泉州市人民政府关于加强山美水库流域管理和保护的规定
福建省泉州市人民政府
泉州市人民政府关于印发加强山美水库流域管理和保护的规定的通知
泉政文〔2003〕81号
南安市、永春县、德化县人民政府，市直有关单位：
《泉州市人民政府关于加强山美水库流域管理和保护的规定》已经市政府研究同意，现予以印发，请认真贯彻执行。
附件：泉州市人民政府关于加强山美水库流域管理和保护的规定
泉州市人民政府
二○○三年四月二日
泉州市人民政府关于加强山美水库流域管理和保护的规定
山美水库是我市最大的一座集灌溉、防洪、供水、发电等综合利用的大型水利枢纽工程，自1972年建成投产以来，为我市经济社会发展发挥了巨大作用。
为进一步加强山美水库库区管理和水源保护，确保水库安全运行，改善山美水库流域水环境，促进我市经济社会健康持续发展，根据《中华人民共和国水法》、《中华人民共和国水污染防治法》和其它有关法律、法规，结合本市实际，制定本规定：
一、本规定所称的山美水库流域，系指山美水库库区、桃溪、湖洋溪流域。
二、山美水库流域内的各级人民政府对本辖区内的水环境质量负责，实行水环境质量行政领导负责制，县(市)长、乡(镇)长应保证交接断面水质达到环境功能区划的要求，同时将此项工作列入干部年度考核内容。
三、山美水库流域内的各级人民政府及有关主管部门应根据《山美水库污染治理方案》的要求，加强宣传教育和执法监督检查，依法行政，把山美水库流域水环境保护工作纳入工作计划，积极采取有利于水资源保护和水污染防治的对策和措施。
四、山美水库流域实行主要污染物排放总量控制制度。有关县(市)人民政府应把好源头关，防止新上有污染的建设项目；要根据《山美水库污染治理方案》制定的总氮、总磷削减计划，落实各项措施，确保削减目标的实现。
一切排放污染物的单位，必须按规定建设排污口并设立显著标志；必须按规定向当地环保部门进行排污申报登记，申领排污许可证；禁止无证排污。
各企事业单位应积极采用清洁生产工艺，节约用水，减少废水和污染物排放量。
五、开展规模化畜禽养殖业污染防治。加强对畜禽养殖污染的监控，严格执行环境影响评价制度和“三同时”制度，水库管理和保护范围内以及桃溪、湖洋溪两岸外延500米范围内不得新建规模化畜禽养殖场；已建的畜禽养殖场应限期搬迁或治理达标排放。
六、山美水库流域内严禁使用高毒、高残留、高污染和假冒伪劣农药。市、县农业部门应积极推广普及高效、低毒、低残留农药以及配方施肥新技术，建立农药残以及配方施肥新技术，建立农药残留污染监测检验与责任追究管理制度。
七、山美水库流域内的县(市)人民政府应组织和督促有关部门加强对库区内船舶的管理，坚决取缔“三无”船舶。水库区域内的乡村船舶，由水库沿岸所在地的乡(镇)人民政府、村委会负责管理，履行乡村船舶安全管理责任制。
禁止船舶向水体排放残油、废油和倾倒船舶垃圾。库区现有船舶应符合船舶检验部门的要求，使用较低污染的动力；任何船舶不得在水库中冲洗甲板和舱室，或以其他任何方式将残物排入水库；船舶在修造作业时，应设置围油栏，防止油污染。
八、在山美水库流域内禁止销售和使用含磷的洗衣粉、洗涤剂、清洁剂等洗涤清洁用品，禁止使用不可降解的塑料包装物；禁止建设土法炼砷、炼汞、炼铅锌、炼油、选金和土法生产农药、小型电镀以及生产石锦制品、放射性制品等重污染行业项目；禁止建设年产5000吨以下的小造纸厂、年产折牛皮3万张以下的制革厂、年产500吨以下的染料厂以及生产方式落后的炼焦、炼硫企业；禁止建设其他严重污染水环境的项目。
九、在山美水库流域水体内禁止排放油类、酸液、碱液或者剧毒废液；禁止清洗装贮过油类或者有毒污染物的车辆和容器；禁止清洗装贮过油类或者有毒污染物的车辆和容器；禁止将含有汞、镉、砷、硌、铅、氰化物、黄磷等可溶性剧毒废渣向水体排放、倾倒或者直接埋入地下；禁止排放或者倾倒放射性固体废弃物或者含有高、中放射性物质的废水。
十、在山美水库流域内未建成污水集中处理设施的城镇，下列建设项目必须配套建设生活污水处理设施：日排水量超过60吨的旅馆设施、娱乐服务设施；日排水量超过100吨的生活住宅小区；日排水量超过100吨的高层写字楼、综合楼、住宅楼。
十一、根据《福建省水法实施办法》规定，山美水库管理范围和保护范围划定如下：
(一)管理范围：
1、南安市九都镇、码头镇的水库征地线98.58米高程以下；永春县东平镇、东关镇水库征地线98.78米高程以下(以上高程为黄海高程)；
2、从井角起沿分水岭(现有防火路)至大坝轴线右岸山脊线相交的山地3817亩；
3、坝区工程、坝区防汛公路、管理处生活区等共950亩；
4、大坝、溢洪道挑流鼻坎至山美大桥的河道。
(二)保护范围：
1、山美水库库区的保护范围为管理范围外延至一重山脊的山坡；
2、水库的坝区工程、坝区防汛公路的保护范围为管理范围外延至一重山脊的山坡；
3、管理生活区保护范围为管理范围外延50米内；
4、山美大桥至下游100米范围内的河道。
十二、在水库、大坝、溢洪道、电站厂房、变电站等工程建筑物的保护范围内，禁止从事任何影响水工程运行和危害水工程安全的爆破、打井、采石、取土等活动。
禁止在水库内弃置、堆放阻碍行洪、航运的物体，种植阻碍行洪的林木和高秆作物。
山美水库流域内的单位和个人有保护水工程的义务，不得侵占、毁坏水库大坝、溢洪道、防汛、水文监测、水文地质监测等工程设施和防汛备用器材、物料等。
十三、禁止在山美水库库区内围垦。已经围垦的，应按照国家规定的防洪标准进行治理。
十四、山美水库大坝坝顶通道木材禁止载重车辆通行；坝头禁止除水库管理和保护船只以外的船舶依靠和装卸、堆放各种货物，特别是木材、马尾松、毛草等易腐物资。若有特殊情况的，应事先与山美水库管理处联系，经批准后方可在指定场所停靠、装卸货物。
十五、严禁在山美水库管理范围和保护范围内盗伐和破坏山林、果树、花草等及严禁陡坡开荒，以保护良好的生态环境，防止水土流失。
十六、山美水库库区内的渔业资源由水库管理部门负责经营管理，任何单位和个人不得擅自进入该水域从事渔业生产。严禁在水库偷捕鱼、毒鱼、炸鱼、电鱼。禁止在水库库面放养家禽。严禁水库网箱养殖。
十七、向山美水库设置和扩大排污口的，建设单位在向环境保护主管部门的申报之前，应当取得泉州市水行政主管部门的同意；禁止在水库管理范围和保护范围内的岸坡、沟渠堆放和存贮固体废弃物和其它污染物。
十八、凡利用水工程或机械提水设施直接从山美水库取水的单位和个人，都应按规定向泉州市水行政主管部门申请取水许可证，并缴纳水资源费。
十九、在山美水库库区开采砂石等活动，应经水库管理部门审核，报泉州市水行政主管部门和国土资源行政主管部门批准。
二十、违反本规定的，由各级人民政府水行政主管部门、环境保护主管部门及其他行政主管部门依法追究责任；造成损失的，依法承担责任；构成犯罪的，依法追究刑事责任。
二十一、本规定由泉州市水利局负责解释。
二十二、本规定自2003年5月1日起施行。
Chapter VII
Special Rules for Anti-dumping Disputes
OUTLINE
