圖書典藏及影音數位平台

台灣地區中央管河川之高水治理設施已完成約九成，這些點、線狀分布的防洪設施大致解決了當前河道禦洪、防洪問題，也滿足了目前防洪標準，惟近年氣候異常、降雨增加、地層下陷等天然因素，其保護標準值需求也隨之增加，再加上不當土地利用、集水區河道上下游協調整合不足等因素，點與線之防洪措施已逐漸無法應付逐年增強之降雨量，為能審慎評估極端氣候事件對水利事業可能造成的衝擊，及謀劃相關因應策略，在總體考量我國國情、體制、資源、研發與實務工作能力及水利部門應有作為，應有更彈性及多層次之河川治理與管理手段與措施，目前國內水道防護及管制大都以水道治理計畫線及河川區域線管制，劃設水道治理計畫線涉及用地徵收課題，劃設河川區域線管制，以尋常洪水位為2年所對應之洪水位，又稍嫌不足，故本計畫擬探討以創新管理方式來因應目前所遭遇的防災課題，以符合綜合流域治水作法，提升防護效能，減低人民財產生命損失。爰此，辦理河川治理與管理技術發展與應用檢討。

1.Foreword The governance and management of rivers in Taiwan is based on the aqueduct governing zone, alignment of land use and river reservation zoning. The drafting of aqueduct governing zone in the river is for the governing purpose, involving issues like the stability of water flow, river course equilibrium, land expropriation, flood prevention standards and so on. The river section outside the aqueduct governing zone will be governed as river reservation zone which will involve issues like land use, management and expropriation and so on. High water governance measures in the mid- and down-stream of rivers governed by the central government is now approximately 90% completed; yet, due to natural factors like climate changes and extreme increases of rain fall, the demand for the river flooding prevention design is on a continual rise. Additionally, what with the inappropriate land use and development adding to runoff, as well as the increase of public awareness, insufficient integrated coordination between up watersheds and down watersheds, the engineering-dominated governance measures and management energy of the management departments are gradually incapable of coping with practical matters; thus, in future more focus should be placed on bringing the river governance and management system to a more comprehensive state and better coordination between relevant supervising departments. In order to carefully evaluate the possible impact of the current status of water resources businesses and start early planning of relevant coping strategies, this project is thus being conducted. 2.Review on Taiwan’s development in river governance and management Taiwan’s development in river governance and management, from the Retrocession of Taiwan up to today, can be divided into three phases, going from the direction of flood prevention engineering development towards river management, with elucidation below: (1)Post-Retrocession Restoration Phase (1947—1957) The primary mission is to restore the flood preventing devices damaged during World War II, with majority of work given to partial down-stream water course governance, while continuing with implementing engineering work already planned and scheduled during the Japanese occupation period. (2)Governance-dominated Phase (1958-1997) In line with economic development plans, year 1958 sees the start of river system governance and a gradual build-up of relevant methods as the river governance planning foundation, such as flow review, river-bed sediment particle size analysis, crest discharge estimates, sediment transport mechanism and so on. In 1967, a team of executive planners were set up in 1967 to begin with major river investigation and survey operation. In 1978, Japan was seen as a model to learn from, and administrative procedures for river governance planning and promulgation process was thus established, and to regulate governance planning and promulgation process will require stipulation of fundamental river governance plans that will be reviewed and evaluated by supervising departments before promulgation. However, there was no stipulation of legalized acts and regulations for river protection standards during this phase, and river governance departments had only previous examples and cases to abide by. General speaking, 100 years as a unit serves as the protection standard for the crest discharge volume for the primary rivers, and 50 years and 25 years for the secondary rivers and regular rivers, respectively.　Dansui River that goes across the Taipei metropolis adopts the 200-year unit. (3)Phase of Governance and Management in Equal Measure (1998 till now) Since 1998, rivers are governed according to juridical responsibilities. What were once classified as secondary and regular rivers now come under the category of “Province-run Rivers”, “Municipality-run Rivers” or otherwise listed as drainage. River protection standards still largely go by the previously listed standards. The governance planning and promulgation process have also been completed for various primary and secondary rivers. Furthermore, the increasing environmental conversation awareness means that river ecological survey investigation and habitat reservation and conservation, as well as river status investigation and survey have also been under way since 1999. In 2002, a consultation tea, of ecological engineering methods was established, and in the same year, “River Environmental Management Planning” starts kicking off, in accordance with Article 27 of the Regulation of River Management. The impact of the September-21 Earthquake and various serious typhoon disasters such as Typhoon Toraji (2001) and