Case Study 1: Matarraña River Basin - Euwareness

euwareness spain
Case Study 1: Matarraña River Basin
Joan Subirats, Nuria Font and Meritxell Costejà

Case Study 1: Matarraña River Basin
Joan Subirats
Nuria Font
Meritxell Costejà
April 2002
Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona (UAB)
Departament de Ciencia Politica i de Dret Public
Campus Universitari – Edifici B
08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona)
Spain
Tel: +34.3.58.11767
Fax: +34.3.58.12439
Website: www.uab.es
Email: joan.subirats@uab.es; meritxell.costeja@uab.es; nuria.font@uab.es
EUWARENESS is a research project on European Water Regimes and the Notion of a Sustainable Status. Research
institutes from six European countries (Netherlands, Belgium, France, Spain, Italy, Switzerland) have been cooperating
in this two year project (2000-2002). More information is available on www.euwareness.nl. The project is supported by
the European Commission under the 5 th Framework Programme, and co-ordinated by the University of Twente in the
Netherlands.
1

Index
Introduction
1. Case demarcation
2. Water uses and demands
3. Regulative system and de facto use rights
4. The actors
5. National and river basin regimes: main developments
6. The process: phases and transition towards integration
7. Dimensions of integration and regime change
8. Some interpretative lines
2

Introduction
The Matarraña river case constitutes one of the two cases studies conducted by the
Spanish team in the EUWARENESS project framework. In general terms, the case
satisfies the main selection criteria agreed upon:
Main selection criteria
Rivalry between heterogeneous /
homogeneous uses / users
Preference for cases where not
only public ownership but also
privative ownership of water
resources could be found.
Presence of transitions towards
integration during the last two
decades (integration to be
considered as a case of success)
The demarcation of a case
should follow the hydrological
and geographical boundaries of
a water basin at a regional scale
or with a tributary character
The Matarraña case study
√ The case presents high levels of
rivalry between heterogeneous and
homogeneous users of water. Rivalries
can be interpreted in territorial terms.
√ Surface waters are considered as
public domain, but can be object of
privative uses: irrigation, population
supply and cattle.
√ There are some signals of a transition
towards integration (it crystallises in an
agreement reached in April 2000):
Integration of the problem perception
and objectives and integration of the
actors in the policy network
√ The Matarraña river is a tributary to
the Ebro river and has an extension of 97
Km.
The following sections will analyse the extent to which there are signals of transition
towards an integrated regime. As a general point of departure, and considering the
case study framework analysis, integration mostly relates to the governance rather
than the regulative system and mainly takes into account:
The problem perception and objectives
(“development of a water vision for a river basin”)
The actors in the policy network
(“involvement of all actors having an interest in water services”)
3

1. Case demarcation
The Matarraña river is tributary of the Ebro river in its right side. It is located in the
northern east of Spain and flows through the Teruel and Zaragoza provinces (Aragón
Autonomous Community), Tarragona (Catalonia) and Castellón (Valencian Country).
The Matarraña basin has a total of 1,727 Km2 flowing through 97 km starting from its
head (in Puertos de Beceite) and ending in the Ebro river. The Matarraña hidrographic
net includes: the Matarraña river, the Pena river, the Ulldemó river, the Tastavins river
and the Algás river (the latter is the main tributary and empties its waters into the point
where the Matarraña flows into the Ebro river).
There are two factors exogenous—both to the regulative system and the policy
process—that are crucial in order to understand the developments at the Matarraña
river basin: the climate patterns and the intra-basin diversity.
Climate conditions
Climate patterns considered both inter-annually and intra-annually are crucial in order
to understand what is going on in the Matarraña river basin. Regarding interannual
patterns, some raining cycles can be observed: five to ten year periods of scarce
raining and draught are commonly followed by five to ten years periods of abundant
raining. According to some data, the main climatic periods related to the Matarraña
river along the last years, which are coincident with those at the national level, are the
following ones:
Climate periods
1977 – 1987 dry period
1987/88 – 1992/93 wet period
1993/94 – 1999/2000 dry period
2000 wet period
4

Regarding intra-annual climate patterns, the Matarraña basin follows the typical
Mediterranean regime, which is characterised by severe low water periods occurring
from June to September. This may cause the breaking of the river continuity (the mean
flow in July and August decreases 40% of the total flow), and there are two rainfall
peaks in spring and autumn depending on the raining conditions. However, intraannual
raining irregularity may dramatically vary the mean river flow from one year to
the next. In addition, there are important variations in the raining patterns within the
river basin: the average raining on the head of the river basin is 600 mm per year, while
it is lower than 300 mm at the end. Apart from that, dry conditions during the summer
season become more intense in dry years due to the increasing demand of water for
agriculture and population supply (Sostoa, 1996).
Intra-basin diversity
The Matarraña river basin includes twelve municipalities that make a population of
10,613 inhabitants. Beceite is the municipality located at the head of the river and La
Portellada is the one located at its end, just before the Matarraña river tributes to the
Ebro river. The distribution of population among the twelve municipalities is
summarised in the following table:
Population in the municipalities of the
Matarraña river basin (1996)
Population
Beceite 654
Valderrobres 1,914
La Fresnada 435
Torre del Compte 189
Mazaleón 608
Maella 2,079
Fabara 1,261
Nonaspe 1,100
Fayón 392
Calaceite 1.238
Cretas 638
La Portellada 342
Total 10,613
Source: www.chebro.es
5

Even though the Matarraña river basin is neither too long nor too populated, the
climatic, geographical, social and economic characteristics in different parts of the river
basin are very different. And so the water uses and demands are. In general terms,
three different areas can be distinguished along the river basin: the higher, the middle
and the lower basin. The main municipalities located in the three areas are included in
the following table:
Higher basin
Beceite
Valderrobres
The higher river basin
Middle basin
Mazaleón
Maella
Lower basin
Fabara
Nonaspe
The Matarraña river is characterised by being narrow at its head and resembles a
torrent or a stream. This area has lower needs of water than the rest of the river basin,
both because users located at the higher river basin have traditionally had the right to
use relatively more water than the rest of the river basin users, and because the
extension of irrigated lands are much lower in the higher than in the middle and lower
basins.
In the mid sixties, peach crop —which requests high quantities of water— was timidly
introduced in the higher basin, but in the seventies most crop lands were reconverted
into cattle farms (and then water demands decreased). Along the nineties, rural tourism
has become an important source of income in this area, but this does not seem to put
too much pressure on the water issue. To sum up, the higher river basin does not have
severe problems of water scarcity. However, it has been the destination of several
regulation works that have been promoted by the Ebro river basin administration —the
Confederación Hidrográfica del Ebro (CHE)— in order to secure water for the middle
and lower river basins: the Pena water dam, that was constructed in 1930; the
diversion tunnels, that were built in 1978; and the pumping project, that was installed in
1998. However, given the perceived lack of efficiency of these works, as well as their
cost for the higher river basin (in terms of environmental impact, expropriations,
economic cost, etc), actors located at the higher basin have increasingly rejected
projects promoted by the CHE.
6

The middle river basin
The Matarraña middle river basin has more water demands than the higher one. This is
so because of two reasons. On the one hand, the two main villages in the middle river
basin, that is Maella and Mazaleón, concentrate at about 47% of the irrigated land in
the whole river basin. This is an important percentage, especially if we consider that
irrigation consumes 90% of the total water needed in the Matarraña river basin. On the
other hand, along the seventies and mid eighties, peach crop, which needs high
quantities of water, was introduced in the middle river basin and familiar production
became industrialised. Nowadays, most peach crops are concentrated in the middle
river basin. For instance, the municipality of Maella produces around 5.5 million Kg.
fruit every year, out of a total of 12 million in the whole river basin.
The extension of fruit crop along the middle river basin has increased water demands
in this area over the last years and, consequently, the area has become more
vulnerable to scarcity problems, especially in dry years. The concentration of most
irrigation lands in the middle river basin has had the effect of making users from the
middle river basin being dominant in the institutions representing users in the river
basin, namely the Central Union of Irrigation Communities in the Matarraña river. As
they have a dominant position in the river basin, they have a higher influence in the
decisions taken by the Central Union in order to face scarcity problems. This has
provoked conflicts with the higher and the lower river basin. With the former, the middle
basin has traditionally been in favour of regulating the river by means of hydraulic
works that had to be located in the head of the river. With the later, the middle basin
has been accused by users in the lower basin to prioritise the irrigation of lands located
in the middle basin.
The lower river basin
The Matarraña river in its lower basin is wider than it is in its head, but often suffers the
consequences of severe scarcity problems. As farmers in the higher and middle river
basin, some farmers in the lower basin rooted the traditional dry crops out —mainly
olive and vineyards— and started planting peaches in small areas of land in the late
sixties and along the seventies. These plantations were enlarged along the seventies
and early eighties, but a severe draught in 1986 left Nonaspe lands with no water
during seven months. Since then, problems of water scarcity have been constant.
7

Nowadays, due to the problems of water scarcity, many crops have been abandoned
or rooted out. It is estimated that in Nonaspe around 60-70% of the land is now
uncultivated. In addition, the ageing of population constitutes an additional limit to
continue cultivating lands.
To sum up, two main factors condition the use of water in the higher, middle and lower
river basin: the severity of water scarcity problems and the level of influence in the river
basin decision making processes. These factors are crucial in order to understand the
balances and unbalances between actors and uses at the river basin. The following
table summarises the intensity of both of them in the three areas.
Water scarcity and level of influence of the higher, middle and lower river basin
Severity of water
scarcity problems
Level of influence
The higher basin
low
low
The middle basin
middle - high
high
The lower basin
high
low
8

2. Water uses and demands
According to official data, the total net water needed in the Matarraña river basin is
calculated as being 17.029 Hm3 per year: 90.4% goes to irrigation; 9.58% is needed
for population supply; and 0.01% is consumed by cattle. The main uses of water at the
Matarraña river basin include irrigation, population supply and cattle. Among these,
irrigation is clearly dominant, as it absorbs 90.4% of the total net water needs.
Irrigation
2,166 Ha.
12.094 Hm3
90.4%
Source: www.chebro.es
Total net water needs per year, Hm3
(from Valderrobles to Fayón)
Population supply
10,613 inhab.
1.284 Hm3
9.58%
Cattle
631,228 heads
0.245 Hm3
0.01%
Total
17.029 Hm3
100%
Water used in the Matarraña river basin can be taken directly from the river or from the
Pena dam, which is located in Valderrobres. In dry periods, and especially in spring
and summer, the river may have low water flows (in the lower basin, the flow of the
river may even disappear in extremely dry conditions). As the following table shows
(recent data are not available), the annual flows of water at the head of the Matarraña
river may vary considerably.
Annual flows in the head of the Matarraña river
(1985-1994)
1985 23.22 Hm3
1986 28.68 Hm3
1987 63.25 Hm3
1988 79.53 Hm3
1989 71.38 Hm3
1990 119.91 Hm3
1991 66.59 Hm3
1992 58.18 Hm3
1993 25.05 Hm3
1994 31.65 Hm3
1995 ?
1996 ?
1998 ?
1999 ?
2000 ?
Source: www.chebro.es
9

In cases of water scarcity, and considering the need to respect the ecological flow (325
l/sec), which represents about the 30% of the average river flow, the river has no water
enough to satisfy irrigation, population supply and cattle needs. The Matarraña river, in
the gauging station located in its head (municipality of Beceite), reduces 40% of its
average flow in July and August, and in 20% in June and September. In the gauging
station located in Nonaspe, at the lower river basin, it may reduce 70% of its average
flow from June to September.
Most of the water used in the Matarraña river basin is taken from the Pena dam. The
Pena dam was built in 1930 and has a total capacity of 17.88 Hm3. However, two
considerations must be taken into account when considering this data. On the one
hand, the Pena dam, due to geological factors, may filter up to 3.75 Hm3/year at least
and, as some studies point out, it can only regulate 8.5 Hm3 per year. On the other
hand, the quantity of water stocked in the Pena dam depends on climatic conditions.
While the rains in 1988 allowed for the filling up of almost an 80% of the dam, in
summer 1994 the dam was filled up with 42% of its capacity, and one year later just
with 26% (Moragrega, 2000). In September 1998, one of the driest periods in recent
years, the Pena dam contained about 13% of its total capacity. Then it released 0.9
Hm3 water for irrigation, and left the 1.5 Hm3 minimum reserved for population supply.
The following table shows the mentioned evolution of the quantity of water stored in the
Pena dam for a ten years period starting in 1988.
Water stored in the Pena Dam (1988 – 1998)*
Year Hm3 %
1988 15 78
1989 17 89
1990 14 73
1991 16 84
1992 18 95
1993 15 79
1994 8 42
1995 5 26
1996 5 26
1997 9 47
1998 4 21
*From data collected in July
Source: Heraldo de Aragon (26 th July, 1998)
10

