What the Ministry of Environment and Energy says about the new water management bill

The Ministry of Environment and Energy (YPEN) has presented a series of questions and answers explaining the objectives and provisions of the new water management bill, which introduces a major restructuring of the way water resources and water supply services are managed in Greece.

According to the ministry, the reform addresses the fragmentation of the current system, under which more than 735 different organisations are involved in water supply, wastewater management and irrigation. YPEN argues that this fragmented structure has contributed to higher operating costs, insufficient staffing, increased water losses, difficulties in financing infrastructure investments and the absence of a unified national strategy for dealing with water scarcity and climate change.

The ministry states that the main provisions of the bill include the expansion of the territorial responsibilities of EYDAP and EYATH, which will become the two main public pillars for water services. The reform provides for the absorption of municipal water and sewerage companies (DEYA), municipal water and wastewater departments and irrigation organisations, alongside arrangements for outstanding debts owed by absorbed entities to electricity providers.

YPEN rejects concerns that the reform could lead to the privatisation of water. It argues that, on the contrary, strengthening EYDAP and EYATH reinforces the public character of water services by creating stronger public providers with greater technical expertise, investment capacity and operational efficiency.

The ministry also maintains that the reform will not result in higher water tariffs. It argues that economies of scale, improved management, reduced network losses and better prioritisation of infrastructure projects will help contain costs while improving service quality.

Beyond the restructuring of providers, YPEN says the broader strategy includes a National Water Strategy and a programme of infrastructure projects focused on issues such as drought resilience, network upgrades, desalination, water treatment facilities and new supply infrastructure.

Regarding employees, the ministry states that workers from the organisations being absorbed will be transferred to EYDAP and EYATH under the employment framework of the two companies, while ensuring continuity of local service provision and retention of technical expertise.

Overall, YPEN presents the reform as a long-term restructuring effort aimed at creating a more resilient and efficient water management system, capable of responding to the challenges posed by climate change and increasing pressure on water resources.

Water Reform: New Regulatory Framework Aims to Reshape Management of Greece’s Water Resources

The legislative initiative introduces fundamental changes to the long-standing governance model for the country’s water resources, establishing a new regulatory framework aimed at promoting the rational use of water and addressing the challenges posed by the climate crisis.

However, the proposed changes—particularly those concerning control over water networks and the role of local authorities—have already triggered strong reactions and political debate. The competent ministry has therefore published a series of questions and answers aimed at clarifying key aspects of the reform, the existing balances that are being reshaped, and the background of the consultation process.

More specifically:

What problem does the water reform seek to address?

Greece currently has a highly fragmented water management system, with more than 735 different entities responsible for water supply, wastewater management and irrigation services. These organisations operate under different financial conditions, with varying capabilities and different levels of service provision.

In other countries, such as Ireland, similar responsibilities are handled by a single central organisation, while in countries such as the Czech Republic and Poland, there is a very limited number of providers (approximately five to ten).

This fragmentation in Greece has resulted in rising operating costs, which ultimately place an additional burden on consumers; financially unsustainable organisations; insufficient staffing; water losses and levels of non-revenue water significantly above international averages; limited ability to attract funding; the need for continuous capital support; difficulties in investing in networks and infrastructure; and the absence of a unified national strategy for addressing water scarcity, climate change and its consequences.

At the same time, the current structure negatively affects the daily lives of millions of citizens. Some areas of the country are still not connected to drinking water networks, while others rely on outdated infrastructure, with implications for water quality. There have also been incidents involving wastewater overflow, such as those recorded last year in the eastern Aegean, along with numerous practical problems, including different water tariffs from one region to another.

Is the fragmentation and management problem really so significant?

In Attica, out of the region’s 62 municipalities, 36 receive water services directly from EYDAP. Four municipalities receive water from EYDAP, but their distribution networks remain under municipal ownership. Three municipalities operate mixed systems, with some areas served by EYDAP and others covered either by private networks or municipal responsibility. Another three municipalities receive water from EYDAP despite not formally falling under its jurisdiction.

In addition, there are 16 municipalities (covering 40 municipal units) where each municipal unit follows a different operating model: some are supplied by EYDAP, others receive EYDAP water through municipally owned networks, some operate mixed systems, and others receive EYDAP water despite not formally belonging to its service area.

At the same time, wastewater management across almost all of mainland Attica falls under EYDAP’s responsibility.

The situation becomes even more complex when irrigation is taken into account. Irrigation water represents approximately 85% of total water consumption in Greece on average. Management is currently carried out by Land Reclamation Organisations (TOEB/GOEB), some of which operate effectively and others not at all, while in certain areas irrigation services are provided by municipalities and in others by regional authorities.

To complete this fragmented picture, most organisations managing water resources in Greece are loss-making, lack sufficient administrative capacity and lack the necessary financial tools to fund the infrastructure projects required to address future challenges, including water scarcity, climate change and ageing networks.

Until now, most major infrastructure projects have been developed either by ministries or regional authorities. Nevertheless, tariffs charged by individual providers are, in most areas, higher than those of EYDAP and EYATH, without delivering corresponding benefits to consumers. By contrast, under the regulatory framework, EYDAP and EYATH incorporate the cost of required infrastructure investments into their tariffs, generating direct benefits for customers through new networks, new technologies and improved services.