LETTER FROM THE SPANISH SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY ON
THE NATIONAL HYDROLOGICAL PLAN
Distinguished Members of the European Parliament:
In response to the document recently distributed by the Popular Group “Memorandum on the Spanish
National Hydrological Plan”, we have considered it necessary, by means of this letter, that the points of
view widely held by the Spanish scientific community be taken into account.
Above all, it is important to make clear that the National Hydrological Plan (NHP) is not in accordance
with the management criteria and the objectives defined by the Water Framework Directive recently
approved by the EU. The criteria of the NHP are those of traditional Spanish hydraulic policy based on
the promotion of large public works, with limited or no internalisation of the costs, distant from concepts of
economic rationality and in a context in which environmental values are treated in a superficial and
rhetorical manner.
In the wake of the approval of the Water Framework Directive, the Spanish Government has chosen to
accelerate the process of application of the Plan by means of a policy of trying to quickly impose the
unprecedented construction of many large reservoirs and river transfer projects. Once more we find
ourselves before an old “supply-side” strategy that expects to receive massive European subsidy,
taking advantage of the transition period of the Water Framework Directive in order to elude its
obligations. In our opinion, this attitude is detrimental for our country and disloyal with the rest of
the members of the UE. If the NHP is allowed to proceed, it would mean a grave precedent for the
objectives the Water Framework Directive, which propose that European funds should only by employed
for projects that are guided by clear environmental, social and economic criteria.
In this whole hurried process, the majority of the scientific community has been ignored, to the
contrary of what is stated in the PPE memorandum. It should be taken into account that the five scientists
named by the Spanish Government itself in the National Water Council emitted an unanimously critical
opinion of the NHP and that the Spanish Government has scandalously refused to publish or to make
available the 80 scientific reports on the Plan commissioned again by the government itself, the
majority of which are highly critical of the NHP.
In response to the arguments presented by the PPE we would like to specify the following points:
1- The NHP is based on antiquated concepts and strategies.
Arguments such as “ hydrological disequilibrium” between a “dry Spain” and a “wet Spain” or
between “surplus river basins” and “deficit basins”, or considerations such as “the river water that is
lost in the sea” or concepts such as “structural deficit”,… all reflect the traditional way of water
thinking that existed for much of the 20th century and that is the basis of the diagnostic developed
by the NHP. Nevertheless, for decades these criteria have been considered antiquated in the
United States and in Europe the recently approved Water Framework Directive recognises the
necessity of seriously modifying these perspectives. Today it is necessary to change the traditional
objective of “mastering nature” for one of learning more about it in order to mould our development
to its laws, balances and limitations, into what is known as Sustainable Development.
2- The priority given to old “supply” strategies with the public subsidy of large public works.
From these old concepts, while it is true that some non-structural measures of efficiency and
modernisation are included, the priority given to water management is not established.
Instead, the priority is given to increasing the supply of water with the expectation of
receiving massive public subsidy in the form of European funds. It should be evident that
the backbone of the NHP are the 120 new large reservoirs and the large river transfers from
the Ebro River, in a country which, one should not forget, is the world’s leader in large dams per
inhabitant and per square kilometre. In fact, the availability of water under human control, including
in the driest parts of Spain, greatly exceeds that of the rest of Europe. Spain has an average of
2500 litres per inhabitant and per day; Almeria, the Spanish province with the lowest rainfall, has
3000 litres per inhabitant and per day (half comes from an over-extraction of aquifers and 90% is
devoted to intensive agriculture); the global average use of water in the European Union is
1800 litres per inhabitant and per day; while Israel, with a level urban, industrial and agricultural
development similar to Spain, satisfies its necessities with around 1200 litres per inhabitant and
day. Obviously, the problem is not absolute scarcity, but water management, imbalance in the
distribution in the use between sectors and territorial planning.
3- The causes of water scarcity are not analysed.