Agriculture
As it was pointed out before, irrigation consumes 90.4% of the total water needed in
the Matarraña river basin. Water demands for irrigation along the river basin present
territorial variations.
Extension of irrigation lands (Has, 1995)
Vegetables
Woody trees
(fruits, vineyards, olive)
Total
Valderrobres 96 130 226
Fresneda 21 25 43
Torre del Compte 16 84 100
Valdeltorno 20 37 57
Mazaleón 35 183 218
Maella 296 505 801
Fabara 198 204 402
Nonaspe 111 164 275
Fayón 30 11 41
Total
Source: Gracia, 1999
823 1,343 2,166
From Valderrobres to
Mazaleón
(high – middle basin)
From Maella to Fayón
(middle – low basin)
Total
Source: Gracia, 1999
Annual net irrigation needs (1995)
Vegetables
0.484 Hm3
1.954 Hm3
2.438 Hm3
Woody trees
(fruits, vineyards,
olive)
3.324 Hm3
6.332 Hm3
9.657 Hm3
Total
3.808 Hm3
8.286 Hm3
12.094 Hm3
Peach production, which is more profitable than other type of crops, started in the fifties
thanks to the regulation of water stocked in the Pena water dam. One of the
characteristics of fruit production is that it requires higher amounts of water, and
demands are higher in the dry seasons of the year (from May to September), which is
the period of the year in which the river has the lowest water flows.
11

The production of peaches has considerably increased after the seventies and this has
caused an increasing demand of water. This increasing demand, which has also been
constant in dry periods, has generated problems of securing water supply. From 1977
to 1987, which is a dry period, problems of water scarcity to irrigate lands lead to
increasing social demands of water regulation. While the 1988-93 wet period softened
these problems, the dry period starting in 1994 reopened the scarcity problem. In this
sense, while the Pena water dam used to have water up to the 80% of its water
capacity in 1993, the percentage decrease to 42% in 1994. At the same time, water
consume increased up to 14,6 hm3 that year (Moragrega, 2000).
12

Population supply
The Matarraña river permanently supplies water to a population of approximately
10,600 inhabitants which turn to be around 20.000 in summer time. This represents a
demand for population supply of about 1.284 Hm3, representing less than 10% of total
water needs in the river basin. The municipalities of Maella and Valderrobres are those
demanding more water for population supply. Water for population supply comes from
the river or from the Pena dam and is stoked in depots located in each municipality.
Cattle raising
Annual needs for population supply (1995)
Municipality (population) m3
Valderrobres 1,935 234,058
La Fresneda 435 52,618
Torre Compte 189 22,861
Valdeltormo 396 47,900
Mazaleón 608 73,544
Maella 2,079 251,476
Fabara 1,261 152,531
Nonaspe 1,100 133,056
Fayón 392 47,416
Calaceite 1,238 149,748
Cretas 638 77,172
La Portellada 342 41,368
Total 1,283,748
Source: Gracia, 1999
Actually, the Matarraña river covers water demands for cattle raising, which represents
around 650.000 cattle heads (including porcine, ovine sheep, rabbit and chicken
breeding). Cattle is mostly concentrated in Valderrobres and Nonaspe, in both cases
representing about 60% of the total income. Cattle needs small quantities of water: just
0.245 Hm3 per year, representing 0.01% of total water demands in the river basin.
13

Industry
Annual net needs for cattle (1995)
Municipality m3
Valderrobres 52.921
La Fresneda 18,917
Torre Compte 943
Valdeltormo 7,547
Mazaleón 9,245
Maella 13,423
Fabara 57,832
Nonaspe 14,750
Fayón 9,940
Calaceite 22,859
Cretas 15,684
La Portellada 27,122
Total 245,181
Due to the geographical characteristics of the Matarraña river, industrial development
used to be more intense in the head of the river, mainly because of water force and the
strong slope of the river in the high part of the basin. Three hydroelectric plants were
built in the XXth century, but they are actually not operating. Currently, there are at
least 30 food and agricultural industries in the Matarraña river basin specialised in oil
mills, winery, sausages, feed industry and slaughterhouses (Moragrega, 2000).
Tourism
The good quality of water and the attractive landscape and cultural heritage in the
villages by the river basin make this area an attractive rural tourism destination: the
Matarraña river is one of the best conserved in the Mediterranean basin and is suitable
for bathing; it has a diverse landscape in just 100 Km of its length; and it holds
attractive historical heritage, including Iberian villages, Romanic churches, medieval
bridges and towers, to mention just a few of the tourism spots. In addition to that, rural
areas keeping a traditional flavour are becoming an increasing destination spot in
recent years.
Since the early nineties, rural tourism is a flourishing source of economic development
in the high river basin. Until the end of the eighties rural tourism in this area did exist,
14

ut was marginal. At the beginning of the nineties, the European Union gave incentives
to the arrangement of rural houses in order to avoid their abandonment as well as to
stop rural exodus, by trying to make tourism an alternative to social and economic
development in the area. In that period, some social and private initiatives promoting
rural tourism were launched. Some of the initiatives promoted include the conversion of
old places —for instance a medieval tower, a mill, an old train station, an old factory or
a monastery— in rural hotels or restaurants. In recent years, local governments in the
higher river basin are having some initiatives to promote tourism.
Tourism is higher in the summer time (July and August) and leads to an increase of
water demands. For instance, in Valderrobres, which is the municipality where tourism
is most developed in the Matarraña river basin, water demands for population supply
are estimated to increase about 50%.
Living environment
The Matarraña river is considered to be one of the Mediterranean rivers with one of the
most salient biodiversity and is probably one of the best conserved in the Iberian
Peninsula. There are 312 species of algae, 202 species of aquatic invertebrates and
186 species of vertebrates (Sostoa, 1996). Some parts of the Matarraña river receive a
special protection by virtue of the 78/659 Directive on the diversity of fish species, and
some of them are protected by the Habitats directive (92/43). In the framework of the
latter, most part of the river has been proposed as a place of Community interest (LIC)
by the Aragon regional government to the State government, which in turn will make
the national proposal to the European Commission.
The Matarraña river is the living environment of some Mediterranean species in danger
of extinction: the river crayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes), which is considered a
species of community interest; the ‘monk’ fish (Blennius fluviatilis), which is considered
a species in danger of extinction by the Bern Convention; the ‘bagre’ cephalopods
(Leuciscus cephalus), the European galapagus (Emys orbicularis), and the otter (Lutra
lutra), are considered as “vulnerable” (Sostoa, 1996).
Territorial conflict between the high basin territories (the region of Valderrobres), where
the river constitutes a key element of the natural heritage —which is the basis of rural
tourism in the area—, and the middle-low basin (the region of Maella), the main
15

problem of which is water supply guaranteeing during dry periods due to its
specialisation in some crops of relatively high quality and profitability (peaches and
vegetables).
Apart from that, the Matarraña river, as it was pointed out before, is considered to be
one of the best conserved in the Mediterranean river basin. While there are not enough
available data on quality indicators of the Matarraña river, the following data show the
low concentrations of certain polluters in the river at Valderrobres, Maella and
Nonaspe. It must be taken into account, however, that the concentration of pollutants in
water is higher in dry periods due to the low water level.
Evolution of the average quality of surface waters in the Matarraña river (1996-1999)
1996 1997 1998 1999
Matarraña in
Valderrobres
A2 A2 A2 A2
Matarraña in
Maella
A2

Quality indicators of the Matarraña river in Valderrobles
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Nitrites
mg./L No2
- 0.012 0.022 0.019 0.037 0.044 0.024 0.032
Phosphore
mg./L P
0.03 0.04 0.02 0.02 nd 0.11

3. Regulative system and de facto use rights
The regulative system is provided mainly by the Royal Decree Legislative 1/2001. This
rule is a codifying legislation of the different modifications (above all the 46/99 Water
Act) upon the 29/1985 Water Act, which has been formally abolished. There is also the
Reglament of Public Hydraulic Domain adopted in 1986, that develops and concretises
the Water Act prescriptions, the Ebro Hydrological Plan (Royal Decree 1664/1998, 24 th
July), and finally, the National Hydrological Plan (NHP Act 10/2001, 5 July). The
principal aim of this plan, in practice, is the regulation of the basin Ebro water diversion
to the Júcar (CA Valence), Segura (CA Valence and Murcia) and internal Catalonia
basins. Otherwise, the part of the Ebro basin affected by this Act is placed in the south
of the Matarraña basin, so, it doesn’t directly affect to this area.
Apart from this regulation, no regional legislation on water regime in the Autonomous
Community of Aragon is operating although it has to be said that in 1992 the
Parliament of Aragon adopted a political agreement upon water, that contained the
main criteria for a water policy in the area, and that later has been included in the Ebro
basin Hydrological Plan.
Other than that, sectoral legislation completes the water regime system: the RD
11/1995 incorporating the 91/271 Directive on urban waters, the 41/1997 incorporating
the 43/92 Habitats Directive, the RD 2419/1979 on the assemblies and governing
boards of hidrographical confederations, and the 2000/60 EU framework directive on
water. The main aspects of water regime are included in the following tables.
Common uses
Special common
uses
Privative uses
Uses
Drinking, bathing, domestic uses and cattle feed
No administrative authorisation is required
Navigation and flotation, establishment of passing ships and
embankments, other uses that do not exclude the use of water by third
parties
Administrative authorisation is required
Uses that exclude the use of water by third parties
They are acquired through legal disposition or administrative concession
18

Privative uses by
legal disposition
Privative uses by
administrative
authorisation
No administrative authorisation nor concession is required
Land owners can use rain waters
and stagnant waters flowing
through their lands.
They can use waters coming from
springs located in their lands and
use ground waters not exceeding
7,000 m3 per year (unless the
aquifer has been declared as
overexploited, then an
authorisation is required)
If the annual volume of ground
waters uses is superior than 7,000
m3, the land owner will apply for a
concession
Regulative system of privative uses
Regulative system
The river basin agency defines the
exploitation regime
The ecological flow does not have
the nature of water use but is a
restriction imposed to the
exploitation systems (except for
population supply) (46/1999 Act)
The assignation of resources
established in the river basin plan
determines the flows assigned to
present and futures uses
User communities, public
organisations and private users will
apply for the concession or
reserved waters to the river basin
agency
Once the concession has been
conceded, it will be registered in
the Water Register
No one can derive water from one
aqueduct, nor using it, nor using its
strength without administrative
tittle
Any concession must be given
according to the prevision of the
hydrological plans and have a
19
Springs are rare
The aquifer is not declared as
overexploited
Current practice
The CHE elaborated the Ebro
Hydrological Plan in 1998
The minimal flow is 325 m3/sec
This flow is not always guaranteed
Around 30% of the extension in the
Matarraña river basin uses water
without having a concession
Illegal users and many legal users
are not registered
Illegal users derive water from
irrigation channels
Water concessions for irrigation and
population supply are considered by
users as being in perpetuity

Concessions can
be:
Central users
communities
temporary nature: 75 years
maximum
Water concessions for population
supply are given to Local
governments, Mancommunity of
municipalities or private
enterprises (the latter have the
concession of public service of
water supply)
Water concessions for irrigation
can be given in terms of public
service to enterprises or private
persons even though they have
not the land owner tittle (if land
owners agree)
Each concession must fix its end,
the terms, the maximum flow
whose use is conceded, the
average continuing flow, and the
municipalities and provinces
Renewed, revised, expired or
extinguished
Irrigation channels / communities
must form a central user
community (29/1985 Water Act)
20
Water concessions for population
supply are mainly given to
municipalities
Water concessions for irrigation are
given to irrigation communities and,
in a few cases, to private persons
Concessions fix and end, but
sometimes water is used for different
ends (i.e. water concessions for
irrigation may be used for cattle)
Concessions for population supply
and irrigation are perceived to be in
perpetuity
In March 2000, 12 irrigation channels
in Beceite for the Water Users Board
The main novelty introduced by the 29/1985 Water Act (nowadays the RDL 1/2001) is
the consideration of all surface continental waters, which include surface and
renewable underground waters, as hydraulic public domain. While this situation
changes the nature of the ownership, the act has a limited impact on the current uses
and practices at the Matarraña level. This is so in a number of ways, including
concessions, illegal uses, the water register and the functions of the CHE and the
irrigation communities.
Regarding concessions, before the coming into effect of the 29/1985 Water Act,
concessions given for irrigation to individuals or to irrigation communities were given in
perpetuity. The 1985 Water Act establishes that concessions have a maximum term of
75 years. However, the Matarraña river basin irrigation communities, most of which
were given their concessions much before the Water Act was adopted, perceive

nowadays that concessions are in perpetuity. Regarding population supply,
concessions were originally given for a period of 99 years. The 1953 Local Regime Act
reduced these terms to 50 years, even though the State administration continued to
give 99 years concessions along the fifties. Currently, those having a concession for
water supply in the Matarraña river basin perceive they have them in perpetuity. It has
to be taken into account that concessions at least date back from 1901 and that after
the coming into effect of the 29/1985 Water Act the maximum term is 75 years starting
from the date the concession is registered. So being registered would theoretically
have the incentive of granting for a new 75 period concession (but may be losing the
expectation of perpetuity). Apart from that, one must take into account that about 30%
water uses in the Matarraña river basin are illegal.
The 29/1985 Water Act establishes that all concessions must be registered in the
Water Register, that was created by virtue of this regulation. However, this is far from
being implemented. Prior to that, from the sixties on, there were some uses books
including some data on uses, and back to the XIXth century, some provinces used to
fill inscriptions books. The information registered, however, was uncompleted and
scarcely precise. Official data refer about 58 concessions included in the old inscription
books from 1901 to 1985. Among them, a few have been extinguished and most of
them are still operating. Among the latter, those having had any change (for instance,
change of the name of the concessionaire) after 1985, have been registered in the
Water Register. So have the new concessions given after 1985. However, the old
concessions not having had any change have not been registered. In total, only 12
concessions, which represent a minimal amount of the total water used in the river
basin, are currently registered. Clearly, the 1985 Water Act does not serve to
substantially modify this situation. The following table includes all concessions
registered by the CHE since 1985.
Water concessions registered by the CHE since 1985
Municipality Use Year Term Flow
(litres / sec)
Beceite
Valderrobres
Water force
Population supply
Irrigation (8 Ha)
Population supply
1993
1997
1989
1992
75 years
75 years
75 years
75 years
375 l/s
1.21 l/s
0.34 l/s
13.89 l/s
21

