CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES IN INTEGRATING WATER

RESOURCES MANAGEMENT IN MALAYSIA: A CASE STUDY

OF THE SELANGOR WATER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

Rasyikah Md Khalid a, Suhaimi Ab Rahman b, Mazlina Mangsor c,

Shuhaeda Aeni Mat Ali d , Siti Sarah Sulaiman e , Noraziah Abu Bakar f , Ismah Ismail g
a, c, d, e, f, g
Faculty of Law, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, 40450, Selangor, Malaysia.
b
Faculty of Economics and Management, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, 43400, Selangor, Malaysia.
a
Corresponding author: kmr572000@yahoo.com

©Ontario International Development Agency ISSN: 1923-6654 (print)

ISSN 1923-6662 (online). Available at http://www.ssrn.com/link/OIDA-Intl-Journal-Sustainable-Dev.html

Abstract: Integrated Water Resources Management
or IWRM is a process which promotes a coordinated
development and management of water; land and
related resources that maximize the economic and
social welfare of a country without compromising the
sustainability of its environment. It is essential for
Malaysia to adopt the IWRM concept in managing its
water resources to overcome flash flood and water
shortages in its major cities. In this regard the State of
Selangor of Malaysia, being the most industrialised
and highly populated State in Malaysia, has taken up
the challenge for implementing IWRM for its river
basins. This is done by establishing an agency called
the Selangor Water Management Authority (SWMA)
which will act as a single institution responsible to
in Selangor, it is pertinent to examine the causes of
those problems and to determine ways to solve them.
To this end, this study will conduct an in depth
content analysis of legislations on water resources in
Selangor. The study proves that lack of understanding
of IWRM concept among water related authorities
and constitutional conflict in water jurisdiction have
contributed towards unsuccessful implementation of
IWRM by SWMA in Selangor.
Keywords: Federal Constitution, Integrated Water
Resource Management, Selangor Water Management
Authority.
INTRODUCTION

manage water resources, river basins and coastal zone
in an integrated and sustainable manner. Being the
first of its kind among all States in Malaysia, this
pioneering model, if successful, will be the perfect
model for all States in Malaysia to follow.
Nevertheless, the successfulness of the agency to
mobilize IWRM in Selangor remains in doubt after a
decade in administration. Pre-SWMA problem of
Federal-State jurisdiction over water resources
remains a complex and sensitive issue, while the
integration of relevant departments’ activities is
progressing slowly. As doubt increases on the
workability of SWMA to successfully adopt IWRM
I
ntegrated water resource management is a process
which promotes an integrated development and
management of water, land and other resource so
as to increase its economics benefit and social
welfare without jeopardising the sustainability of
vital ecosystem (GWP, 2011). The main aim of
IWRM is to transform the sectoral approach in
planning and management of water resources to a
more cooperative or integrative approach between the
water institutions. The key transformation of IWRM
is an increase in planning and management of two or
more departments if their responsibilities overlap. By
so doing, they will establish a standard procedure for
cooperation and this will continue even if their legal

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2031061

12 Khalid et al. / OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development 03: 08 (2012)
responsibilities do not overlap (UN, 2004). One of
the components of IWRM is effective water
governance. In this perspective, ineffective
governance such as inappropriate price regulations,
over-regulation or under-regulation, political
weaknesses or vested interests, non-payment of water
services, conflicting regulatory regimes and inability
of the government to control and regulate water use
can lead to unsustainable management of water
resources and cause more water problems (Rogers
and Hall, 2009).