The NHP does not analyse the causes that lead to the over-extraction of water resources in certain
areas, especially the Mediterranean coast. For example, it avoids recognising that in areas like
Almeria or Murcia there is a situation of misgovernment that the Administration has
permitted, and has even supported, that allows thousands of new illegal wells in overexploited aquifers and great extensions of new irrigated land without legal permits, while at
the same time unlimited new tourist and residential developments, golf courses and
amusement centres mushroom along the coast under the empire of speculative interests. For
example, it is officially recognised in Almeria that of the existing 25000 hectares of intensive
greenhouse agriculture, between 50% and 75% are irregular. In summary, a large part of what is
presented euphemistically as “structural deficit” is a product of structural misgovernment and the
absence of urban and land planning in accordance with sustainable development.
In the case of the Jucar River, the incorrect use of analysis models induce false predictions of
scarcity (“deficit”), by ignoring the real possibilities offered by the joint management of surface
and groundwater and by viable water-saving strategies; in fact these previsions enter into
contradiction with both the recent recommendations of the Jucar Hydrological Plan and the White
Book ( where the Jucar River is considered a river basin with “surplus”).
4- It favours a skyrocketing of demand, promoting unsustainable development
The simple promise of the river transfers included in the NHP has sparked a strong
uncontrolled growth in the transformation of land into irrigated areas. The massive
agricultural transformation of forested areas, some of them protected for their environmental value,
has been encouraged by the Regional Governments of Valencia and Murcia, that have lifted the
protection of certain areas, especially along the coast, in order to permit the urbanisation of some
of the last stretches of virgin coastline that are left, often of ecological importance.
It should be noted that the historical precedent of this project was the Tajo-Segura river
transfer (1981), which was of a similar volume as the proposed Ebro River transfer proposed in
the NHP. It was constructed to transport 1000 hm3/year with the same objective as the present
plan, to solve the hydrological “imbalance”. It proposed to create a maximum of 50000 new
hectares of irrigated crops. Just ten years later, and despite only being able to transfer 300
hm3/year, the Government had legalised 87,000 new hectares, over 74% more than the area
proposed, which together with even more illegal irrigated land, has resulted in an increase in the
so-called “structural deficit” and a greater over-extraction of aquifers.
5-
The NHP promotes regional inequality and an unsustainable development model for the
Mediterranean coast.
The policy of river transfers, on the contrary of what is stated in the PPE memorandum, worsens
regional differences. On one hand it stimulates unsustainable development on the
Mediterranean coast based on the unlimited growth of urban and tourist development (which is
a threat to the tourist industry itself, very important for these regions, due to congestion and
landscape degradation) and new intensive agriculture (which is still being created despite official
declarations and commitments) . On the other hand, it seriously affects both the interests of inland
areas like Aragon, especially the relatively poor Pyrenees mountain areas affected by NHP
projects that will flood villages and inhabited valleys and the Ebro Delta area where average
income is much less than that of Barcelona, Valencia, Alicante, Murcia and Alicante, which
are the territories that will receive the transferred water. The macro-economic references of
these Mediterranean coastal zones reveal a high level of social-economic development.
6- A cost-benefit balance sheet of the Ebro river transfer gives a negative result.
The economic memorandum of the Ebro river transfers in the NHP contains very serious
mistakes that imply inexplicable methodological and conceptual distortions totally outside
the wide boundary of the scientific and technical debate. There is a clear absence of rigour in
the cost-benefit analysis which is manipulated in order to obtain preconceived positive results. We
shall summarise the main errors in the analysis presented by the Spanish Government:
a)Very optimistic pre-mature budgets . This has been confirmed(as opposed to what is stated in
the PPE memorandum) in the public bidding on the first stretch of the Jucar-Vinalopó river transfer
that was recently suspended since the offers presented by different building firms exceeded the
projected budget by more than 100%. Another example, the Itoiz Dam, a key piece in the NHP
that is already constructed, has exceeded the initial budget by more than 100%.
b) Excessive redemption periods. Assigning all the investments a redemption period of 50
years, while acceptable for large reservoirs and canals, is not acceptable for many of the
infrastructures envisioned in the NHP (25% of investments) such as pumping stations, retaining
ponds…etc.. the redemption period of which should not exceed 15 years.