Mazaleón
Maella
Fabara
Nonaspe
Arid grain plant
Industry
Cattle
Water supply
Irrigation (6.5 Ha)
Irrigation (4.238 Ha)
and cattle
Cattle
Irrigation (4.075 Ha)
Source: CHE, unpublished data (2001)
CHE
Central Users
Communities
1999
1999
1999
1997
1991
1991
1990
1991
?
?
?
75 years
75 years
75 years
75 years
75 years
12 l/s
1.39 l/s
0.016 l/s
0.06 l/s
4.7 l/s
2.107 l/s
0.44 l/s
Distribution of functions between the CHE and the Irrigation Communities
Formal functions
Administration of the river basin:
Elaborates the Ebro river basin plan
Regulates the Matarraña river
Grants for concessions and registers
them
Collects the tax paid to by users in
order to finance works
Administration of irrigation channels:
They have their own statutes and
regulate their internal regime and
the activities of their members users.
They are also in charge of the
resolution of problems among users
within the users community, fixing
indenizations for damages caused to
the Community or to users, and
determining obligations derived from
infractions of the statutes
Real functions
2.5 l/s
√ Elaborates the Ebro river basin
plan
√ Regulates the Matarraña river
Does not intervene in the
administration and distribution of
waters between users
Legal users pay for the tax
√
√
Denounces of infractions are rarely
sent to the CHE
22

They may constitute in a Central
Users Junta
Collects the tax from users to be
paid to the CHE
23
Central Union for the Matarraña river
basin
High level of influence regarding
decisions on the watering out of the
Pena dam and the distribution of
water
A few irrigation communities do not
pay for the tax and the remaining
communities pay for it
Regarding the CHE and the Central Unions’s functions, there are also some
disadjustments between legal aspects and real practices. The CHE has been assigned
with certain functions, including the elaboration of the Ebro river basin plan, and
regulates the Matarraña river basin: it promotes regulation works, it collects the
infrastructure tax (through the Central Union), it grants for concessions, and it registers
them in the Water Register. It also plays a more ‘policy’ role by negotiating with the
Central Union and the irrigation communities. However, the CHE is perceived in the
territory as being a bureaucracy that ignores the real problems of the river basin and
any decision it takes is perceived by many river basin actors as an undesirable
inference. To certain extent, the CHE seems to accept playing an ‘outsider’ role and
seems to prefer leaving the river basin to self-regulate. As a matter of fact, the CHE
has been passive in relation to illegal users and to the registration of concessions in the
Water Register. In addition, there is a common perception that the Central Union —and
not the CHE— is the most influential actor in the regulation of the river basin.
Finally, regarding users communities, in the municipality of Beceite, irrigation uses in
this municipality date back to the Middle Ages. There is a dozen irrigation channels in
Beceite but only three of them had regularised their concessions until fairly recently. In
February 2000, the CHE threatened these irrigation channels to create a Users Union
(as provided by the 29/1985 Water Act) otherwise they could lose their water
concessions. In March 2000 the irrigation communities in Beceite created the Water
Users Board of Beceite in order to keep their concessions. However, they are not
required to be members of the Central Union as they do not take water from the Pena
dam but from the Matarraña and the Ulldemó rivers.

Use rights and practices
Some uses of water in the Matarraña river basin date from centuries and they are
mostly related to irrigation. Most of the irrigation channels still working today were built
by the Arabic population who settled down in the Peninsula, and the most antique
irrigation communities existing today date back to the early XIXth century. Nowadays,
there are 39 irrigation communities located in 10 municipalities along the Matarraña
river basin, each of them having their own irrigation channels and their own water
concessions. Concessions for using water were given along the XIXth and XXth
century, and users understand they have them in perpetuity. Plots (peace of land) are
ascribed to irrigation channels and by this they have their use rights to irrigate.
Irrigation communities have their own statutes and rules of functioning, and it is them
those deciding how to distribute water taken directly from the river. The 39 irrigation
communities are represented at the Central Union, which is the institution deciding on
how to distribute water coming from the Pena dam along the river basin.
As it has already been mentioned, nowadays water for irrigation in the Matarraña river
basin can be taken either from the river or from the Pena dam. Water can be taken
from any of the two sources in order to cover different type of uses.
Regarding population supply, water is taken both from the river and from the Pena
dam. In Valderrobres, it is also taken from a well opened recently, and in the lower
basin (Fabara and Nonaspe), water for population supply is also taken from the
Ribarroja dam in the Ebro river in cases of extreme scarcity. Each municipality has a
concession of water for population supply in perpetuity (although some animal farms in
some municipalities are also connected to the municipal water network). The prize of
water is fixed by each municipality. Given the water scarcity problems, a rivalry
between use of water for population supply and agriculture often emerges. To this
respect, the Central Union considers that municipalities consume too much water and
has asked the CHE to fix gauging stations in the municipalities in order to know the
amount of water consumed in each of them.
Regarding irrigation, water is also taken both directly from the river and from the Pena
dam. In case it is taken directly from the river, the concessions given to the irrigation
communities by the CHE have a maximum quantity of water (litres/second/Ha), as far
as the river has water enough to cover needs in all the river basin). It is irrigation
communities those deciding how to distribute water among users. It must be taken into
24

account, however, that the river normally has low quantities of water flowing and
therefore the amount of water going into their irrigation channels is lower than the
maximum quantity allowed to be used. In fact, the natural river flow of the river does
not guarantee having water in the middle and lower basin all along the year. As a
matter of fact, in drought periods, the river is dry during the spring and summer
seasons from Mazaleón or Maella. This makes the Pena dam the main source of water
to all the users in the river basin, but specially to the middle and lower basin.
In dry seasons (from March to October), most irrigation water is taken from the Pena
dam. From the late fifties, irrigation communities have perceived that the amount of
water provided by the Pena dam is insufficient to cover water demands in all the river
basin. Taking into account this perception, the decisions on when and how the water
from the dam is released become crucial. To this respect, it is the CHE the institution
giving the order of watering the dam out both in relation to the quantity of water and to
the rhythm of the process. However, this decision is taken in accordance to the Central
Union, which is considered to be the most influential actor in the decision of how to
administer water from the Pena dam.
Water released from the Pena dam does not go to the Matarraña river but goes directly
to the irrigation channels. Almost all irrigation channels in the Matarraña river basin are
connected along 200 Km, starting from those located at the higher basin up to those
located at the lower basin (some of them were built by the Arabic people centuries
ago). It is the Central Union, as agreed by its members, the institution deciding how
water will be distributed between the irrigation communities. For instance, it can decide
that certain types of crops, typically fruits, have a priority of irrigation to other type of
crops. Or, as it did in summer 1998, it may prohibit irrigation to fruit crops that had
already been harvested in order to keep water for fruit still to be picked up.
As the example shows, water does not always cover the existing demands at all the
parts of the river basin. It must be taken into account that the Central Union, as a
representative body of the irrigation communities, is mostly dominated by those actors
having interests in the middle basin, mainly in the municipality of Maella. Maella has
the largest extensions of lands to be irrigated in the river basin and consequently the
actors of the middle river basin become dominant in the Central Union: they hold the
majority in the directive board, the president is a person from Maella, and the Central
Union is located in Maella. In addition, Maella has extended the peach crop along the
last two decades, and thus water demands in this area are increasingly high. In this
25

circumstance, the irrigation communities in the lower basin often complain that water
does not always arrive to the lower irrigation channels, which pay water at the same
price as the other users, even though this has been agreed upon by the members of
the Central Union. Conflicts between the middle and the lower river basin reappear
every year.
Regarding the higher basin, Valderrobres has had a use right since the Central Union
was created in 1950. According to the interviewed, an agreement among the members
of the Central Union consisting of reserving 10% of the Pena water dam capacity to
Valderobles was reached at that time. In dry years, however, the 10% privilege is
suspended and the Central Union decides to irrigate all the river basin in an agreed
date. Irrigation communities located in the middle and lower river basin dislike the 10%
use right favouring Valderrobles for considering it too high. However, they all respect it.
In any case, given that during the last years Valderrobres has reconverted many
agriculture lands into animal farms (which by far consume lower quantities of water),
conflicts between the higher and the middle-lower areas of the river basin have been
attenuated. Apart from that, the 10% agreement is accepted by the CHE as this is a
use right agreed by all users in the river basin and has no interest in changing it.
There are some users that have de facto use rights in relation to irrigation. For
instance, those lands that were irrigated some centuries ago taking water from the
Acequia Mayor, in the municipality of Valderobres, do not pay for the tax to the CHE
nor for the expenses of the irrigation communities. This does not mean that the CHE
does not receive the corresponding amount of the tax in all the river basin, but it is paid
by the other irrigation communities. They all agree that the traditional use must prevail
and accept paying for the tax that would correspond to the most antique irrigation
communities.
The illegal users
Water is not only used by those having a concession but also by illegal users. Some
plots and animal farms use water “illegally”, which means that they do not have an
administrative concession granted by the CHE. Nowadays, around 650 taps
representing at least 30% of the lands in the Matarraña river basin are said to use
water illegally: around 1,000 Has out of a total of estimated 2,300 - 3,300 Has of the
total extension irrigated in the river basin, most of which are located in the middle
26

asin. This situation seems to result mainly from two types of situations.
On the one hand, some small vegetable crops, mainly located in the higher river basin,
were progressively reconverted into animal farms a couple of decades ago. Nowadays,
around 60% of the total income in the higher basin come from cattle. Cattle demands
much lower quantities of water and is economically more profitable than traditional
agriculture. Some of these users say they applied for a concession to the CHE around
15 years ago, but the CHE is said to have rejected these applications by saying that
water uses have changed. However, the CHE seems to informally accept these uses.
On the other hand, along the seventies the extension of cultivated lands in the
Matarraña river basin increased in about 1,000 Has more, partly because the CHE had
built a tunnel to divert water and because of the profits of peach crops (some users had
a concession and some others did not). In spite of that, the CHE did not give
concessions for the irrigation to the whole of the new 1,000 Has, as either the Pena
water dam and the tunnel supposedly covered most of the existing irrigation
necessities. To this respect, the Central Union gave a kind of “permit” to use water to
the irrigation communities with plots having no concession, that is, to illegal users.
According to this, all irrigation communities that have applied for the use of water for
irrigation and cattle but having no concession can take the remaining waters from the
Matarraña river from October to March as far as this does not cause trouble to the
irrigation communities having a concession. While the CHE is most likely to be aware
of the existence of illegal users, it leaves water distribution and organisation in the
hands of the Central Union.
In both types of situation, water is used illegally as these users do not have legal
concessions. Illegal uses of water include abusing uses, for instance, the storage of
water in illegal pools, the starting of illegal engines to water lands at night, and so on.
However, beyond those ‘hidden’ uses, users with no concessions are tolerated by their
corresponding irrigation communities as far as they do not damage their interests. This
is shown by the fact that illegal users pay for the use of water to their corresponding
irrigation communities. This is a kind of trade-off for illegal users for being allowed to
irrigate, even though they do so in worse conditions than the users holding a
concession. This means that illegal users have a kind of de facto use right in practice
that to some extent is accepted by all irrigation communities (all irrigation communities
are said to have illegal users).
27