The main challenge to effectively implement IWRM
in Malaysia is the legal framework of water resource
management and water jurisdiction between the
Federal and States governments under the Federal
Constitution. In this respect, a fully integrated and
holistic water resource management may not be
achieved if both governments continue the long
standing administrative divide with different interest
and objectives over water resources. The State of
Selangor has taken up the challenge to implement
IWRM by establishing the Selangor Water
Management Authority. Nevertheless, the
successfulness of SWMA to mobilize IWRM in
Selangor remains in doubt after a decade in
administration. The discussion below aims to
determine the causes of the problems and to suggest
ways to solve them.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This is a doctrinal study on the legislations
introduced to manage water resources in Malaysia in
particular the State of Selangor. The method involved
is mainly content analysis of the Federal Constitution,
the Selangor Water Management Authority
Enactment 1999, the Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air
Negara Act 2006, the Environmental Quality Act
1974 and related water laws. Relevant provisions of
the statutes will be studied to understand its effect on
the IWRM implementation in Selangor.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Jurisdictional Issues under the Malaysian
Constitution
A constitution is the fundamental foundation that
designs the ‘basic framework’ of the State (Shad
Saleem Faruqi, 2008). It lays down the structure of
the government and describes the extent of powers
and functions of various organs of the State. The
drafters of the Malaysian Constitution adopted a
written and supreme constitution model with
extensive powers granted to the Federal Parliament.
However, this doctrine of constitutional supremacy
substantively and procedurally limits the Parliament
powers. With a Federal set up, there is a separation of
legislative, executive, judicial and financial powers
between the Federal and State assemblies (Shad
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2031061
Saleem Faruqi, 2008). Nonetheless, the Malaysian
Constitution provides space for maneuver by
allowing the Federal government to act within the
jurisdiction of States in certain cases, including the
power to legislate for States under Article 76 to
ensure uniformity. It is in these jurisdictional areas
that matters involving water issues create conflicts
between the Federal and State control.
Federal – State Jurisdiction on Water
The drafters of the Malaysian Constitution – Reid
Commission, led by a British judge Lord Reid, divide
these powers relating to water affairs as follow:
‘At present, control of inland waters, including all
rivers and streams, water supplies and storage is
exercised by the States and subject to rights of
navigation and to special provisions where the
interests of two or more States or the interests of the
Municipality of Kuala Lumpur are concerned, we
recommend that they should be State subjects’
(Report of the Federation of Malaya Constitutional
Commission, 1957).
Article 74 of the Federal Constitution grants powers
to the Federal government to enact law with respect
to matters in the Federal List under the Ninth
Schedule of the Federal Constitution. Clause 11 in
particular grants the Federal government jurisdiction
related to ‘water supplies, rivers and canals’ and
excludes those matter within ‘one State or regulated
by an agreement between all the States concerned;
production, distribution and supply of water power’.
This provision confines the Federal power over water
which ‘flows through the boundaries of two States or
more’ (Abdul Kader, 2004). In addition, the Federal
power is also limited to cases of shared rivers where
intervention is allowed only when the States meet
deadlock in their negotiation.
The State governments are also conferred with
similar power to legislate matters under Clause 6 of
the State List under the Ninth Schedule of the Federal
Constitution. This includes ‘water (including rivers
and canals but excluding water supplies and
services), control of silt, riparian rights’ and subject
to the Federal List, in light of Article 74 of the
Federal Constitution. The State has full control of
water if the ‘water source is wholly within the
territory of a State’ (Abdul Kader, 2004).
Furthermore, the Concurrent List bestows the power
to the Federal and State governments to enact law
with respect to matters related to ‘drainage and
irrigation’ and ‘subject to the Federal List, water
supplies and services’.
There are different reasons for certain water related
matters to be placed under the Concurrent List. The
Reid Commission suggested that ‘drainage and
irrigation’ should be a shared responsibility between
 Khalid et al. / OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development 03:08 (2012)
the federal-State control due to the large and
expensive costs of the works and the need for a direct
technical involvement to maintain works (Report of
the Federation of Malaya Constitutional Commission,
1957). In 2005, the Federal Constitution was
amended to the effect that ‘water supply and services’
was transferred from the State List into the
Concurrent List. Prior to the amendment, State
Governments have established different types of
water supply organizations, some fully privatized and
some for operation and maintenance. Since
privatization was done through concession
agreements that vary from State to State, some State
have been ended up in high non-revenue water (Raja
Zainal Abidin, 2005). The States’ cost constraint has
also led to deterioration in quality of services. The
amendment was thus made to eradicate those issues.
