The plenary session of the Santa Cruz City Council, with the votes in favor of the government team (CC, PP and Evelyn Alonso) yesterday approved the start of the file to raise the price of water in Santa Cruz. As had already been announced, the Consistory begins the path so that, in September, the water bill rises by around 8%, as denounced by the opposition, and does so again in January, when the CPI of 2022 which could mean a rise of another 16%. This was denounced yesterday by the PSOE, Cs and United We Can during the debate on the file, calling the rise in the price of water a “rate”.
The mayor of Public Services, Carlos Tarife, defended that the rise in water is a right that is included in the contract, that the agreement with Sacyr implies the release of the investment of more than 40 million, and the achievement of zero discharge in 2025 On this last point, he stressed that “I have asked Emmasa to inform me about how the three projects are going to be invested in which eight million will be invested in the next three years, and the result is that everyone will have the draft drafted on October 31 of this same year”. He explained that, “regarding the Almáciga pumping station, it will take about four months to have the documentation, and the work will last about 15 months; in the case of San Andrés and El Suculum, a new channeling will be made towards Cueva Bermeja, in a first phase, and in a second it will be promoted to the coast, in about 20 months; and finally in Acorán it will take 18 months to have pumping stations”.
To all this, added Tarife, we must add the return of the canon of about 38 million, which Sacyr charged Emmasa irregularly.
The opposition’s response was unanimous against this rate increase. Matilde Zambudio (Cs) pointed out that “if there is the slightest legal loophole, we are going to stop this rise” which she described as a “robbery”.
Former socialist mayor Patricia Hernández recalled that all previous attempts to raise water levels based on updating the CPI have been denied by the courts. “What you have to ask yourself is why do they side with the company when they have justice on the side of the City Council”. “Investments have to be made by contract and the money has to be returned because they stole it,” she added.
The UP spokesman, Ramón Trujillo, pointed out precisely that Emmasa has not entered into losses that justify the economic imbalance that is alleged to raise the water. “In 2021 they had benefits, and if the 38 million are going to be reimbursed, there is no imbalance, so I don’t know why that money is not taken into account when making the calculations,” he said.
What the groups did agree on, although not in the arguments, was to unanimously request the Government of the Canary Islands to urge the State to increase the desalination subsidy, the cost of which has multiplied by the increase in the the light.
