The detractors of the Ebro transfer stated, on the one hand, that there were no flows in the Ebro either for transfer (the PHN said that the Ebro had annual flows calculated in the period 1940-1996 of 17,300 hm³, while in the period 1990-2008 the real flow was 8,542.9 hm³) or for the very subsistence of the ecosystems. of the Ebro, that the Ebro presents an extreme hydrological irregularity (which at a given moment can contribute 32 m³ to the sea and in another 23,484 m³,[8] one month it can contribute 440 hm³ to the sea and another month 1879 hm³ or that in one year it can contribute 3811 hm³ and another year it can contribute 26,134 hm³)[9] that would prevent availability of flows in many of the years, in the high energy consumption of the crossing (which included 10 pumping stations[10]), in the inconsistency of not having infrastructure in the Ebro valley to take advantage of the water in situ, in the effects of climate change on the flows of the Ebro,[11] in the non-consideration of control, savings, efficiency and reuse measures in deficient areas, in the lack of prior control over urban planning and crops illegal[12][13][14][15][16] and the inconsistencies of the transfer itself that did not clarify the price of water, nor the energy consumption, nor the cost of building new reservoirs, nor that it would spend the hydrologically dry years in the Ebro, nor if the years in which water could not be transferred, the recipients of the transfer should continue paying for the infrastructure as established by European legislation, nor the costs of the work (which went from 3,700 to 4,300 million before starting [3]), factors that caused the EU to oppose both the project and its financing, in addition, the problems of pollution, salinity and invasion of foreign spices in the Lower Ebro were not taken into account, nor the problems of salinization, subsidence and regression of the Ebro delta, nor the economic effects that the decrease in the arrival of nutrients and silt would cause on fishing. to the Mediterranean, nor the increase in maritime salinity, nor the increase in the temperature of the Mediterranean that results in more frequent and virulent cold drops in Valencia, Alicante and Murcia or the same decrease in the arrival of sediments to the Mediterranean beaches.
On the other hand, they argued for the total availability of desalinated water of the highest quality, without environmental or social effects, and that in Alicante, Murcia and Almería it would be obtained at cheaper prices than those of transferred water.
The evolution of the flow of the Ebro in Tortosa, in the period 1960-2008,[17] is as follows:
The defenders of the Ebro transfer accused those who opposed the Ebro transfer of being unsupportive, alleging that desalination might not be viable from an economic or ecological point of view. They also considered the energy costs and CO2 emissions of this alternative to be high, although the desalination plants were contemplated in the old PHN only in a complementary way to the transfer. The detractors of the transfer relied on economic, ecological and social development reasons, and recalled the exorbitant development of urban planning in the Levant (urban developments, golf courses, industries...), while the "donor" territories did not receive any favorable treatment or possibility of development. The political parties (PSOE, PP) defended different things depending on the region in which they were located, a situation that is maintained in the case of the Levante PP, which has not completely ruled out the option of an Ebro transfer. The detractors and defenders promulgated demagogic and derogatory campaigns towards the defenders of the transfer (see campaign "Sponsor a Murcian" or "Water for all"). The media campaigns became polarized, creating real nonsense, with the news services of the television networks contrasting images of the overflowing Ebro as it passed through Zaragoza and the dry lands of the south and the Levant, ignoring logical facts such as that the Ebro only overflows occasionally or that it is impossible to stagnate its water (cities or towns would have to be flooded...).
Furthermore, urban pressure is contributing to the degradation of water resources and aquatic ecosystems. The objective of protecting water resources and ecosystems is key, given the importance of current and potential tourist activities in the southeast of the peninsula.
The measures to be taken must be carefully examined so as not to harm agriculture in the southeast, which is the most dynamic in the country, and to avoid its destruction and abandonment since this favors desertification of the area, and we must also take into account the enormous pressure and urban speculation as well as the precedent of the inconveniences and misuses of the Tajo-Segura transfer.
The solution to the problem of scarcity and degradation of water resources in the southeast requires the cooperation of farmers to achieve collective action in the protection of water resources. An excessive burden on farmers will mean the failure of any measure.
It is also fair to say that the modernization carried out in irrigation, as well as the purification of wastewater, makes the Region of Murcia, for example, a global example, only comparable to the actions developed in Israel. It should be noted as an example that while in the entire Segura basin (which supplies 2 million people) 2 hm³ of water are consumed weekly in summer, in the rest of Spain this figure usually exceeds 900 (450 times more). Another example is the average consumption, while that of a Murcian is estimated at 180 l/day in San Sebastián this figure reaches 300.
However, these quantities, although they may seem small, can still be improved, as shown by the average annual consumption in Zaragoza, which is currently 100 l/day. This is influenced by factors such as the loss of water through the sewer network, which is usually 30%. Also say that this usual shortage of water determines that while in the Segura hydrographic basin the losses due to leaks in pipelines are only 7%, in the Ebro Hydrographic Confederation it is calculated at 4%.
In any case, urban and industrial water consumption represents a small percentage of the total, since 80% of the water consumed in Spain is dedicated to agriculture. Therefore, water saving measures and campaigns in cities, in the end, have a very limited impact on total water consumption.
In summary, it is a controversial issue for the simple fact that water is treated in a completely different way from other resources, since it is the main means of development and prosperity, in addition to being essential for living.
Despite everything, Spain continues to be, by a clear margin, the European country with the highest average amount of impounded water.
It is also the European country with the greatest tradition of water management (Contrebia Belaisca bronze from 89 BC, Almonacid de la Cuba, Proserpina and Cornalvo dams; Valencia Water Court in operation for the last thousand years). The advantages that we have in Spain and that other European countries do not have are:
The only case of sustainable management of a large aquifer worldwide occurs in Albacete, in the Mancha Oriental aquifer. Water, especially for irrigation and the environment, is a communal good with environmental externalities, so policies cannot be based on economic instruments. It is necessary to obtain the cooperation of the agents to take care of the resource until collective action is achieved.