and technology.28.4 (2005):66‐68.