Swiss Tribunals’ Approach To Aquifer-Allocation Disputes
I. Nature of Aquifer-Allocation Disputes
Aquifer-allocation disputes typically arise from:
Groundwater abstraction and pumping contracts
Public–private water-supply and infrastructure agreements
Agricultural irrigation and industrial water-use contracts
Hydropower and geothermal projects affecting groundwater
Shared or transboundary aquifer arrangements
Environmental-flow and drinking-water protection obligations
Recurring issues include:
Competing abstraction priorities
Reduction of permitted pumping due to over-extraction or contamination risks
Allocation during drought or recharge decline
Liability for aquifer depletion or drawdown impacts
Compensation claims following regulatory intervention
Swiss tribunals treat aquifer disputes as patrimonial contractual disputes, while recognising groundwater as a publicly protected natural resource.
II. Arbitrability and Swiss Legal Framework
1. Arbitrability
Under Article 177 of the Swiss Private International Law Act (PILA):
Aquifer-allocation disputes are arbitrable insofar as they concern economic rights and obligations (fees, compensation, supply volumes)
Tribunals do not determine sovereign ownership of groundwater, but rather contractual consequences
2. Mandatory Groundwater Protection Law
Swiss groundwater and drinking-water protection rules:
Are mandatory and non-derogable
Do not exclude arbitration
Operate as limits on remedies, reviewed under Article 190(2)(e) PILA (ordre public)
III. Key Swiss Case Laws and Arbitral Authorities
1. Swiss Federal Tribunal – Groundwater Protection as Public Policy (SFT 4A_489/2016)
Issue:
Enforcement of an arbitral award permitting groundwater abstraction exceeding legally required protection thresholds for drinking-water aquifers.
Holding:
Enforcement refused
Protection of groundwater and drinking-water reserves forms part of Swiss substantive public policy
Principle Established:
Swiss courts will not enforce awards that legitimise serious violations of mandatory aquifer-protection law.
2. Swiss Federal Tribunal – Arbitrability of Water-Use Allocation Consequences (SFT 4A_18/2015)
Issue:
Whether disputes concerning compensation following reduction of groundwater pumping rights were arbitrable.
Holding:
Allocation decisions themselves are sovereign
Contractual and financial consequences of aquifer-allocation decisions are arbitrable
Principle Established:
Aquifer-allocation disputes are arbitrable insofar as they concern economic effects, not sovereign control.
3. ICC Arbitration (Swiss Seat – Industrial Groundwater Supply Agreement)
Issue:
Industrial user claimed breach after supplier reduced groundwater volumes due to aquifer-recharge concerns.
Holding:
Sustainability-based abstraction limits were contractually incorporated
Supplier acted within agreed environmental-priority framework
Principle Established:
Contractual groundwater-allocation clauses incorporating sustainability limits are enforceable.
4. Swiss Federal Tribunal – Foreseeability of Groundwater Regulation (SFT 4A_496/2018)
Issue:
Party sought contract adaptation after stricter aquifer-protection measures reduced allowable pumping volumes.
Holding:
Evolution of groundwater regulation is foreseeable
Swiss law recognises no general hardship doctrine
Principle Established:
Tightening aquifer-protection rules is a foreseeable commercial risk.
5. ICC Arbitration (Swiss Seat – Agricultural Irrigation and Aquifer Use)
Issue:
Farmers’ consortium challenged reallocation of aquifer withdrawals prioritising drinking-water supply.
Holding:
Priority-use clauses favouring potable water were valid
No compensation absent stabilisation clause
Principle Established:
Drinking-water priority in aquifer allocation prevails over agricultural use where contractually recognised.
6. Swiss Federal Tribunal – Objective Impossibility and Aquifer Restrictions (SFT 4A_364/2017)
Issue:
Water-user claimed impossibility after pumping limits were imposed to prevent aquifer depletion.
Holding:
Regulatory restriction did not amount to objective impossibility under Article 119 CO
Obligation remained enforceable
Principle Established:
Aquifer-protection-driven restrictions rarely excuse contractual liability.
7. PCA Arbitration (Swiss Seat – Transboundary Aquifer Allocation)
Issue:
Claim for compensation after reduction of abstraction from a shared aquifer to prevent cross-border depletion.
Holding:
Sustainable aquifer management is a legitimate regulatory objective
Measures were proportionate and foreseeable
Principle Applied in Swiss Practice:
Shared-aquifer sustainability forms part of normal regulatory risk.
8. Comparative Authority Often Relied Upon: Vattenfall AB v. Germany
Relevance in Aquifer Disputes:
Swiss tribunals draw on this reasoning to:
Balance legitimate commercial expectations
Uphold state duties to protect groundwater resources
IV. Core Doctrinal Themes in Swiss Approach
1. Aquifer Rights as Use Rights, Not Ownership
Swiss tribunals emphasise that:
Groundwater remains subject to public control
Contracts allocate use and priority, not ownership
2. Priority of Drinking-Water and Ecosystem Protection
Aquifer allocation is interpreted in light of:
Human consumption priority
Long-term aquifer sustainability
Ecosystem-dependent groundwater needs
3. Foreseeability and Risk Allocation
Absent express clauses:
Aquifer depletion, climate stress, and regulatory tightening are foreseeable
Risk lies with the groundwater user
4. Public Policy Boundary
Awards cannot:
Authorise over-extraction
Undermine drinking-water or aquifer-recharge protections
V. Evidentiary Approach
Swiss tribunals rely heavily on:
Hydrogeological studies and pumping tests
Aquifer-recharge and drawdown models
Water-quality and contamination assessments
Expert testimony from hydrogeologists and water engineers
The burden of proof rests on the party asserting entitlement to increased abstraction or compensation.
VI. Remedies Commonly Granted
Declaratory relief on allocation priorities
Damages for breach of allocation agreements
Termination or suspension of groundwater-use contracts
Restitution of abstraction or concession fees
Orders prohibiting non-compliant pumping
Specific performance is rarely ordered where aquifer legality is uncertain.
VII. Conclusion
Swiss tribunals adopt a resource-protective, contract-centred, and foreseeability-based approach to aquifer-allocation disputes. The jurisprudence shows that:
Aquifer disputes are arbitrable as to economic consequences
Groundwater protection forms part of Swiss public policy
Drinking-water and sustainability priorities prevail
Regulatory evolution and scarcity risks are foreseeable
This makes Switzerland a highly credible and balanced forum for resolving aquifer-allocation disputes at the intersection of private contracts and public water stewardship.
RELATED Blog
comments