Valdecaballeros Dam Debate: Ownership, Costs, and the Push to Dismantle

No time to read?
Get a summary

The decision surrounding the Valdecaballeros reservoir near Badajoz sparked strong opposition from the Junta de Extremadura, nearby councils, and residents. The dispute centered on the dam and its broader implications for drought management and public resources, fueling a wider national discussion about the fate of dams and reservoirs across Spain.

The matter also drew attention to Endesa and Iberdrola, the two electricity majors sharing the concession for the dam and its cooling needs for reactors elsewhere in the energy portfolio. The Valdecaballeros project was never actually built; it did not fall under the moratorium that the Felipe González government enacted in the 1980s.

Both energy firms recently filed separate objections, challenging a Ministry of Ecological Transition decision to proceed with the reservoir’s demolition. The objections, reported by regional press and other sources, were described as two distinct appeals that share similar language and were submitted in parallel.

The ministerial order assigns the demolition costs and waste management to Endesa and Iberdrola. Earlier studies estimated investments around ten million euros, but the companies now contend that the price tag is considerably higher. They are seeking precautionary measures to halt the project, a process that would need to be resolved within six months through formal administrative channels.

The Directorate-General for Water, led by Deputy Prime Minister Teresa Ribera, issued a ruling last month mandating the removal of the Valdecaballeros dam. Endesa and Iberdrola had previously waived their exclusive water-use concession in 2021, and the government has since begun the process of dismantling the reservoir and restoring the Guadiana basin as the Guadalupejo river traverses the Badajoz municipality.

Who owns it and who pays?

Following the Socialist administration’s 1984 nuclear moratorium, the Valdecaballeros project was halted in 1991 and permanently shelved in 1994. For the past 25 years, consumers across Spain have funded surcharges on electricity bills to compensate for the shutdowns of both the Valdecaballeros and Lemoniz facilities.

In their appeal, Endesa and Iberdrola argued that ownership of the property effectively rested with the government since 1994. If a demolition order stands, they contend, responsibility for the costs should fall to the ministry or to Enresa, the public company charged with nuclear waste management and dismantling programs.

They also claim the demolition order could be retroactive, arguing that the laws in force when work on the plant was halted allowed only the return of water to the administration upon expiry, but a later legal reform redefined public interest to permit a demolition decision.

Regardless, the two companies advocate self-funded maintenance of the dams, noting there is no compelling justification for the government to claim that upkeep has become impossible after three decades. They also contend that no prior environmental impact assessment was conducted for the proposed demolition work.

The government started to back down

The Junta de Extremadura filed its own appeal with the Ministry to safeguard the dam and halt the decision, arguing it had not been consulted on the demolition and that the move violated environmental regulations and the Nature 2000 Network. Local supply concerns and unregulated water inflows further heightened concerns about potential supply disruptions for nearby municipalities.

Following protests from regional authorities, neighboring towns, and residents, the Ministry of Ecological Transition began recalibrating its stance, signaling openness to revisiting the demolition decision in light of the broader interest in water management and local servicing. At a recent congressional session, Vice President Ribera indicated that it is entirely possible to align the government’s actions with the boards’ objectives and noted ongoing discussions with the regional government to explore viable execution paths. For now, the demolition order remains in effect, with no formal revocation announced.

No time to read?
Get a summary
Previous Article

Public Eviction Tensions in Barcelona Highlight Legal and Media Debates

Next Article

Travis Barker and Kourtney Kardashian: A Glimpse of Love on Tour