River basin coordinating committee or council-model

This model is based on the assumptions, that (1) the existing agencies within the river basin are operating effectively, (2) most of the important data networks are in place and good quality data and information is being generated, (3) most of the high priority water projects have been constructed, (4) competition for resource use between the states or provinces in the basin and the major uses within each of these has been resolved.

The committee monitors the overall management of the basin through the assessment of sustainable resource use and allocation, and would also monitor the performance of operating agencies to ensure compliance with basin policies and strategies, but doesn’t intervene in any day-to-day operational and management matters.

This model requires the goodwill of all the participating administrations, since the committee has got no real forcing power to direct the activities and actions of members.

VI.2. River basin commission-model:

This arrangement usually established, (1) when significant development options are still to be considered in the river basin, (2) where conflicting water uses are significant, (3) where information and policies still need further development to ensure equitable sharing of resources and to limit the harmful impacts of resource use, (4) when water resource planning and management practices are not well detailed, (5) where simulation models, systems and the underlying data and information are not readily available, or need further development.

Frequently, one of the commission’s duties is to arbitrate transjurisdictional or transboundary disputes. Decisions could be binding, depending on the legal authority of the commission and the legal system of the particular country.

73 World Bank: Integrated River Basin Management - An Introduction to Integrated River Basin Management,

Briefing Note 1, February 2006

(http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/965371468340137430/pdf/411500Intro0to1mgmt0NOTE1101PUB LIC1.pdf)

74 World Bank: Integrated River Basin Management, ibid. p. 3.

75 More other models can be developed to include features of this three categories, but this is uncommon.

This model needs good coordination and planning across the whole basin and to further develop the tools, systems, and models to synchronize the systems in use across all the organizations. A basin commission would normally be a much more formally constituted body than the committee or council model. It would be comprised of a board of management or group of commissioners who set objectives, goals, policy, and strategic direction.

VI.3. River basin authority-model:

This model usually takes in one of two sub-forms:

It may be a large, multi-disciplinary organization with specific development tasks to undertake, such as hydropower development or navigation. These tasks tend to be large and complex and are likely to continue over many years.

Alternatively, the authority may be an organization that absorbs virtually all the water resources functions of other agencies in the basin, rendering it very large and powerful.

Regulation, operations, and resource management functions (though kept disparate) usually all fall within its purview.

The river basin authority model generally was more common in the past, and at present there, where more large-scale development of water resources systems for urban, industrial, or agricultural expansion are located.

The authorities resembled large private companies. They were usually constituted by a specific law or regulation at national level, which gave the authority significant power and the right to takeover all or part of the functions of existing agencies operating in the basin.

VI.4. About water services management models in the EU Member Sates:⁷⁶

Water services are services of general (economic) interest. They are regulated at EU

and national levels. The Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the so called water industry directives (the Drinking Water Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive and the Bathing Water Directive) govern the environmental and health standards at EU level and are implemented in national legislation.

The organisation of water services (the choice of the management model) is subject to subsidiarity (Protocol 26 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) and

it is a competence of Member States. The EU institutions are neutral in regard to the choice of management models.

The model of water services are organised is the result of historical and cultural factors that reflect the diversity of European countries. As a way of simplification, four management models may be distinguished within the member states:

76More about is (example): The governance of water services in Europe: Report of the European Federation of National Associations of Water Services (EurEau), Brussels, Belgium, 21 March 2018 - EurEau is the European federation of national water services and represents national drinking and waste water service providers from 29 countries, from both the private and the public sectors. (http://www.eureau.org/resources/publications/150-report-on-the-governance-of-water-services-in-europe/file)

Direct public management:

The responsible public entity is entirely in charge of service provision and their management.

In the past, this system was predominant in Europe.

Delegated public management:

A management entity is appointed by the responsible public entity to execute the management tasks. Management entities usually remain the ownership of the public sector, although in the EU, in some cases, there is the possibility of a minor private shareholding.

Delegated private management:

The responsible public entity appoints a private company to manage tasks, on the basis of a time-bound contract in the form of lease or concession contract. In the countries where this type of management is common, municipalities subcontract their duties to private companies. The ownership of the infrastructure remains in the hands of public authorities.

Direct private management:

All management tasks, responsibilities and ownership of water utilities are placed in the hands of private operators, while public entities limit their activities to control and regulation. (This system is in place in very few European countries (England, Wales, and the Czech Republic).

In the majority of countries there is a mix of the first three models (direct public management, delegated public management and delegated private management), with a general trend, compared to 20 years ago, towards public and private delegated management.

Apart from the general cases of England and Wales and specific cases in the Czech Republic, the ownership of water infrastructure across Europe is public.

Public authorities are also in charge of approving the tariffs, determining the quality of service as well as setting and enforcing the environmental and health standards. Water tariffs contribute to recovering the costs almost everywhere in Europe.

