An unnecessarily pharaonic project disguised as the only possible solution.

For months, the Board of Delegates has repeated a ceaseless mantra: "There is no alternative." In public, they appeal to technical inevitability; in private, they resort to arrogance with phrases like:

"Això no ho parareu."
(You won't stop this.)

However, an exhaustive review of the technical file, the budget, and the report demonstrates exactly the opposite. Not only do alternatives exist, but they were mentioned, assessed, or insinuated by the Board itself, only to be discarded later without a coherent technical explanation.

We are facing a textbook pressure strategy: presenting a mega-project as urgent and inevitable so that the citizenry ends up accepting the unacceptable out of fear of a collapse or lawsuit that no one has demonstrated with data.

An oversized project

What is being proposed to us is not simple sanitation. It is a massive intervention that includes deep excavations in rock, the almost total reconstruction of pavements, outfalls in various torrents, covert expropriations on private land, and simultaneous execution that will collapse road access for years.

The cost exceeds 12 million euros. A budget typical of a medium-sized city, passed on entirely to an urbanization of only 400 plots. Were there really no more efficient options?

Alternatives that "disappeared"

Internal documentation reveals that other paths existed. The technical narrative itself acknowledges that bio-purification plants, shallower routes, and much less invasive sectorization solutions were studied.

It was admitted that the rock made deep collectors unfeasible and it was recalled that the current rainwater system works thanks to strategic interceptors. Despite this range of options, the Board opted for the most expensive, aggressive, and complex solution, without presenting a serious comparative study (cost-benefit) justifying the rejection of the others.

The hidden cost: the levy inside your home

Here lies the gravest trap of the project. In addition to funding the 12 million for public works, each owner must assume mandatory private works that are not included in the budget:

  • Regulatory adaptation of the internal installation.
  • Decommissioning and civil works of the current septic tank/treatment plant.
  • Internal trenches: opening up your garden from the house to the street (thousands of euros extra depending on the plot).
  • The lifelong pumping "tax": If your house is below the level of the collector, you will be obliged to install and maintain a private pumping station. This implies perpetual electricity consumption, breakdowns, and pump replacement.

This generates an unacceptable comparative grievance: while some neighbors will drain by gravity (for free), others will pay for life for the same service. This was never explained clearly.

Financial Irresponsibility

The Board presents this plan without having secured funding, lines of credit, guarantees, or contingency funds. All the risk falls on the families, many of whom will not be able to assume the cost. A model that, in the public sector, would be considered reckless.

Conclusion: Will, not obligation

No regulation obliges us to execute this specific project. The narrative of inevitability crumbles when reading the fine print. What has been lacking is not law, but the will to protect the neighbor.

Politics, technique, and ethics impose stopping this flight forward and exploring real alternatives (mixed or local systems) before mortgaging an entire neighborhood.

That exploration is yet to be done.

David
Affected neighbor