The head of the Research and Training Unit of the International Center for Environmental Law Studies (CIEDA-CIEMAT), Eva Blasco Hedo, expressed this Wednesday that the ruling of the Supreme Court that rejects the Siam Park model for issues based on the absence of reports from the Gran Canaria Island Water Council, makes sense. The defense of Loro Parque argues that the aforementioned report was issued verbally by the representative of the Insular Water Council of Gran Canaria.
Blasco Edo said that "the relevance of this ruling" is not so much because of the absence of the report on water resources "but because the report is insufficient, especially taking into account that its existence and availability is not proven." He added that the promoter Loro Parque "was in no way fulfilled with the granting of the concession for the installation of the water park, which only addressed the aspect related to the delimitation of the hydraulic public domain." He added that "the report should have been provided during the processing of the Plan and before its approval, with a view to ensuring the availability of sufficient water resources to meet urban development, which has not taken place. Let us not forget that the PMM entails the construction of a water park, which will mean greater water consumption.
The Supreme Court has stopped the processing of the project because the report from the Hydrological Administration on the existence of water resources has not been issued. The main purpose of the investment plan was the installation of a large water park that has as annexes a large tourist infrastructure, such as hotels, tourist accommodations and shopping centers.
The lower court ruling declares the nullity of the Plan, not due to the non-existence of the report on water resources but due to the insufficiency of the one issued in the file. For the Supreme Court, the circumstances surrounding the case regarding the supply of desalinated water have not been taken into account either. It is added that the forecasts of the plan do not involve new water requirements, especially when a concession had already been granted to build a water park that included the existence and availability of water resources, so the issuance of a new report by the Hydrological administration about the existence and availability of water.
