A new look at the figures behind the water controversy surrounding an Egyptian-themed private party in Ibiza has clarified how the widely reported estimate of 170,000 litres was originally calculated.

The figure did not come from a water meter, an official measurement or an invoice.

It came from a straightforward volume calculation based on two assumptions: an estimated water surface of around 850 square metres and an average depth of 20 centimetres.

Newly reported documentation, meanwhile, records a total water supply of 60,000 litres for the event.

The party at Sa Pedrera

The controversy concerns a private Egyptian-themed event held on August 13 at Sa Pedrera de Can Coix in Sant Antoni de Portmany.

Part of the event's installation included an artificial ornamental lake, which attracted attention because Ibiza was experiencing water pressure during the summer and the island had entered a hydrological pre-alert scenario.

The amount of water used subsequently became one of the main points of political criticism surrounding the event.

Where the 170,000-litre figure came from

The 170,000-litre figure was based on an estimated surface area of approximately 850 square metres.

The calculation assumed that the entire area was covered by an average 20-centimetre layer of water.

The mathematics are simple:

850 square metres × 0.20 metres = 170 cubic metres.

One cubic metre contains 1,000 litres.

That produces a theoretical volume of 170,000 litres.

The calculation itself is therefore mathematically correct.

The uncertainty lies in the assumptions used to produce it.

The calculation did not measure the water actually supplied

The important distinction is that 170,000 litres represented the estimated capacity of the installation under the assumed conditions.

It did not establish that 20 centimetres of water was actually present across the whole 850-square-metre surface.

For that to be demonstrated, there would need to be evidence of the actual quantity delivered or a direct measurement of the water volume.

That distinction became particularly important as the 170,000-litre figure began to be repeated as though it were a measured amount.

New documents show 60,000 litres

Two invoices now provide a documentary record of a substantially smaller quantity.

The documents show a total supply of 60 cubic metres of water, equivalent to 60,000 litres.

The amount was divided into two 30-cubic-metre payments.

According to the documentation, the two invoices were issued under the same agreement, with the contract dated July 14, nearly a month before the party.

The total cost was €2,090.88 including VAT.

The price stated in the documentation was €28.80 per cubic metre before VAT.

The water was supplied privately

The documentation indicates that the water was supplied by a private provider rather than taken from the public municipal network.

Information obtained from the suppliers also reportedly confirms the 60-cubic-metre supply.

That is significant because it provides documentary evidence for the amount supplied that was not available when the original 170,000-litre estimate became part of the public debate.

The documents do not, however, resolve every question surrounding the water.

What 60,000 litres would mean inside the lake

The same estimated surface area provides a useful way of comparing the two figures.

If 60 cubic metres of water were distributed over approximately 850 square metres, the resulting average depth would be around 7.1 centimetres.

That is considerably shallower than the 20 centimetres assumed in the calculation that produced 170,000 litres.

The difference is substantial.

The documented 60,000 litres represent approximately 35% of the 170,000-litre estimate.

Put another way, the 170,000-litre figure is around 2.8 times the documented supply.

The 20-centimetre wall does not prove a 20-centimetre water depth

Another detail has contributed to the confusion.

The event organisers reportedly arranged for a retaining wall of approximately 20 centimetres in height to contain the water.

But the height of a retaining wall does not establish the depth of the water inside it.

A wall can be built higher than the level of the water it contains.

Using the documented 60,000 litres and the same 850-square-metre area, the average water depth would have been approximately seven centimetres, leaving a considerable amount of space below a 20-centimetre wall.

Photographs also show shallow water

Images from the event provide an additional visual indication of the water's depth.

People can be seen standing inside the installation with the water appearing to reach around their ankles.

Descriptions published shortly after the event also referred to the water as only a few inches deep.

Those observations are broadly compatible with a depth of around seven centimetres, although photographs cannot provide a precise measurement of the total volume.

The plans showed a water area

The documentation submitted for the event included plans in which an area associated with the installation was repeatedly identified with the word “water”.

That demonstrates that the water feature formed part of the planned event layout.

It does not, by itself, establish how much water was ultimately used or that the entire area shown on the plans was filled to a particular depth.

This is another reason why the 170,000-litre calculation should be understood as an estimate rather than a direct measurement.

Why the number became politically important

The 170,000-litre estimate later entered the political debate over the event.

The PSOE cited that figure when raising questions about the origin, volume, nature and destination of the water used at Sa Pedrera.

On September 9, the Balearic Government confirmed that it had opened preliminary proceedings and requested information from Sant Antoni Town Hall.

The investigation is intended to establish the relevant facts and determine whether any infringement occurred.

The investigation is still open

The newer documentation changes the picture regarding the volume, but it does not close the wider investigation.

The Govern still has to establish matters including the origin and nature of the water and the regulatory regime that applied to its use.

The local authority had previously said it did not have its own measurement of the amount of water used.

The existence of invoices for 60,000 litres provides documentary evidence of a supply, but the remaining regulatory questions are separate.

Ibiza was already under water pressure

The controversy took place against a difficult hydrological background.

The Balearic Government's water data placed Ibiza in the pre-alert drought scenario in July, with reserves at 42%.

By August, Ibiza's reserves had fallen further to 37%.

The figures help explain why the use of a temporary artificial water installation attracted public attention, even before the precise volume was established.

A 60,000-litre figure does not mean there was no regulatory issue

It is important not to confuse the two questions.

The first is how much water was used.

The new documentation provides strong evidence for a total supply of 60,000 litres.

The second is whether the use of that water complied with the applicable rules.

That question remains under investigation.

A smaller volume than initially estimated does not automatically determine whether the use was permitted or whether any other requirement was breached.

What can now be established

Several points can now be separated more clearly.

The party took place at Sa Pedrera de Can Coix on August 13.

An artificial ornamental water installation formed part of the event.

The 170,000-litre figure came from applying a 20-centimetre assumed depth to an approximately 850-square-metre area.

Two invoices document a total water supply of 60 cubic metres, or 60,000 litres.

The documented supply cost €2,090.88 including VAT.

The water was privately supplied and was not taken from the municipal public network, according to the documentation.

The Balearic Government has opened preliminary proceedings concerning the water and is still examining whether any infringement occurred.

The difference between an estimate and a documented supply

The central lesson from the dispute is the importance of distinguishing a theoretical calculation from a measured quantity.

The 170,000-litre figure was not invented through incorrect mathematics. It resulted from a calculation using a 20-centimetre depth assumption.

What the calculation did not demonstrate was that the entire surface actually contained that depth of water.

The newly documented 60,000-litre supply provides a different and more concrete basis for assessing the amount used.

The controversy is therefore narrower, but not finished

The new figures substantially change the understanding of the volume at the centre of the controversy.

Instead of treating 170,000 litres as an established measurement, it is more accurate to describe it as the result of a theoretical calculation based on an assumed depth.

The documentary evidence now available records 60,000 litres of water supplied for the event.

That resolves an important part of the numerical dispute, but not the regulatory questions that prompted the Government's investigation.

Until those proceedings are completed, the legality of the water use and the applicable rules remain matters to be determined by the competent authorities.