Both the dominance of the middle basin actors in the decisions regarding the
distribution of water coming from the Pena dam, and the existence of illegal users all
around the river basin, but especially in the middle basin, are a source of continuous
conflict among users and among municipalities. Conflict is specially intense during
spring and summer seasons because of water scarcity (this is the period in which
illegal users are not allowed to take water from the river but in which they need it in
more quantities). The lower basin irrigation communities often feel damaged by the
decisions taken by the Central Union, as they consider that the latter mostly satisfies
the interests of the middle basin. In addition, illegal users, even though they pay for the
use of water, have less use rights than the legal ones, but may benefit from the fact of
being located in upper parts of the basin by means of, for instance, taking water at
night or using water when the lower basin irrigation communities have a preference
because of being legal.
Conflict resolution
According to the regulative system, conflicts emerging in users communities are to be
solved: the general community when conflict confronts communities integrated in it; by
the Central Union when conflict confronts some of its members; by the General
Direction of Hydraulic works when communities belong to different river basins; and by
the river basin agency in other cases. In practice, most conflicts emerge and are solved
by users communities or by the Central Union, and very rarely denounces are sent to
the CHE.
Until the mid nineties, the Central Union has traditionally had an Irrigation Tribunal that
was created when the Central Union was set up. This tribunal had the objective of
quickly solving conflicts between users in relation to the use of water coming from the
Pena dam, in those cases in which conflict has not been solved in the irrigation
communities (they used to have their own tribunals too). The tribunal was formed by
five members of the river basin and one president, and was aimed to be representative
of the whole river basin. When it received denounces, it called the accused user and
could sanction him and also could sanction the irrigation community to which the user
belonged to. In some cases, the tribunal could also sent the denounce to the CHE.
Nowadays, the tribunal does not exist any more as the Central Union’ Statutes are in
process of revision and do not contemplate this figure. Conflict resolution normally has
an informal nature and are solved within the irrigation community or within the Central
Union. Solutions commonly are reached regardless the legal channels (the later are
28

expensive and unfruitful), and very rarely they are sent to the CHE. According to some
of the interviewed actors, one of the ideas that in principle have been considered by the
CHE and the Central Union regarding the illegal users consist of legalising all of them.
Irrigation practices
In most of the cropped lands, the irrigation system consists of the flooding of lands (a
little hatch locking the irrigation channels is opened and water is released). This system
is opposed to the so-called “dropping” system, which channels smaller quantities of
waters directly to the roots of every tree. The “flooding” system uses water in a much
less efficient way than the dropping one, which saves high quantities of water because
it brings the necessary water just to the root of the tree, and not to the all area of the
irrigated land. A report elaborated by experts estimate that the level of irrigation
efficiency ranges from 65 to 70% (COAGRET, 1997). It is interesting to note that given
that illegal users have more restrictions in the use of water than the legal ones, many of
them irrigate through the “dropping” system instead of the “flooding” system. In this
sense, and by reason of restrictions, illegal users have a more sustainable use of water
than the legal ones.
While in general terms it is accepted that the dropping irrigation system is more
efficient and saves water in a river basin that often has problems of scarcity, farmers
have almost no economic incentives to change the irrigation systems. While the cost of
investment would be high, there would be almost no economic benefits. This is so
because of the low cost of water. The only cost of water paid by irrigation users
includes: a tax which they pay to the CHE in order to cover the cost of regulation of the
river (that is, for using water from the Pena water dam), which is paid through their
corresponding irrigation communities; and the fees for the maintenance of these
communities (in order to finance the office, the works, and so on). Both payments are
calculated according to the area irrigated, and not to the water consumed. This system
was adopted in the early fifties, once the Central Union was created and channelled
payments (before that date, payments were fixed according to the quantity of litres
consumed.) So, nowadays users pay the same regardless the quantity of water they
use (high in the cases of fruit crops, and low in the cases of olive crops, for instance).
Apart from that, the cost of water as such, strictu sensu, is zero. All this means that
there is no incentive to save water and, even more, there are incentives to change
crops to a more profitable ones, such as peaches, which require high quantities of
29

water.
Some measures have been taken by the CHE as a timid attempt to incentivate water
saving. In the mid nineties, the CHE installed 4 gauging stations (in the Matarraña,
Tastavins, Pena and Nonaspe) in order to measure the flow of the river in those four
points. The CHE has also installed counters in each irrigation community in order to
measure the quantity of water passing through each of the irrigation channels. These
counters, which work with a solar panel, are expected to computerise the water flow in
each of the main irrigation channels and sends this information to the CHE, and later is
reversed to the irrigation communities. The stations register information on the quantity
of water flowing in each of the 39 main irrigation channels, which does not mean that
this amount of water is totally consumed (it is not in the seasons in which there is no
irrigation, in which extra water goes to the river). However, according to some opinions,
these stations are not used in practice.
4. The actors
In the Matarraña river case, there is a constellation of actors operating at different
territorial / political levels of governance. These actors include: the European Union
(which is not an actor itself but a regulative arena generating constraints and
opportunities); the national administration and, depending on it, the Ebro river basin
administration (Confederación Hidrográfica del Ebro, CHE); the regional government of
Aragon (Diputación General de Aragón, DGA); local governments; the Central Union of
Irrigation Communities in the Matarraña river basin; the irrigation communities; the
Association for the Defense of the Matarraña (PLADEMA); the association of the
affected by expropriations for the pumping project; and experts. These actors have
different objectives and resources, and operate at the regulative system, at the policy
system, or at both of them at the same time.
The European Union
The EU is not an actor as such in the Matarraña case but it rather constitutes a
regulative arena that both generates certain constraints to actors willing to promote
regulation infrastructures in the river basin, as well provides resources to actors willing
to promote the conservation of the river. There are two EU directives that provide such
framework of constraints and opportunities: the 78/659 Directive on fish species and
30

the 92/43 directive on Habitats. By virtue of the former, in 1990 the former ICONA,
which used to be the national agency for the conservation of nature (now suppressed),
elaborated an inventory of important waters in perpetuity of fishes which included the
Matarraña river between Valderrobres and Torre del Compte (5-10 Km long). When the
CHE promoted the construction of the pumping project from the Matarraña river to the
Pena dam in Beceite, SEO-Bird Life presented a complaint to the European
Commission.
Nowadays, the project of building the Torre del Compte dam has also brought the EU
arena in. The DGA has recently proposed all the Matarraña river basin from the head
to Valderrobles, and from Torre del Compte to the end, with the exception of the
intermediate track, as a LIC area (place of community interest) to be integrated in the
2000 Natura Net. The reduced area excluded from the LIC proposal corresponds to the
place where the Torre del Compte water dam is proposed to be located, which shows
that the DGA has prioritised the construction of the infrastructure to the conservation of
the river. Actors opposed to the Torre del Compte dam consider that this infrastructure
would flood most of the part included in the inventory made by the ICONA in 1990 and
intend to present a complaint to the Commission for infringement of the fish directive.
Apart from that, in 1993 the EU started incentivating rural tourism by giving funds to
avoid the abandoning of rural houses mostly in the higher river basin.
Nowadays, and in a national level, the EU Commission has asked the Central
Government for the viability from the point of view of sustainability of the National
Hydrological Plan, without still rejecting it.
The State administration
The State administration is responsible for the adoption of general legislation and
planning on water. According to its powers, in 1985 it adopted the 29/1985 Water Act,
and in 1986 it adopted the Regulation to develop it. The 1985 Water Act includes the
adoption of a National Hydrological Plan. After some failed attempts to adopt such plan
conducted by the socialist government in 1993 and 1994, the current People Party (PP)
government has proposed a National Hydrological Plan that has been firmly opposed
by the government of Aragon and by many social movements. Although this opposition,
finally the NHP has been passed (NHP 10/2001 Act, 5 th July). Nowadays, and thanks
to the pressure of those social movements, the discussion is among the EU Commision
31

and the Central Government.
Apart from that, in 1995 the Central Government adopted a decree approving urgent
measures against draught. The decree included the construction of a hydraulic system
pumping project water from the Matarraña river to the Pena dam.
The Ministry of Environment, created in 1996, is the department holding responsibilities
on water policy. The inter-regional river basin administrations —in this case the Ebro
Hydrographic Confederation— depend on it.
The Confederación Hidrográfica del Ebro (CHE)
The CHE is the Ebro river basin agency. It was created in 1926 and currently depends
on the Ministry of Environment. It is the main actor in the regulative system of the
Matarraña river basin. Its functions include: the adoption of the Ebro river hydrological
plan (the Matarraña river is tributary to the Ebro river), done in 1998; the promotion of
regulation projects (for instance, the system pumping project water from the Matarraña
to the Pena dam in Beceite); the ordering of the watering out of the Pena dam; the
fixation of the ecological flow (now it is 325 l/second); the granting for the concessions
for irrigation and other water uses; the granting for waste disposal authorisations; and
the control of activities in the river basin through the so-called water commissaries
(Comisarios de aguas).
While the CHE plays a key position in the regulation system: it has many political and
legal resources available and has adopted a hierarchical and marked top-down
approach to regulation. It has traditionally has promoted regulation projects based on
the construction of large infrastructures that have proved be technically inefficient: the
Pena water dam (1930), the tube for deviating water (1970s), the pumping project
(1995-98) and the failed wells project at the head of the river basin (1998). In most
cases (except for the latter), the implementation of these projects have raised intense
conflict among the different interests of the river basin level. These regulation
infrastructures have traditionally generated opposition by the municipalities located at
the head of the river basin (mainly Beceite and Valderrobres), but have had adepts at
the middle and lower river basin (Maella, Fabara and Nonaspe). In addition, by the
creation of infrastructures, the CHE has given new water concessions, partly as a
means to finance the works, and has contributed to create increasing water demands.
32

Partly because of the inefficient outcome of these infrastructure projects, and partly
because of the new values on conservation hold by actors in the high river basin area,
the projects proposed by the CHE in the nineties have found firm opposition. While the
pumping project was finally installed —the CHE asked for the presence of the Guardia
Civil in order to secure the works—, the project of installing wells at the head of the
river basin to take water out of the aquifers (2000) found firm opposition by actors
defending the conservation of the river (Pladema, city councils, experts) and was finally
removed. This marks a turning point in the process, as the “conservation coalition” is
for the first time able of undermining the traditional dominance of the CHE in the policy
/ regulation processes. To this respect, the Central Union lack of support to the CHE
proposal is central to understand this move.
Apart from the traditional dominant role regarding the design of the regulative system,
the CHE hardly takes part in the practical day-to-day administration of use rights in
practice in the Matarraña river basin, being the Central Union the most influential actor.
33

The regional government of Aragon (Diputación General de Aragon, DGA)
The DGA is the regional government of Aragon. It does not play a central role neither
the regulation nor in policy processes in the Matarraña river basin, as it is the CHE the
one holding responsibilities. The DGA intervention in the river basin is marginal. For
instance, after the recent floods suffered in the river basin in October 2000, the DGA
has financed the replacement of the damaged old irrigation channels by tubes along
the river basin.
In addition, as it was pointed out before, the DGA is responsible for environmental
policy at the regional level: it has elaborated a proposal to consider most parts of the
Matarraña river basin as a LIC, by virtue of the Habitats directive, but has excluded a
part of the river basin which is coincident with the place where the Torre del Compte
dam is projected. Apart from the formal competences assigned to the DGA, this
institution has traditionally supported the regulation projects proposed by the CHE, for
instance, the pumping project (1995-98), for considering that it was the less damaging
option for the regulation of the Matarraña river. These and other infrastructure projects
were included in the so-called Water Agreement that was signed by all political groups
in the Aragon Parliament in 1992. The agreement includes the construction of hydraulic
works along the Ebro river basin.
Local governments
There are 12 local governments belonging to the Matarraña river basin. Local
governments clearly defend the interests of the irrigation communities, farmers,
industries and population in their corresponding municipality.
The objectives and resources of the 12 municipalities belonging to the Matarraña river
basin are unequal. Those located at the higher river basin, mainly Beceite and
Valderrobres, are firmly opposed to large regulation works, as they are commonly
located at the higher river basin but benefit the middle and lower municipalities, which
have higher water demands and suffer from scarcity. Higher river basin municipalities
have low influence in the Central Union and the CHE, but have a high capacity to
mobilise the population and attract actors operating at a supra-basin territorial level (i.e.
experts from universities, environmental groups, etc.). In addition, they hardly have
34

water scarcity problems and are developing alternative sources of social and economic
development, mainly rural tourism. In front of that, middle basin municipalities, mainly
Maella, have a strong influence in the Central Union and, ultimately, in the CHE. As
water demands are very high in this part of the river basin, mainly due to the extension
of peach crop, municipalities of the middle river basin main objective has traditionally
been the construction of regulation infrastructures securing water needs. Finally,
municipalities at the lower river basin, mainly Nonaspe and Fabara, have scarcity
problems and a low influence capacity in the decision-making processes.
Nineteen local governments around the Matarraña area also form the Mancommunity
of municipalities, which is an indirectly elected body. The mancommunity does not play
a central role in the regulation and policy processes, but is just an arena that reflects
the different objectives and resources of the municipalities of the Matarraña river basin.
As a matter of fact, in 1997 the president of the mancommunity resigned given the
difficulties to build consensus between the member municipalities regarding the
pumping project proposed by the CHE.
In the next future, the DGA will create counties in the region of Aragon. One of these
counties will be the Matarraña county. However, its geographical limits will not only
correspond to those municipalities of the river basin, but others.
The Central Union of Irrigation Communities in the Matarraña
The Central Union of Irrigation Communities in the Matarraña river basin is a central
actor in the Matarraña river basin. It was created in 1950 and nowadays it is integrated
by 39 irrigation communities belonging to ten municipalities located along the river
basin (Valderrobres, La Fresneda, Torre del Compte, Valdetormo, Calaceite,
Mazaleón, Maella, Fabara, Nonaspe and Fayón). The Central Union is the
representative body of the irrigating communities at the Matarraña river basin and is
the voice before the CHE. Its statutes regulate the election of both the president and
the directive board, and the general rules of functioning. The main task of the Central
Union is taking decisions on when and how to distribute irrigation water coming from
the Pena dam, collecting the tax from the irrigation communities to be paid to the CHE,
solving conflicts related to irrigation practices and channelling denounces to the CHE
(this is infrequent). It plays an important role in the regulative system, as the orders on
watering out the Pena dam by the CHE are taken in accordance to the Central Union.
35