In the light of transfer of “water supply and services”
to the concurrent list, the Federal government
acquires a concurrent power which can be made to
prevail under Article 75 of the Federal Constitution
and establish a regulated water supply and services
industry.
The power to legislate law with respect to matters
related to water resources is granted to both parties
with a different degree of control between the Federal
government and the State government. The Federal
government may enact laws on matters which fall
under the Federal List and the Concurrent List whilst
the State government may pass enactments on
matters provided in the State List and Concurrent
List. However, in light of Article 80 (1) and (2) of the
Federal Constitution, the Parliament is restricted to
enact laws on water affairs since it is within the State
jurisdiction as well as to exercise the executive
authority of the Federal government over water
which falls under the State jurisdiction unless it is
provided by the Federal or State laws (Abdul Kader,
2004). The Parliament has power to legislate for
States in certain cases only dealing with the purpose
of implementing any treaty or agreement, promoting
uniformity or requested by the State government in
Article 76 of the Federal Constitution. This power is
exercised prior to the drafting of the Federal
Constitution with the enactment of Water Act 1920
that conferred the ‘proprietary rights over water to the
States’. The effect of this Act is granting the
proprietary rights and control of all rivers in the State
to the Ruler of the State.
The Federal government can indirectly enacts a law
or incorporates provisions to govern matters related
to water resources in a primary act i.e. Water Act
1920, Irrigation Work Act 1954, Street, Drainage and
Building Act 1974 and Environmental Quality Act
1974 (EQA). In January 2005, Parliament approved
the amendments to the Ninth Schedule of the Federal
Constitution to transfer matters related to ‘water
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2031061
13
supplies and services’ from the State List to the
Concurrent List (except for Sabah and Sarawak). The
amendments were enforced on the 21st March 2005.
With the amendments, the Federal government
controls water services industry in terms of licensing
and regulating water services operators. The State
government also retains the power to declare and
regulate water resources, water catchment areas and
river basins. Following the 2005 constitutional
amendment, the Malaysian Parliament passed two
landmark legislations that transformed the way
Malaysia manages its water services. They are the
Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara Act (Act 654)
or SPAN Act and the Water Services Industry Act
(Act 655) or WSIA. The former outlines the roles,
functions and work scope of the National Water
Services Commission or SPAN, while the latter has
provisions to cover economic, technical and social
regulations as well as protection of consumer
interests (SPAN Report, 2007). To some extent, the
move can be interpreted as an encroachment into the
so-called State exclusive power and de-federalizing
the water sector in the country (Rahman & Khalid,
2009).
Selangor Water Management Authority (SWMA)
Enactment 1999
The Selangor Water Management Authority
Enactments 1999 or locally known as Lembaga Urus
Air Selangor (LUAS) is introduced to exercise
supervision and control over the use and flow of
water in any water source and whether occurring
naturally on the surface or subsurface of the ground
(Section 41 SWMA Enactment1999). The authority
consists of a Chairman, a Deputy Chairman and not
less than ten other members. In this respect, the State
Chief Minister will be the Chairman, while the State
Secretary will become the Deputy Chairman. The
main function of the authority is laid down in Section
6 (1) of SWMA Enactment 1999 which read:
‘The functions of the Authority shall be to nurture,
maintain and facilitate the sustainable development,
efficient use and conservation of water sources for
public purposes in respect of which it is established.’
