A water community in the making

As Hadrian water flows through an artifact, it cannot be fully considered as groundwater - so available (national and EU level) regulation about groundwater management/use offer rather incomplete legal/administrative frameworks (the water in the aqueduct runs underground and collects water from the aquifer, but is regimented water). Similarly agricultural water regulations couldn’t be fully applied, even if Hadrian water is compatible with gardening and irrigation, as the new resource is intended as fully “urban”. On the other hand regulation concerning potable water incorporates aspects (i.e. quality of water, distribution systems, monitoring, etc.) that are probably overscaled for the task, while regulations for urban wastewater point at different kinds of water resources (i.e. wastewater generated from domestic activities or as a mixture of wastewater generated by household, industrial, and rainwater outflows). In this framework, EYDAP is going to play a pivotal role: as the organization is appointed by law to be the provider of urban water (distribution, pricing, etc.) and the management authority for the infrastructures (pipes and tubing) it can have an active role in shaping this new service and pushing innovation forward. EYDAP is not new to promoting activities aiming at expanding the local conversation concerning water, water culture and new societal values related to it (i.e. “Athens water forum” the most recent initiative connecting private and public organizations with civic society around common ideas on water issues including co-creation workshops, surveys and local debates). When it comes to Hadrian water then, the challenge is also intercepting the ordinary mechanisms and regulations the organization brings about, and how much and to which extent new practices can be introduced is still a matter of debate.

With a distribution mainly organized around a “traditional” urban infrastructure (pipes), Hadrian water related services are in some cases considered into an “ordinary” framework for management, granted and organized upon existing laws on potable water (public company as a provider, regulated pricing, customers, bills, etc.). Conceptually very distant from the commons approach, this perspective could undermine the possibility to think outside the box and stimulate a more open/participatory management system. As for the regulatory framework, this perspective calls EYDAP directly into question. The interest of the organization in exploring the boundaries of its mandate is at stake, with a specific focus on pricing, mechanisms for access and distribution to the water resource, management policies, etc.: as an example hypothesis concerning pricing of non-potable water  is already on the table, with the idea of applying “symbolic” prices to Hadrian water in order to make it more interesting for customers. On the other hand the very concept of having “customers” for Hadrian water implicitly assumes non potable water as an ordinary service, paving the way for a more traditional organization of the service (with distribution policies all managed internally by EYDAP).

The knowledge concerning the capacity of the aqueduct speaks volumes about a great (potential) availability of water in the long run, not only to fulfill Halandri’s needs but apparently also to satisfy a larger request at regional level. This assumption could open the way to more market-oriented management models, based on the idea of an endless resource. A perspective bolstered by the relatively high disposable potable water at a low cost in Athens, this approach is counterintuitive to the more general idea of a sustainable and balanced approach to resources management (no matter if they are not scarce today… they could become scarce in the near future!). On the other hand the current national regulation concerning water distribution and management binds EYDAP to strong obligations - i.e. granting water quality and accessibility, granting the effectiveness and functionality of the water infrastructure in all its components, etc.-, making “the market approach” appear as the most reliable form of regulation (at least from the perspective of an institution appointed for the provision of a service).

Differently from other sectors, water management is less commonly associated with cooperative and collective management models. Even if interesting (though very much site specific) study cases can be found in and outside Europe (i.e. italian cooperatives of water, spanish “comunidades de regantes”, or extra EU examples as Welsh waters, latin american experiences, US policies for farmers’ cooperative irrigation systems), EU Water Policies (1) tend to prioritize other kinds of topics, such as water protection, chemical and quantitative status, or equitable pricing. Citizens engagement and the possibility for a proactive role of communities in regulation and management of water hasn’t (already) been recognized as relevant: in this perspective, exploring other sectors/domains (i.e. energy communities (2), cooperative management of public services, etc.) could be helpful.