Within the Central Union, the irrigation communities belonging to the middle river basin
(mainly in Maella) are the largest ones and, therefore, they are dominant. As a matter
of fact, the Central Union is located in Maella, the president is currently a person from
this municipality, and the Maella irrigation communities dominate the directive board.
This situation is perceived by the irrigation communities and municipalities of both the
higher and lower river basin as a factor biasing the Central Union decision in favour of
the interests of the middle and lower river basin. This situation was evident after the
CHE, once the central government adopted the Decree on urgent measures against
draught in 1995, fostered the construction of a water pumping project from the
Matarraña to the Pena dam 2 . While this decision provoked the rejection of the
municipalities of Beceite and Valderobres for considering that it would cause a severe
damage to the river, the Central Union was firmly in favour.
Irrigation communities
There are 39 irrigation communities along the Matarraña river basin. Irrigation
communities have their own statutes and regulate the rules of the game to distribute
water for irrigation which is taken directly from the river. They all have their own
irrigation channels, many of which were built centuries ago. These channelling
infrastructures need urgent modernisation. On the one hand, irrigation channels are
obsolete and lose water that is filtered into the soil. To this respect, the Aragon regional
government has partly financed the replacement of Arabic channels by tubes in some
parts of the river basin (especially after the floods in October 23 rd seriously damaged
the old channels). On the other hand, the flooding system of irrigation should be
replaced by the dropping system, as the latter has a 90-95% efficiency.
Depending on the quantity amount of water available, the irrigation communities decide
how and when to distribute water between irrigation users. There are two main forms of
distributing water adopted by the irrigation communities: by turns or by times. If
irrigation is organised by turns, each plot is assigned a day of the week or the month to
irrigate. According to tradition, some irrigation communities establish that water can be
used by the assigned users until dawn the day after. When there is water scarcity,
irrigation is normally organised by times, which means that each plot can be irrigated
during certain hours previously agreed upon.
36

The Association for the Defense of the Matarraña (PLADEMA)
Pladema was created in 1998 and aggregates actors who opposed to the pumping
project (1995-1998) and who reject the installation of large regulative works, for
instance, the wells taking water from the aquifer and the Torre del Compte dam. It
reunites environmental groups, local governments and neighbours mainly from the
higher river basin, and experts. Pladema promotes the conservation of the river as a
whole and is flatly opposed to the policies and regulation projects launched by the
CHE. In addition, they accuse the CHE of being an immobile and hierarchical
administration, and of carrying out regulation works without conducting technical
studies of their social, economic and environmental impact. Pladema has little
economic or political resources available, but it has developed the ability to mobilise
actors operating at different territorial levels, including a number of experts, to meet
with representatives of institutions, to carry out demonstrations and other actions
calling for media attention and to create certain climate of opinion in favour of the
conservation of the river basin as a unitary system
The association of the affected by expropriations for the pumping works
This association was integrated by the affected people (around 70) by the
expropriations of the land for the construction of the pumping project in the municipality
of Beceite. In 1996, when the CHE had already started the works, the association
asked the Beceite local government to halt the works arguing errors in the process of
expropriation and initiation of works. The latter ordered the suspension of the works.
While this association was created to defend specific interests of the affected people,
the association has progressively modified its discourse and promoted a the
conservation of the Matarraña river basin. The association, in fact, is a kind of embryo
of Pladema and its leader plays an active role in the process of promoting the
conservation of the river.
2 RDL 4/1995 including urgent measures against draught, 12.5.1995.
37

Experts
Independent experts, mostly university professors, some of which belong to COAGRET
(Co-ordinator of the Affected by Great Water Dams), have played an important role in
the Matarraña river basin case. Along the last years, an increasing number of
independent experts have leaded campaigns in favour of the protection of the
Matarraña river basin: they have prepared a number of technical reports alerting of the
damages that the construction of regulation infrastructures could damage the
Matarraña river, on the economic costs of the regulation projects proposed by the CHE,
and on the need to modernise irrigation and replace flooding by dropping irrigation
system; they have organised workshops and conferences; and they have conducted
demonstrations to denounce these works.
The following table summarises the main roles played by actors in both the regulative
system and the policy arena.
38

European
Union
State
administration
MIMAM
----------------------
CHE
(State
administration)
Aragon
regional
government
(DGA)
Actors in the regulative system and in the policy arena
Regulative system
National government:
Adopts the 1995 Decree on urgent
measures for draught (including the
pumping project)
Promotes and finances regulation
hydraulic works
------------------------------------------------
Fixes the Matarraña regulative
system:
Adopts the river basin plan (Ebro) in
1998
Promotes regulation projects
Orders the watering out of the Pena
dam
Fixes the ecological flow
Grants for concessions
Grants for waste disposals
authorisations
Exerts control
Policy arena
EU regulation as a resource:
78/659 Directive (fish species)
92/43 Directive (habitats)
EU incentives rural tourism
39
Elaborates and approves the National
Hydrological Plan
Promotes environmental policy
----------------------------------------------------
Negotiates with users communities and
other actors
Defends the “Water Agreement”
Used to support regulation projects
proposed by the CHE (pumping project)
Promote the replacement of obsolete
irrigation channels by tubes
Promotes environmental protection
policies (mainly Habitats directive)
Nowadays opposes the National
Hydrological Plan proposed approved
by the State government

Local
governments
Central Union
Irrigation
Communities
Pladema
Association of
the affected by
expropriations
in Beceite
Experts
Own concessions for population
supply
Regulates the distribution of water
along the irrigation communities of
the river basin
Preserves traditional use rights
Collects the tax for the CHE and the
fees for the Central Union
Solves conflicts
Own concessions for irrigation
Distribute water between irrigation
users
Solve conflict between users
40
Defend the interest of the irrigation
communities and the population of the
municipalities
Form the Mancommunities of
municipalities of the Matarraña
Constitutes an arena of negotiation
Try to influence the Central Union to
receive water
Aggregates and mobilises actors
opposing the pumping project and to
the installation of wells (environmental
groups, local governments at the higher
river basin, experts)
Promotes the conservation of the river
as a whole
Initially opposes the pumping project for
specific reasons
Lately defends the conservation of the
river as a whole
Contribute to create certain climate of
opinion against the regulation projects
proposed by the CHE
Support / lead the coalition against
regulation projects
Provide with technical expertise

5. National and river basin regimes: main developments
Once the impact of national regulation on the Matarraña river basin practices has been
analysed, and once actors operating at several levels of governance have been
characterised, the following section presents a table in which the national and river
basin developments are chronologically summarised. The aim of this table is briefly
showing the extent to which both the national and river basin regime evolve towards
integrated regimes, and what the main connections in both processes are. This
summarising table will allow for the understanding of the following section, in which the
phases towards integration in the Matarraña river case will be analysed in detail.
First Water Act
Civil Code
National developments
The Plan for Hydraulic Works is adopted
The CHE is created
The Franco regime suppresses the
representation of users in the
Hydrographical Confederations
The Spanish Constitution is adopted
The government adopts a Decree
recovering the participatory nature of
Hydrographical Confederations (with
representation of administrations,
irrigation communities, hydroelectric
companies and industrial users)
Date
1886/
1879
1889
1902
1906
1926
1930
1942
1950
1955
1970s
1978
1978
1979
Matarraña river basin developments
The plan includes the regulation of the
Matarraña river basin
The Pena water dam is authorised
The Pena water dam is finished
The Central Union is created
The Central Union alerts of the
insufficient water provided by the Pena
dam
Expansion of peach crops
The CHE builds a diversion tunnel
41

Aug - Adoption of the 29/85 Water Act:
hydraulic public domain (continental,
natural flows lakes and ground waters)
Extremely dry year
Apr – Reglament of Hydraulic Public
Domain
The ICONA (national administration)
elaborates an inventory for important
waters by virtue of 78/659 Directive
The Aragon Parliament adopts the “Water
Agreement”, including the Torre del
Compte dam (29 hm3)
Starts an extremely dry period
The national government (PSOE)
proposes a National Hydrological Plan. It
is firmly contested and fails.
May - The national government (PP)
adopts a Decree approving urgent
measures against draught, including the
pumping project in the river basin
Dry year
regulation change
The CHE elaborates the Ebro river basin
plan
The 46/1999 Water Act partially reforms
the 29/1985 Water Act: ecological flow is
not considered as use of water but as a
restriction imposed to exploitation
systems; water markets are recognised
1985
1986
1990
1992
1993
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Extreme draught at the Matarraña river
basin
The inventory includes the Matarraña
river
Starts an extremely dry period
Jul - The CHE initiates the works of
pumping project
transition
Intense mobilisations against leaded by
the Association of Expropriated in
Beceite. Slogan: “Living Matarraña
Alive”
The works of the pumping project start
and shortly after are paralysed.
Oct – The works of the pumping project
start again
42
Oct - SEO-Bird Life presents a complaint
to the European Commission
Extreme draught at the Matarraña river
basin
Pladema is legally constituted
Mar - The pumping project is finished
Feb – The CHE announces the
construction of wells to take
underground water

Feb - The national government (PP)
proposes a National Hydrological Plan
Feb – Mar – Intense mobilisations against
the NHP claiming for a new culture of
water
Jul.- The NHP is adopted (NHP 10/2001
Act).
The 29/1985 Water Act and the 46/199
Act are formally abolished by the Royal
Decree Legislative 1/2001, which is a
codyfing legislation.
Sept – The Ministry of the Environment
includes the construction of the two lateral
pools in the NHP and approves the
budget of the project
2000
2001
6. The process: phases and transition towards integration
43
Apr – Local governments, irrigation
communities, neighbours and
environmental groups at the Matarraña
river basin turning adopt an point
agreement rejecting
the wells and in favour of the
construction of two lateral pools
Oct - Severe floods in the Matarraña
river basin
When analysing the evolution of water regime in the Matarraña river basin along the
XXth century, two major periods can be identified. The first one corresponds to the
historical background of the case, dating from the beginning of the century to the mid
eighties. This period is also fragmented in four subphases marked by the changes
introduced in water regime by major developments. The second period starts in the mid
eighties and is still operating. This period, which can also be fragmented in three
subphases, in which some signals of transition from a complex to an integrated regime
can be identified. The two following tables summarise the main phases identified in the
case.

Subphase 1: 1902 – 1930
First regulation of the
Matarraña river basin
Subphase 2: 1931 – 1950
Construction of the Pena
dam: adaptation of water
uses and demands
Subphase 3: 1951 – 1977
First period: 1902 – mid eighties
Traditional perspective: regulation through large hydraulic infrastructures
Change in water resource
administration
Subphase 4: 1978 – mid 80s
New regulation and severe
draught
Phase 1: mid 80s – 1994
Dominica of the traditional
problem definition and actors
Phase 2: 1995 – 1999
Collision between the
traditional and a new resource
conservation problem
definitions and actors
Phase 3: 2000
Agreement:
Integration of the traditional
and the conservation problem
definitions and actors
- 1902 (First) National Hydraulic Plan include the regulation of the
Matarraña river basin
- Construction of the Pena Dam (unique regulation infrastructure within
the basin)
44
- Water management is adapted to the new available resources
- Redistribution of water uses and demands
- Creation of the Central Union of Irrigation Communities of the
Matarraña river basin:
- Centralisation of decisions on water resources stored in the Pena Dam
- Representation of irrigation farmers interests
- Increase of water demands
- Severe drought period resulting in the first social conflicts
- Construction of the diversion tunnel
Second period: Mid eighties – 2000 onwards
Signals of transition from a traditional towards an integrated regime
- 1985 Water Act
- Drought period (1992-1995)
- Intensification of social demands for water regulation projects
- Proposal of pumping water from the Matarraña to the Pena Dam
- Pumping project included in State regulation as an urgent measure
to palliate drought effects
- Social and territorial conflict between the high and middle-low basin:
nature conservation versus regulation demands
- Negotiation among the basin actors: first attempts to reach an
agreement
- Agreement among the basin actors: integration of water problem
definition and actors