The authority has several legislative functions as it is
empowered to regulate and control inter basin
transfer of water within the State (Section 6 (1) (c)
SWMA Enactment 1999) and develop and implement
guidelines, performance standards, methods and
procedures pertaining to the management, utilisation
and conservation, of water sources (Section 6 (1) (d)
SWMA Enactment 1999). In so doing, it may also
regulate the issue of licences and permits upon such
terms and conditions deemed necessary on entry to or
exit from any designated or protected areas, or the
carrying on of any resource alteration activity within
the limits of any water source and to impose fees
14 Khalid et al. / OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development 03: 08 (2012)
payable on issue of such licences or permits (Section
6 (2) (i) SWMA Enactment 1999).
SWMA has an important role in ensuring sustainable
water resources for both present and future resident
of Selangor. In this regard, it shall provide advice to
the State Authority as to the policies, methods and
measures to be adopted to promote, nurture and
facilitate sustainable development, efficient use and
conservation of water sources for public purpose
(Section 6 (1) (a) SWMA Enactment 1999). To this
end, it will coordinate multi agency relationships in
the State and promote cooperation and coordination
for multi functional uses of water sources (Section 6
(1) (e) SWMA Enactment 1999) as well as protecting
the interest of the State in respect of the development,
management, use and conservation of water sources
(Section 6 (1) (j) SWMA Enactment 1999).
SWMA and Implementation of IWRM
Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) is
a new approach to the assessment, development and
management of freshwater resources. In 1992,
delegates of the International Conference on Water
and Environment (ICWE) in Dublin, Ireland adopted
the Dublin Statement on Water and Sustainable
Development which call for IWRM to ensure
sustainability of water resources. The Dublin
Statements also spells out four main principles of
IWRM and they are: (a) Fresh water is a finite and
vulnerable resource, essential to sustain life,
development and the environment. (b) Water
development and management should be based on a
participatory approach, involving users, planners and
policymakers at all levels. (c) Women play a central
part in the provision, management and safe-guarding
of water. (d) Water has an economic value in all its
competing uses and should be recognized as an
economic good as well as social good (UN, 2004).
One of the key features of IWRM is the participatory
approach in water development and management.
SWMA Enactment 1999 corresponds with this
requirement as it encourages the formation of
stakeholder organisations to assist the authority in the
sustainable development and conservation of water
sources (Section 6 (1) (m) SWMA Enactment 1999).
In so doing, the authority will coordinate activities of
public authorities, stakeholder organizations and any
person on matters pertaining to the efficient
management, sustainable use and conservation of
water sources (Section 6 (2) (k) SWMA Enactment
1999). The drafters of the Enactment also
acknowledges that water has an economic value and
may, for the purpose of encouraging efficient
practices, impose a differentiated charge on persons
who adopt such practices. This can be done by
considering the economic cost of the water source
(Section 64 (2) (c) SWMA Enactment 1999).
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2031061
IWRM can be implemented successfully if the “three
pillars” below is established: (a) Enabling
environment of appropriate policies, strategies and
legislation (b) Institutional framework (through
which policies can be implemented) (c) Management
instruments required by these institutions to do their
job. (GWP, 2011). It can be seen that the SWMA
Enactment 1999 meet the purpose as an enabling
environment since it covers all aspect of good and
sustainable water management practices. However
this may not be enough as institutional and
constitutional frameworks (through which the spirit
of IWRM in the Enactment can be implemented) do
not support such move.
Duplication of Authority and Legislative
Provisions
Theoretically, if matters dealing with water from
rivers are dealt with by two governments, this may
lead to the increase of ‘fragmentation in watershed
management’ (Lubell and Lippert, 2011). This is
apparent in cases which involve pollution of rivers
and streams. In this regard, the Environmental
Quality Act (EQA) 1974 seems to be the relevant
legislation for pollution control. Section 21 of the
EQA allows the Minister responsible to specify the
‘acceptable conditions’ for the discharge or deposit of
wastes into inland waters. Unless a person is an
authorized license holder, section 25 of the EQA
provides that:
‘…a person is deemed to have discharged or
deposited wastes into inland waters if; (a) he places
any waste in, or on, any waters or in any place where
it may gain access to any waters; (b) he places any
waste in a position where it falls, descends, drains,
evaporates, is wasted, is blown or percolates into any
water’.
