Water management, especially in agricultural areas under pressure, has been generating more and more conflicts between owners, producers and authorities, because ownership of land does not always mean having the freedom to use the natural resources that exist there. In the south of Spain, the Andalusian Superior Court of Justice has now confirmed a heavy fine imposed on a farmer from Almería for opening and using wells without an administrative concession, clarifying that owning a farm is not the same as owning groundwater.
Fine and compensation exceed R$536 thousand
According to the decision identified as STSJ AND 19115/2025, of November 25, inspections carried out between 2016 and 2019 detected the preparation of two wells without authorization and the use of water for irrigation above the permitted volumes or without any qualifying title.
The Junta de Andalucía imposed a fine of 300,506.62 euros for very serious and serious infractions in water matters and added compensation of 235,581.16 euros for damage caused to the public water domain, totaling 536,087.78 euros, according to Spanish digital newspaper Noticias Trabajo.
Well sealing and other ancillary sanctions
In addition to the financial value, the Administration ordered the removal of extraction instruments, the sealing of wells considered illegal and the prohibition of obtaining public subsidies in the environmental area for three years. The decision also included liability for associated costs and the court ended up ordering the farmer to pay the costs, with a maximum limit of 2,000 euros.
Defense invoked the right to own the land
One of the farmer’s main arguments was that one of the wells was “properly communicated” under article 54 of the Water Law, a rule that allows certain private uses below 7,000 cubic meters per year on own property. According to the thesis presented, this right would arise directly from the law and, while the process was pending decision, there would be no basis to sanction the capture.
Court: land ownership does not give automatic right to water
The TSJ of Andalusia, according to the previously cited source, rejected this reading and, relying on the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, emphasized that the private use of groundwater is not automatic nor does it result solely from land ownership.
For the court, the intervention and control of the Hydraulic Administration is essential, and extraction without the definitive compliance of the basin body is sanctionable, even if the interested party understands that he has the right to do so because he is the owner of the exploration. In this specific case, authorization had already been refused, even though this refusal was being contested in court, which, according to the Chamber, does not legitimize the continuation of collections.
How the Board estimated consumption when there were no reliable meters
Another central point of the process was the quantification of economic damage. As several meters did not exist or did not work correctly, the Administration resorted to an indirect method, based on the irrigation needs of the olive grove on the property.
The technical report concluded that exploration required at least 722,750 cubic meters per year and that, in the period analyzed, illegal consumption totaled 981,588 cubic meters. Applying the normative price of 0.24 euros per cubic meter, compensation was set at 235,581.16 euros. The court also highlighted that the Administration applied a criterion considered more favorable to the farmer in estimating water needs, ruling out the idea of a lack of defense or arbitrary calculation.
Private experts did not convince the judges
The farmer presented two private expert reports, one in the agronomic field and the other linked to the mining area, to try to contradict the official calculations and discuss the viability of the wells, according to the same source.
The Chamber considered, however, that these documents did not have sufficient technical support. The agronomic report reduced the irrigated area based only on what was said by the person in charge of the farm, without cartography or official data, and used experimental data from Córdoba for a farm in Almería, despite the appellant himself having previously criticized the difference in climatic conditions.
The mine report argued that the wells were dismantled and inactive, but the River Guard minutes stated that, during an inspection, workers were found cleaning and repairing one of the holes, which, for the court, showed activity. The presumption of veracity of the official minutes was not rebutted by the evidence presented.
Decision maintains the fine and allows appeal
In conclusion, the TSJ of Andalusia understood that the Administration duly substantiated the sanction and that the technical damage assessment report was not consistently called into question. The contentious-administrative appeal was therefore rejected and the total penalty of 536,087.78 euros was confirmed. The decision is not final and may still be the subject of a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court, in accordance with .
What if a farmer used water from unlicensed wells in Portugal?
In Portugal, the principle is similar: water is, as a rule, part of the public water domain and its use, especially for irrigation with underground catchments, is subject to rules, licenses and supervision by the competent authorities, with measurement obligations and limits associated with use.
In practice, this means that being a land owner does not eliminate the need to comply with the legal framework applicable to water abstraction and use. In scenarios of drought and pressure on aquifers, the trend has been towards greater control, with sanctions when there is capture without title or consumption outside of what is permitted.
Also read:
