Legal aspects of groundwater ownership in Spain

Abstract

Spain's 1985 Water Law gave special significance to the Registry and the Catalogue, two legal figures that allowed the co‐existence of public and private groundwater ownership. Twenty years later, the situation of the Catalogue and the Registry is quite deficient. As a consequence, adequate groundwater management in Spain seems extremely difficult. This paper comments on the three main actions taken by the Government since 1985: first, the “Groundwater Registry and Catalogue Update Program” (ARYCA), a 42M€ project of the Ministry of Public Works, the results of which have not lived up to expectations; second, the Transient Disposition of the National Water Plan Law (2001) with regard to the “closure of the inscription period for private wells.” The results of this action are still uncertain; and thirdly, the “Update Program for the Registry and Catalogue Books” (ALBERCA), a 155M€ initiative of the Ministry of the Environment which is yet to be implemented.

Full text

676
International Water Resources Association
Water International, Volume 32, Number 4, Pg. 676-684, December 2007
© 2007 International Water Resources Association
Introduction
In the second half of the 20
th
century, agriculture
in arid and semiarid countries has experienced a true
“Silent Revolution” of intensive groundwater use
(Fornés et al., 2004). Groundwater irrigation is more
productive in economic (€/m
3
) and social terms (jobs/
m
3
) than surface water irrigation. As a result, millions of
individual farmers worldwide have attained signicant
social and economic benets by drilling their own
wells. Indeed, groundwater has become an increasingly
important resource during that period. About 20% of
worldwide irrigation, 50% of drinking water supply
needs and 40% of industrial water demands are now
met by groundwater (United Nations, 2003).
Governmental water authorities have generally
played a secondary role, often limited to certain direct or
indirect subsidies, and seldom related to planning. As a
result, groundwater abstraction has escaped control, and
therefore appropriate management, in many arid and
semiarid countries worldwide (Llamas and Martínez-
Santos, 2004).
This paper focuses on the situation of
groundwater ownership in Spain, as well as on the legal
actions taken by the government since 1985. It does not
consider the Canary and Balearic Islands, the Galician
coast or the internal basins of Catalonia, all of which are
dependent on their own regional governments, rather
than the central government of Spain.
Legal Background
Since Spain’s rst Water Law in 1866, most
surface waters have been considered public domain.
This is a corollary of the idea that neither the market
nor individuals can guarantee an adequate sharing
Legal Aspects Of Groundwater Ownership In Spain
Juan María Fornés and África de la Hera, Geological Survey of Spain, Ramón Llamas and
Pedro Martínez-Santos, Department of Geodynamics, Faculty of Geological Sciences, Complutense
University of Madrid
Abstract:Spain’s 1985 Water Law gave special signicance to the Registry and the Catalogue, two legal
gures that allowed the co-existence of public and private groundwater ownership. Twenty years later, the situation
of the Catalogue and the Registry is quite decient. As a consequence, adequate groundwater management in
Spain seems extremely difcult. This paper comments on the three main actions taken by the Government since
1985: rst, the “Groundwater Registry and Catalogue Update Program” (ARYCA), a 42M€ project of the
Ministry of Public Works, the results of which have not lived up to expectations; second, the Transient Disposition
of the National Water Plan Law (2001) with regard to the “closure of the inscription period for private wells.”
The results of this action are still uncertain; and thirdly, the “Update Program for the Registry and Catalogue
Books” (ALBERCA), a 155M€ initiative of the Ministry of the Environment which is yet to be implemented.
Keywords: Registry, Catalogue, concession, wells, ARYCA, ALBERCA, Spain.

677
IWRA, Water International,Volume 32, Number 4, December 2007
of this limited resource. The government then
becomes responsible for “assigning, ordering and
compatibilizing the different uses of water” (Del Saz,
2002). From a surface water standpoint the 1866 Law
does not contribute anything new. Instead, it follows
the traditional criteria of Spanish and Roman law:
surface waters of rivers and basins were always public
domain.
These principles were not considered applicable
to groundwater, which was therefore excluded from
public ownership. This is largely a consequence of the
low importance of groundwater resources at the time.
