Author: Kristina Perić, Istina.media
At the beginning of the year, the owner and user of the facility, the economic company “Žuvela-HB” doo Stolac, against which the locals protested on several occasions because of the pollution of Radimlja, but also because of the unbearable stench of fish waste that does not allow them to live in the summer months, was issued at the beginning of the year water from the facility for processing and canning fish from the Agency for the Adriatic Sea Water Area Mostar.
In the decision, it is disputed that Gospodarsko društvo ”Žuvela-HB” doo Stolac attached a certified copy of the decision on meeting the minimum sanitary-hygienic and technical conditions for the processing and canning of marine fish, the production of salted marine fish, filleting and marinating marine fish for the commercial premises of the area 888m2 and 2054m2 yard area issued by the local authorities in 2009, and from 2009 until today, the condition of the field is changed. The building has been upgraded, and it is no longer a building of 888m2.
The Agency for the Protection of Monuments does not have a positive opinion
In addition to the above, considering that the facility for the processing and production of salted fish is located in the zone of the National Monument of BiH – Necropolis of the Stećaks of Radimlja, it did not receive a positive opinion from the Agency for the Protection and Preservation of National Monuments Mostar, and thus could not even obtain urban planning approval for the upgraded part of the object.
The question is whether experts from the Agency for the Water Area of the Adriatic Sea, in the minutes of the inspection dated 10/10/2023, which they state in the explanation of the decision, determined the location of object “B”, on which cadastral parcel it is located and whether it has urban planning approval.
The agency stated that it issues a water permit only for the facility at cp. 363/22K.O. Ošanjići, but did experts from the Agency state that “Žuvela” upgraded the storage facility to facility “A” (as they called it in the decision), for which it was issued an inspection permit for demolition. Those two objects are merged into one.
The Agency for the Water Area of the Adriatic Sea Mostar states in the explanation of the decision that the case in question can be brought under the provisions of Article 12, paragraph (4) of the Rulebook on the content, form, conditions, manner of issuing and keeping water documents. According to that article, a water permit can be issued for buildings that are used if a water permit has not been issued in accordance with the Law and the provisions of the Ordinance, with the fact that the applicant is obliged to attach a certified copy of the certificate of tax registration, a copy of the decision on the issuance of a building permit (there is no decision for upgrade for facility B as well), a copy of the decision on issuing a water permit, the project of the completed state (note. in the decision it was stated that the main project of the water supply and sewerage system and the main project of the treatment plant had been submitted. It was not stated that they were delivered implementation projects.), general act on maintenance, use of water facility and handling in case of failure and accident, study on examination of qualitative and quantitative characteristics of effluents. In addition to the above, the applicant is required to attach data on the issued environmental permit, and data on urban planning consent, and the decision did not state that it was submitted. Žuvela does not have urban planning consent for the upgraded object “A”, nor for object “B”.
It is certain that the case in question cannot be brought under the provisions of Article 12. paragraph 4. Rulebook on the content, form, conditions, manner of issuing and keeping water documents, based on which the permit was issued.
Object B mentioned by the Agency is on another cadastral parcel, it does not have any permits, as does the upgraded warehouse. Given that the warehouse is connected right next to object “A”, they had to mention it in the Water Permit, and then it is by no means an object of 888 m2, nor as someone once wrote in the construction 1116.2 m2.
Object “A” is connected to an illegally constructed hall, and the communication between the two objects was achieved by sawing a door opening on the old object – found on the spot when sawing.
What the Agency for the Adriatic Sea Water Area Agency Mostar says
The Agency for the Water Area of the Adriatic Sea Mostar does not see anything controversial, and they refer to the decision issued by the Municipality of Stolac in 2009, 15 years have passed since then.
Dear Sir/Madam, we provide the following clarifications and answers regarding the requested: Decision on the issuance of a water permit number UP/40-1/21-4-67/23 dated February 12, 2024. was issued on the basis of the Law on Waters, “Sl. FBiH Gazette” number: 70/06 and on the basis of by-laws passed on the basis of the Law on Water, namely for the discharge of technological wastewater into surface waters, for which the Agency is responsible in accordance with the provisions of Article 139, paragraph 1 of the Law on Water. As stated in the explanation of the Decision on the issuance of a water permit number UP/40-1/21-4-67/23 dated February 12, 2024. The party attached to its request a certified copy of the Decision on the fulfillment of minimum sanitary-hygienic and technical conditions (Municipality of Stolac, Department for the Economy/Economy and Inspection Affairs No. 02-10-22-454/09 dated October 1, 2009), which is one of the documents that the party attached to the submitted request. Namely, the party has the right to attach all documentation that it considers to be relevant for a specific request, while the authority is obliged to state what is attached in the explanation of the decision. However, in accordance with the provisions of the Law on Administrative Procedure, the authority assesses which evidence is relevant for determining a certain fact, and which is explained in the decision in question. The issue of meeting the minimum sanitary and hygienic conditions is the subject of other regulations on the basis of which the competent authorities determine the fulfillment of those conditions for a specific case”, according to the Agency.
