PIDS backs three separate regulatory bodies for water

THE Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) said the proposed creation of three separate bodies to regulate water will help address weak enforcement powers and regulatory overlaps.

The government think tank said the bills filed before the Congress should be consolidated into a substitute bill that will recognize three distinct major functions in the institutional arrangements for water.

In particular, it backed the creation of the Department of Water Resources (DWR) for water resource planning and policy, the Water Resources Allocation Office for water rights allocation and adjudication, and the Water Regulatory Commission for economic regulation of water utilities.

“This separation reflects international best practice, where policymaking, resource allocation, and economic regulation are handled by separate institutions,” the PIDS said in a commentary last week.

“It addresses long-standing criticisms on the water sector, where government bodies have limited capacities, fragmented authority, weak enforcement powers, and regulatory overlaps,” it added.

The PIDS also backed socialized credit for local water service providers rather than a water trust fund.

“Setting up of a new trust fund will require the creation of new entities as fund managers and implementors and push untested accountability structures,” it added.

The think tank also flagged the declaration of policy in most bills where water was identified as a “public good.”

“This is incorrect because public good means non-rival and non-excludable. The more correct declaration is water as a common-pool resource, which is non-excludable but rivalrous in consumption,” it said.

“Clarifying this leads to the appreciation of understanding that water resources can face … overexploitation, pollution, and destruction if use is not regulated,” it added.

The think tank also stressed the need to amend the water code, noting that improvements in the enforcement of water rights will be insufficient in solving major problems.

“Most of the (bills) propose institutional mechanisms, such as auditing of the water permits and stricter monitoring, that could make reforms possible and could help in addressing the inadequacies of the Water Code, but the code as a foundation law will still have to be amended later on,” it said.

Further, the PIDS pointed out that the powers that could be vested in the Water Resources Allocation Board will still be limited by the Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1067, or the 1976 Water Code.

“This power has limitations because PD 1067 still governs the legal basis of water permits, and the legal doctrine of long-term appropriation remains,” it said.

“This means that it will be difficult to address overallocations within river basins, impose water caps based on environmental flows, and ensure intergenerational national water security,” it added.

It said global best practice involves the issuance of time-bound water permits in the first instance, whose renewal is subject to rules compliance.

“In essence, the future DWR can be the driver of the needed Water Code amendments as its capacity and expertise are built, and thus, the legislators must anticipate the need for the future amendments as they empower the DWR and draft a substitute bill,” it added. — Justine Irish D. Tabile