In addition, quantitative hydrogeological methods
were yet to become widespread and most groundwater-
related issues were surrounded by a halo of mystery
and uncertainty.
Spain was not an isolated case. Other examples
can be found in arid and semiarid regions worldwide.
Take for instance the US. In Frazier vs Brown (1861),
the Ohio Court ruled that “because the existence, origin,
movement and course of such waters, and the causes
that govern and direct their movement are so secret,
occult and concealed, an attempt to administer any set
of legal rules in respect to them would therefore be
practically impossible”. This is obviously no longer the
case, as hydrogeology has since developed into a solid
scientic discipline. Thus, in 1984 the same U.S. Court
overturned Frazier (Cline vs American Aggregates):
“[S]cientic knowledge in the eld of hydrology has
advanced in the past decade to the point that water
tables and sources are more readily discoverable (…)
Thus, liability can now be fairly adjudicated with these
advances, which were sorely lacking when this Court
decided Frazier more than a century ago” (Fetter,
1994).
The 1866 and 1879 Spanish Water Laws, the
latter valid until 1985, allowed for a dual ownership
regime: public for surface waters and private for
groundwater, although there are some exceptions to
this rule. Apparently, small springs, rivers and lakes
occurring naturally within private land could also be
considered under private ownership in certain cases
(Moreu, personal communication).
According to the 1879 Water Law, ordinary
(domestic use) wells were property of the landowner,
while water from artesian wells or galleries was owned
by whoever found them. Legal constraints on private
ownership of groundwater were generally small and
arose as a means to avoid damages to third parties.
These included a minimal distance between wells, as
well as other limitations designed to avoid interference
with public surface waters and to guarantee the safety
of buildings, railways and roads.
Groundwater is still private property in many
countries. Signicant examples (legal peculiarities
aside) include California and Texas in the United States,
Portugal and France in the European Union and China
and India in Asia.
The 1985 reforms of Spain’s Water Law put
groundwater under public ownership. While this posed
an evident change in groundwater rights, the practical
implications of the law have not been so signicant.
The 1985 Water Law did introduce signicant changes
for those wells drilled from 1986 onwards. However,
these are only a very small share of the total. Therefore,
the 1985 Water Law left things more or less as they
were with regard to the pre-existing wells, which are
still the overwhelming majority (Moreu, 2002). This
non-committed approach on the part of the legislator
is sometimes interpreted as a way of escaping potential
social and political unrest.
The 1985 Water Law created a “Registry” and a
“Catalogue” (see below) as instruments for groundwater
management. These have given rise to an important
argument over private and public well ownership, a
debate which was fuelled by the 2001 National Water
Plan.
Groundwater ownership in Spain and the 1985
Water Law
The Preamble to Spain’s 1985 Water Law
declares groundwater and surface water part of
the same hydrological cycle and thus in the public
domain. Therefore, its main innovation is that the
state, not individuals, is responsible for groundwater
Legal Aspects Of Groundwater Ownership In Spain

678
IWRA, Water International,Volume 32, Number 4, December 2007
management. An important implication of this claim
is that groundwater rights can be quantied accurately
beforehand, thus ensuring a more rational use of the
resource (Moreu, 2002).
Article 72 of the 1985 Water Law states that basin
authorities will set up a “Public Water Registry” and a
“Catalogue of Private Waters”. These administrative
bodies were designed to keep track of the ownership
and characteristics of every well. Under the Law, all
well owners must join one of these bodies and basin
authorities can apply coercive nes in order to enforce
this rule.
Existing wells included in the Registry acquired
the legal status of “temporary private wells.” In practice,
this means that private ownership is respected for 50
years. After that period, ownership is transferred to the
state, although an “administrative concession” is to be
granted so that the former owner can still make use of
the well. A three-year deadline (December 31, 1988)
was set to join the Registry.
Alternatively, well owners wishing to maintain
private ownership might choose to apply for inclusion in
the “Catalogue of Private Waters”. Groundwater users
failing to comply with the three-year deadline would
be in a similar situation (maintain private ownership),
but would still be under a legal obligation to apply for
the Catalogue. Thus, those who privately owned wells
under the 1879 Water Law might continue to do so.