Section One Recourse of Anti-dumping Disputes to the DSB
I Introduction
II Sufficiency of Panel Request under the AD Agreement
(i) Art. 6.2 of the DSU and Article 17.4 of the AD Agreement
(ii) Art. 6.2 of the DSU and Article 17.5(i) of the AD Agreement
(iii) A Summary Guiding
III General Legal Basis for Claims against Legislation as Such
IV Special Rules for Claims against Anti-dumping Legislation as Such
(i) Introduction
（ii）General Legal Basis under Art. 17 of the AD Agreement
(iii) Understanding of Art. 17.4 of the AD Agreement
(iv) Extensive Basis in Context
(v) A Summary
Section Two Ad hoc Standard of Review for Anti-dumping Disputes
I Introduction
II Special Standard of Review under the AD Agreement: in General
(i) Ad hoc Approaches to Domestic Determination: Art. 17.6
(ii) Relationship between Art. 11 of the DSU and Art. 17.6 of the AD Agreement
(iii) A Summary Guiding
III Scope of Review of Fact-findings: Art. 17.5(ii) of the AD Agreement
(i)Overview of the GATT Practice
(ii)Concerned Rulings in Reports Issued by WTO Panels
(iii)Tentative Remarks: Guidance from the Appellate Body
Section One
Recourse of Anti-dumping Disputes to the DSB
I Introduction
Compared to the legally fragmented previous GATT dispute settlement system, the new WTO dispute settlement system is an integrated system with much broader jurisdiction and less scope for “rule shopping” and “forum shopping”. However, according to Art. 1.2 of the DSU which states in part that, “[t]he rules and procedures of this Understanding shall apply subject to such special or additional rules and procedures on dispute settlement contained in the covered agreements as are identified in Appendix 2 to this Understanding”, many covered agreements under the WTO jurisdiction continue to include special dispute settlement rules and procedures. Such special rules and procedures are listed in Appendix 2 to the DSU. And in this chapter, we will focus on such special dispute settlement rules concerning anti-dumping disputes, i.e. Arts. 17.4 through 17.7 of the Anti-dumping Agreement (‘the AD Agreement’).
An analysis of the DSB practice suggests a separate contribution of this chapter to this book, merited by dispute settlement proceedings in the anti-dumping field. In this chapter, the author focuses on the two main issues repeatedly raised, as preliminary or procedural issues, during dispute settlement regarding anti-dumping. One is the issue of recourse of anti-dumping disputes to the DSB, which deals mainly with Arts. 17.4 and 17.5(i) of the AD Agreement; the other one is the issue of standard of review in anti-dumping areas, which runs most on Art. 17.6, including Art. 17.5(ii), of the AD Agreement. And in this section we will focus on the first one. In this respect, Arts. 17.4 and 17.5(i) of the AD Agreement states:
