Case Study 1: Matarraña River Basin - Euwareness

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