However, they would not be granted administrative
protection under the 1985 Water Law.
As a consequence, the inclusion of wells
in either the Registry or the Catalogue constituted
a legal imposition on all owners. However, those
failing to join would still be in full possession of their
rights, because inclusion in the Catalogue was not a
prerequisite for ownership (Del Saz, 2002). To address
this problem, the 2001 National Water Plan Law added
a Transient Disposition, which made it difcult to attain
recognition for those private waters not yet included in
the Catalogue.
Groundwater Ownership In Spain From January 1,
1989
The three-year deadline and the legal advantages
of the Registry had a two-fold aim: rst, to ensure
diligence among applicants so that an inventory of wells
could be compiled as soon as possible; and second, to
encourage applicants to join the Registry instead of the
Catalogue so that, ideally, groundwater would be all
public domain within 50 years.
The desired effect was not achieved. Moreu
(2002) estimates that only 10-20% of well owners
joined the Registry in time. These owners will lose
their private ownership in 50 years (between 2036 and
2038). In contrast, those who, because of either distrust
or misinformation, did not join (an overwhelming 80-
90%), will forcefully maintain their private ownership
for an indenite period. Thus, even if the 1985 Water
Law states that groundwater belongs to the public
domain, the reality is quite different. In fact most of it
is still under private ownership by law.
This situation is further aggravated by a newer
constrain: illegal wells. “Hydrological insubordination”
has become widespread in many of Spain’s aquifers. In
this regard, a more proactive approach on the part of
legislators and Basin Authorities would be desirable,
especially since approximately half of Spain’s irrigated
production is due to groundwater (Llamas, 2004). The
existing legal and technical instruments seem unsuitable
to bring such anarchy under control (Moreu, 2002; Díaz
Mora, 2002; Yagüe et al., 2003).
Governmental Action: Comments
Groundwater Registry and Catalogue Update Program
(ARYCA)
The White Book of Groundwater (MOPTMA-
MINER, 1994) outlines a program of action for
groundwater management. Perhaps the most important
one among the initiatives is the inventory of wells,
with an estimated cost of 25M€. Thus, the program
acknowledges the insufciency of existing data, which
is often obtained from indirect indicators, such as
population and irrigated area.
J. M. Fornés, Á. de la Hera, R. Llamas and P. Martínez-Santos

679
IWRA, Water International,Volume 32, Number 4, December 2007
It is noteworthy that the allocated funds (25M€)
are remarkably low in comparison with the analyses
carried out for the parliamentary debate on the 1985
Water Law. At that time, Llamas and Custodio (1985)
calculated a total of half a million wells. The cost of
incorporating each one of these to the Registry or the
Catalogue was estimated to be between 300€ and 600€
(i.e. a total cost of 150M€ to 300M€).
ARYCA was presented in 1995 by the Ministry
of Public Works, Transport and the Environment as an
ambitious attempt to solve the legal situation of Spain’s
wells. The “General Subdirection for Management of
the Public Hydraulic Domain” was the ofcial authority
in charge and the objective of the project was to update
the administrative situation of wells in Spain. Three
main lines of action were proposed to this effect:
a) Inventory of unregistered wells.
b) Completion of all administrative tasks in relation to
registered wells.
c) Review of registered wells prior to their inclusion in
the new Basin Registry.
The initial budget was 42M€, although by 2000
the amount spent was nearly 66M€. It is worth noting
that the situation had not improved signicantly by that
time (Llamas et al., 2001). The White Book of Water
in Spain described the situation as “very discouraging”
(MIMAM, 2000). This source mentions an estimated
total of 458,966 wells, out of which 244,703 had already
been declared and 109,021 were registered. These
gures did not include the Canary and Balearic Islands,
the Galician coast or the internal basins of Catalonia,
all of which are dependent on regional, rather than
the central, government. In addition, the White Book
acknowledges that this total probably underestimates
the actual number of wells: “currently, the total number
of wells could be over a million, which gives an idea
of the global importance of groundwater resources”
(MIMAM, 2000). Other authors (Llamas et al., 2001)
estimate the total number of wells around 2 million (4
wells/km
2
). These authors argue that thousands of wells
have been drilled in areas of Spain where groundwater
use was traditionally considered irrelevant. This is
the case in Galicia (Samper, 2000) and in the greater
Madrid.