“17.4 If the Member that requested consultations considers that the consultations pursuant to paragraph 3 have failed to achieve a mutually agreed solution, and if final action has been taken by the administering authorities of the importing Member to levy definitive anti-dumping duties or to accept price undertakings, it may refer the matter to the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”). When a provisional measure has a significant impact and the Member that requested consultations considers that the measure was taken contrary to the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 7, that Member may also refer such matter to the DSB.
17.5 The DSB shall, at the request of complaining party, establish a panel to examine the matter based upon:
(i) a written statement of the Member making the request indicating how a benefit accruing to it, directly or indirectly, under this Agreement has been nullified or impaired, or that the achieving of the objectives of the Agreement is being impeded, and
(ii) …”
II Sufficiency of Panel Request under the AD Agreement
Generally, as noted in previously, it is only where the provisions of the DSU and the special or additional rules and procedures of a covered agreement cannot be read as complementing each other that the special or additional provisions are to prevail. A special or additional provision should only be found to prevail over a provision of the DSU in a situation where adherence to the one provision will lead to a violation of the other provision, that is, in the case of a conflict between them. Then the author means to get down to the issue of whether these provisions cited above limits panel request under the AD Agreement to somehow other than those required by Art. 6.2 of the DSU.
In Mexico-HFCS (DS132), the dispute involves the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping measure by the Mexican Ministry of Trade and Industrial Development (SECOFI) on imports of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) from the United States. Mexico argues that the United States' request for establishment of this Panel is not consistent with the requirements of Art. 6.2 of the DSU and Art. 17.4 and 17.5(i) of the AD Agreement, and therefore argues that the Panel must terminate the proceeding without reaching the substance of the United States' claims.
(i) Art. 6.2 of the DSU and Art. 17.4 of the AD Agreement
In considering the alleged failure to assert claims under Art. 6.2 of the DSU and Art. 17.4 of the AD Agreement, the Panel rules that: 1
“[W]e note first that the Appellate Body has stated that Article 6.2 of the DSU and Article 17.4 of the AD Agreement are complementary and should be applied together in disputes under the AD Agreement. It has further stated that: ‘the word “matter” has the same meaning in Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement as it has in Article 7 of the DSU. It consists of two element: The specific “measure” and the “claims” relating to it, both of which must be properly identified in a panel request as required by Article 6.2 of the DSU.’