This is a blanket restriction involving the action of
discharging or depositing wastes into the rivers in the
country. The exceptions to the Federal jurisdiction
are with respect to matters related to rivers wholly
within one State or if there is an agreement between
all the States concerned to govern the matter as
provided under Article 74 of the Federal Constitution.
Geographically, it is not a simple process to fragment
the offence of discharge or deposit wastes into the
river which may suggest the difficulties in the
enforcement of the EQA.
In 2006, the SPAN Act was established to regulate
the water supply and services. Certain provisions
however are seen as a redundancy to SPAN’s
responsibilities under the 1999 SWMA Enactment.
Under section 15 (e) of SPAN Act, SPAN will advise
the Minister of Energy, Green Technology and Water
on a fair mechanism for determination of tariff that is
fair to both consumers and license. This is redundant
 Khalid et al. / OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development 03:08 (2012)
with section 6(1) (l) of the SWMA Enactment where
SWMA will protect the interest of consumers in
relation to quantity, quality, and the prices to be
charged for water supply. Until today, the State
Government still play its role in fixing the water tariff
where the first 20 cubic meters is free to all
consumers regardless of capability. SPAN will only
have this power if State Government agrees to
migrate to SPAN’s regime.
Both SPAN and SWMA has the power to enforce
water regulations. This may confuse the water supply
and services operator as to which law should apply to
them. In the case of Selangor, water operators have
agreed to migrate to SPAN but the State Government
still do not agree to this migration. In this regard,
section 15 (b) and (c) of SPAN Act allows SPAN to
implement and enforce water supply and services
laws, and to ensure productivity of service and
monitoring of operator compliance with stipulated
service standards, contractual obligations and
relevant laws and guideline respectively. These may
be to some extent overlap with SWMA’s functions to
regulate the licensees and their water source activities
under section 6 (1) (n), as well as its duty to develop
and implement guidelines, performance standards,
methods and procedures to management, utilization
and conservation of water sources under section 6 (1)
(d). Although SPAN will focus on regulation on
water supply and services, SWMA’s regulations will
also affect the liability of operators of water supply
and services as they obtain their water supply from
the State. Such a conflict can be seen in the recent
civil suits file by the operator against the State
Government (The Star Online, 2011). If this
continues and aggravates, both the operator and the
State Government can lose their focus on ensuring
sustainability and security of water for the present
and future generations.
Relationship between SWMA, the State
Government and the Federal Government
SWMA as the authority handling raw water in
Selangor is granted with legislative ability to ‘adopt
and implement policies, plans or projects by the
Federal Government as directed by the State
Authority’ (Section 6(1) (f) SWMA Enactment
1999). This illustrates the relationship between the
authority, the Selangor State Government and the
Federal Government in implementing policies and
executing water based projects. SWMA is also under
the duty to provide advice to the State Authority as to
the policies, methods and measures to be adopted to
promote, nurture and facilitate sustainable
development, efficient use and conservation of water
sources for public purposes. In certain matter, the
advice may differ from those promoted by the
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2031061
15
Federal Government and this may lead to
fragmentation and conflict.
There is also an ongoing conflict about the possible
water shortage in the State of Selangor and the
Federal Territories that is located within the State of
Selangor. The Federal Government through the
Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water
claims that there is a possible water shortage in these
areas by the year 2014. As a result, there is a vital
need to transfer water from the State of Pahang to
cater the increasing needs and to avoid serious water
shortage. The Selangor State Government through
SWMA however thinks otherwise and claimed that
shortage may arise due to the water operators’ failure
to keep the clean water reserves at a good level and
that water catchments in Selangor can cater the needs
of the residents until 2019 (The Star Online, 2011).
