Search

In the paper we present some illustrative examples from the Prekmurje region that are related to the issue of registration of water infrastructure in the land cadastre. The Prekmurje region is known among surveyors for the fact that it has a much higher geolocation quality of land cadastre in comparison with the rest of Slovenia. Surveyors are usually able to take this fact into account correctly in their work, but unfortunately this does not apply to other public services, which are responsible for specific areas of environmental management, such as water management and transport infrastructure management, records of agricultural actual use, etc. With the presented examples, we first show the damaging consequences of breaching the rules and facts of land cadastre in the management of water infrastructure facilities. Next, we present the beneficial consequences of compliance with land cadastre rules and facts in the case of extensive flow reconstruction of Kučnica stream on the state border with Austria and its recording in land cadastre. The main purpose of the presented cases is to help the competent managers of water infrastructure in Slovenia to understand better and adhere strictly to the fundamental role of land cadastre in the spatial management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For the purpose of water management, the Water Act envisages the defining of water and waterside land data. The register of water and waterside land has not yet been established. Land use data is the first step to the final establishment of the register, as defined by the Water Act. In Slovenia, there are few registers containing data that can be interpreted as part of the water and waterside land in accordance with the act. A comparison of data from the land cadastre, the register of land use of agricultural and forest land and data obtained from tests of water and waterside land was made. We compared the definitions, methods of data capture, data quality and maintenance procedures, and performed visual and spatial comparisons of captured objects. The comparison included a general overview of the ownership of the areas where data from different registers overlap. In conclusion, the essential differences between the registers are presented together with proposals for harmonization of spatially dependent data from different registers. The focus is on proposals to create a single, uniform register of land use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]