c) Underestimation of the energy costs of pumping and overestimation of the energy
producible by turbines. A methodological fraud is used in the energy chapter by substituting the
necessary economic analysis with a financial analysis. The result is that the energy consumed is
given half the price as the energy generated (5pts/Kwh vs. 11.2 pts/Kwh). As well as this, there is
no serious consideration of the probable increase in energy costs in the next 50 years.
d) It is a conceptual mistake to use as agricultural benefit the net added value . This
procedure, sometimes useful for certain fields, is not appropriate for analysing a public investment
for the development of capital-intensive private activities with the only aim of maximisation of
profits. By means of this error the benefits are greatly inflated by considering as such labour and
capital costs. This brings the NHP to estimate the net profit generated on average by
Mediterranean irrigated agriculture as 0.72 Euros/m3, while the same plan recognises that the
average payment capacity of this Mediterranean agriculture is between only 0.12 and 0.18
Euros/m3. The fact that the free market of underground waters do not usually exceed the 0.18
Euros/m3 confirms this exaggeration of agrarian benefits.
e) The regulation costs are not accounted for. According to the NHP the regulation of the
volume of flows must be carried out in the Mequinenza Reservoir which is private (the hydroelectric company ENHER). Nevertheless, in its calculations there is not 1 Euro of costs in the
concept of expropriation or compensation . As a precedent, in the Jucar-Vinalopó river transfer,
the Government has to pay the company Iberdrola 6 million Euros/year for using the Cortes Dam
that regulates a volume of only 100 hm3/year, which is only a tenth of the amount envisioned in the
Ebro canal project.
f) The costs of water treatment of the flows of the lower Ebro, that are considered to be of
poor quality, are not taken into account. The Ebro Basin Plan does not consider this water
potable due its high levels of salinity, that would mean important expenditures in water treatment,
especially for urban uses. As well as this, the Plan does not take into account the deterioration
of water quality caused by contamination from hundreds of thousands of new hectares of
irrigated land proposed by the NHP in the Ebro River Basin.
g) The value of urban flows is clearly overestimated. The mistake consists in falsifying the
application of the concept of opportunity value, upon considering the desalinisation of sea-water
(overpriced at 135/m3) as the cheapest possible alternative for urban necessities, instead of using
the opportunity value of agrarian water flows ( less than 0.18Euros/m3 on average in private water
markets in Murcia) as the most economical alternative. The simple correction of this concept
creates a negative global balance for the whole Ebro River transfer project.
7- There will be no compliance with the principle of Complete Internalisation of Costs. There is
no assessment of the modular costs of each section. An average cost of 0,32 Euros/m3
(underestimated, for the above mentioned reasons) is offered, which hides the concrete cost of
each section of the project. These costs, according to the Government´s own calculations would
be above 0.6 Euros/m3 for Almeria or Murcia, and would reach levels of over 1 Euro/m3 of real
costs if we use serious calculations. This is in stark contrast with the average present market
price of less than 0.2 Euros/m3 according to the private water market, which would rise to 0.33 in
areas like Almeria. Today the desalinisation of sea water costs approximately O.5 Euros/m3 and
can deliver water of a much greater quality than the river transferred water.
8- The social-environmental impacts are very serious, both in the mountainous areas and the
Ebro Delta. Both academic ecology specialists and the most prestigious environmental
organisations of Europe consider that the global impact of the NHP constitutes one of the greatest
ecological assaults ever to occur in the European Union. We shall summarise this question in
the following points:
a) 120 new reservoirs mean flooding inhabited villages and beautiful valleys. This has
already sparked serious social conflict in the affected areas, like the General Strike of 25 th of
October of 2000.
b) It means destroying the good ecological state of the most well preserved rivers in Spain,
in clear contradiction with the principle of No-Deterioration demanded by the Water
Framework Directive. At the same time the NHP negatively affects 47 Special Bird Protection
Zones (23% of total) , 117 Important Bird Areas (29% of total) and 82 Places of Communitary
Interest.
c) It means provoking a crisis of unsustainability in the Ebro Delta, accelerating the present
processes of salinisation, eutrophication and subsidence, that are combined with the rise of sealevel caused by climate change. In this respect, all the independent reports of Universities and
from the International Commission RAMSAR denounce the incompatibility of the proposed
river-transfer policy with the conservation of this natural heritage, considered second in bird-life
diversity (after Doñana) of the Iberian peninsula, Special Bird Protection Area and part of the
Nature 2000 network.