The monitoring of the quality of drinking water is generally entrusted to health authorities (Ministry of Health and their regional/local bodies). The protection of water resources and the setting of environmental standards are usually the competence of the Ministry of the Environment and/or River Basin authorities and/or regional authorities as well as national environmental agencies.

VI.5. About water management tasks and methods

There are several water management tasks and methods available in the world, and these are being honed all the time as scientists and engineers find new ways to look after the water supplies.

The next water management tasks and methodes exist widely today (brief summary):

Waste water systems – recycling and treating Irrigation systems

Conserving water

Caring for the natural water supplies

Effective implementation of plans and project (e.g. ensuring acceptable needs for water, minimalize ecological damage, reduce flood risk)

To control actions of remedying of environmental damage Assessment, reduce and management of flood risks International cooperation

Monitoring, data collection and evalution

VI.6. About water authorities:

The water authorities operating according to the water basin district basis (catchment and sub-catchment basins, dyke rings, pumping and storage areas, etc.) As a consequence they do not usually correspond with municipal or provincial borders.

As regional water authorities, are functional decentralised government institutions, with tasks exclusively in the field of water management: managing water defences, quantity and quality, and navigable waterways.

As authorities they excercise the state enforcing power (e.g. approving, supervision, monitoring, imposing penalty, control environmental impact assessement and actions of remedying of environmental damage).

They are usually under the professional control of the competence of the Ministry of the Environment and/or of the Ministry of River Basin in cooperation with to water related local, regional as well as national authorities or bodies (e.g. environmental agencies).

CHAPTER VII

PREVENTION, DAMAGE CONTROL AND REMEDYING OF ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE - AS PART OF WATER LAW⁷⁷

Environmental remediation deals with the removal of pollution or contaminants from environmental media such as groundwater or surface water (and other environmental media, e.g. soil, sediment…).

There are several environmental liability models, liability management methods available in the world. In the following chapter we present the European Union’s continental law model and additional some information on the USA common law liability regime.⁷⁸

VII.1. The European Union’s continental law model

This liability regime has few in common with standard civil liability rules: For instance, it does not give private parties a right of compensation as a consequence of environmental damage or of an imminent threat of such damage occuring.

The sytem owns a specific approach and it is shown by the role given to competent authorities to be designated by states. These competent authorities will ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of the liability rules and will also safeguard the legitimate interests of the relevant operators and other interested parties. (The authorities will, for instance, be in charge of specific tasks such as assessing the significance of the damage and determining which remedial measures should be taken - in co-operation with the liable operator).

The EU Environmental liability regime is a framework of environmental liability, based on the polluter-pays" principle, to prevent and remedy environmental damage.

The liability regime aims at ensuring that the financial consequences of certain types of harm caused to the environment will be borne by the economic operator who caused this harm:

The system requires:

o the operator to take the necessary remedial measures to achieve the baseline conditions, where baseline condition means the condition at the time of the damage of the natural resources and services that would have existed had the environmental damage not occurred, estimated on the basis of the best information available

and

77 See also: Chapter on The legal framework of the European Union on water

For reading: Stephen J. Vasek Jr.: International Environmental Damage Control: Some Proposals for the Second Best of All Possible Worlds, University of Kentucky College of Law, University of Kentucky, 1971., (https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1246

&context=law_facpub)

78 Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage

o the operator shall bear the costs for the preventive and remedial actions taken pursuant to the requirements

Related to the definition:

Operator means any natural or legal, private or public person who operates or controls the damaging occupational activity or, where this is provided for in national legislation, to whom decisive economic power over the technical functioning of such an activity has been elegated, including the holder of a permit or authorisation for such an activity or the person registering or notifying such an activity.

Recovery (including natural recovery) means, in the case of water, protected species and natural habitats the return of damaged natural resources and/or impaired services to baseline condition and in the case of land damage, the elimination of any significant risk of adversely affecting human health.

Services and natural resources services mean the functions performed by a natural resource for the benefit of another natural resource or the public.

VII.2. The types of remediation actions

Remedying of environmental damage, in relation to water or protected species or natural habitats, is achieved through the restoration of the environment to its baseline condition by way of primary, complementary and compensatory remediation, where:

Primary remediation is any remedial measure which returns the damaged natural resources and/or impaired services to, or towards, baseline condition.

Complementary remediation is any remedial measure taken in relation to natural resources and/or services to compensate for the fact that primary remediation does not result in fully restoring the damaged natural resources and/or services.

Compensatory remediation is any action taken to compensate for interim losses of natural resources and/or services that occur from the date of damage occurring until primary remediation has achieved its full effect.