Llamas et al. (2001) estimated Spain’s well
density based on the characteristics of aquifer areas
(overexploited, intensively exploited, rest of aquifers,
and areas without signicant aquifers). Considering
this, as well as the legalization cost estimated by
ARYCA for each well, the total cost of the inventory
would be approximately 420M€. Although this
gure greatly exceeds the allocated funds, it is only
equivalent to the cost of two or three medium-size dams
(insignicant in comparison with the over one hundred
new dams proposed by the 2001 National Water Plan
Law). Therefore, the 420M€ gure would be hardly
signicant given the greater comparative value of
groundwater over surface water irrigation.
The head of the General Ofce for Management
of the Public Hydraulic Domain, in charge of the ARYCA
program, evaluates its results positively: “A long and
arduous task has been carried out, and has contributed to
partially fulll the objectives of the program. In addition,
the need to approach the Registry update from a different
point of view has been identied” (Yagüe et al., 2003).
Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that “the basic (and
now urgent) purpose of the Administration in regard to
water management is to compile a complete Registry
database, with homogeneous basin-wide criteria, and
capable of yielding valid statistical information.” It is
important to point out that these proposals, as well as
the rationale behind them, were already outlined almost
20 years earlier in the “Scientic and Technical Report
for the 1985 Water Law” (Llamas and Custodio, 1985).
This indicates the passivity towards groundwater issues
traditionally shown by the Ofce of Hydraulic Works
(currently General Water Ofce).
The Ofcial Registry data in January 2002
estimated a total of 433,576 wells, out of which
43.2% were registered, while 13.4% were undergoing
registration procedures and 43.4% were not yet
registrated (Yagüe et al., 2003). It is worth noting
that this total estimate has been assumed by the new
ALBERCA project (MIMAM, 2000).
Ferrer et al. (2003) conclude that “[t]he current
Legal Aspects Of Groundwater Ownership In Spain

680
IWRA, Water International,Volume 32, Number 4, December 2007
situation is unsatisfactory: the Registries have not
fullled their objective, and there is a pressing need
for update and modernization.” These authors provide
a series of reasons why the ARYCA program fell well
short of expectations:
a) Moderate investment: The program was based on
a large number of small contracts and was therefore
difcult to coordinate.
b) Short contract length: This is hardly compatible with
the foreseeable complexity of the required administrative
processes.
c) Absence of prior groundwork: This claim is related
to the coordination and homogenization of procedures
between the different Basin Authorities (and even
within some of them).
d) Non-existence of a common software support.
e) Lack of coordination between administrative
resolutions and the Registry.
The 2001 National Water Plan Law and the closure of
the Catalogue of Private Waters
As stated before, the 1985 Water Law ruled
that each Basin Authority should create a Catalogue of
Private Waters. This would provide a legal alternative
designed to maintain their status, for those owners of
private wells under the 1879 Water Law. Besides, the
Catalogue was intended to allow the administration to
know, control, plan and protect Spain’s aquifer systems
(Del Saz, 2002).
The White Book of Water (MIMAM, 2000)
states that only 8% of the estimated number of private
wells had been registered in the Catalogue. The Second
Transient Disposition of the 2001 National Water
Plan Law set a three month deadline for the closing
of the Catalogue. After October 26, 2001, no further
applications were to be processed.
In the words of Moreu (2002), the contents of this
Transient Disposition could be summarised as follows:
“[i]f the Catalogue application is not submitted in within
three months, property rights will not be recognised
unless the well owner presents a rm judicial ruling in
his/her favor”. This applies whether the ruling is given
before or after the 2001 National Water Plan Law.
