The company INDEGA S.A., a subsidiary of Coca-Cola in Colombia, is awaiting an administrative ruling that will determine whether it may continue exploiting the springs of La Calera, a municipality near Bogota where it has operated since 1986. There, the company extracts water from seven natural sources under a concession regime that has allowed it, for nearly four decades, to use a vital resource amid growing tensions over water scarcity in the region.
The debate over the continuation of that concession intensified last year, when Bogota and neighboring municipalities faced the longest drought in their recent history. For more than a year, over 10 million people endured scheduled cuts and rationing that disrupted daily life in the capital and its surrounding areas.
In this climate of scarcity and public discontent, Coca-Cola’s continued access to the La Calera springs without any restrictions was questioned, protected by a permit that guarantees the extraction of 3.23 liters of water per second in exchange for a payment considered negligible compared to the value of the resource.
Coca-Cola Colombia and part of the community await, on opposing sides, the ruling on the concession for water exploitation in La Calera
The controversy escalated when Congress representative Maria del Mar Pizarro, of the ruling Historical Pact, recently denounced that the multinational had sealed some of the springs with cement.
Although the images released caused an uproar, it was later confirmed that they corresponded to inspections by the environmental authority carried out in 2023, after which the company was sanctioned and required to remove the seals. INDEGA complied with the order, but the episode fueled suspicion and sparked a political debate that, far from subsiding, has grown as the final decision on the renewal of the concession approaches.
In addition, the negative consequences of soil hardening caused by the seals two years ago may have inflicted considerable damage on the springs, “such as the alteration of the natural flow of water, the loss of micro-aquatic habitats, and impacts on riparian vegetation by drying out the roots of hydrophilic plants around the springs,” according to biologist Camilo Arias, cited by the local outlet El Espectador.
Esto fue lo que le hizo Coca-Cola a nuestros manantiales, los recubrieron con CEMENTO. Todo esto con la vista gorda de la @CAR_Cundi que permitió la captación de agua con un concesión irregular. pic.twitter.com/Xrr10hfdIV
— Mar Pizarro (@delmarpizarro) September 17, 2025
Illegal extensions that favored Coca-Cola?
The story of Coca-Cola in La Calera reflects the complexity of a permitting system that, although designed to ensure regulated use of natural resources, has resulted in a long chain of successive renewals.
The initial concession, granted in 1983, was valid for 10 years. Despite expiring in 1993, the company continued extracting water until 1996, when the concession was formally renewed. Since then, it has been extended repeatedly, up to the latest authorization in 2014, which expired last year.
According to the company, in May 2024 it submitted its renewal request on time and, based on a 2012 decree, has kept operations active until the environmental authority issues a ruling. The regulatory body, however, must review nearly 50,000 pages of technical information before issuing a decision, delaying the outcome.
The legal dispute is intertwined with conflicting interpretations of the regulations. Pizarro argues that, according to the 1974 National Code of Natural Resources, concessions cannot be automatically renewed and must be suspended upon expiration while a new process is carried out.
But the head of the environmental authority, Alfred Ballesteros, rejects that interpretation and maintains that all concessions — including those for human consumption and food production — are renewable under current law. “By the natural resources code, all of them are renewable. Imagine it wasn’t a concession for bottling but for Bogota’s aqueduct, a rural aqueduct, or food production. I couldn’t take away their water the moment the 10 years were up,” explained the official.
The politicization of the case in a polarized Colombia
Beyond the legal dispute, the case has taken on a strong political tone. President Gustavo Petro expressed support on social media for the idea of “socializing” underground water reserves, which was interpreted as a direct stance in the controversy.
In parallel, environmentalists and community leaders have intensified their campaign against the renewal, pointing out that privatizing an increasingly scarce resource contradicts the public interest.
Opposing them, some local residents and bottling plant workers defend Coca-Cola’s continued presence, emphasizing its economic and employment contributions, and arguing that the real culprits behind the water crisis are uncontrolled urbanization and real estate speculation that structurally affect the watershed.
The background of this conflict reveals a deeper tension in Colombia: the difficulty of balancing business development, environmental needs, and growing social demands in a context of political polarization.
The La Calera case has moved from being an administrative file to becoming a symbol of the debate over who should have access to and control of water resources in a country increasingly vulnerable to climate change.
While the environmental authority decides whether or not to grant a new 10-year extension, the controversy continues to shape the public agenda. In a country marked by inequality in access to basic services and with elections on the near horizon, the ruling on La Calera will not only determine the future of seven springs but will also test how Colombia manages one of its most precious assets: water.