Law firm introduction More》
Beijing Yingtong Law Firm has focused on the protection of the rights and interests of private enterprises for many years. It has represented many corporate rights protection cases in the legal practice of rights protection in natural resources, mining, land, waters, territorial space, corporate equity, criminal defense, factory demolition, environmental protection shutdown, prohibition and vacation, etc., including large-scale real estate...
Law firm services
Law firm personnel More》
Visiting address More》
What should I do if my company is required to shut down after being included in the water source protection zone?
Home page >> Classic case >> environmental shutdown
Article author：Yingting Lawyers Group | Update time：2022-11-11 | Reading times：1464
After an enterprise is included in a water source protection zone and requires closure, how should we protect our rights? How should companies correctly protect their rights after illegal demolition? In the past few years, the protection of water source protection areas has been intensified, and some original enterprises in water source protection areas have faced problems such as closure and relocation. We have received many similar cases in recent times. As the environment has received more and more attention from everyone, many companies near water sources are also facing problems such as rectification or closure. Among these issues, the one that has attracted more attention is that if an enterprise needs to close down or relocate due to the upgrade of the water source protection zone or its inclusion in the protection zone, can it receive corresponding compensation? Let’s find out through specific cases.
Ling, a disabled person from a certain village, built floating rafts on a certain river section. They anchored them on the water for a long time and used them for fishing and leisure, providing food and accommodation, and operating income as a source of living. In September 2019, during an inspection by the staff of the County Water Conservancy Bureau, they found that the above-mentioned floating rafts were used for fishing, leisure and living on the water, and had no sewage facilities, which affected the water quality. They then conducted an inquiry and investigation on Ling, and notified Ling on the same day to dismantle it on his own and restore the river to its original state. In the same year, water conservancy experts from the County Water Conservancy Bureau identified the floating raft and believed that it was a structure that hindered flood discharge. On the same day, the County Water Conservancy Bureau filed the case and issued a "Decision to Demolish Water Structures within a Time Limit" and served it to Ling. Ling believed that his actions did not have any adverse impact on flood control and that the county water conservancy bureau's decision to demolish within a time limit was inappropriate, so he filed an administrative lawsuit with the court, requesting to revoke the decision to demolish within a time limit.
In the first instance, the County People's Court held that Ling's use of floating rafts to provide fishing and other services was an illegal interest, and the county Water Conservancy Bureau's decision to dismantle it had no impact on his legitimate interests, and ruled to reject Ling's lawsuit. Ling was dissatisfied and appealed.
During the second instance trial, the Municipal Intermediate People's Court focused its perspective on the livelihood issues of the needy people and the legality of administrative law enforcement. It conducted in-depth on-the-spot investigations, communicated and coordinated with multiple parties, and contacted the competent authorities of Ling's township to clarify that the administrative agencies had the responsibility for demolition compensation. At the same time, it pointed out the shortcomings of the county water conservancy bureau in the law enforcement process. And communicate with the county water conservancy bureau, township authorities, and county people's court. In the end, the county water conservancy bureau and the township authorities reached a mediation agreement with Ling, which substantively resolved the compensation issue for Ling. Later, Ling dismantled the floating raft involved in the case on his own, and withdrew the lawsuit and appealed to the court.
Pay close attention to people's livelihood and strive to promote administrative agencies to fundamentally solve the "worries" of the parties involved. An important content of the Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era is that we must adhere to the people-centered development concept, especially in administrative trials. While reviewing whether administrative actions are legal, we must also pay attention to people's livelihood issues.
In this case, although the floating raft involved in the case was unapproved and caused pollution to water resources, Ling's claim should not be supported legally, but considering that he is a disabled person and his main source of income is the floating raft fishing operation. If the people's court supports the administrative agency's decision to dismantle it within a time limit, the administrative agency will consider its law enforcement actions to be legal and may no longer consider the difficulties caused to Ling's life due to the dismantling of the raft; if the judgment is revoked on the grounds that the administrative law enforcement procedures are illegal, not only will it not be able to avoid the consequences that the raft involved in the case will eventually be dismantled, but it will intensify the conflict between Ling and the administrative agency. To this end, the Municipal Intermediate People's Court repeatedly convened Ling, the two-level competent authorities, and the administrative agencies involved in the case to communicate and coordinate, explain the law and clarify the law, and finally facilitated Ling, the County Water Conservancy Bureau, and the competent authorities of the township not involved in the case to reach a mediation agreement, so that the dispute could be substantively resolved.
From this case, we can see that when encountering administrative litigation and other similar issues, if you have a dispute with an administrative department, you must seek judicial relief in a timely manner, and find a breakthrough to solve the problem and protect your rights and interests through professional analysis and evidence sorting by lawyers. The litigation process may be very difficult and tortuous, but the final result of this case still allows the legitimate rights and interests of the parties to be protected. Lawyer Ying Ting also reminds all parties involved that when encountering such problems, they must consult us in time. After analysis, they should understand the laws and regulations, policy basis, and similar case handling ideas before making a decision, so as not to miss the best opportunity to protect their rights and interests and cause irreparable losses to themselves.
The "Water Pollution Prevention and Control Law" is a relatively detailed law for the protection of water sources. Regarding the protection of water resources protection zones, this law is mainly used. Among them, Articles 64 to 67 have relevant provisions.
Article 64 It is prohibited to set up sewage outlets in drinking water source protection zones.
Article 65 It is prohibited to build, reconstruct, or expand construction projects that have nothing to do with water supply facilities and water source protection within the first-level drinking water source protection zone. Construction projects that have been completed and have nothing to do with water supply facilities and water source protection will be ordered to be demolished or closed by the people's government at or above the county level.
It is prohibited to engage in cage farming, tourism, swimming, fishing or other activities that may pollute drinking water bodies in the first-level protected areas of drinking water sources.
Article 66 It is prohibited to carry out secondary protection of drinking water sources
Ling, a disabled person from a certain village, built floating rafts on a certain river section. They anchored them on the water for a long time and used them for fishing and leisure, providing food and accommodation, and operating income as a source of living. In September 2019, during an inspection by the staff of the County Water Conservancy Bureau, they found that the above-mentioned floating rafts were used for fishing, leisure and living on the water, and had no sewage facilities, which affected the water quality. They then conducted an inquiry and investigation on Ling, and notified Ling on the same day to dismantle it on his own and restore the river to its original state. In the same year, water conservancy experts from the County Water Conservancy Bureau identified the floating raft and believed that it was a structure that hindered flood discharge. On the same day, the County Water Conservancy Bureau filed the case and issued a "Decision to Demolish Water Structures within a Time Limit" and served it to Ling. Ling believed that his actions did not have any adverse impact on flood control and that the county water conservancy bureau's decision to demolish within a time limit was inappropriate, so he filed an administrative lawsuit with the court, requesting to revoke the decision to demolish within a time limit.
In the first instance, the County People's Court held that Ling's use of floating rafts to provide fishing and other services was an illegal interest, and the county Water Conservancy Bureau's decision to dismantle it had no impact on his legitimate interests, and ruled to reject Ling's lawsuit. Ling was dissatisfied and appealed.
During the second instance trial, the Municipal Intermediate People's Court focused its perspective on the livelihood issues of the needy people and the legality of administrative law enforcement. It conducted in-depth on-the-spot investigations, communicated and coordinated with multiple parties, and contacted the competent authorities of Ling's township to clarify that the administrative agencies had the responsibility for demolition compensation. At the same time, it pointed out the shortcomings of the county water conservancy bureau in the law enforcement process. And communicate with the county water conservancy bureau, township authorities, and county people's court. In the end, the county water conservancy bureau and the township authorities reached a mediation agreement with Ling, which substantively resolved the compensation issue for Ling. Later, Ling dismantled the floating raft involved in the case on his own, and withdrew the lawsuit and appealed to the court.
