Water isn’t just another public good—it’s the foundation of life, health, and social cohesion. In a country like Cyprus, with inherent geographical constraints and chronic vulnerability to drought, water policy cannot be treated with PR fanfare or technocratic evasions that insult citizens’ intelligence. And yet, that’s precisely what some are attempting…
Consumers may not know the intricacies of hydraulic networks, but they possess the basic logic to recognise when a position is a sham.
Take, for instance, last Saturday’s report in Phileleftheros, where Nicosia’s District Local Government Organisation (EOA) pushed the line that the only technically viable solution to reduce consumption by 10% is alternate-day water supply.
This isn’t about technical necessity—it’s a wilful interpretation.
The Water Development Department’s own decision refers to a 10% reduction in supply, not a suspension of water provision. This reduction can be implemented through continuous flow at lower pressure—a practice applied internationally during water shortages without causing social shock.
So how does Nicosia’s EOA translate “reduction” into “complete cut-off”? In one scenario, you turn on the tap and no water flows, with whatever consequences the constant on-off cycle might inflict on the network, as they themselves claim.
In the other, water flows but at reduced pressure—specifically, 10% lower. What don’t they understand? The answer isn’t technical; it’s plainly political and economic.
Alternate supply creates artificial problems which the Organisation itself then invokes as an argument: network strain, increased costs, millions of euros in damages. It’s a classic vicious circle.
You choose the most extreme solution, it causes problems, and then the manager appears as the victim of those very problems. If the network truly can’t handle regulated pressure, then the problem isn’t the drought—it’s the chronic failure to modernise it.
And the question that arises is: who’s responsible for water losses due to the network?
But that’s another chapter. Related and hugely important, yes, but not for right now. It should have been sorted yesterday, not discussed today. They’d do well to start working on it from tomorrow.
The issue here, though, is the reality we’re living through and how we’ll tackle it. How will we cope with the crisis with the summer months on the horizon? And we all need to engage with these kinds of problems, without ulterior motives. After all, it’s not the Ministry’s whim, or any individual Minister’s.
The Ministry of Agriculture displays a more rational and long-term approach. It recognises that drought isn’t a passing phenomenon but the new normal, a force majeure that demands prevention and strategic planning.
Efforts to increase and maintain steady operation of desalination plants, and the gradual adjustment of consumption, constitute policies of responsibility—not PR.
It’s a tough thing to pass costs onto the consumer and punish them with water cuts, disrupting their daily lives. But it’s tougher—and more honest—to admit that everyone, including the EOAs, will suffer losses. The EOAs are remunerated through fixed charges and consumption.
Yes, a 10% reduction means less revenue. But under force majeure conditions, this loss cannot be branded “catastrophic” when citizens are simultaneously being asked to go without basic necessities.
The water crisis demands honesty, cooperation, and respect for common sense. No exaggerations, no blackmail dilemmas, and certainly no technical myths.
If something needs to change immediately, it’s not just the mentality about how much water we consume, but the way certain managers understand their role. Not as debt collectors, but as custodians of a precious natural resource.