6.1. First period: 1902 – mid eighties
Dominance of the “traditional” perspective
This long period includes four different subphases (1902-1930, 1930-1950, 1950-1977
and 1978 mid eighties) and represents a period of time characterised by the
dominance of a traditional water policy and management. In the early decades of this
period, this perspective reflects the dominance of the Regeneracionism intellectual
movement: a national wide movement based on the State initiative and financing of
large hydraulic works in order to promote the creation of large extensions of irrigated
lands and the production of hydroelectric energy for industrial uses. The main objective
of such strategy is to establish the economic and social basis for the modernisation of
Spain. At the Matarraña river basin, this perspective results in the construction of the
Pena dam, the first (and unique) regulative infrastructure within the river basin.
The Pena dam project was included in the National Plan of Hydraulic Works adopted in
1902. It was authorised in 1907 but not finished until 1930, 27 years later. The Pena
dam is located at the municipality of Valderrobres (high basin), has a regulation
capacity of 18.5 hm 3 and floods an extension of 129 ha. Its height above sea level is
633 metres so it represents a regulation in the headwaters of the Pena river.
As some reports point out, the Pena dam presents several technical problems in order
to guarantee its optimal functioning. On the one hand, due to its calcareous and
conglomerate nature, the base of the dam contains highly permeable materials. A
recent study carried out by the Autonomous Government of Aragón (DGA) and the
CHE recognises that the Pena dam has a 3.75 hm 3 filtration per year. As the
Matarraña river is located in an inferior level than the Pena dam there is underground
drainage from the dam to the river. On the other hand, the Pena dam is located in a
section of the river where the basin has not resources enough to feed it. Despite its
18.5 hm 3 capacity, t only regulates 8.5 hm 3 per year (Nadal, 1984). Other resources
like spring waters are added resulting in a total reserve of 12 hm 3 capacity available for
the irrigation season (CHE, 1996).
Along the Franco dictatorship, water policy represents the continuation of the previous
productivist and offer-based hydraulic policy perspective. New regulation projects
45

continue to be constructed all over the country in order to increase the quantity of water
available to expand and promote the creation of irrigation land. This tendency is also
reproduced at the Matarraña river basin water regime: the construction and functioning
of the Pena dam brought the resources required to promote agriculture in several parts
of the territory. However, the creation of the Central Union of Irrigation Communities of
the Matarraña river basin in 1950 changes water regulation and management. The
Central Union is the body representing all the irrigation communities of the basin and it
has the functions of veiling for their interests and taking decisions on the distribution of
water resources stored in the Pena Dam. Due to its centralisation of powers, the
Central Union represents a crucial actor in determining the evolution of the basin water
regime.
As it was pointed out before, in the sixties and seventies new fruit crops —mainly
peaches— were planted along the river basin and subsequently increased water
demands exceeding the regulation capacity of the Pena dam and the Matarraña river
flows. In addition, in 1977 started a severe drought period which lasted until 1987. The
combination of an increase of water needs and a draught period led to the increase of
social demands of regulation projects within the basin in order to increase the quantity
of water stored in the Pena dam. As a response, the CHE built a tunnel diverting water
from the Matarraña river to the Pena dam in 1978.
As some experts point out, the tunnel presents some technical problems in order to
secure water divertion from the river to the dam. One the one hand, even before the
construction of the tunnel, the Matarraña flow in the extracting point is considerably
inferior to the one for which it was designed. This is so because along its superior
section the river has almost no contribution from groundwaters. The river is more like a
stream in this section and only a few days after a storm has considerable flows. On the
other hand, the tunnel lead to an important social controversy as there was not enough
water left downstream to cover irrigation demands. Besides, in the mid seventies, the
river started to suffer from serious low water periods which limited the survival of fishes
(Arrojo et al., 1997). Nowadays it is not possible to know exactly what the contribution
of the Matarraña river to the Pena dam by the tunnel has been because until 1997
there is not a gauging station to measure the running flow.
46

6.2. Second period: mid eighties - 2000
Signals of transition from a traditional towards an integrated regime
The second broad period in the Matarraña river case story starts in the mid eighties
and reaches the present days. In this period there are some signals of transition from a
traditional approach to water regime towards a more integrated one. In order to analyse
it, three phases will be identified.
6.2.1. Phase 1: mid eighties - 1994
Dominance of the traditional perspective
The inertia and deep-rooting of the “traditional” perspective that dominated the Spanish
water policy is so strong that it still prevails along this period and determines the
Matarraña river basin regime development. The 1985 Water Act hardly introduces any
change at the Matarraña river basin regime and approach to drought problems. The
dominating paradigm continues to focus on the construction of large hydraulic
infrastructures. Apart from that, climatic conditions become a determining factor of the
evolution of the basin regime along this phase and the following ones. As farm
production depends on irrigation and water availability, regulation projects become
central in the policy agenda once the draught period starts in 1992. However, this view
will be flatly threatened when claims for conservation emerge in the mid nineties.
6.2.2. Phase 2: 1995-1999
Collision between the traditional and the conservationist perspective
In the second half of the nineties, the traditional paradigm colludes with a new
paradigm based on the conservation of the rational use of the resource. This collision,
however, does not take place in the same terms in different levels of governance. At
the national level, this period still represents the continuation of the traditional
perspective of the hydraulic policy (in 1993 the national government presented the first
National Hydrologic Plan, which constituted a proposal totally based on the
construction of several large water diversion projects among different river basins and
on the construction of a series of new dams). At the regional level this phase
47

epresents the emergence of a social movement claiming for a new water policy
paradigm based on water demand strategies that promote resource savings and
efficiency in their use and on the conservation of the resource, both in its quality and
quantity. At the basin level, the second half of the nineties represents the first breaking
with the traditional perspective. A social opposition movement supported by
environmental groups and experts criticises the unsustainable economic and technical
rationality; denounce the environmental negative effects of the regulation projects
constructed within the basin; and claim for the valuation and conservation of the fluvial
ecosystem of the Matarraña river in response to the hydraulic policy promoted by the
State administration. The construction of the pumping project will mark the breaking
point for this rupture. It will constitute the main argument of the social claims and will
result in a territorial conflict among the water uses within the basin.
The pumping project
After the construction of the tunnel in 1978 there was a large drought period which
lasted to 1987 and led to a new wave of social demands for regulation projects in order
to guarantee farm production. Several dam projects were proposed during the
seventies and eighties: El Pontet, Torre del Compte and Molí de les Roques, among
others. The wet period that followed, which started with the 1988 floods, relaxed the
irrigation farmers and administration claims for regulation until the beginning of the
nineties. In 1993 a new drought period started and the controversy reappeared. In this
context, in I994 the Central Union studied the possibility of pumping water up from a
lower point in the Matarraña river to the Pena dam. Finally, the Central Union rejected
the project for considering it as having a too high economic cost. It was the national
government the one approving new regulation in response to the drought period from
1992 to 1995: it provided the legal framework and financial resources to carry out the
pumping project 3 . The mentioned regulation declared several projects, included the
pumping one in the Matarraña river, of general interest of the State and were
considered as urgent measures in order to palliate the drought effects. By this, these
projects were approved avoiding the parliamentary debate which had to carry out a
deep reflection on the future water policy and planning criteria (the National
3 Real Decreto-Ley 4/1995 por el que se adoptan medidas urgentes para reparar los efectos
producidos por la sequía, y Real Decreto-Ley 6/1995 por el que se adoptan medidas
48

Hydrological Plan). The pumping project was declared of general interest by the 1995
State regulation but it was neither included in the Hydrological Plan of the Ebro basin
nor in the 1992 Aragón Water Agreement, which are the two planning instruments that
should include the hydraulic projects affecting the river basin.
The pumping project included 5 water pumps of about 500 CV each one pumping out
a maximum of 0.75 m 3 /s 140 meters high and along a pipe of 5 km long. The Regional
government of Aragón, in accordance with some biologists of the University of
Barcelona, the establishment of an ecological flow of 0.325 m 3 /s, which represents the
30 per cent of the basic flow of the Matarraña river. The main condition imposed to the
project was that water could only be pumped up from November to February/March
during 16 or 24 hours a day.
The social controversy : a conservacionist claim
The announcement of the initiation of the pumping system works in July 1995 provoked
intense mobilisations in the high basin. The first actors to react against the project are
the neighbours of the Municipality of Beceite (high basin), where the pumping project is
planned to be constructed. They formed a commission and launched an information
campaign in order to inform the whole basin about the details of the project and its
possible negative impacts. In February 1996 the construction works begun but the
municipal government, in response to the social pressure, succeed in stopping the
works. However, in March the central government revoked the city council order. The
neighbours keep under protest in two different ways. On the one hand, they organised
a series of pacific demonstrations in front of the construction works and, on the other
hand, they planned other legal actions in order to stop the project. The pressure they
exerted was so intense that the administration decided to send a group of police agents
(Guardia Civil) to guarantee the execution of the works.
In 1997 the conflict moved to the middle and low parts of the basin. No agreement was
reached in the meetings that hold between the affected neighbours, the Central Union
and actors operating at lower basin, as their interests are strongly divided. In October
the CHE reinitiated the works and the neighbours from Beceite formed the Association
extraordinarias, excepcionales y urgentes en materia de abastecimientos hidráulicos como
consecuencia de la persitencia de la sequía.
49

of the affected by the expropriations for the pumping project. The association also
looked for additional support among other municipalities within the basin and the
Mancommunity of Municipalities of the Matarraña river basin. It also asked the Superior
Court of Aragon to block of the project.
The conflict by this time showed a confrontation between two coalitions of actors: those
located at the higher basin and those located at the middle-lower basin. Whereas the
irrigation communities and municipalities at the lower basin insisted in the need for
water in order to save their crops, irrigation communities, neighbours and
environmental groups at the higher basin were opposed to the projects for its
environmental negative impacts and its inefficiency in covering the water demands.
Actors located at the higher river basin managed to mobilise actors against the project
and issued several reports against it. Some studies reveal several technical problems
associated to the pumping project. Firstly, the limitations upon the quantity of water
which could be pumped out —the maximum pumping flow (0.75 m 3 /s), the real flow of
the river and the ecological flow— led to the practical impossibility of pumping the 2
hm 3 per year flow that was planned. The reason for that is that when the Pena river —
which feeds the Pena dam— has no water, neither has the Matarraña. As a result,
during the last 3 irrigation seasons, even without respecting the established pumping
period (from November to March), only 0.90 hm 3 have been pumped up to the Pena
dam. Secondly, the Major Irrigation Ditch of the municipality of Valderrobres has a
water concession of 0,624 m 3 /s between the pumps and the Pena mouth. This
concession, which is destined to irrigation, population supply and industrial uses from
1953, cannot be granted if the ecological flow is to be respected. In this sense the
pumping conditions represent an important restriction in the flow conceded to this
historic use right, which could only use 0.29 m 3 /s downstream. Thirdly, a study
published in 1997 estimates a final pumping efficiency of 32%. Such estimation
considers a 20% loss due to evaporation and filtration phenomena, a 20% loss in water
transport from the Pena dam to the irrigation systems and also takes into account an
efficiency of 80% of the pumping system and the 70% efficiency of the irrigation
systems. And inally, the pumping project presents a negative cost-benefit analysis. The
same study calculates that benefits in agriculture produced by each m 3 are about 5
pesetas whereas the cost of the infrastructures and the costs of its functioning where
about 38 pesetas per m 3 . In addition to that, as some reports point out, the main
environmental impacts of the project include (Sostoa, 1996):
50

- Modification of the dynamic of the river
- Barrier effect for fish fauna
- Alteration of the physiological and reproductive behaviour of wild fauna
- Risks to the ecological flows of being insufficient for the maintaining of the
ecosystem
- Alteration of water quality: increase in the concentration of pollutants derived
from cattle raising
- Alteration of protected zones: some sections of the river are protected by the
EU Directive 78/659/CEE due tot its diversity of fish species; some species are
protected by the Habitats Directive; some protected species included in the
National and Regional Catalogue of Species Threatened with extinction; the
Matarraña river as a zone of ictiologic interest and an areas for the protection of
the otter by the Ebro river basin plan; and it has been proposed as a Place of
Community Interest by the Regional government
As Sostoa (1996) points out “the Matarraña river presents an unusual biologic richness
that makes the river particularly significant. At present, it is impossible to find another
Mediterranean river in the Spanish peninsula with such a degree of biodiversity...Its
richness and importance is not only related to the fauna but to the density and biomass
values of the aquatic organisms which are specially high and not common in our
country”. The Official College of Biologists, on its part, state that “the Matarraña river
constitutes nowadays one of the fluvial ecosystems best conserved in Europe” (press
release, 1996).
While the two coalitions kept polarised positions, both coalitions agreed that the
pumping project was not a definite and efficient measure and that would only serve to
give some more time to find a better solution. In this context, the search for alternative
solutions continued all along 1997. The municipalities of the middle and lower basin
lead a movement claiming for the construction of the Torre del Compte dam (29 hm 3 of
capacity) as a solution to guarantee water demands in the whole basin. In response to
that claim, the CHE announced that the administration would study three alternatives of
regulation for the Matarraña river basin: the Torre del Compte dam (capacity of
29hm3), the Pontet dam (capacity of 7hm3) and an elevation of water from the Ebro
river to the Matarraña.
51