d) The worsening water quality problems, due the concentration of salinity, of nutrients that
cause the eutrophication process and other polluting factors. It should also be noted that the
river transfers would have compound effects due to the massive withdrawal of water for agriculture
proposed in the NHP in the Ebro Basin itself and the correspondent return of contaminated water.
e) Critical social-economic impacts on the Ebro Delta . Not only on agriculture or on the
growing tourist industry in the Natural Park area, but also on the seafood and fishing industries on
the coast, as recent studies reveal.
f) It means increasing the negative impacts on the sands of tourist beaches. This problem,
generated by the creation of the Mequinenza and Ribarroja reservoirs, would be worsened by the
reduction of river-flow.
g) The NHP irresponsibly underestimates the effects of climate change, using the most
optimistic scenarios and reducing the prevision to 20 years as opposed to maintaining the 50
years in which the economic balance sheets are kept.
9- The high level of social conflict created by the NHP is ignored. Especially in the zones directly
affected, the Pyrenees and the Ebro Delta. In fact in the last year over one million people have
participated in demonstrations against the NHP. The Blue March last summer that included a
demonstration of over 10,000 in Brussels is another example of the social conflict generated. The
necessary social, political and scientific-technical consensus for this NHP simply does not
exist.
10- More reasonable alternatives exist. The scientific community has put forth not only criticism but
alternatives the Government has received. These alternatives are coherent with the Water
Framework Directive and in accordance with European environmental legislation, which
demand open processes of citizen participation and that combine the following factors:
- application of the Law in face of the misgovernment that allows the over-extraction of
resources and the pollution of rivers and aquifers.
- implementation of sustainable urban and land planning
- projects of modernisation of irrigation and of urban distribution networks.
- creation of water banks that introduce controlled markets in the management of droughts.
- integrated management of underground and surface water.
- revision of concessions and adaptation to new environmental demands.
- integrated agricultural and environmental policy in order to promote water quality.
- introduction of a new pricing system as demanded by the Water Framework Directive,
which assumes the complete recuperation of costs and opportunity values in the cases of
scarcity.
- systematic re-utilisation of water and desalinisation of sea-water, especially in coastal
areas for urban use.
SIGNATORIES
D.Federico Aguilera Klink: Catedrático de la Fac.Económicas-Univ.de La Laguna (Canarias)
D.José M.Castillo: Dpto.de Economía Aplicada- Univ.de Granada
D.M.Angel Esteve: Dpto. de Ecología-Hidrología-Univ.de Murcia
D. Enrique Cabrera: Catedrático -Water Institute of Technology-Univ.Politécnica de Valencia
D.Ricardo Aliod: Dpto.Mecánica de Fluidos- Politécnica de Huesca.
D.Pedro Arrojo: Dpto.Análisis Económico-Univ.de Zaragoza
D.Juán P.Martínez Rica: Ecólogo-Director del IPE-CSIC.
D.Leandro del Moral: Dpto.Geografía-Univ.de Sevilla
DªJulia Martínez : Instituto del Agua y Medio Ambiente-Univ.Murcia
D.Carles Ibáñez: Biólogo-Investigador SEO-Bird Life-Tarragona.
D.Angel Garcés: Dpto.de Derecho Administrativo.Univ.Zaragoza
Dª.Mª Teresa Pérez Picazo: Catedrática Dpto.Economía Aplicada-Univ.Murcia
D.Benigno Elvira: Dpto. de Biología Animal -Univ.Complutense Madrid
Dª.Isabel Palomera: Institut de Ciencies del Mar (CMIMA-CSIC).Barcelona.
D.F.López-Vera: Catedrático Geodinámica e Hidrogeología-Univ.Autónoma Madrid
D.Narcís Prat: Catedrático de Ecología-Univ.de Barcelona.
