Adegustara, Frenadin2018-09-192018-09-192018-09-19978-602-61361-2-1wahyu sari yenihttps://repository.unri.ac.id/handle/123456789/9436Water resources management has an important role in fulfilling the lives of many people. Exactly when the 1945 Constitution Article 33 paragraph (3) provide the foundation of authority and responsibility of the state in regulating the use and management of water resources, which states "The earth, water and natural resources contained in it are controlled by the state and used for the people's welfare ". Follow-up to the implementation of Article 33 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution, has issued two Acts that were interchanged, namely Act No. 11 of 1974 on Water Resources, later replaced by Act No. 7 of 2004 on Water Resources. The dynamics of implementation of Act No. 7 of 2004 are shown in a number of executive regulations which lead to the emergence of fears of the loss of the essence of the meaning of "is used for prosperity of the people" has tested it unleashed a storm with Act No. 7 in 2004 by the Constitutional Court. In connection with the above, there are at least two things focused research paper in this paper, namely (1) what is the consideration of the cancellation of Act No. 7 of 2004 by the judges of the Constitutional Court ?; (2) how the consequences of building the legal system related to water resources management in the post-withdrawal of the Act No. 7 of 2004? In order to answer the two problems above, the method of research is the study of Act with the pattern: (a) statute approach; (b) case approach; (c) conceptual approach. The results of research and discussion in accordance with the focus of the problem can be summed up as follows: A) There are 5 things that became the basis of the cancellation of the Act No. 7 of 2004 by the Court: (a) Each water utilization should not undermine and negate the right of the people because in addition controlled by the State, water intended for the greater welfare of the people; (b) the State should meet people's right to water as a human right under Article 28, first paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution should be the responsibility of the Government; (c) Water management should be given environment; (d) As a branch of production which affects the lives of many people then according to Article 33 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution should be in the supervision and control of the State absolutely; (e) water management rights belong to the State, the absolute top priority given water utilization are corporates state and/or corporates local government. B) further consequence of the post-cancellation Act 7 of 2004 confirmed that Act No. 11 of 1974 concerning Irrigation reinstated by the Constitutional Court. Judging from building the legal system legislation issues arise as follows: (A) The implementing regulations of Act No. 7 of 2004 as the Government Regulation, Presidential Regulation, Regulation and Regional Regulation which contains the preamble to "remember" include Act No. 7 of 2004 to be "null and void" or "irrevocable";(B) Not all the implementing regulations were born after the canceled Act No. 7 of 2004 using the Act No. 11 of 1974 as the basis for the birth of legal norms.enCancellation Act 7/2004the consequences of further regulationArticle