Let's briefly recall what this is about. In the drought years the situation on Tenerife was dramatic: water reserves at times fell below 15 percent. In October 2023 the Cabildo therefore declared a water emergency — linked to special conditions and prices for supplying agriculture. Then came the wet winter of 2025/26, the reservoirs filled up again, and on 1 March 2026 the emergency was officially ended. The core question in the complaint: was the higher "emergency price" still being charged afterwards, even though the justification for it had fallen away?
What's new now
So far, one body was known to be looking into the matter: the prosecution service at the Court of Auditors (Tribunal de Cuentas). Its auditing department opened a "public action" procedure on 16 June and asked the complainant to confirm within five days whether he is also pursuing the action to establish accounting liability.
Now a second, weightier route has been added: the provincial public prosecutor of Santa Cruz de Tenerife is also examining the same complaint. According to the acknowledgement of receipt dated 2 June, the matter was passed to the responsible prosecutor and proceedings will be opened "shortly". The case is thus now running on two tracks at once.
Why this difference matters
The difference between the two routes is more than a formality. The Court of Auditors does carry the word "tribunal" (court) in its name, but it is not a judicial body — it reports to the Cortes Generales, that is, parliament, and oversees the accounting and financial management of the public sector. It can establish a financial, accounting liability, but cannot hand down a criminal verdict.
The provincial public prosecutor, by contrast, belongs to the justice system. If, after its examination, it sees grounds, the matter can become an actual court case — what is known as "judicialización". That is precisely why its entry is the real escalation: an administrative and accounting review thus potentially becomes a judicial proceeding.
The responsible Cabildo bodies justified the emergency arrangement at the time with the dramatic drought and the need to secure agricultural supply — among other things, to push forward key projects such as desalination plants. Whether keeping the price after 1 March was legally sound or not is now for the two examinations to determine.