According to the same author, a ruling given
before the 2001 Law would imply an indiscriminate
alienation of property rights contrary to article 33.3 of
the Constitution. Further complications would arise from
the likely fact that most private water owners would not
submit their applications within such a short period of
time, which was during the summer holidays. The other
possibility, a ruling given before the 2001 Law, would
involve a long legal battle, between 8 and 12 years
should the case reach the Supreme Court, in which
the owner would try to assert a previously acquired
right. Moreu (2002) denes this potential situation as
“a limitation to private property so draconian (…) that
could be considered contrary to articles 53.1 and 24.1
of the Constitution.”
These authors have no ofcial global knowledge
of the response of groundwater users to this law.
Personal communications suggest that not many well
owners submitted their applications before the deadline.
The Jucar Basin seems an exception, as apparently over
half of the existing well owners have already applied to
the Catalogue. Other owners have just registered their
wells in the Private Property Registry.
The experience of the 1985 Water Law showed
a three-year period to be insufcient for the adaption of
existing wells to a new legal framework. Several legal
complications have arisen as a result. For one, 80-90%
of wells are still undeclared and therefore in uncertain
legal position. On the other hand, thousands of well
owners who actually applied to the Registry or the
Catalogue have submitted administrative appeals against
the decision of the corresponding Basin Authority.
At times, these administrators have found themselves
unable to process so many cases. Díaz Mora (2002),
Water Commissioner and later President of the Guadiana
Basin Authority, states that 12,000 applications were
lodged on December 31, 1988, the 1985 Water Law
Registry deadline. Processing these applications did not
begin until 1994. In this particular case, the tidal wave
of applications and appeals overwhelms the capacity
not only of the Guadiana Basin Authority, but also that
of the regional justice courts of Castilla-La Mancha
J. M. Fornés, Á. de la Hera, R. Llamas and P. Martínez-Santos

681
IWRA, Water International,Volume 32, Number 4, December 2007
and Extremadura. To add further complexity to the
problem, these courts often differ in their application of
legal criteria (García Carretero, 2003).
Update Program for the Registry and Catalogue Books
(ALBERCA)
The 2001 National Water Plan Law states that the
Water Registries are important tools for the management
of water resources. Perhaps in view of the results of
the ARYCA project, the Ministry of the Environment
launched the ALBERCA program in autumn 2001.
This program was managed by the General Ofce for
Management of the Public Hydraulic Domain and the
General Ofce of Information Systems and Services,
with the cooperation of Tragsatec, a public company.
The groundwork for this project was based on the
previous work this company carried out for different
Basin Authorities, particularly for the Guadiana (Ferrer
et al., 2003).
The main goal of the ALBERCA program was
to achieve homogeneous basin-wide procedures in order
to solve the legal situation of Spain’s wells (Ferrer et
al., 2003; Yagüe et al., 2003). This is partly achieved by
means of integrated computer support. By September
2004, the ALBERCA program had been implemented
in seven out of Spain’s nine administrative basins.
Similar management tools had recently been developed
and installed in the Norte and Ebro basins. The
administration deemed appropriate the adaptation of
these newly created instruments rather than discarding
them in favor of ALBERCA technology. The project
will end by 2008, 23 years after the 1985 enactment of
the Water Law (Yagüe et al., 2004).
Development and implementation of the
ALBERCA technology has been carried out with help
from Tragsatec. Three main sections exist within the
program:
a) Technical courses for Water Authority staff.
b) Modication of the existing administrative methods
in order to adapt them to the ALBERCA system.
c) Translation of the existing information into computer
support.
The total number of contracted technical assistances
is 75, with an investment of 155M€. Note that this
investment is considerably lower than the 420M€
estimated by Llamas et al. (2001).
Nonetheless, the ALBERCA program does
not seem to address the situation of those wells whose
owners never applied to the Registry or the Catalogue.
In addition, it also seems to ignore the thousands of
illegal wells drilled from 1986. Therefore, the number
of existing wells outside the ALBERCA program might
total over one million. This is certainly a large share of
Spain’s groundwater use.