Typhoon Mindulle (2004) highlights the need of integrated governing of river systems, and as a result, “Joint Planning, Distributed Governance” as a governance method was thus undertaken to systematically govern all four major river systems: Da-an River, Dajia River, Wu River and Zhuoshui River. In addition, the Keelung River drainage basin also undertook a comprehensive governance plan adopting methods like flood control by levees, flood channel clearing, flood diversion, drainage renovation, environmental construction, watershed governance and river channel flood forecasting and warning. In recent years, comprehensive governance schemes and skeleton plans have been completed, in turn, for Danshui River, Zhuoshui River, Dajia River, Zenwen River and Kaoping River drainage basins, yet with many challenges still unresolved, due to relevant issues on authorization, coordination and responsibilities between various different supervising departments. 3. Key Issues Analysis on Current Status of River Governance (1) River Protection Standards i. Terminology prone to misunderstandings The purpose of stipulating river protection standards is not to protect rivers but to protect the lives and properties of people, so the term “River Protection Standards” easily lends itself to misunderstanding. ii. Lacking Evaluation Methods and Adjustment Principles As the physiography, hydrology and social-economic conditions in the up, middle and downstream of all rivers are so variable that if the cost of engineering works and effectiveness of protection are properly considered, different protection standards should be adopted in order to achieve optimal results. However, the current protection standards for all rivers follow the previously planned standards and are applied to all of up-, middle- and down streams. Up to now, the Evaluation methods and adjustment principles that can better obtain a collective consensus from the public are yet to be established. As such, when future changes in conditions arise for various rivers or certain sections, there will be no appropriate responding adjustment method to comply with. iii. Lacking Legalized Mechanism for either Stipulating or Amending To stipulate or amend river protection standards will change planning of governance measures and delimitation of certain legal alignments, placing a huge impact on the rights of people, and legal regulating mechanisms and procedures for the standards should therefore be formulated. Due to the fact that the current “River Protection Standards” are not written into the law, any future needs for changes (or re-stipulation) will face a lack of legalized mechanism and procedure. (2)River Channel Governance Planning Alignments (Yellow Line) and Use of Land Confinements (Red Line) i. Unspecific Definition The purpose of legitimizing Article 82 of “Water Act” is to authorize supervising departments the right to expropriate lands when conducting river governance with legal references for land regulation within the confinement after the yellow/red line delimitation and before the completion of governance. Yet, no specific purpose and function is distinctly defined for the delimitation of yellow/red lines. Such indistinct definition of yellow/red lines tend to breed doubts and disputes over the adequateness of practical practices. For instances, can yellow/red lines be broken off with interruptions? Isn’t the concept of “yellow/red overlapping lines” (presented in red lines) inconsistent with its representing the river sections that requires no governing. ii. Lacking Regulations for Delimitation and Amendment The delimitation and amendment of yellow/red lines have a huge impact on people’s life safety and property rights, but the current review status tend to be a result of compromise between the water resources departments and local pressurizing. Because of the lack of regulations to comply with, water resources departments have no ground on which to assert (or can barely assert) their professional considerations. (3)Issues of Follow-up Governance of Partial River Sections with no Engineering Works Currently there are two categories for partial river sections requiring no engineering works; Category A are rivers with existing yellow/red line demarcation and with planning of engineering work completed, and have been listed for long-term engineering work which is yet to take place, due to cost consideration. Category B are rivers marked with “overlapping yellow/red lines (presented in red lines), confirmed to have no engineering works in place. Because both categories are marked with long existing yellow/red lines, the general public may have expectations for future engineering works to take place. Subsequently, the public may build own houses or factories and petition for the laying of engineering works to protect houses and factories, which will then cause problems to water resources departments. (4)Water Resources Facilities Interrupting the Riverbed Sediment Transport Continuity Many dams and barrages are built on the up and middle streams of rivers administered by the Central Government, with a major issue on their interruption of riverbed sediment transport continuity. Serious deposition can often occur in the upstream rivers with dams and barrages, while the downstream is often lacking with sand sources that are hard to replenish, as a result, causing the riverbed under-washing and worse still, retrograding shoreline at the estuary. 