Interview of the Deputy Director for Property and Land Relations, Economics of Natural Resource Use of the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the Russian Federation V.V. Gavrilov "A LAW ON THE WATER", Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 06.04.2006 г., с. 1, 5

2006-04-06

A LAW ON THE WATER

Yesterday the State Duma passed the Water Code of Russia

Tatiana Smolyakova

Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 06.04.2006, с. 1, 5

Deputy Director for Property and Land Relations, Economics of Natural Resource Use of the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the Russian Federation, Vsevolod Gavrilov, commented on the Water Code, passed by the State Duma in the third reading.

Yesterday the State Duma passed in the third and final reading the Water Code. Painful disputes on who would now own water bodies are over.

Will barbed fences appear around lakes? Will fishing be paid-only? One of the authors of the new Code, Deputy Director for Property and Land Relations, Economics of Natural Resource Use of the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Russian Federation, Vsevolod Gavrilov, dispels rumours and speculations regarding the Code.

Rossiyskaya Gazeta: Vsevolod Valerianovich, the most painful question - will private ownership of water bodies be introduced?

Vsevolod Gavrilov: The redrafted Water Code by no means has changed current regulation. It has only eliminated conflict which existed since 2000. According to the Land Code, owner of a land plot had the right to make a pond on it. But according to the Water Code, such pond would be federal property.

RG: But what if a pond already exists and a person wants to privatize it?

Gavrilov: As of today, if this pond is located on a single land plot, according to one Code, it was a part of this plot, according to another,  it wasn't. We have only eliminated this contradiction. If the pond is situated, for example, in a public place, its privatization is flatly prohibited. It's incorrect to put a question about privatization.

RG: While everybody puts precisely this question.

Gavrilov: Because they don't read the law carefully. Water relations are by no means connected with privatization. It's impossible to buy a pond without a land plot where it is situated. Pond follows the fate of the land plot.

RG: So what water bodies could be privatized together with land plots? I would like to buy a land plot with a water body on it. Can I do this?

Gavrilov: No. Because water body is a federal property.

You could buy a pond situated within boundaries of one land plot. I stress your attention, we are not talking about actually buying the pond, we are talking about normal sales of land plots where ponds are situated.

RG: However, I have bought a land plot with a water body. Do I have a right to put a fence around it and not to let anyone inside?

Gavrilov: Land Code has defined your obligations that should be fulfilled regardless of the fact that there is a pond on the plot. For example, you have to let there people performing mineral exploration or geodesic activities. As for the common people, neighbours, you had the right not to let anyone on your land even before the new Code was adopted. 

If this land plot is a part of a public place, its privatization is prohibited.

RG: I have found in Moscow region one very nice pit far from any settlements. It's very popular among fishermen at the moment. If I buy a land plot with this pit, can I put a barbed fence around it and give all fishermen the fluff?

Gavrilov: If people like to spend time at this pit and to fish there, local authorities should declare this place a recreation zone, public zone. It would totally eliminate the problem, as such plot can't be sold. If local authorities for some reasons declared this land free for sale, nobody prevented it from being sold even before.

RG: And what if local authorities don?t have funds to take care of water bodies, clean them and decide simply to sell them out?

Gavrilov: Why necessarily to sell out? They could conclude a water use agreement and keep the water body in municipal ownership while providing opportunity to develop and maintain it. No problems. And in such case water body stays public, anyone can come there for recreation.

RG: What other key issues does the new Code introduce?

Gavrilov: First of all ? delimitation of ownership. All natural water bodies are the federal property. While man-made water bodies (ponds, flooded open pits) follow the fate of the land plot in which boundaries they are entirely located. That means such bodies could be either federal, or RF subject, or municipal or private property. Thus we have put an end to the conflict between the Land Code that allowed making ponds and another Code declaring all water bodies federal property.

Second. The Code delimits the powers between the Russian Federation and its subjects and local authorities are granted wider powers.

RG: How are the powers delimited?

Gavrilov: Regulatory powers are mostly concentrated on the federal level. The major part of executive powers are transferred to subjects. But they are not transferred entirely. Russian Federation sets pretty tough control over realization of those powers. There is even a procedure of powers- withdrawal if they are misused.

Municipal authorities, first of all, municipal districts, are granted new powers to regulate water usage for personal and household needs.

RG: Does it apply to any water body?

Gavrilov: It could be both water body as a whole, or its part, situated on the territory of this entity.

The next important issue - public regulation norms are put in order. For instance, Code directly defines norms regarding such sensitive issues, as water conservation zones and their usage.

RG: So water conservation zones still exist, don't they? There was an idea to eliminate them at all.

Gavrilov: Yes, they do. However, legislation in power allows specifying water conservation zones modes and their boundaries. While new Code defines them by imperative requirements.

In other words, size is clearly stated as well as what is allowed to do there and what is not. In order to avoid double meaning. It is obvious that situation, where water conservation zone exists, differs from where it doesn't. Now those zones are automatically declared everywhere.

RG: So, you provide Mr. Mitvol with carte blanche, and he continues to knock cottages down on the banks even more furiously?

Gavrilov: No, it wouldn't be like that. The thing is that objects could be built within water conservation zones even now, but on special permission.

We kept requirements fulfillment. As it would have been incorrect, environmentally unfriendly to withdraw them. However, we have taken special decisions out of the Code. Now all parties are obliged to fulfill those requirements, and possibility of voluntary decision - whether to allow construction or not - is eliminated.

RG: So, construction is allowed, except hazardous objects, such as repositories, on condition that strict ecological requirements are met?

Gavrilov: Yes... which are defined by the environmental law.