Rodríguez de Liébana (2002), the President of the
Guadiana Basin Authority, acknowledged the existence
of 25,000 illegal wells within his jurisdiction. Data from
certain municipalities suggests that this number might
be even higher: indeed, some areas presented a ratio
of 1.5 illegal wells for every legal one. In Andalucia,
Vives (2003) estimated the irrigated surface to have
grown by 54,000 ha between 1998 and 2002. Out of
those, 38,000 ha correspond to groundwater irrigation,
much of it from illegal wells.
In 2002, the Jucar Basin Authority was one of the
rst ones to implement the ALBERCA program. With
regard to the information systems, the former Water
Commissioner and his collaborators have identied a
series of potential problems (Ferrer et al., 2003):
a) Achieving an effective management of servers,
databases, software applications, documents and
geographical information systems. The centralized
nature of the system has been a crucial help in getting the
program off the ground. The basin-wide system could
prove vulnerable to certain incidents, especially given
the everyday pressure of users who expect guaranteed
service.
b) Clearly dening the competences of the General
Direction of Hydraulic Works, the General Ofce
of Information Systems and Services, and the basin
authorities. This is essential in order to achieve
an efcient allocation of technical and economic
resources.
c) Achieving a comprehensive coordination between
Legal Aspects Of Groundwater Ownership In Spain

682
IWRA, Water International,Volume 32, Number 4, December 2007
technical and computer-related work. This is key to the
adequate development and enhancement of computer
applications.
d) Addressing the technical difculties related to
enhancing the structure of the existing databases while
keeping the systems operational.
e) Increasing the system’s efciency to suit the needs of
an increasing number of users.
It is still early to assess the results of the
ALBERCA program. Ferrer et al. (2004) estimate
that about 300,000 applications had already been
incorporated to the ALBERCA database. Furthermore,
Yagüe et al. (2004) state that the ALBERCA program
was at that time only 30% operational. This presents a
new opportunity to update and enhance the effectiveness
of Spain’s Hydraulic Administration, as well as to
complete the Registry. These tools are essential for
adequate water management and for meeting the
environmental requirements of the European Water
Framework Directive. This new initiative, however,
may have arrived too late: twenty years after the 1985
Water Law, the Registry is still in a clearly unsatisfactory
state. While it is true that the role of groundwater in
Spain’s water policy is better understood today than
it was before, improvements take place very slowly,
causing signicant damage to Spain’s economy and
environment.
Conclusions
The 1985 Water Law declares groundwater in
Spain to be public property. Reality is however different.
Only those wells whose drilling was authorised after
January 1, 1986, yield public waters. All other wells
are private: either temporarily (until 2036 to 2038
if administrative protection has been granted), or
perpetually.
Overall, the legal situation of groundwater in
Spain is still uncertain 20 years after the 1985 Water
Law. The total number of wells is still not known
accurately. This situation was described as “very
discouraging” by the White Book of Water (MIMAM,
2000). “Hydrological insubordination” has added
further complexity to the problem: wells (perhaps
most) are drilled today without authorisation from
basin authorities. In turn, these authorities are unable
to manage groundwater resources, often due to the lack
of an appropriate mindset or the necessary means and
support.
In addition, the 1985 Water Law ignores
important issues which have been the source of
thousands of appeals against the decisions of Basin
Authorities regarding private well ownership. Basin
Authorities have often found themselves unable to
deal with the amount of paperwork. In addition, the
opinion of a recognised legal expert (Moreu, 2002)
suggests that the Second Transient Disposition of the
2001 National Water Plan Law might be contrary to the
Constitution. Should this hypothesis be conrmed, the
current confusion over groundwater’s legal ownership
would increase.