4.Analysis of key Issues on Current Status of River Governance (1)The River Territory Delimitation is less than perfect. Article 78-2 of “Water Act” authorizes the stipulation of River Management Regulation to delimit the river territory, and Article 6 of the latter abide by the three principles: River Channel Governance Planning Alignments (Yellow Line), Land Use Confinements (Red Line) and Regular Flood Discharge in the River Reservation Zone. The yellow/red line is marked on the basis of governance needs, with major consideration for flood prevention capacity. “Regular Flood Discharge in the River Reservation Zone” observes the consideration for natural conditions (terrain, hydrology, hydraulics), whereas the demarcation of river reservation zone is due to management needs, including water resources, sediments, water quality, ecology and land use, with considerations more diverse than the aforementioned three factors. As such, when going by the above three factors for river reservation demarcation may not satisfy the river management needs. For instance, on partial river sections with no governance needs, when yellow/red lines are retracted and if the river reservation zone is managed and delimited by a 2-year return period of regular flood capacity, the said river or the river section may not have all its needs dealt with. (2)Appropriateness of Compensation-Free Restriction of Private Land Use, still a dispute At the moment, if engineering planning is already in place for certain private lands (including river revetment and dredging), then the land will be expropriated. Yet if no engineering planning is scheduled, and the land use is under regulation, such practice may be in accordance with the existing law, but the private owner’s right to land use is already restricted, with no compensation, this practice goes against the fairness and justice principles of “users pay, and the restricted get compensated. Thus, whether the current practice is appropriate is still a subject of contention. (3) River Environment Management Plan Article 27 of River Management Regulation states, “The management department can comply with the River Governance Plan and consider the soil and water resources, ecological environments, natural landscapes, land developments alongside the river banks and other factors to stipulate river environmental management plans, pending inspection and permission from supervising departments.” But it has been, up to now, still difficult for the water resources department to implement River Environmental Management Plan with two main reasons: i. River Environment Management Planning covers an over-sized confinement and is infeasible for water resources departments to conduct independent execution but require active cooperation from other departments and private land owners for a smooth enforcement. ii. “Water Act” does not authorize water resources departments to demand execution cooperation from other departments, and as a result, “River Management Regulations by default cannot galvanize other departments into cooperation. Further, when rewards and subsidies mechanism are not authorized, there will be no incentives to drive private land owners into cooperation. (4)Insufficient Manpower for Land Use Management in River Floodplain The current status of the river land use is mainly for agricultural planting and fish farming. The application and management of agricultural planting can abide by “Regulation of Planting in Floodplain”, whereas fish farming abide by Article 34, 35, 38 and 62 of “Regulation of River Management”. The current system runs on a one-on-one case review system based on its flood control capacity, and permission to use will subsequently be issued, and the application processed accordingly. Despite the existing review system as a control mechanism, the river drainage basins are so expansive that river management departments are under staffed to take care of the entire confinement; the system thus render the review process merely as formality with no consequential effect. 