A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Legal Considerations of the 2001 National Hydrological Plan
One of the most important aspects of the 1985 Water Act, (new 2001 text) was that it established that all action to be taken affecting water is subject to hydrological planning. The difficulty involved in editing this type of plan is evident from the fact that, although it is a key part of the system, there has been none for twenty years. Finally, Parliament approved the National Hydrological Plan in Law 10/2001, dated July 5. It is thus that we have to demystify this utopia known as the NHP. But neither should the Plan be conceived as a “dicktat” compulsory for all, based on its supposed technical virtues because it is not solely a technical study, but as a social pact requiring social debate and convincing support. And the best way for the Plan not to be a “dicktat” is for it to be a participative plan. If this had been the case, besides improving the NHP text, there would have been greater consensus in its final approval. As it is, the NHP has been the source of major conflicts between the different communities involved, conflicts which continue even after the plan was approved. We consider that the NHP law has improved the text and that the references to further regulatory development initially detected in the Bill have been reduced; however, the NHP continues to contain no reference to important aspects of the Water Framework Directive (WFD).
Legal Considerations of the 2001 National Hydrological Plan
One of the most important aspects of the 1985 Water Act, (new 2001 text) was that it established that all action to be taken affecting water is subject to hydrological planning. The difficulty involved in editing this type of plan is evident from the fact that, although it is a key part of the system, there has been none for twenty years. Finally, Parliament approved the National Hydrological Plan in Law 10/2001, dated July 5. It is thus that we have to demystify this utopia known as the NHP. But neither should the Plan be conceived as a “dicktat” compulsory for all, based on its supposed technical virtues because it is not solely a technical study, but as a social pact requiring social debate and convincing support. And the best way for the Plan not to be a “dicktat” is for it to be a participative plan. If this had been the case, besides improving the NHP text, there would have been greater consensus in its final approval. As it is, the NHP has been the source of major conflicts between the different communities involved, conflicts which continue even after the plan was approved. We consider that the NHP law has improved the text and that the references to further regulatory development initially detected in the Bill have been reduced; however, the NHP continues to contain no reference to important aspects of the Water Framework Directive (WFD).
Legal Considerations of the 2001 National Hydrological Plan
Beceiro, Mónica Sastre (author)
Water International ; 28 ; 303-312
2003-09-01
10 pages
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
Unknown
Water Planning in Spain - Legal Considerations of the 2001 National Hydrological Plan
| Online Contents | 2003
Act 10-2001, of 5 July, concerning the national hydrological plan
| Online Contents | 2003
National Hydrological Plan moves forward
Online Contents | 1994
An assessment of the Spanish national hydrological plan
| Online Contents | 2003
The economic unsustainability of the Spanish national hydrological plan
| Online Contents | 2003