In order to solve the legal situation of
groundwater, the administration launched the 66M€
ARYCA program. This program was not very effective
in meeting the expected goals. In 2002, the Ministry
of the Environment launched the 155M€ ALBERCA
program. While it is still early to assess its results, this
initiative seems to ignore an important share of the
existing wells. Therefore, while this can be considered
an interesting step forward, it is probably insufcient
A transparent assessment of the role of
groundwater in Spain’s water policy is probably a more
suitable solution to the current problems. Political
willingness is essential to success.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank many experts for
their suggestions. In particular, we would like to
thank José Luis Moreu (Full Professor of Civil Law
at the University of Saragossa), Emilio Custodio (Full
Professor of Civil Engineering at the Polytechnic
University of Catalonia), Javier Ferrer (Jucar Basin
Authority) and Monica Sastre (lawyer). The points of
view expressed in this paper, however, are exclusively
the responsibility of the authors.
J. M. Fornés, Á. de la Hera, R. Llamas and P. Martínez-Santos

683
IWRA, Water International,Volume 32, Number 4, December 2007
About the Authors
Juan María Fornés received his Ph.D. in Geology
from the Complutense University of Madrid (1994). He
was a Professor of Hydrogeology at the same University
(2002-2005). Currently, he is a researcher at the
Geological Survey of Spain (IGME) and is the author
or editor of about twenty-ve books and thirty scientic
papers. His main research interests are relations between
groundwater and wetlands, groundwater pollution
problems, environmental education on groundwater,
and, recently, climate change and groundwater.
África De La Hera received her Ph.D. in Geology
from the Complutense University of Madrid (1999).
She participated in seven European Projects during
1992-2004 and is currently a researcher for the
Geological Survey of Spain (IGME). Her main interests
are wetland restoration and conservation, water
management and groundwater quality. She is the author
of about thirty scientic papers. She is responsible of
the Geological Survey of Spain in the European Project
New approaches to adaptive water management under
uncertainty (NeWater).
Manuel Ramon Llamas is Emeritus Professor of
Hydrogeology at the Complutense University of
Madrid. He is also a Fellow of Spain’s Royal Academy
of Sciences, where he chairs the Section of Natural
Sciences. He received his Ph.D. in Civil Engineering
and Ph.D. in Geology from the Polytechnic and
Complutense Universities of Madrid, respectively. He
is also the author or co-author of one hundred books or
monographs and almost two hundred scientic papers.
He has also served as the President of the International
Association of Hydrogeologists (1984-1989), Vice-
president of the International Water Resources
Association (2001-2003) and a Fellow of the European
Academy of Sciences and Arts (2004). His research
interests include groundwater-wetlands interrelations,
water management, surface–groundwater interrelations,
and water ethics.
Pedro Martínez-santos received his Ph.D. in Geology
from the Complutense University of Madrid (2007). He
completed his Honours Bachelor of Civil Engineering
(2000) and Masters of Technology Management
(2002) at the University of New South Wales, Sydney
(Australia). Currently, he carries out his research and
lecturing activity at the Complutense University of
Madrid. He has worked on several projects funded by the
Spanish government and the European Union, mainly
involving groundwater modelling and management.
References
Del Saz, S. (2002) Cuál es el contenido de los derechos
privados sobre las aguas subterráneas?, in: Del
Saz, S., Fornés, J., and Llamas, M.R. (eds.)
Régimen jurídico de las aguas subterráneas
(Madrid, Spain, Fundación Marcelino Botín
and Ediciones Mundi-Prensa).
Díaz Mora, J. (2002) La claricación jurídica de
los acuíferos sobreexplotados. El caso de
La Mancha, in: Del Saz, S., Fornés, J., and
Llamas, M.R. (eds) Régimen jurídico de las
aguas subterráneas (Madrid, Spain, Fundación
Marcelino Botín and Ediciones Mundi-Prensa).
Ferrer, J., Gullón, N. and Xuclá, R.S. (2003) La
implantación del Proyecto ALBERCA en la
Confederación Hidrográca del Júcar, Congreso
Nacional de la Ingeniería Civil, Madrid, pp.
183-193.
Ferrer, J., Palmero, C., Gullón, N., Yagüe, J. and Xuclá,
R.S. (2004) El Proyecto ALBERCA como
ejercicio de modernización y coordinación
entre Administraciones, Actas del II Congreso
Internacional de Ingeniería Civil, Territorio
y Medio Ambiente. Santiago de Compostela,
Grupo III - La Gestión del Agua. Tomo II, pp.
