The State Office for the Environment urges Olaf von Löwis to "urgently" issue a ban on fertilizers and grazing in Zone II A in the Thalham-Reisach-Gotzing water protection area.
The district administrator is considerably irritated.
News in the matter of water protection zone: The State Office for the Environment wants to enforce a fertilization and grazing ban for Zone II A in the Thalham-Reisach-Gotzing water protection area through the government of Upper Bavaria.
This is announced by the district office.
"This means that District Administrator Olaf von Löwis is actually asked to enforce the main part of the procedure for designating the water protection zone without a procedure," the press release says.
And further: "The district office has concerns about this order: How can it be agreed with an open-ended procedure that the main arguments of the procedure should now be anticipated by order?
The municipal utilities have been advertising the cleanest water from the Mangfall valley for decades, so the request for an order without a procedure is even more surprising. ”CSU district administrator von Löwis therefore asked the municipal utilities to disclose what specific risk has arisen for the state capital, which is now the Would justify immediate execution.
A ban on manure and grazing in Zone II A would mean that in spring, when the snow has thawed, no manure or cattle may be brought to various areas in Miesbach, Warngau and Weyarn.
The areas are thus fallow.
The farmer Alois Fuchs and the organic estate Wallenburg would be affected.
A third farmer who is currently not keeping cattle has land in Zone IIa.
His family's plans to build a horse farm would be affected.
Create facts on one of the main points of contention - without trial?
"The ban on fertilization and grazing is one of the main points of contention in the procedure for designating the Thalham-Reisach-Gotzing water protection area and the associated restrictions for farmers and property owners," said the district administration.
"The sad climax of the long-term discussions was a completely unsuccessful discussion date in September 2018, to the failure of which the framework conditions created by the district office contributed significantly." was approached with the right things.
The district office's press release also states: “In the meantime, the procedure has been reorganized with a completely new team.
The aim was actually to start all over again and give everyone involved the chance of a constitutional, fair, transparent and, above all, open-ended procedure.
There is no question that the procedure must be carried out, because the district office is not only a district authority, but also a lower state authority and the district administrator, as head of this authority, has to conduct state procedures.
The district administrator and Sebastian Schuh, who as state lawyer was entrusted with restarting the proceedings, held dozens of conversations with everyone involved in order to take the emotions out of the subject and bring the discussion back to a neutral level.
Most recently, Schuh was available to answer questions from the district council members in a public meeting on December 2, 2020. "
Those affected could not raise their objections
In the midst of these efforts, the demand of the government of Upper Bavaria for an order burst.
This would mean: There are procedures in which those affected can raise their objections.
The ban would be enforced immediately.
The State Office for the Environment had already asked the District Office via the government of Upper Bavaria to issue this order in February 2019.
"Since two years have now passed, it is even more surprising that it has to be carried out immediately and that the proceedings with those affected cannot be awaited," writes the authority.
District Administrator Olaf von Löwis: "I don't understand this approach"
"I don't understand this approach," says District Administrator von Löwis.
“We want a constitutional and open-ended procedure, and the state owes that to every affected citizen.” He asked himself how the change of heart towards the order and away from the procedure came about.
“If there were serious incidents, an order would be necessary so as not to endanger the health of consumers.
But the Stadtwerke München have been promoting the cleanest drinking water from the Mangfall Valley for decades.
Under these circumstances, an order is incomprehensible.
I expect the municipal utilities to disclose in a timely manner which incidents there are that justify circumventing proceedings involving all parties involved. "
An order is legally dubious because it is unclear how the immediate execution is to be justified.
The district office therefore asked the municipal utilities to comment on when and how the state capital was at risk.
In particular, the municipal utilities were asked to consider the risk against the background of the UV filters that were installed in 2019.
These UV filters, it was said by SWM, would reliably destroy all germs, if there were any.
Set deadline "can realistically not be met"
The municipal utilities must be given a reasonable period to comment. After receiving and examining the opinion, the district office will decide whether an official or a private expert should be asked for an assessment. The deadline set by the government of Upper Bavaria to have executed the order by March 31 can therefore realistically not be met.
