Article 247 of the Criminal Code

What Article 247 of the Criminal Code punishes

Article 247 criminalises the diversion of water (distracción de aguas), an infrequent offence in practice that nonetheless remains in force among the property offences. It punishes anyone who, without authorisation, diverts water intended for public use or water subject to a private right of use, whether from its natural course or from a natural or artificial reservoir. The core conduct — diverting water from its ordinary course or destination for one's own benefit — does not require violence, intimidation or force; the absence of authorisation from the rightful user is enough.

The provision protects both publicly-owned water (watercourses and reservoirs managed by the water authority) and water subject to a private right granted by concession or an equivalent title. In practice, the typical conduct is opening unauthorised intakes, channels or diversions, or tampering with sluices and pipework to redirect a flow that belongs to someone else towards one's own land.

Penalties

Paragraph 1 punishes the diversion of water with a fine of three to six months. Paragraph 2 sets a monetary threshold: if the benefit obtained does not exceed 400 euros, the penalty drops to a fine of one to three months. Under the general classification rule in Article 33 CP, a fine of up to three months is a minor penalty and a fine exceeding three months a less serious penalty. But because the three-to-six-month fine in paragraph 1 starts within the minor band, Article 13.4 CP requires the diversion of water to be treated as a minor offence in both its forms, time-barred after one year (Article 131.1 CP). The 400-euro threshold therefore decides the penalty, not the class of offence.

How it relates to neighbouring property offences

Article 247 shares its structure with nearby provisions of Title XIII: Article 246 punishes altering boundary markers with the same penalty scheme; Article 254 covers appropriating a lost movable item with the identical 400-euro threshold; and Article 255 applies a very similar logic to fraudulently using electricity and other utilities. In all four cases the basic penalty is a fine and the legislator set the same 400-euro cut-off to grade it, which shows these are relatively minor property offences within the Code; only Article 254 (items of artistic, historical, cultural or scientific value: six months to two years' imprisonment) and Article 255.3 (fraud to power premises used for drug cultivation or trafficking, added by Organic Law 1/2026: six to eighteen months' imprisonment or a fine of twelve to twenty-four months) provide for imprisonment.

Defence strategy

A defence against an Article 247 charge usually turns on proving authorisation or a concession — express, tacit or customary — to use the water, on establishing the real value of the benefit obtained (decisive for falling below or above the 400-euro line) and, in rural areas, on distinguishing a tolerated traditional use from an actual diversion. Absence of intent is also relevant where the diversion results from a mistaken understanding of the boundaries of the right of use. The property crimes defence service examines these elements case by case.