Interestingly, the drafters of the Enactment foresee
the possibility of State water transfer to meet the
increasing water demand in Selangor in the future.
This future contingency plan has been legally
provided by virtue of section 6 (2) (j) of the SWMA
Enactment whereby SWMA will advise the State
Authority in respect of the transfer of water from,
between and among States. Today the Federal
government has started the controversial Pahang-
Selangor Inter-State Raw Water Transfer system
despite the Selangor State Government’s refusal to
support the project.
The removal of States’ jurisdictions in water supplies
and services in 2005 may not also improve the
existing conflict if State governments do not consent
to the new law initiated by the Federal government.
In fact, the Federal Constitution has provided other
avenues for the Federal government to deal with
State’s matters. Article 76 provides power for
Parliament to legislate for States in order to
implement international agreement, to promote
uniformity of the laws or if requested by the State
Legislative Assembly. When amendment means that
States need to share their exclusive power with the
Federal government, and the Federal government
passes a law under that basis, it appears that the
Federal government is taking away their power and
imposing a new rule back onto the States. Rather than
removing States’ power under the State List, Article
76 should be employed as a better mechanism in
streamlining water services sector throughout the
country. Thus, it can be seen that amending the
constitution may not resolve existing conflict
between the Federal and State Government.
It can be argued that the migration process into the
new SPAN regime will be smooth if both Federal and
State governments come from the same political
ideology. However, following the unexpected victory
of the opposition party in the Malaysia 12th General
16 Khalid et al. / OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development 03: 08 (2012)
Election, it can be a tough challenge to overcome.
This can be seen in the current dispute between the
Federal Government, led by the Barisan Nasional and
the Selangor State Government now led by the
opposition party, Pakatan Rakyat. To date, four States
have agreed to migrate to the SPAN arrangement and
these States are led by the governing Barisan
National. Only very recently the State of Penang
which is also led by the Pakatan Rakyat has agreed to
migrate into the new regime. The current Selangor
dispute will also delay the Federal Government’s
controversial initiative to transfer raw water from the
State of Pahang to Selangor as the project has been
agreed during the Barisan National administration in
Selangor.
Water Supply and Services Operators in Selangor
Prior to the establishment of SWMA, the Selangor
State Government had granted water treatment
concessions to three agencies namely Puncak Niaga,
SPLASH and ABASS. Puncak Niaga obtained five
water treatment concessions and become the nation’s
second largest water supply concessionaire,
operating, managing and maintaining 29 water
treatment plants. Amongst the water treatment plants
operated and managed by Puncak Niaga are the
Sungai Selangor Phase 2 Water Treatment Plant,
Bukit Tampoi, Salak Tinggi Water Treatment Plant,
Kuala Kubu Bharu Water Treatment Plant and
Sungai Pangsoon Water Treatment Plant. Syarikat
Bekalan Air Selangor (SYABAS), a subsidiary of
Puncak Niaga was given a concession to supply and
distribute treated water to Selangor as well as to the
Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur and the Federal
Territory of Putrajaya.
SPLASH is the concessionaire appointed by the
Selangor State Government to build, operate,
maintain and manage Sungai Selangor Dam and
Sungai Tinggi Dam. SPLASH is also responsible to
maintain and operate three water treatment plants
namely SSP3 Water Treatment Plant Rasa, SSP3
Water Treatment Plant, Bukit Badong and SSP1
Water Treatment Plant, Bukit Badong. The treated
river water managed by SPLASH will be sold in bulk
to the water supply distributor (SYABAS) to cater to
consumers in Selangor and the Federal Territories of
Kuala Lumpur & Putrajaya. Another operator,
ABASS Consortium was awarded a concession to
operate and maintain the Sungai Semenyih Scheme
which includes Semenyih Dam in Hulu Semenyih,
Water Treatment Plant in Precinct 19, Putrajaya,
Lake Water Transfer Scheme (WT1) in Jenderam and
Semenyih Dam Water Transfer Scheme (WT2) in
Hulu Semenyih.
