WRITTEN QUESTION E-1549/02 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission. Impact of the Júcar-Vinolopó water diversion on the Parque de la Albufera in Valencia.
Date: 2002-06-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community of Valencia, EU law, complaint to the Commission, environmental impact, environmental law, environmental protection, nature reserve, water management in agriculture

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/175

(2002/C 301 E/187)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1549/02

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(3 June 2002)

Subject: Impact of the Júcar-Vinolopó water diversion on the Parque de la Albufera in Valencia

The Commission has just decided to close Complaint 2000/4266, submitted by the Rio Júcar Coordinating
Committee on the environmental
In reply to my
question E-3668/01 (1), the Commission stated that, as the Spanish authorities note in the environmental
impact statement, the diversion will not have a negative impact on the environment in the Parque de la
Albufera nature reserve.

impact of the Júcar-Vinolopó interbasin diversion.

However, it would appear that the Commission has not taken account of the problem of altering the
feed rate which the Albufera Nature Reserve requires in order to survive, which is not
ecological
mentioned in the environmental
impact statement either. As argued by the complainants in their
submission of 12 April 2002, the fact that the project does not deal with the ecological waterflow required
by the Albufera Nature Reserve is due to the fact that the project was worked out on the basis of the
impact of the Júcar-Vinalopó interbasin diversion’
official Report on the resources of the river Júcar:
published by the Júcar Water Board, which states that the foreseeable water savings will amount to
240 Hm3 (shared between the Júcar-Vinalopó diversion, the Júcar-Turia canal and the Mancha Oriental).

What this official report does not take into account is the following:

(cid:1) the forecast savings will be produced by changing irrigation by riverbank flooding into localised
irrigation, which means that the back-flows and run-off water which the Natural Park requires will no
longer be produced;

(cid:1) the figure given for the savings represents what they are calculated as being when the entire irrigation
system is modernised, but the interbasin diversion is going to be built without modernisation being
complete;

(cid:1) the obtaining of these savings should be accompanied by a reserve of at least 100 Hm3, and this

reserve is not included in the interbasin diversion project.

For that reason, and although the Spanish authorities claim that they have chosen the least ecologically
harmful alternative amongst those on offer, data does exist which confirms, on the one hand, that the
impact of the interbasin diversion is not going to be ‘only minor’ for the proposed SCIs and SPAs and, on
the other, that the Commission’s statement in its reply to question E-3668/01 that ‘the project will not
have any impact on the Albufera Nature Reserve’ remains questionable.

Does the Commission not think, in the light of the facts set out and the fresh allegations presented by the
complainants, that it should re-open Complaint 2000/4266?

Could the Commission carry out the evaluation, still pending in its answer to Question E-3668/01, of the
data provided by the Ornithology Society Report on the impact of the interbasin diversion on protected
areas and species?

(1) OJ C 172 E, 18.7.2002, p. 107.

(2002/C 301 E/188)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1550/02

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(3 June 2002)

Subject: SCI and SPA impact of

the Júcar-Vinolopó interbasin diversion (Valencian Autonomous

Community)

The Commission recently decided to close Complaint 2000/4266, submitted by the Rio Júcar Coordinating
Committee, about the environmental
impact of the Júcar-Vinolopó canalisation project. Nonetheless,
serious contradictions persist between the Valencian Government’s demarcation of SCIs and SPAs and the
current route followed by the interbasin diversion, which continues to have a direct impact on the special
areas in question (as the complainants argue in detail
in their submission to the Commission of
12 April 2002).