D.Onofre Rullán: Dpto.Geografía-Univ. Islas Baleares
D.Javier Martínez Gil: Catedrático de Hidrogeología-Univ.de Zaragoza
D.L.Enrique Espinoza: Dpto. de Economía e Hist.Económica -Univ.de Salamanca
D.Abel Lacalle: Derecho Internacional-Univ.de Almería
D.J.Manuel Naredo: Fac.de CC.Económicas-Univ.Complutense-Madrid. Premio Nacional de Medio
Ambiente (2000)
D.Antonio Estevan: Ingeniero Industrial-GEA-21- Madrid
D.Antonio Rodrígues Perea: Hidrogeología-Univ.de las Islas Baleares
D.Francesc Gallart : Inst.CC.de la Terra "Jaume Almera", CSIC-Barcelona
D.Gaspar Mairal: Dpto. de Sociología - Univ.de Zaragoza.
D.J.Manuel Nicolau: Fac.CC.Ambientales-Univ.Alcalá de Henares
D.Carlos Montes: Catedrático de Ecología-Univ.Autónoma de Madrid- Director del Dpto Interuniversitario
de Ecología de Madrid
D.Ignacio Doadrio: Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales - CSIC- Madrid.
D. Francisco Ayala : Inst.Geológico y Minero de España- Madrid
D. Joan Subirats: catedrático depto ciencia política y derecho público-univ.Autónoma Barcelona
D.Eloy Fernández Clemente: Catedrático Economía Aplicada: Univ.de Zaragoza
D. Jesús Carrera: Catedrático del Dpto. de Ingeniería Geotécnica-Univ.Polit.Barcelona
Dª.Isabel Palomera- Institut de Ciencies del Mar -CMIMA-CSIC- Barcelona.
D. Alvaro Chicote Díaz: Depto de Ecología - Univ.Autónoma de Madrid
D. José Luis Bermejo Latre: Catedrático Derecho Administrativo-Univ.Zaragoza
D.Jordi Roca Jusmet Dep. Teoría Económica, Universidad de Barcelona
D.Juán J.Durán Valsero : Inst.Geológico y Minero de España- Madrid.
D. Serafín Corral Quintana - EC-Joint Research Centre-IPSC
D.Vicente Pinilla Navarro. Depto de Estructura e Historia Económica - Univ. de Zaragoza
D. Ramón Franquesa Artes: Dep.Política Económica Mundial, Univ.de Barcelona
D.Alfredo Ollero: Dpto.Geografía-Univ. País Vasco
D.Jordi Rosell Foxà: Dpto. Economía Aplicada - Univ. Autónoma de Barcelona
D. Ignacio De la Riva: Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, CSIC
D. José López Gálvez: Agronomía -Univ. de Almería
Dª.Celia Marrase: Dept.Biologia Marina Oceanog. -Institut Ciències del Mar, CSIC-Barcelona
D.José Ortega: Depto de Medio Ambiente-Univ. Europea de Madrid. CEES
D.Enric Tello Aragay: Dpto de Historia e Instit.Económicas - Univ. de Barcelona.
D.Salvador Carranza: Dept of Zoology- Natural History Museum- Londres
D.Mariano Chóliz Montañés: Depto de Psicología Básica-Universidad de Valencia
D. Juan M Pleguezuelos: Dep Biol. Animal y Ecol, Univ Granada
D. Eduardo Seva: Dpto. Ecología. Univ.Alicante.
Dª Ana Cubero García: Dpto.Mecánica de Fluidos-Univ.Zaragoza
Dª.Amparo Merino de Diego: Fac.CC.Económicas-Univ. San Pablo CEU -Madrid.
