Milei's claim that abundant water justifies river pollution is legally flawed

Polluting a river causes harm even when water is abundant, affecting ecosystems, other users, and health, with regulations sanctioning such acts regardless of flow volume. The idea that "there is enough water" confuses quantity with quality.

## The viral statement

A post on X highlighted a response claiming a company can pollute a river "as much as it wants" because water is plentiful and concerns should wait for scarcity. This comment, shared by economist **Julen Bollain**, summarizes an argument circulating in environmental regulation debates: that damage only exists if the resource is scarce.

The problem is that pollution is not a matter of quantity. A river with abundant flow can be completely degraded for the life depending on it.

## What is lost when water is dirty

Damage occurs even without thirst. Discharges alter fauna and flora, increase treatment costs for human consumption, and affect economic activities like fishing or tourism. In the European Union, the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) mandates achieving good ecological and chemical status of water bodies, irrespective of their abundance.

Spanish environmental liability regulations (Law 26/2007) require repairing damage to waters, and the Water Act sanctions unauthorized discharges. The cost of restoring a polluted riverbed falls on the polluter.

## Why it matters even if the river seems large

Confusing "lots of water" with "no consequence" shifts costs to others: administrations that clean up, neighbors who drink the water, and ecosystems taking decades to recover. Scarcity aggravates the problem but does not create it.

This viral claim is not harmless: if used to relax controls, damage accumulates until there is no margin left. Decisions on discharges must rely on technical reports and current regulations, not impressions about water availability.