Meanwhile, meetings held between the Administration and the users from the high and
the middle and lower basin could not reach any agreement. As a matter of fact, each
part looked for support to their claims in different arenas. Actors at higher basin could
mobilise the support of the some experts of the University of Aragón, important regional
environmental organisations (Fundación Ecología y Desarrollo and COAGRET) and of
some municipalities of the Aragon Pyreness and others from the regions of Catalonia
and Valencia. The Central Union, which mostly represents the interests of the middle
and lower basin, looked for the support of the regional government and started an
information campaign in the rest of the municipalities of the river basin in order to
explain their scarcity problems and their reasons to support the pumping project.
Neighbours of the high basin kept organising several demonstrations and some of
them started a hunger strike. Besides, in December 1997 they organised the first
Seminar on the Matarraña river basin: 15 university professors (from the University of
Zaragoza and Barcelona) took part in the event and concluded that the construction of
the Torre del Compte dam was not viable and that the modernisation of the irrigation
system in the Matarraña river basin was required in order to rationalise water demands.
Before the ending of the year, a slight dialogue channel between actors located at the
higher and the middle-lower basin, without the participation of the Administration or
other intermediaries, seemed to be opened. Although both coalitions had some points
in common —they all agree in accusing the central administration and the CHE of
having been unable to find an efficient solution to the scarcity problems of the basin—,
an agreement on a suitable solution was still not reached.
In 1998 a serious drought period would not only modify the definition of the water
problem but also the position of some of the actors in the policy network, resulting in a
new and more favourable context for negotiation. Along this year the territorial conflict
within the Matarraña river basin was coincident with a national environmental and
social movement against the construction of more dams and diversion projects
promoted by the central administration. At the beginning of 1998 PALDEMA was
created. It took the decision of having no more demonstrations for the moment.
Meanwhile, the claim for a large regulation project in the middle and lower basin
strengthened: several representatives of water uses of the Matarraña river basin
(irrigation farmers, representatives of farm organisations and some municipalities)
showed their support to the construction of the Torre del Compte dam, as they
considered it as being the best solution for granting water supply for all uses. Such
52

point of view contrasted with the one defended by PLADEMA, that considered that this
project would have too high economic and environmental costs.
The beginning of the summertime in 1998 put the low basin in a critical drought
situation. The Matarraña river basin suffered from one of the most severe drought
periods in recent yeas. Some municipalities, like Maella, suffered from drinking water
restrictions and the Matarraña river had no running water from the municipality of
Mazaleón (middle basin) to its mouth in Fayón. The only infrastructure for water
regulation, the Pena dam, stored less than 7 hm3 4 and the pumping project could not
be used because the river ha not extra flow. In response to this situation, the Cental
Union decided that only those fruit trees that had not been harvested would be irrigated
and that illegal water uses would not be authorised. In addition, the CHE authorised a
first use of the reservoir stocks of the Pena dam. Due to the persistence of drought, a
second use of 0.9 hm3 was authorised, only remaining 1.5 hm3 reserved for
population supply. At this moment, an scission between the middle and lower basins
was produced. The municipalities of the lower basin, given the fact that they were the
last users in receiving water from the dam and that they had not been able to irrigate
their crops yet, said they disagreed with the criteria adopted by the Central Union,
broke the support previously given to the Torre del Compte project and bet on the
project of elevating water from the river Ebro.
In the regional context the pressure of drought also brought about forceful reactions to
the scarcity problem. The regional government, irrigation farmers, farm organisations
and the CHE decided to co-operate in supporting the construction of dams and other
regulation infrastructures in order to satisfy irrigation demands. On the other hand, the
Ministry of Environment promoted the study of the Torre del Compte dam project as
well as the study of several regulation alternatives in the Matarraña river. The following
table summarises the characteristics of the main projects.
4
The SCR estimates that aproximately 6hm3 are needed to cover the irrigation demands of one
season.
53

Torre del Compte
Dam
Location High basin
Capacity
Water origin
Total cost
Environmental impact
Timing
Alternatives for the regulation of the Matarraña river basin
54
El Pontet Dam Pumping from
the Ebro
Lateral pools
Middle Low basin Middle-Low basin
23.5 hm3 7hm3 Not precise 2.2 + 1hm3
Matarraña river,
rainfalls and
springs
5,017 million
pesetas
Matarraña river,
rainfalls and
springs
Ebro river Ebro and
Matarraña rivers
Not Known 3,000 million Less than 2,000
pesetas
million pesetas
High Middle low low
large Middle low low
Along 1999 the social conflict is still prevailing but first signs of reaching consensus
appeared giving hope to the possibility of reaching an agreement on a unique solution
for the whole basin. In February, the higher basin decided to give support to the project
of pumping water form the Ebro river proposed by the municipalities of the lower basin
(Fabara and Nonaspe) . Along this period, Maella (middle basin) also decided to
support this project as an urgent measure to solve water scarcity problems. However
this did not represent a complete agreement among the three parts of the basin. City
councils and representatives of the irrigation communities were reluctant because they
thought its total cost would be excessive. The higher basin kept proposing other
regulating alternatives such as the Pontet dam or the construction of lateral pools.
Nevertheless, the higher basin agreed on the creation of a commission for the study of
different regulation projects in the Matarraña river basin with representatives of the
three parts of the basin.
As the spring and summer time was about to come water scarcity appeared again as a
major problem. The Pena dam capacity was only the 7% and the water stored had to
cover water demands of the 2,400 ha. of irrigated lands, the cattle raising, drinking
water and other illegal wires. The critical scarcity situation provoked internal conflict
between the middle and the lower basin in relation to the pumping project of Ebro
waters. There also were conflicting positions among the basin actors and the
representatives of the regional policy parties. The solutions proposed by the regional
government and the local actors were clearly different.

However, the severe drought kept the dialogue via opened among the basin actors.
Farmers and city councils of the whole basin maintained the commission, which was
broadened as the Municipality of Valderrobres (high basin) and a representative of
Torre del Compte irrigation community joined it. In July, as the Matarraña river was dry
in its middle and lower sections and the Pena Dam only stored 2 hm3, the farm
production of the middle and lower basin became under threat again. Maella, which
was the municipality that suffered more from drought effects had to impose daily
restrictions in drinking water in order to save as much fruit crops as possible. There
were only 800,000 m3 of water available to irrigation. Given that situation, the
commission decided to meet again in order to study three possible emergency
regulation projects (its costs, profitability and environmental impact) and to meet again
when such projects were finished in order to make a decision about the best solution.
Those projects included the lateral pools, the pumping from the Ebro and the
groundwater extraction. In August, the rest of the water stored in the Pena Dam was
released in a last attempt to save the fruit trees.
The persistence of the critical drought situation and their harmful effects pushed the
basin actors represented at the commission to meet again in November and decided
about one of the regulation projects studied. Their main objective was to reach an
agreement between as much relevant actors as possible in order to avoid a similar
situation the next spring-summer. The Commission was now constituted by
representatives of the regional government, PLADEMA, the majority of the
Municipalities of the basin, the Central Union and a national environmental
organisation. The assistants to the meeting finally reached a consensus and chose the
option of two lateral pools as the best solution.
6.2.3. Phase 3: 2000
Integration of problem definitions and actors in the policy network
At the basin level, however, the pressure of water scarcity problems and the need for
finding a solution to cover water demands turned the initial territorial conflict to an
agreement finally reached trough dialogue and intense negotiation among the
conflicting interests.
55

While the CHE still waited for a response of the ministry of the Environment to the
financing of the lateral pools, the situations in the Matarraña river basin was critical
again due to a new period of water scarcity (the Pena dam has 5% of its capacity). As
demands risked again of not being covered the conflict between the higher and the
lower basin reappears. As a urgent response to the problem, the Ministry of the
Environment announced it would finance some wells in the headwaters of the Ulldemó
and he Matarraña rivers in order to use groundwater. The municipalities of the higher
basin soon announced their opposition to the project and so did the Mancommunity of
Municipalities of the Matarraña river basin. The main reasons of their opposition were
that the project was planned to be placed in an area (“El Parrissal”) that constitutes one
of the most attractive nature areas of the basin and that it would also have negative
effects on surface waters. Finally, the CHE renounced to the project not only because
the high basin municipalities opposed to it but because also did others from the
provinces of Tarragona (Catalonia), Castelló (Valencia) and even the regional
government.
Finally, by the end of April, the whole basin signs an agreement. Nine of the 12
municipalities in the basin (representing the neighbours), the Central Union
(representing the irrigation unions), PLADEMA and the Fundacion Ecología y
Desarrollo (representing the environmental and conservacionist interests) reached an
agreement that was also supported by the regional government and the CHE. In this
document the different actors agreed to promote the construction of two lateral pools
as an urgent solution to the water scarcity situation. These two pools were to be
located in the middle basin between the municipalities of Mazaleón, Calaceite and
Maella. The first pool, of 1hm3 of capacity, would be fed by waters pumped up from he
Ebro river and waters diverted form the Matarraña. The second one, also of 1 hm3
capacity, would be only fed by water coming from the Matarraña river. The basin actors
also undertook to take into account the study of the regional government about he
environmental restrictions imposed by the General Direction for the Environment to the
construction of the pools. They also agreed on rejecting the construction of wells in
order to use groundwaters of the higher basin. However, the agreement did not
represent the abandoning of the idea of constructing larger regulative infrastructures in
the future (as the Pontet or Torre del Compte dams). The following table summarises
the main contents of the Agreement:
56

Alternative chosen
Environmental
impacts
Conditions of
acceptance
Water agreement in the Matarraña river basin (April 25th 2000)
Construction of two lateral pools of 1 hm3 that will be fed with water
diverted from the Matarraña and the Ebro river
Compromise in taking into account the proposals and restrictions
imposed by the Regional government.
All parts reject the construction of wells in the higher basin (and
anywhere else where there is no social agreement about them)
The possibility of a definite solution for water regulation within the basin
is still open
A few months after the Water agreement was signed, in June, some storms palliated
the negative effects of a foreseen new drought period in summer and also relaxed the
level of conflict reached along the previous two years. In September, the Ministry of the
Environment authorised the project of the two lateral pools and the environmental
considerations proposed by the Regional government of Aragon.
In October a climatic event, completely unthinkable given the last severe dry years,
changed all the precautions against possible restrictions of water supply. A violent
downpour of 300 litres per m 2 that lasted three days caused serious floods in the
Matarraña river basin. The Pena Dam which only stored 0.5 hm 3 before the storm (5%
of capacity) reached the level of 17 hm 3 (70% of its capacity) in only 5 days, which
assures water supply for all uses for three years. The Matarraña river and some of its
tributaries (the Ulldemó, the Algàs and the Tastavins) largely rose their water level
bursting its banks and causing several floods. 250 people form the other basin
(Valderrobres and Beceite) had to be moved out of their houses, several municipalities
of the basin remained without electric supply and some roads had to be closed. In
Maella, the flood also broke the drinking water supply network. Besides, in the middle
and lower basin crops were seriously affected by the flood: 25% of the total peach crop
was lost. Total loses are valued in 6,000 million pesetas for the whole basin and the
Mancommunity of municipalities of the Matarraña river basin decided to ask the
Regional Government for some economic helps and claims for the declaration of
catastrophic area for the whole basin.
57

Claims for water supply for irrigation and for the regulation of the Matarraña river are
heard no more within the basin from October 2000 but at the regional and national level
continues the social protest and debate over the national water policy. In September
2000 the National Hydrological Preliminary Plan was presented and started being
debated in he social and expert arenas until its adoption in July 2001. On the other
hand, in Aragón there is a massive protest against the national hydraulic policy and for
a new water policy and culture. At the basin level, the conservation movement leaded
by PLADEMA continue their activity and in December 2 nd Seminar on the Matarraña
are held.
More recently, the approval of the National Hydrological Plan provided the legal basis
and the economic resources for the materialisation of the 2000 Water Agreement of the
Matarraña river basin. In September 2001 the Ministry of the Environment includes the
construction of the two lateral pools in the National Hydrological Plan and assumes the
financing of the works which will soon start. 2,102 hectares located in the municipalities
of Maella, Nonaspe and Fabara (all included in the Matarraña river basin) will be
irrigated with the newly available water resources from the pools.
Nowadays, the relevance of the Matarraña river basin case seem to have gone
beyond the river basin level. Taking it as a referee, some attempts are now being made
at the regional level in order to reproduce the dynamic of dialogue and consensus that
at the Matarraña river basin level led to the 2000 Water Agreement. In October 2001,
an important agreement was reached between a regional environmental association
(Fundación Ecología y Desarrollo), which had promoted and supported the 2000 Water
Agreement in the Matarraña river basin, and the regional association of farmers
(UAGA-COAG). This two organisations have created a forum, based on a shared
problem perception of the needs of the region (nature protection, territorial structuring
and promotion of social development in rural areas) where farmers, rural population
and experts can discuss about water management strategies and design the future of
rural areas in the region.
7. Dimensions of integration and regime change
The 2000 Water Agreement may be interpreted as a signal of transition from a complex
and desegregated water regime, towards a more integrated one. Integration, in this
case, relates to the governance system rather than to the regulative system and is
58

mostly presented as regards the problem perception and definition as well as to the
actors in the policy network. Regarding the problem definition, the Water Agreement
reflects the integration of previously conflicting views on the Matarraña river basin. The
traditional view highlights the need to build large regulation infrastructures in order to
satisfy water demands along the river basin. The conservationist view opposes the
traditional one and proposes the modernisation of irrigation systems and the
rationalisation of water uses and demands. The integration of views is clearly
connected to the integration of actors in the policy network carrying this common
problem definitions. The territorial conflict that has traditionally confronted actors in the
higher, middle and lower basin has led way to a common view in which risk perception
becomes a central issue in the Matarraña river basin. In this sense, there are some
signals of move from a dispersed and unstable issue network towards a more coherent
and compact policy community. The following table summarises the main dimensions
of integrated regime in relation to the governance system.
59

Dimensions of integrated
governance
Levels and scales of
governance
Actors in the policy network
Problem perception and
objectives
Strategy and instruments
Responsibilities and resources
for implementation
Dimensions of integrated regime at the Matarraña river basin
The Matarraña river case
Medium - There are some signals of interaction of several
levels and scales of governance with regards legislation, policy
design and implementation. However, multilevel interaction
does not necessary lead to multilevel integration
EU – environmental regulation, regulative resource and
financial aids
National level – national water and environmental regulation,
social movements
Ebro river basin level (national level) – river basin
administration
Regional level – environmental policy and modernisation of
irrigation channels; social movements
Matarraña river basin level (Central Union) – river basin
administration
Local governments
High - The 2000 Water Agreement is signed by most actors
operating at the river basin level: local governments, the
Central Union and environmental groups, and has the support
of the regional government and the CHE
High - Actors signing the 2000 Water Agreement express a
shared problem perception and definition for the first time: the
river is the axis of the Matarraña river basin and its
preservation is a condition to guarantee social and economic
development
Low
60
Medium – low
Some institutional arrangements regarding responsibilities and
resources for implementation may show timid signals of
integration —more administrations involved in the policy design
and implementation and wider distribution of resources—,
while this does not mean wider integration