D. Eduardo Ros Ibarra: Max-Planck-Institut - Bonn
D. Oriol Bosch: Dept d'Ecología -Universitat de Barcelona
D. José Luis Simón: Depto de Geología- Universidad de Zaragoza
Dª.Elisa Moreu Carbonell: Dpto.de Derecho Público- Universidad de Zaragoza
D. Enrique Ayllón López: Sociedad conservación Vertebrados - Madrid
D. José Antonio Cuchí Oterino: Dpto.Ingen.Agroforestal- Politécnica Superior de Huesca
Dª.Sara Lauzurica Gomez: Fac. Veterinaria- Univ.Complutense de Madrid
Dª.Maria Rieradevall- Dpto. de Ecología, Universidad de Barcelona
D. Antonio García-Valdecasas Huelin:Museo Nacional de CC Naturales -CSIC, Madrid
D. Cesar Blanche: Facultat de Farmacia- Universitat de Barcelona
Dª. Françoise Breton: Departamento de Geografía, Univ.Autónoma de Barcelona
D. Juan Carlos Gónzalez Faraco, Pedagogía, Universidad de Huelva.
D. Juan Ojeda Rivera, Geografía, Universidad Pablo de Olavide (Sevilla)
D. Manuel González de Molina, Historia, Universidad Pablo de Olavide (Sevilla)
D. Manuel Delgado Cabeza, Economía, Universidad de Sevilla.
D. Jesús Mellado: Estación Experimental de Zonas Áridas- CSIC-Almería
D.Ignacio de la Riva: Vicedirector de Investig.-Museo Nac.de Ciencias Naturales-Madrid
D. Ricardo Marqués Sillero, Físicas, Universidad de Sevilla.
D. Xaime M.Requeixo Souto: Depto de Derecho Civil- Univ.Santiago de Compostela
D. Luis Bernués Vázquez: Director E.U. Ciencias de la Salud- Univ. Zaragoza
D. Javier Montalvo: Depto. de Ecología y Biología Animal, Universidad de Vigo
Dª. Concha Germán Bes: Fisiatría y Enfermería. Univ.de Zaragoza
D. Iñaki Barcena Hinojal: Dpto.de Ciencia Política -Univ. del País Vasco
D. Marc Plans: Depto. Ecología - Univ. de Barcelona
Dª. Ascen Encinas Escribano Dpto.Medio Ambiente-Univ. Europea,CEES, Madrid.
D. Carles Pla Zanuy: Director Laboratori o de Ictiologia Genética -Universitat de Girona
Dª Isabel Muñoz Gracia: Dep. Ecología - Univ. Barcelona
Dª.Mª Angeles Ramos Sánchez. Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales. CSIC.Madrid
Dª.Aurelia Bengoechea: Economía Aplicada-Univ.Jaume I de Castellón
D.J.Ambrosio González Carmona, Nacional de Ciencias Naturales.CSIC-Madrid.
D.Emili García-Berthou: Dept. Ciències Ambientals. Universitat de Girona
D.Fernando Sánchez Rodrigo: Depto de Física Aplicada.-Universidad de Almería.
Dª. Mª Luisa Gómez Moreno: Geografía- Univ.de Málaga
Dª. Carolina Pena Martín: Coordinadora General de la Oficina Verde.Univ.Alicante
D. Jordi Font Ferré: Inst.Ciencias del Mar - CSIC. Barcelona
D. Rafael Serra Naranjo, director de la revista Quercus.
Dª.Estefanía Peña Baquedano: Dpto. Ingeniería Mecánica-Universidad de Zaragoza
D.David Sanz Pérez: Dpto.Derecho Administrativo - Universidad de Barcelona.
D. Pere Rubiés Guardiola: Inst.Ciencias del Mar -CMIMA - CSIC- Barcelona.
D. Just T. Bayle Sempere: Dpto.Ciencias Ambientales y Recursos Naturales-Univ.de Alicante
D. José L.Sánchez Lizaso: Dpto CC.Ambientales y Recursos Naturales, Univ.de Alicante
D. Arturo Elosegi: Dep. Biologia y Ecología , Univ.del País Vasco
D.J.Luís Ramos Gorostiza: Dpto. Historia e Instit.Económicas Univ.Complutense- Madrid
D.Eliseo Sierra Noguero: Fac.Derecho-Univ.Autónoma de Barcelona
D.Oriol Mir Puigpelat: Dpt.Derecho Administrativo- Univrsidad de Barcelona
D.Jordi Lleonart: biología pesquera- Inst.CC.del Mar-CSIC- Barcelona
D.Iván Rodríguez Lombardero: Dpto de Medio Ambiente-Univ. Europea de Madrid
7 November 2001