Panama: Caught Amid a Need for Water and Community Voices
By Jesus Alemancia (La Estrella de Panama)
HAVANA TIMES – Amid the official insistence on the technical and economic arguments that supposedly justify the project, many of the communities that would be flooded feel their voices have been systematically ignored. The decisions appear to come from distant offices, without considering those who inhabit and know the territory.
As Panama faces recurring drought and urgent demands for water, the search is on to find a solution. In the past few years, the government has looked towards a project to dam the Indio River and create an artificial lake and reservoir in this zone, some two hours west of Panama City. The project, however, means some 500 families living along the river will see their houses and communities submerged. These communities are now demanding equal participation in the decision-making process.
On July 1 and 2, the Panamanian Society of Engineers and Architects organized a Technical Forum on the Indio River Reservoir Project. This event brought together officials from the Panama Canal Authority (PCA), representatives of the Panamanian Institute of Aqueducts and Sewage, engineers of different specialties, and – significantly – delegations from the communities that would be directly impacted by the construction of a dam and reservoir.
During the meeting, different aspects of the project were analyzed. It also opened a window to the contrasting voices of people living in the territory – those who care for the river and depend on its surroundings to sustain their way of life.
A hydric crisis that can no longer be ignored
The authorities and specialists agree on a common concern. Panama is facing a structural problem: the availability of water. What used to seem a distant possibility is an urgent reality today. The country’s population has grown exponentially since the beginning of the 20th century, going from 300,000 in 1911 to over 4 million in 2023, with over half of them residing in the metropolitan areas around Panama City.
This growth has implied a significant increase in the demand for potable water, added to the demands of the Panama Canal which represents the motor force of a development style that depends on fresh water to function. With the widening of the locks, the demand continues rising. While in 2005, 36.4 ships passed through the locks daily, an average of 55.7 passages through the locks are projected for 2025. This has been accompanied by an increase in human water use that is expected to reach 1.12 trillion gallons a year. This is a huge challenge for a society that’s ever more concentrated in the urban areas and dependent on a set of related activities in the shipping lanes.
Indio River the only option
Faced with the growing demand for water, the Panama Canal Authority (PCA) points to the Indio River as the “most viable” option for constructing a new reservoir. However, this decision is generally based on technical investigations carried out by the US Army Corps of Engineers in 2017, and the INGETEC consulting firm in Panama, both contracted to evaluate the project’s feasibility. While these reports concluded that the area is apt for a multi-use dam and reservoir, it’s not clear to what point these analyses took into consideration the social, cultural, and environmental realities of the zone. The technical-scientific vision, while important, can’t be the only lens used to measure the feasibility of a project of such enormous impact.
From an economic perspective, the PCA’s argument is based on the fact that the Indio River would represent a “more efficient” investment, costing approximately US $1 billion dollars. The cost of alternatives such as piping water from Bayano Lake [an existing reservoir some 62.5 miles from Panama City, created in 1976] could top US $1.5 billion. However, such cost-benefit logic reduces the discussion to numbers and gallons, deliberately omitting the territory’s human and environmental value.
To say that the reservoir would occupy “only 8%” of the watershed may seem like very little impact in percentage terms. However, that 8% involves communities that for generations have lived along, from, and with the river. In addition, comparing the storage capacity of this project with that of Lake Gatun [current source of water] ignores the fact that it’s not just a matter of the water quantity, but of the irreversible social and ecological effects that a megaproject such as this can unleash. Who does this “viability” really benefit? And who pays the price?
What do the communities say?
Amid the official insistence on technical and economic arguments that supposedly justify the project, many communities feel that their voices have been systematically ignored. The decisions appear to be made from distant offices, without taking into account those who inhabit and know the territory.
During the forum, delegates from the Coordinadora Campesina por la Vida Contra los Embalses [Rural Coordinating Group for Life against the Reservoirs] presented with great clarity a worrisome reality: the consultation processes carried out thus far have been not only superficial, but also developed in an atmosphere marked by pressure and fear, including police presence. Instead of facilitating dialogue, these conditions have deepened the community’s feeling of exclusion and imposition, weakening the already fragile trust between the river dwellers and the institutions.
As a response to that exclusion, the Coordinadora Campesina decided to carry out its own survey within the affected zones. Over 2,000 people participated, and the results were clear: an overwhelming 84% of those surveyed oppose the project, while only 15% support it. This statistic isn’t minor or anecdotal – it reflects a profound gap between the institutional narrative that seeks to portray the reservoir as a needed technical solution, and the community perception that it’s a threat to their way of life and their surroundings. What’s left evident is a serios disconnect between those designing the project and those who will be directly affected by it.
Clear demands with legal backing
Faced with a process they consider exclusionary and marked by imposition, the Coordinadora Campesina has formulated three clear demands, that are not only legitimate, but deeply necessary for a government that calls itself democratic.
First, they demand the repeal of the 1999 Law #44, which expanded the boundaries of the Panama Canal watershed. This statute was reactivated without public consultation or debate, behind the back of the communities that would be directly affected. The way in which this law from the past has been resurrected, as if it were a neutral technical tool, deliberately ignores the current social and political context.
Reactivating a law without public participation or transparency is not only a lack of government insensitivity, it’s a clear sign that the rules of the game aren’t being applied fairly.
Secondly, the Coordinadora demands the repeal of Resolution 1542 of the PCA /Executive Board, which approved the project budget without the consent of those who will see their territory transformed. How can a budget that commits millions to a project rejected by the majority of the impacted population be considered legitimate?
The decision to invest public resources without citizen participation only deepens the social discontent and displays an alarming disconnection between the technical elites and the rural realities.
Finally, the Coordinadora demands a very basic and essential thing: a real and transparent public consultation with the effective participation of the population and consistent with the Escazu Agreement [Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation, and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean].
It’s not a favor they’re asking of the authorities, but a right backed by an international agreement that Panama has signed and must comply with. The Escazu Agreement not only supports access to information and citizen participation, but also protects environmental defenders, many of whom face hostility or even violence for raising their voices against projects like this one.
These are not capricious petitions but fundamental demands, born of the need to defend the territory, dignity, and right to decide. Ignoring them would be not only a political mistake, but an ethical and legal violation of the country’s commitment to its people and to environmental justice.
*The author is a Sociologist, professor, and researcher at the University of Panama.
First published in Spanish by La Estrella de Panama and translated and posted in English by Havana Times.
For a more detailed portrayal of the Indio River residents and their positions, see: https://havanatimes.org/features/panama-canal-dam-project-will-flood-many-communities/