5.Studies on Copying Strategies for River Governance Issues (1)River Protection Standards i. Copying Strategy for Terminology The stipulation of “River Protection Standards” is for the purpose of “Flood Prevention”; the amendment of “Flood Prevention Standards” is thus recommended for the former, its key positioning as comprehensive flood prevention and protection standards for river systems with a clear indication on its purpose and positioning. If there are already flood diversion or flood detention measures in the upstream, then the flow design standard of the governance engineering work for the downstream can go below the “Flood Prevention Standards”. A newly addition of the term “River Design Standards” is suggested, being positioned as the engineering design standard for the river governance and planning, and with a purpose to set the two terms apart. ii. Coping Strategies for Issues of Lacking Evaluation Methods and Adjustment Principles Studies on Flood Protection Design Standards for Rivers Administered by the Central Government (Water Resources Agency, 2011) have established evaluation indexes as the references for protection standards adjustments. Further, the aforementioned study states that the up, middle and down streams adopting different protection standards will contribute to optimal governance costs and protection effectiveness and is feasible in terms of its technical and economic aspects. But in terms of its social acceptability, it still requires undergoing a process of negotiation and fermentation. As there is no urgent reason for the current protection standards to undergo alterations, they are therefore advised to maintain the status quo. As for certain partial river sections, water resourcess departments can negotiate with local governments; if both parties can reach consensus on certain package measures (such as flood detention, disaster-resistant facilities, disaster forecasting, evacuation and so on), lower “River Design Standards” can be adopted. This approach can reduce governance costs and diminish land sizes that are under regulation. iii. Coping Strategies for Issues of Lacking Legalized Mechanism Whether it be stipulating or changing “Flood Preventing and Protection Standards”, both have a great impact on the rights of people and therefore should require certain regulation so that the water resources departments will have laws or administrative orders to abide by. Before the amendments of laws, it is advised that administrative orders be issued to relevant departments, illustrating the positioning of “Flood Prevention and Protection Standards” while establishing the administrative procedures for the stipulating and changing processes. Under the premises of not delimiting new laws, the addition and amendment of Article 82-1 to Water Act should be promoted to elaborate on the positioning of “Flood Prevention and Protection Standards” and setting the stipulating and changing processes. (2)River Channel Governance Planning Alignments (Yellow Line) and Use of Land Confinements (Red Line) i.Coping Strategies for Issues of Unspecific Definition In practice, the practical application of yellow and red lines are formulated for the governing purpose of flood prevention, aiming to specify the governance confinement and land use confinement. Seeing that the current laws cannot adequately reflect such practical needs, it is thus necessary to promote law amendment or stipulate new laws. Under the premises of not stipulating new laws, Article 82 of Water Act is recommended for amendment to re-define the aim and purpose of yellow/red line demarcation. As for river sections with no governance needs, yellow/red line demarcation is of course not necessary. Therefore, it is advised to coordinate with the timing for various river governance planning review to examine whether the retraction of “yellow/red overlapping lines” on river sections with no governance needs will impose any impact. If not, the retraction can thus be processed. ii.Coping Strategies for Issues of Lacking Delimitation and Amendment Regulations Delimiting and amending yellow and red lines will greatly impact people’s life safety and property rights. Even if professional considerations will be compromised with local pressurizing, principles should still be stipulated as further regulation. As such, it is advised that conclusions of all river disputes are compiled for attempts at inducing the delimiting and amending principles of general cases, while stipulating directions governing the delimitation and amendment review procedures. (3)Coping Strategies for Issues of Follow-up Governance of Partial River Sections with no Engineering Works What causes the public to have an expectation on possible future engineering works lined up is the delimiting of or overlapping of yellow/red lines (presented in red lines). If yellow/red lines are retracted, the problem will be eradicated fundamentally. Thus, it is advised that evaluation should be prompted implemented to retract the yellow/red lines or overlapping yellow/red lines on river sections that present no governance needs, so as to avoid any further emergence of unnecessary disturbance. (4)Sediments intercepted at the dam and barrage Sediments intercepted at the dam and barrage cannot move naturally downstream and will in turn cause deposition, downstream river bed under-washing and retrograding shorelines. Therefore, man-operated procedures should be underway to transport the sediments down the river bed so as to alleviate the aforementioned problem. Dams, at the right timing, can undergo hydraulic desilting, and if terrestrial conditions permitting, sediments bypassing can also be adopted. The deposition at the dam or barrage can undergo dredging (or extraction) and be transported to silt management zone for storage, which will naturally be transported downstream by floods. In the long run, the Japanese experiences can be our reference, by which to draft sediments management plan for all rivers and to structure sediment management zone and surveillance, while running an integrated management scheme on sediment balance matters such as incoming sediment volumes, storage volumes and deposition capacity volumes. 