Case Study 1: Matarraña River Basin - Euwareness

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