Pay close attention to people's livelihood and strive to promote administrative agencies to fundamentally solve the "worries" of the parties involved. An important content of the Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era is that we must adhere to the people-centered development concept, especially in administrative trials. While reviewing whether administrative actions are legal, we must also pay attention to people's livelihood issues.
In this case, although the floating raft involved in the case was unapproved and caused pollution to water resources, Ling's claim should not be supported legally, but considering that he is a disabled person and his main source of income is the floating raft fishing operation. If the people's court supports the administrative agency's decision to dismantle it within a time limit, the administrative agency will consider its law enforcement actions to be legal and may no longer consider the difficulties caused to Ling's life due to the dismantling of the raft; if the judgment is revoked on the grounds that the administrative law enforcement procedures are illegal, not only will it not be able to avoid the consequences that the raft involved in the case will eventually be dismantled, but it will intensify the conflict between Ling and the administrative agency. To this end, the Municipal Intermediate People's Court repeatedly convened Ling, the two-level competent authorities, and the administrative agencies involved in the case to communicate and coordinate, explain the law and clarify the law, and finally facilitated Ling, the County Water Conservancy Bureau, and the competent authorities of the township not involved in the case to reach a mediation agreement, so that the dispute could be substantively resolved.
From this case, we can see that when encountering administrative litigation and other similar issues, if you have a dispute with an administrative department, you must seek judicial relief in a timely manner, and find a breakthrough to solve the problem and protect your rights and interests through professional analysis and evidence sorting by lawyers. The litigation process may be very difficult and tortuous, but the final result of this case still allows the legitimate rights and interests of the parties to be protected. Lawyer Ying Ting also reminds all parties involved that when encountering such problems, they must consult us in time. After analysis, they should understand the laws and regulations, policy basis, and similar case handling ideas before making a decision, so as not to miss the best opportunity to protect their rights and interests and cause irreparable losses to themselves.
The "Water Pollution Prevention and Control Law" is a relatively detailed law for the protection of water sources. Regarding the protection of water resources protection zones, this law is mainly used. Among them, Articles 64 to 67 have relevant provisions.
Article 64 It is prohibited to set up sewage outlets in drinking water source protection zones.
Article 65 It is prohibited to build, reconstruct, or expand construction projects that have nothing to do with water supply facilities and water source protection within the first-level drinking water source protection zone. Construction projects that have been completed and have nothing to do with water supply facilities and water source protection will be ordered to be demolished or closed by the people's government at or above the county level.
It is prohibited to engage in cage farming, tourism, swimming, fishing or other activities that may pollute drinking water bodies in the first-level protected areas of drinking water sources.
Article 66 It is prohibited to carry out secondary protection of drinking water sources
Previous article：If a billboard set up by an advertising company with permission is demolished, how should the loss be compensated?
Next article：How should companies be compensated for being demolished due to water source protection?
Recommended reading
- Mineral rights mortgage financing: a new financing path for private mining companies
- Should the government’s investment promotion agreement be scrapped at the drop of a hat? The law has your back!
- Mining in the name of land leveling? The Central Inspection Team is exposed! Mine bosses, please don’t step into this trap.
- Mining license renewal delayed? The new regulations stipulate that a reply must be made within 15 days
- New opportunities for administrative reconsideration: increased litigation winning rate, smoother rights protection channels
- Mineral rights mortgage financing: a new financing path for private mining companies
- Should the government’s investment promotion agreement be scrapped at the drop of a hat? The law has your back!
- Mining in the name of land leveling? The Central Inspection Team is exposed! Mine bosses, please don’t step into this trap.
- Are companies being fined too much for small things? Court: The punishment is inappropriate and must be corrected!
- New opportunities for administrative reconsideration: increased litigation winning rate, smoother rights protection channels