VII.3. The types of environmental damage

There are three categories of environmental damage:

o damage to protected species and natural habitats, which is any damage that has significant adverse effects on reaching or maintaining the favourable conservation status of such habitats or species

o water damage, which is any damage that significantly adversely affects the ecological, chemical and/or quantitative status and/or ecological potential

o land damage, which is any land contamination that creates a significant risk of human health

VII.4. About the terms of water damage:

Water damage is any damage that significantly adversely affects: (1) the ecological, chemical or quantitative status or the ecological potential, or (2) the environmental status of the marine waters concerned.

The EU regulation provides rules for two liability „sub”-regimes:

Operators of certain activities deemed to be of actual or potential concern can be be held liable in the event of damage to protected species and natural habitats, water damage and land damage.

Among the activities concerned, one shall find large industrial installations (such as waste management operations, certain installations releasing polluting substances into air, installations discharging polluting substances into water, manufacture, use, storage, processing, filling those release into the environment dangerous substances and preparations, contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms and deliberate release into the environment…) The EU liability regime does not require, that fault or negligence of liability should be established on the side of the operator.

VII.5. About the fields of responsibility:

1.

This liability system doesn’t not cover environmental damage or imminent threat caused by:

o act of armed conflict, hostilities, civil war or insurrection

o natural phenomenon of exceptional, inevitable and irresistible character o nuclear risks

o national defence activities

o incidents (such as oil pollution by sea-going ships - in respect of which liability or compensation falls within the scope of certain international conventions)

2.

Exceptions to the general rules of the operator to bear the cost of remedial actions:

A)

The operator shall not be required to bear the cost of preventive or remedial actions taken pursuant to the rules of the liability regime when he can prove that the environmental damage or imminent threat of such damage:

o was caused by a third party and occured despite the fact that appropriate safety measures were in place – or -

o resulted from compliance with a compulsory order or instruction emanating from a public authority other than an order or instruction consequent upon an emission or incident caused by the operator's own activities

B)

The EU Member States may allow the operator not to bear the cost of remedial actions taken pursuant to this Directive where he demonstrates that he was not at fault or negligent and that the environmental damage was caused by:

o an emission or event expressly authorised by, and fully in accordance with the conditions of, an authorisation conferred by or given under applicable national laws and regulations – or -

o an emission or activity or any manner of using a product in the course of an activity which the operator demonstrates was not considered likely to cause environmental damage according to the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time when the emission was released or the activity took place

VII.6. The enforcement of the financial responsibility of the operator:

The direct way:

The operator pays for the measures he takes himself or he entrusts a specialised undertaking to take them on his behalf.

The indirect way:

Where a competent authority has acted (itself or through a specialised undertaking) in the place of the liable operator, that authority shall recover the costs it has incurred from the operator.

Financial security:

The EU liability system requires Member States to take measures to encourage the development of financial security instruments and markets with the aim of enabling operators to use financial guarantees to cover their responsibilities.

In the case of transboundary damage:

Where environmental damage affects or is likely to affect several Member States, those Member States shall cooperate, including through the appropriate exchange of information, with a view to ensuring that preventive action and, where necessary, remedial action is taken in respect of any such environmental damage.

CHAPTER VIII

THE COMMON LAW LIABILITY REGIME IN THE USA:⁷⁹

In the USA there is no generalised regime for environmental damages. Statutes, regulations and common law can impose various types of liability, including administrative, civil and criminal.

Based on case law system, the courts establish precedents for liability in cases arising under various environmental laws. Alleged violators may face government administrative actions, civil suits or citizen suits. Only the government can prosecute criminal liability in court.

The government generally follows the principle of proportional enforcement: Minor offences may trigger administrative or civil sanctions; more serious and intentional violations trigger more severe sanctions or even criminal charges. The government’s burden of proof is highest in criminal cases.

Some programmes also impose strict liability based on party status. For example, for remediation and cost recovery for contaminated sites, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act imposes joint and several liability on each potentially responsible party, including current or former owners or operators, transporters or arrangers who disposed of hazardous substances, in absence of sufficient evidence to apportion the harm among potentially responsible parties or in absence of other applicable defences to liability.

Separately, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act authorises the government or private parties to seek relief in the situation of imminent and substantial endangerment to the environment.

Generally there is no routine of environmental violations according to the personal liability of directors and officers for company environmental offences. However, some federal environmental statutes, including the Clean Air Act state that an operator or responsible corporate officer can include any person who is senior management personnel or a corporate officer. In addition, a number of reports submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency and state agencies are required to include formal certifications (under oath) with regard to the accuracy of the information contained therein, which can provide the basis for claims against corporate officers.

More often, based on various legally accepted reasons the internal governance of corporations and other business enterprises can support personal liability of corporate directors and officers under environmental and other public health laws – for example:

 The corporate veil is not valid;

 The director or officer personally participated in the improper activity; or

 The director or officer personally exercised substantial control and supervision over the project.

79 More: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=dc8c9201-b89e-4c55-abff-ede59090517f

In document WATER LAW INTRODUCTION (Pldal 44-0)