975-986.
Fetter, C.W. (1994) Applied Hydrogeology (New Jersey,
Prentice Hall).
Fornés, J.M., de la Hera, A. and Llamas, M.R. (2004)
The silent revolution of groundwater intensive
use and its inuence in Spain, Proceedings of the
Workshop on Water and Politics: Understanding
Legal Aspects Of Groundwater Ownership In Spain

684
IWRA, Water International,Volume 32, Number 4, December 2007
the role of politics in water management, The
World Water Council, Marseille, 26-27 February
2004.
García Carretero, M. (2003) Situación legal de las aguas
subterráneas en la cuenca alta del Guadiana,
in: Coleto, C., Martínez-Cortina, L., and M.R.
Llamas (eds) Conictos entre el desarrollo de
las aguas subterráneas y la conservación de
los humedales: la cuenca alta del Guadiana
(Madrid, Spain, Fundación Marcelino Botín
and Ediciones Mundi-Prensa).
Llamas, M.R. (2004) La Gestión Social del Agua,
in: Santafé, J.M. and Bru, C. (eds) Jornadas
Internacionales. El Agua: Nuevas Fronteras.
Nuevas Visiones (Caja de Ahorros del
Mediterráneo).
Llamas, M.R. and Custodio, E. (1985) Informe cientíco-
técnico al proyecto de Ley de Aguas (Madrid,
Spain, Instituto de Estudios Económicos).
Llamas, M.R., Fornés, J.M., Hernández-Mora,
N. and Martínez Cortina, L. (2001) Aguas
subterráneas: retos y oportunidades (Madrid,
Spain, Fundación Marcelino Botín y Ediciones
Mundi-Prensa).
Llamas, M.R. and Martínez-Santos, P. (2004) Coping with
the Silent Revolution of Intensive Groundwater
Use, Proceeding of the International Water
Demand Management Conference, May 30 -
June 3, 2004, Dead Sea, Jordan, 17 pp.
MIMAM (2000). Libro Blanco del Agua en España.
Ministry of the Environment.
MOPTMA-MINER. (1994). Libro Blanco de las Aguas
Subterráneas (Ministerio de Obras Públicas,
Transportes y Medio Ambiente, y Ministerio de
Industria y Energía).
Moreu, J.L. (2002) Los problemas de la legislación
sobre aguas subterráneas en España: posibles
soluciones, in: S. Del Saz, J.M. Fornés y M.R.
Llamas (eds.) Régimen jurídico de las aguas
subterráneas (Madrid, Spain, Fundación
Marcelino Botín y Ediciones Mundi-Prensa).
Rodríguez de Liébana, J.P. (2002) Comentario a la
ponencia “La claricación jurídica de los
acuíferos sobreexplotados. El caso de La
Mancha, in: Del Saz, S., Fornés, J.M. and
Llamas, M.R. (eds.) Régimen jurídico de las
aguas subterráneas (Madrid, Spain, Fundación
Marcelino Botín and Ediciones Mundi-Prensa).
Samper, J. (2000) Estado actual del conocimiento
de las aguas subterráneas en las cuencas del
Noroeste de España, Jornadas sobre las aguas
subterráneas en el Noroeste de la Península
Ibérica (La Coruña).
United Nations. (2003) Water for People, Water for Life
(Paris, UNESCO-WWAP).
Yagüe, J., Villarroya, C. and Xuclá, R.S. (2003) Proyecto
ALBERCA: modernización de los Registros de
Aguas, Congreso Nacional de la Ingeniería
Civil. Madrid, pp. 1853-1861.
Yagüe, J., Villarroya, C. and Xuclá, R.S. (2004)
Evaluación del grado de avance del Programa
ALBERCA, VIII Simposio de Hidrogeología.
Zaragoza, Tomo XXVII, pp. 453-461.
Vives, R. (2003) Economic and Social Protability of
Water Use for Irrigation in Andalucia,
Water
International, 28 (3), pp. 326-333.
J. M. Fornés, Á. de la Hera, R. Llamas and P. Martínez-Santos