All of these operators are the stakeholders in water
resources management in Selangor. Nevertheless
since all raw water resources are now under the
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2031061
management and control of SWMA, rightfully all of
them are regulated under SWMA and need to
conform to the provisions of the SWMA Enactment.
Problem arises today when the water operators agree
to migrate to SPAN but the Selangor State
Government does not agree to such move. Rightfully,
unless and until the government agrees to migrate to
the SPAN regime, the operators are liable to the
Selangor government and must comply with the
requirement sets out by the State’s Economic
Planning Unit. This also means that it will be
unlawful for SPAN to exercise its jurisdiction over
the stakeholders in Selangor. Similarly it is
unconstitutional if SYABAS and Puncak Niaga claim
that they are governed by SPAN but not under
SWMA. Puncak Niaga treats and manages raw water
in Selangor and that falls under the purview of
SWMA.
Lack of Integration in Pollution Control
Conflict may also arise at departmental level over
pollution control. This can be seen in cases of
pollution control in rivers in Selangor. Sections 74
and 78 of SWMA Enactment require compliance to
provisions of the EQA 1974 and SWMA may consult
Director General of Environmental Quality to
prescribe ‘acceptable conditions’ to issue license.
Section 78 (3) of the SWMA Enactment prohibits the
activity which places any waste or allows any waste
to gain, access to any land, soil or water, or causes
any alteration to the natural State and usage of the
receiving land, soil or water. This provision is
applicable to any designated area decided by SWMA
and it may overlap with the provision under section
25 of the EQA 1974 discussed above. In addition,
section 79 of SWMA Enactment disallows a list of
activities that may cause to enter or discharge into
any water source any polluting matter or waste that
will be harmful, detrimental or injurious to the health,
safety or welfare of the public or to animal or
vegetable life or health therein or to other beneficial
uses of such water sources. This prohibition is
enforced against the owner or occupier of the
property from which such entry or discharge
originates, unless the contrary is proved.
Pollution control in rivers also falls under the
jurisdiction of the local government. In this regard,
section 69 of the Local Government Act (LGA) 1976
provides that committing nuisance in streams is an
offence while pollution of streams with trade refuse is
another offence under section 70 of the same statute.
Despite these, due to the detail wording in SWMA
Enactment, it seems that the SWMA provisions
encompass greater scope of pollution control and that
overlaps with the EQA and the LGA provisions. This
left the general public in a difficult position in
deciding which department to refer to and who is
 Khalid et al. / OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development 03:08 (2012)
responsible in certain pollution occurrence in water
bodies in Selangor.
It is important to note that the responsibilities over
pollution control are also provided for under several
other legislations at the federal level. These include
sections 86 to 90 of the Street, Drainage and Building
Act 1976, sections 3 to 8 of the Land Acquisition Act
1960 and section 11 of the Land Conservation Act
1960. The National Forestry Act 1984 also discusses
pollution control in great detail under Chapter IV and
VII of the Act. This is because forest acts as an
important water catchment area. In this regard,
excessive logging and deforestations causes land
degradation, soil erosion and pollution. This will
eventually affect the quantity of clean water available
in rivers and other water bodies. With all these
provisions, and together with SWMA Enactments
1999, it is vital that all departments with
responsibilities under these legislations to streamline
their powers in order to have effective pollution
prevention and control.
CONCLUSIONS
This study demonstrates that problems in ensuring
sustainability of water resources through IWRM is
not so much of a legislative or jurisdictional issue but
more of a traditional water management politics that
lead to fragmentation and conflic. It is clear that
SWMA Enactment 1999 meet the 1st pillar as an
enabling environment for IWRM as it covers all
aspect of good and sustainable water management
practices. However, conflict between the Federal and
State governments, conflict between water supply
and services operators and State government, as well
as gaps and overlaps in water related legislations
have not led to smooth implementation of IWRM
under SWMA.