6.Studies on Coping Strategies for River Management Issues (1)Coping Strategies for Issues on Since demarcating a river reservation zone is based on management needs, including water resources, sediments, water quality, ecology and land use, the demarcation can thus be implemented with direct confirmation of all needs from all parties involved, not necessarily complying with principles　like “River Channel Governance Planning Alignments (Yellow Line)”, “Land Use Confinements (Red Line)” and “Regular Flood Discharge in the River Reservation Zone”. Therefore, under the premise of not stipulating new laws, it is advised to amend “Water Act” and authorize water resources departments the right to convene with relevant departments for integration needs, and the demarcation will be implemented upon review after following the necessary procedures. (2) Coping Strategies for Issues of Compensation-Free Restriction of Private Land Use The law has it that if people’s rights are under restriction, it is termed as “Special Sacrifice” and will be compensated, but if seen as “Civic Social Obligations”, compensation will not necessarily be in place. Take revetment land for example. Once the revetment is constructed, the land owner will no longer continue to utilize the said land, which distinctly goes into the “Special Sacrifice” category, and the current status will yield to expropriation and follow up with compensation. As for the private lands with no scheduled engineering works, only certain partial land, not complete land, will be restricted according to “Water Act”. Whether this aforementioned case constitutes “Special Sacrifice” awaits further examination and clarification. As such, both Article 82 and 83 of “Water Act” stipulate the right to expropriation, whereby authorizing supervising departments certain room for administrative negotiation and consideration. Three coping strategies are drafted as follows: i.Primary River Reservation Zone (Incised River Channels, Areas Reaching Regular Flood Capacity) Because the said land is almost unavailable for use, maintenance of river channel flood capacity or river channel harnessing can be processed for later planning of expropriation by year and by section. ii.Non-Primary River Reservation Zone (High Riverbank etc.) Evaluation is advised to assess the feasibility of the government getting involved with the use of high riverbanks, in accordance with “River Environmental Construction Plan” to process expropriation or lease. iii.To Build a Mechanism of “User pay and the restricted will be compensated” “Water Supply Act” has built a compensation mechanism available for reference, a compensation from the downstream water users towards those at the upstream with their rights being infringed. Under the premise of not stipulating new laws, the Water Act can be further evaluated and amended to build a compensation mechanism for those people protected within the riverbank and those outside the riverbank with their rights to the land use being infringed. (3)Coping Strategies for Thorny Enforcement of “River Environmental Management Planning” The primary cause for the difficult enforcement of “River Environmental Management Planning” is the over-sized scope of the scheme. Also, owing to the insufficient authorization by the law, it is hard to galvanize and liaise with relevant governmental departments for further collaboration and execution. It is thus advised to re-construct a more feasible River Management Plan as the plan of all river management plans. The scope of the scheme will be mainly within the independent operation of the water resources management departments, with auxiliary enforcement assistance from other agencies with separate missions. In addition, it is advised that “River Management Planning” be discussed and stipulated in order to authorize certain water resources management departments to preside over the other agencies in its planning and execution of all necessary management for the river functionality maintenance and to further ensure legal support and legitimacy in the enforcement of River Management Planning. The above advice will involve law amendment; before the law amendment is underway, it is otherwise advised that the enforcement of infeasible “River Environmental Management Planning” is put on hold, and a back-down mechanism should be negotiated. (4)Coping Strategies for Insufficient Management Manpower on the Land Use of River Regions Due to the shortage of management staff, it is difficult to have a comprehensive inspection and verification on the state of river lands utilization. As such, it is recommended that the private sector be commissioned to assist with the inspection and verification and the river management body can also conduct repeated and random checks in order to avoid the land use management from being reduced to formality . Should there be any resistance against inspection, the police force can be elicited for further assistance. In response to the increased cost incurred owing to the inspection and operation, amendment should be assessed and added to “MOEA WRA River Management Offices’ Organization Statures” to include the budget planning for inspection and verification on river lands utilization. 