Apart from that, there is a medium level of integration between scales of governance,
even though interaction —not necessarily integration— between regulation adopted at
different levels of government and actors operating at different territorial scale is
increasing. Instead, the level of integration as it regards the strategy and instruments
and the responsibilities and resources for implementation are low. The administrations
responsible for the implementation have not co-ordinated their policies and resources
for implementation are disperse. In addition, the river basin administration, while
constituting the natural and hydrological unit, does not seem to have the technical,
cognitive and strategic resources to design integrated and cohesive policies estimating
the impact of human activity on the river basin, the real water needs, the forms of
satisfying these needs in an efficient manner, and the environmental consequences of
its proposals.
8. Some interpretative lines
Once the story lines of the Matarraña river case have been described, this section
attempts to give some interpretative lines regarding the two central questions to the
EUWARENESS research project, that is to say:
What and how changes towards a more integrated regime have been produced?:
Regime change (independent variable ) integration (dependent variable)
And does integration lead to more sustainable use of the resource?:
Integration (independent variable) sustainability (dependent variable)
8.1. Explaining changes
The Matarraña river case shows certain signals of regime change. In this case regime
change occurred relatively independent of changes of national determinant and is more
prominent as regards the governance system rather than the regulative system.
61

Regarding the regulative system, both water and sectoral legislation introduce marginal
changes in the de facto use rights and protection system at the Matarraña river basin.
The 29/1985 Water Act introduces the concept of hydraulic public domain for surface
and ground waters, which means that private ownership is almost suppressed (there
are still temporary basis which recognise water private property according to the
previous legislation). The Act regulates privative uses of water and requests an
authorisation or a concession to allow them. It also regulates the need to register water
concessions in the Water register. In practice, at the Matarraña river basin level this
regulative framework has been marginally implemented: most concessions are not
registered in the Water Register, about 30% of the extension of the river basin uses
water illegally, and tradition allows for the existence of de facto use rights beyond the
regulative system. Maybe the creation of Users Communities in locations where users
were not organised has been one of the most noticeable impacts of the 1985 Water
Act. Apart from that, the 29/1985 Water Act also establishes the elaboration of river
basin plans. In the case of the Ebro river, the CHE elaborated its river basin plan in
1998, establishing water needs and uses as well as the ecological flow. This flow may
or may not be respected, and water sometimes is consumed for uses other than those
established by the plan. Apart from that, sectoral legislation, mainly the one regulating
environmental protection (mostly with an EU origin) has generated certain constraints
and opportunities in the regulation system. For instance, legislation on habitats or fish
species. However, this legislation may be easily bypassed.
The most salient changes of the regime concern the policy system. As it was pointed
out previously, changes can be detected as regards the multilevel dimension of
governance, the problem perception and the actors in the policy network. To sum up,
conflict traditionally has confronted actors located at the higher, middle and lower river
basin and has been more intense in periods of water scarcity. The increasing multilevel
nature of governance means that legislation, arenas, actors and resources at different
scales of governance play a role in the governance system. In the late nineties,
territorial rivalries intensify both because of the ability of ‘conservationist’ actors of
mobilising resources and actors located at different levels of governance and because
of the increasing perception of risk caused by an extreme situation of drought. Conflict
is relaxed and a new perception viewing water in the Matarraña river basin as a
resource to be preserved becomes dominant.
In order to explain regime change, two sets of variables can be identified: those
62

external and those internal to the regime. Regarding the former, one of the external
factors which appears to be crucial in the case has to do with climate conditions. In
periods of severe draught —as it was the case of 1998—, draught periods, insofar as
they threaten crops survival and population supply, intensify conflict between actors
claiming for the construction of regulation infrastructures and those reacting against it
and in favour of preserving the resource. Climate conditions, then, precipitate conflict
but do not explain change —given that draught periods have been recurrent all the time
and are a salient characteristic of the Mediterranean climate. However, it can be
considered as an intermediate variable in two senses: on the one hand, it exacerbates
conflict among actors operating at different areas of the river basin; on the other hand,
in the conditions given in the late nineties, it allows for a change of the problem
perception. But, what are these conditions?
Among these interrelated conditions we can include a change of values, a change of
the type of policy network, and the provision of new scientific knowledge about water in
the Matarraña river basin. To begin with, a change of values against the traditional
policy approach and in favour of the conservation of the resource emerge in the higher
river basin. These emerging values initially could be interpreted in territorial terms, as
are mostly carried by the expropriated by the works of the pumping system. So, to
some extent, it can be interpreted that these interests have nothing to do with the
conservation of the resource. However, as opposition to the pumping system
increases, a conservationist coalition becomes stronger, attracts and gets support from
other actors operating at different levels of governance: university experts, regional and
national environmental groups. As we explained in the second phase of the evolution of
the regime, there was also a social opposing movement against the traditional water
policy perspective and for a new water culture emerging at a regional level. Later on,
when the CHE proposes the opening of wells to take water from the aquifer in the
higher basin, a line of dialogue between actors located along the river basin is opened.
The initial common denominator to all these actors is their perception of the oldfashioned,
static, slow, hierarchical and outsider nature of the CHE. New scientific
knowledge about the reiterative technical problems of the regulation works promoted
by the CHE reinforce this view. Later on, and being coincident with the scarcity problem
pressure, the common denominator turns to be the preservation of the river as the
unique axis of social and economic development of the area. So a change of values
and interests initially located at the higher river basin extends along the whole river
basin.
63

8.2. Towards sustainability?
The extent to which the signals of regime change observed in the Matarraña river basin
can lead to sustainability is something difficult to assess. Now it is too early to evaluate
whether the spirit and consensus inherent in the 2000 agreement will be maintained
along time or instead it is fragile and reversible. Even more difficult is the assessment
of whether this development, which seems to open the doors for some kind of
integration, may lead to more sustainability. While we just can launch some hypothesis
on that, we could argue that if the integrated approach is maintained and reinforced,
new values of preserving the resource as a means to preserve social and economic
development and avoid rural exodus might lead to more sustainability. No further
speculations can be done so far.
Conclusions
In the Matarranya process, there are clear signals of regime change, both regarding
extension and coherence of the water regime.
The extension of the water uses increases as it includes irrigation, population supply,
cattle rising, nature protection and tourism. Rivalries between users can be interpreted
in territorial terms (intra-basin driven rivalries).
There is also an increase of public governance coherence, as it regards levels and
scales, multilevel interaction and networks. The most relevant event proving the
increase of governance coherence is the Water Agreement reached by the main actors
operating at the river basin level. This agreement is the outcome of a process in which
a wide range of actors operating at different scales of governance interact: the regional
government promoters environmental initiatives; local actors appeal to EU regulation
as a legal resource by local actors; the Central Union of Irrigation Communities is
created as a body representing all irrigation communities at the basin; PLADEMA —an
ad hoc local association— aggregates and mobilises actors against the construction of
hydraulic works; the Ebro river basin administration negotiates with the local irrigation
communities; and the Ministry of Environment finances the construction of lateral pools.
These actors, specially those located at the river basin, share a perception of risk
64

caused by an extreme situation of drought among the basin actors and progressively
adopt a new water culture.
Regarding the internal coherence of property rights, some improvements can be
identified: the Ebro river basin Plan establishes water needs and uses as well as a
minimal ecological flow; some disadjustments between legal aspects and real practices
of the CHE and the Central Users Community increases its level of influence regarding
decisions on the watering out of the Pena dam and the distribution of water; traditional
use rights of some users are respected; and a kind of de facto use rights are given to
illegal users of water by the Irrigation Communities of the basin.
After the signature of the Water Agreement, the external coherence between public
governance and property rights improves to a certain extent. All the main water users
have proved to be able to negotiate and reach an agreement based on a common
perception of the river as a key element for the future development of the basin.
Regime changes have some positive impacts on sustainability. The rejection of
constructing large hydraulic infrastructures and the consideration of alternative options
with minor environmental, economic and social impacts represent an important “bet” for
the sustainability of the basin. These impacts relate to three dimensions of
sustainability: natural resources and environment (there is a compromise to take
environmental protection into account); economic development (low economic cost of
the lateral pools project and promotion of tourism) and social consequences (resolution
of territorial conflicts within the basin). In general terms, the positive impacts on
sustainability seem to be more related to the increase of internal and external
coherence rather than to the increase of extent.
When trying to explain changes, three change agents and conditions must be taken
into account: an increased problem pressure, which leads to joint problem awareness
—river as a vertebrating element of the territory—; the income of cognitive resources
by external actors; and, to a less extent, the institutional interfaces constituting the
basis for the final agreement. There is no tradition of thinking in terms of integration
and there is a traditional low level of trust among river basin actors.
65

REFERENCES
ARROJO, P.; GRACIA, J.J.; MARTINEZ GIL, F,J.; RUBIO DEL VAL, C. (1997) El
bombeo del Matarraña en Beceite: de la ineficiencia al autoritarismo hidrológico.
Nueva Cultura del Agua. Serie Informes. Bakeaz, Bilbao.
ARROJO, P. (1998), Puntos básicos para que los pueblos de la cuenca alta del
Matarrañapresten su apoyo para conseguir soluciones de futuro a la problemática de
los regadíos de la cuenca baja. Universidad de Zaragoza.(Unpublished paper).
Confederación Hidrográfica del Ebro (CHE), 1995. Plan Hidrológico del Ebro.
Confederación Hidrográfica del Ebro (CHE), 1996. Aporte de recursosal embalse de
Pena. Caudales medios disponibles aguas debajo de la confluencia de los ríos
Matarraña y Ulldemó.
GRACIA, J.J. (1999), Estudio de aportaciones y necesidades de la cuenca del río
Matarraña. COAGRET. (Unpublisehd).
MORAGREGA, A. (2000), La vegetación en el Matarraña. (Unpublished paper).
NADAL, E (1984), “Aprovechamiento actual y proyectos futuros en las subcuencas
hidrográficas aragonesas”. Seminario del agua en Aragón. Universidad de Zaragoza,
Zaragoza.
PLADEMA (1999-2000). Hoja informativa para socios y simpatizantes. num. 1-9.
RUIZ-OLMO, J.; LÓPEZ-MARTÍN, J. (2000), “La nutria en la cuenca del río
Matarraña”. Revista QUERCUS, núm 167. Enero.
SANZ, M.A.; CELMA, F.J. (1998), Memoria, identidad y conflicto: El agua en
Valderrobes. Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales. Universidad de Zaragoza.
(Unpublished)
SOSTOA, A. (1996), Breve informe sobre las características e importancia biológicas
del río Matarraña. Facultad de Biología. Universidad de Barcelona. (Unpublished).
Websites: www.mma.es
www.chebro.es
www.aragob.es
66

List of interviews
Name
Charge and date of the interview
Iñaki Belanche Member of PLADEMA (January 2001; March 2001)
Francisco Celma Former President of an irrigation community in Valderobles
(March 2001)
Francisco Domenech Mayor of Fabara (March 2001)
José Javier Gracia
Santos
Engineer and member of COAGRET (January 2001)
Juan José Latorre Farmer in Beceite (January 2001)
Esteban Latorre Member of PLADEMA (January 2001)
José María Puyol President of the Central Union of Irrigation Communities of the
Matarraña and its tributaries (March 2001)
Alberto Moragrega Member of PLADEMA (March 2001)
Mª Teresa Santos Head of the Area of Users Regime at the CHE (March 2001, phone)
Adolfo Sostoa Biologist (Universitat de Barcelona) (January 2001, phone)
Pere Sunyer Secretariat of the Irrigation Channels in Nonaspe (March 2001)
67

EUWARENESS is a research project on European Water Regimes and the
Notion of a Sustainable Status. Research institutes from six European countries
(Netherlands, Belgium, France, Spain, Italy, Switzerland) have been cooperating in
this two year project (2000-2002). The project is supported by the European
Commission under the 5th Framework Programme, and co-ordinated by the
University of Twente in the Netherlands.
The EUWARENESS-project has focused on sustainable use of water resources by
means of integrated water management. It aims to contribute to the implementation
of the EU Water Framework Directive. A better understanding is needed of
the dynamic relationships between various conflicting uses of water resources, the
regimes under which these uses of water resources are managed, and conditions
generating regime shifts towards sustainability. The EUWARENESS-project studied
the long term evolution of 6 national regimes, and also - more in depth - the
specific regime transitions of 12 water basins across Europe during the last
decades. Important issues are the participation of users, redistribution of property
rights among users, the coherence between water rights and water policies.
More information: www.euwareness.nl
The EUWARENESS project is joined by:
University of Twente (project co-ordinator) - The Netherlands
Université Catholique de Louvain - Belgium
Université Francois Rabelais de Tours - France
Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona - Spain
Istituto per la Ricerca Sociale - Italy
Institut de Hautes Études en Administration Publique - Switzerland