The IWRM concept cannot be easily implemented
until cooperation between all stakeholders is geared
towards mutual beneficial agreement. In this regard,
capacity building is essential to make sure all parties,
understand the spirit of IWRM and implement it in
practice. It is hope that all stakeholders in Selangor
can come up with a mutual agreement and avoid
further conflict. This is because the only way for
ensuring sustainability of water resources is
negotiation, integration and cooperation amongst all
of them.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to thank the Ministry of
Higher Education Malaysia and the Universiti
Teknologi MARA Malaysia for funding this study
through the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme
(Reference No. 600-RMI/SSP/FRGS/5/3/Fsp/
59/2010).
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2031061
17
REFERENCES
[1] Global Water Partnership. 2010. Introduction to
IWRM. www.gwpforum.org [10 May 2010]
[2] Lubell, M. & Lippert, L. 2011.Integrated
Regional Water Management: A Study of
Collaboration or Water Politics-as-usual in
California, International Review of
Administrative Sciences. 77:1:76-100.
http://ras.sagepub.com/content/77/1/76. [ 20
April 2011]
[3] Rahman, S.A. & Khalid, R.M. 2009. Water
Resources Management in Malaysia: Legal
Issues and Challenges. International Journal of
Sustainable Development and Planning. 4:3.
[4] Raja Zainal Abidin, R. Z. 2004. IWRM
Implementation Realities in Malaysia, Paper
presented at the Malaysia Water Forum. (June
2004).
[5] Rogers, P. & Hall, A. 2009. GWP- TEC
Background Paper No. 7- Effective Water
Governance.
http://www.gwpforum.org/gwp/library/TEC%20
7.pdf [19 September 2009]
[6] SPAN Annual Report. 2007. Suruhanjaya
Perkhidmatan Air Negara (SPAN), Malaysia.
[7] Report of the Federation of Malaya
Constitutional Commission 1957 (1957)
Government Printers.
[8] Shad Saleem Faruqi. 2008. Document of
Destiny: The Constitution of the Federation of
Malaysia. Star Publication: Petaling Jaya.
[9] Abdul Kader, S.Z. 2004. Towards Good Water
Governance in Malaysia: Establishing an
Enabling Legal Environment. Malayan Law
Journal. 3.
[10] The Star Online. 2011. Syabas Files RM1.05
Billion against Selangor Government. 9
September.
[11] The Star Online. 2011. Syabas Misled Public,
Says LUAS. 24 September.
[12] UN CSD. 2004. Gathering a Body of Global
Agreements, The Dublin Statement on Water and
Sustainable Development. http://www.un-
documents.net/h2o-dub.htm [19 September
2009]
ABOUT THE CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Name: Rasyikah Md Khalid
The author is a Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Law,
Universiti Teknologi MARA Malaysia where she
teaches Commercial Law, International Law and
Environmental Law. She attained her LL.B at the
University of Sheffield, United Kingdom and
completed her LL.M at the University of Malaya,
Malaysia. She is now pursuing her Ph.D at the
National University of Malaysia, where her research
focuses on the adequacy of the Malaysian legal
18 Khalid et al. / OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development 03: 08 (2012)

framework to ensure sustainability and security of

water resources in the country by using Integrated
Water Resources Management as a case study. She is
an alumnus of the Institute of Sustainability and
Peace of the United Nations University (UNU)
Tokyo where she completed the Postgraduate
Courses on Building Resilience to Climate Change.
She is also an active member of the Malaysian Water
Association as well as a Young Water Professional of
the International Water Association.
Mailing address: Faculty of Law, University
Technology MARA, 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor,
Malaysia.
Tel: 006-013-6135358
E-mail: kmr572000@yahoo.com;
rasyikah511@salam.uitm.edu.my

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2031061