Reasons for Proposal
The current Act allows an agricultural infrastructure manager to use or lease agricultural infrastructure or water for other than its originally intended purposes with permission from the head of Si/Gun/Gu.
However, the current Act does not specify any grounds on which to revoke such permission, etc., which makes it hard for the local governmnet, etc., to take appropriate measures when a person who has obtained permission for use outside the original purpose causes water quality to deteriorate through contamination, etc., or commits an act that interferes with the original purpose/use, the local government, etc.
Accordingly, the Amendment prescribes that where a person who has obtained permission to use a facility, etc., for other than its originally intended purposes deteriorates water quality through contamination, etc., or commits an act that interferes with the original purpose or use, the head of Si/Gun/Gu may revoke the permission for use of agricultural infrastructure outside the original purpose and may set necessary conditions for water quality conservation when re-issuing the permission, thereby aiming to strengthen the maintenance and management of agricultural infrastructure (Article 23 and Article 116).
Major Provisions
Where a rural development project implementer under this Act falls under any of the following cases, the Minister of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs or Minister of Oceans and Fisheries and the heads of local governments may revoke any authorization, permission, approval, or designation under this Act, issue an order to take measures for the construction, change, moving, removal, or reinstatement of things, or impose other necessary dispositions, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs or Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries; provided that in cases falling under subparagraph 1 or 2, they shall revoke authorization, permission, approval, or designation. (Article 116, paragraph 1)
4. Where, in violation of Article 23 (2), the implementer has committed an act that interferes with the original purpose or use;
5. Where, in violation of Article 23 (3), the implementer has caused water quality to deteriorate through contamination, etc.