They also sent a clarification regarding the provisions of the Law on Water.
“The provisions of Art. 109 of the Law on Waters of the FBiH, the activities for which water acts are issued are determined, and according to the provisions of Art. 117th st. (3) established that the issuance of a water permit precedes the issuance of a use permit in terms of construction regulations, this means that a water permit is issued for a built object and only for the activities listed in Art. 109 of the Law. Consequently, for each existing facility where some of the activities from Art. 109 of the Law, the obligation is to obtain a water permit, which prescribes the purpose, manner and conditions of water use, operating regime and facilities,… – all according to the provisions of Art. 116 of the Water Act. During the period when some of the activities from Art. 109 of the Law, it is the obligation of the owner or user of the facility to obtain a water permit and to act according to the obligations from the same (control of actions according to the obligations from the water permit is subject to inspection supervision). Every use of water and every discharge of waste water should be recorded (both by location and by capacity)”, they further state.
They point out that the Law on Water does not recognize “illegal construction, extension or reconstruction”/”illegal conversion of an existing building”.
“As stated in the enacting terms of the decision number UP/40-1/21-4-67/23 dated February 12, 2024. in this particular case, a water permit was issued for the discharge of technological wastewater. Obligations are prescribed for the same user of the facility in accordance with the provisions of Articles 53 – 55 of the Water Act (chapter “Water Protection”) and the provisions of the Regulation on conditions for the discharge of waste water into the environment and the public sewage system (“Official Gazette of the FBiH” number: 26 /20, 96/20, 1/24) and obligations regarding the payment of a special water fee for water protection in accordance with the provisions of Article 170 of the Water Act, as well as other obligations in accordance with the Act (procedure in case of incident pollution, etc.) . In the specific case, the provisions of Art. 26 of the aforementioned Regulation for the reasons stated in the explanation of the Decision (for the constructed facilities for the treatment of technological waste water, appropriate approvals in the field of construction were not obtained and a technical inspection of them was not carried out). We note on this occasion that according to the provisions of Art. 26th century (1) of the aforementioned Regulation (adopted by the FBiH Government), for all entities that discharge their technological wastewater into the environment and which do not meet the limit values of substance emissions and quality parameters in technological wastewater in accordance with the Regulation, the deadline for compliance with the provisions of Regulation 30.6. 2026 The Law on Water does not provide for the rejection of a request for a water permit for the reason of “illegal construction, extension or reconstruction”/”illegal conversion of an existing facility”, they reiterated.
They pass the ball to inspection
“Construction of a building, its extension, reconstruction or conversion (whether legal or illegal) is subject to regulations in the field of construction, including the part related to the supervision of the implementation of those regulations (including inspection supervision). The same applies to regulations in the field of environmental protection. If a specific regulation prescribes a ban on the use of a certain facility (either according to regulations in the field of construction or according to some other regulations – e.g. non-fulfillment of minimum technical conditions, etc.), that is, if the use of the facility or work in it is prohibited – the water permit ceases to be valid (a thus the rights and obligations prescribed by the same) in which case the provisions of the Law on Waters regulating the same are applied. In the specific case, the Agency does not have the facts on the basis of which the provisions of the Law regarding the termination of the validity of the water permit could be applied to the specific case,” they added.
Radimlje pollution is also not their topic, they say.
“Also, regarding part of the question whether this Agency is aware of the extent of the disaster that Žuvela is doing in Stolac by releasing fish entrails directly into the river bed, and considering that it is slaughterhouse waste, we inform you that the same is subject to regulations regulating waste including and the part that refers to the supervision of the implementation of those regulations (including inspection supervision). Please note that illegal dumping of waste is not allowed in any area. In the end, the duty of the Agency is to act according to the law and within its competences. We expect the same from other competent bodies. Please note that the Agency, according to its competences established by law, cannot be the proposer of laws and by-laws”, states the response of the Agency for the Adriatic Sea Water Area Mostar. By the way, the Water Act, Article 137 paragraph 3, states that the applicant can be deprived of his license if he has provided incorrect information that has misled the competent authority.
Žuvela-HB doo Stolac – Water permitDownload
The media content was created as part of the project “Promoting Citizen Participation in Local Government”, which the Center for Civic Cooperation from Livno is implementing with the support of the National Foundation for Democracy (NED). The content and views expressed in the text are the author’s personal views and do not reflect the views of the Center for Civic Cooperation and the National Foundation for Democracy. The use of the content and its transfer to third parties is possible with the prior consent of the Center for Civic Cooperation.
Source: cgslivno.org