7.Integrated Recommendations for Mid- to Long-term Developments With all due consideration, many current issues have to be met with law amendments as copying strategies. Taiwan has transited from the era of “heightened focus on governing” to “the era of both governing and managing” in the sense that other than the need of flood prevention, many diverse requirements, such as water resources utilization, sediment management, water quality management, ecological environment, landscape recreation and so on, need to be taken care of, so as to meet the expectation from all sectors of the society. However, the legalization scope of Water Act revolves around 12 water resources businesses. Given the limited confinement of Water Act, the current river governance and management should be conducted under the premise of “flood prevention business” demands, which means the management intended as responses to other demands can barely be integrated. The Regulation of River Management cannot override the authorization of Water Act and subsequently cannot achieve the expectation of galvanizing relevant agencies towards action of collaborated management. Because river management is conducted within rivers confinement with a major focus on maintaining the overall river functionality which is often in discord with the current structure of Water Act. In the long run, a systematic set of specific regulations need to be set up, and the authorized water resources departments can thereby convene or demand relevant agencies to coordinate accordingly in the managerial actions to ensure all river functionalities be maintained. Therefore, it is advised that the River Administration Act be researched and drafted, with a primary interest in complying with river governance and management needs to specify the region for river governance and management and stipulate all plans of action accordingly. Once the River Administration Act is legally passed, it will rule above the current Water Act, and whatever is not governed within the River Administration Act will be governed under the Water Act. With all above discourse considered, the River Administration Act should cover the following focal points: (1) Objectives of Stipulating River Administration Act： i.Flood prevention and river functionality protection. ii.By way of the implementation of integrated management, attempts will be made to integrate diverse needs such as water resources utilization, sediment management, water quality management, ecological environment, landscape recreation and so on. (2)Water resources departments will be authorized to administer the following tasks of river management: i.To stipulate “Flood Prevention and Protection Standards” and delimit “River Reservation Zone” based on governance needs and “Flood Prevention and protection Standards”. ii.To stipulate “Fundamental River Design Standards” and plan river governance engineering works iii.To delimit expropriation confinements and process land expropriation based on the demand for land use iv.To administer governance engineering work; upon completion, to administer the extraction of “River Reservation Zone” (3)To authorize water resources department to convene for coordination or demand relevant departments to cooperate in the administration of the following river governance tasks: i.To delimit “River Reservation Zone” ii.To stipulate “River Management Plan” and all management task items for various river sections (including items of prohibition or requiring permission) iii.To administer permit application, review, inspection and verification for the land use within “River Reservation Zones” iv.To levy flood-control Community Development Fees and administer compensation for land use restriction within “River Reservation Zones” (4)To authorize water resources departments to stipulate the following rules and regulations i.To stipulate standards and amend regulations for flood prevention and protection standards ii.To administer the demarcation, amendment and retraction of river reservation zones iii.To stipulate and amend regulations for fundamental river design standards iv.To administer regulations for the governed land demarcation, amendment and expropriation v.To administer regulations for river reservation zone demarcation and amendment vi.To administer permit application, review, inspection and verification for land use within river reservation zones vii.To levy flood-control Community Development Fees and administer compensation regulations for river land use restriction