A proposal by the ROC Environmental Protection Administration to alter drinking water source protection zones was turned down by the Environmental Policy Assessment Committee June 13 in Taipei City.
Committee members said their preliminary rejection was based partly on a lack of clarity. They pointed out that while the EPA’s report to the meeting referred several times to reducing the size of such areas, the proposal itself does not plainly lay out how they would be changed through downsizing, abolition, expansion or the creation of new zones.
No changes should be made to existing designations, they concluded. They also asked for additional information on the effects of natural disasters on water protection areas and their classification.
Liu Yi-chang, a committee member and archeologist, said, “The boundaries of drinking water quality protection areas should be considered from the perspective of overall national land use planning, and should not be subject to change without comprehensive review.”
The Taiwan Water Resources Protection Union said the policy, if approved, would lead to deteriorating water quality in rivers and open the door to inappropriate construction projects. It urged the EPA to withdraw the proposal.
According to the union, the Ministry of Economic Affairs designated tap water quality and quantity protection zones during the 1970s, within which the EPA further allotted smaller drinking water source protection areas in 1998.
The EPA classified tap water protection zones as subject to regulation by Type II Groundwater Pollution Control Standards, with drinking water protection areas governed by stricter Type I standards.
Along southern Taiwan’s Gaoping River, a major municipal water source, for example, the MOEA zone measures 289,600 hectares, while the EPA designation for drinking water source protection covers only 175,450 hectares, according to Jennifer Nien, director of the union.
“We suspect the secondary labeling has contributed to the drop of water quality in the river in recent years,” Nien said.
In addition to negative repercussions for the environment and public health, the group said, the proposal to downsize the drinking water source protection areas would likely become a legal excuse for local authorities to approve development projects in areas where they are not allowed under current regulations.
The EPA said that the committee’s conclusions are only advisory, and will be sent to a higher level environmental impact assessment committee that has the authority to approve or reject the proposal.
