Status Report

Palestinian Water Authority Annual Status Report on water resources, Water Supply, and Wastewater in the Occupied State of Palestine 2011

D e c e m b e r 2012

1

Water Status Report 2011

Palestinian Water Authority West Bank: Al-Bireh, Al-Balo’, Baghdad St. P.O.Box 2174, Al-Bireh | Tel: +972 2 242 9022 Fax: +972 2 242 9341 Gaza: Al Rimal, Al Wehdeh St. | Tel: +972 8 283 3609 | Fax: +972 8 282 6630

WWW.PWA.PS

2

Contents Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures Abbreviations Foreword Introduction

3 5 7 8 10 12

Part one Water Resources 1.1 1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.3 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.4 1.4.1 1.4.2 1.4.3 1.4.4 1.4.5 1.5 1.5.1 1.5.2 1.5.3 1.6

Introduction Rainfall and recharge Rainfall Recharge estimate for the Season 2010/11 Surface water The Jordan River Wadis Groundwater General Overview Well Abstractions Springs Discharge Water Level Fluctuation

15 16 16 16 19 20 21 23 23 25 27 29

Water Quality Non-conventional water resources Treated wastewater reuse Desalinated water Purchased water (Mekorot) Water resources projects completed in 2011

30 32 32 33 33 34

Part two Water Supply 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9

Introduction Water supply versus water consumption Water supply and demand gap Water consumption Average Water Supply Rate Average water Consumption Rate Water supply costs and tariffs Water network coverage Water quality Water supply for agricultural purposes Water supply projects completed in 2011

37 39 41 45 45 47 47 50 51 54 57

3


Part three Wastewater 3.1

Introduction

63

3.2

Wastewater resources and quantities in West Bank

65

3.3

Wastewater collection and disposal in West Bank

65

3.3.1

Urban Area

66

3.3.2

Refugee camps

67

3.3.3

Rural Area

68

3.3.4

Quantities of Wastewater

69

3.35

Treatment in Israeli WWTP’s (trans boundary streams)

71

3.3.6

Influent flowing inside West Bank (local streams)

72

3.4

Wastewater treatment in West Bank

73

3.4.1

Central Wastewater Treatment Plants

74

3.4.2

Collective Wastewater Treatment Plants

80

3.4.3

Onsite Small Scale Black Wastewater Treatment Plants

84

3.5

Wastewater Collection and Treatment in Gaza Strip

86

3.5.1

Existing wastewater treatment plants

88

3.6

Wastewater projects in 2011

90

4

List of Tables Table1

Recharge Estimates

Table 2

Estimated discharge in West Bank wadis, 2010/2011 season

Table3

Summary of existing water harvesting structures

Table 4

Water allocation according to Oslo agreement and utilization in 201 1

Table 5

Summary of total abstraction from Palestinian wells per use

Table 6

Summary of 2011 Palestinian wells abstractions per aquifer,West Bank

Table 7

Wastewater network coverage, Gaza Strip, 2011

Table 8

List of Water Resources Infrastructure projects in 2011

Table 9

Total Supplied Amount (for Agricultural and Domestic Uses) - Governorate Scale (MCM), 2011

Table 10

Domestic Water Supply and Consumption in the Palestinian Governorates

Table 11

Supply and Demand Quantities (for 150 l/c/d)

Table 12

Water Supply and Consumption Rates in the Palestinian Governorates

Table 13

Population and communities served/ un-served with a water network in 2011

Table 14

Distribution of tested water sample by district, West Bank, 2011

Table 15

Water produced from local resources (wells and springs) for agricultural and non-agricultural uses per basin, 2011

Table 16

Population connected to sewage network or cesspits, by type and locality and governorate

Table 17

Population connected to sewage network or by governorate

Table 18

Population connected to sewage network in the urban areas

Table 19

Population connected to sewage network in the refugee camps

Table 20

Population connected to sewage network in the rural areas

Table 21

Estimated Annual Generated Wastewater (MCM) in the West Bank governorates

Table 22

The Estimated Generated Wastewater in the West Bank wadis and treated in Israel

Table 23

The Estimated Generated Wastewater in the West Bank local streams and non treated

Table 24

The existing central wastewater treatment plants

Table 25

Daily Wastewater Flow Rates of Al-Bireh WWTP

Table 26

Treated Wastewater/Effluent Characteristics - Al-Bireh WWTP, 10 April 2010

Table 27

Influent Wastewater Characteristics – Ramallah WWTP, 17 February 2008

5

Water Status Report 2011 Table 28

Treated Wastewater/Effluent Characteristics – Ramallah WWTP, 17 February 2008

Table 29

Pretreated Wastewater/Effluent Characteristics – Tulkarm WWPTP, February 2011

Table 30

Pretreated Wastewater/Effluent Characteristics – Jenin (Wadi Moqatta’, February 2011

Table 31

Pretreated Wastewater/Effluent Characteristics – Nablus West (different locations, 2011

Table 32

Existing collective wastewater treatment systems

Table 33

Average Influent and Effluent Wastewater Characteristics - ‘Ein Siniya WWTP, April 2008 - January 2009

Table 34

Agencies that implemented on-site small scale black/grey wastewater treatment plants

Table 35

Projection of Gaza population in Gaza Strip, PCBC, 2007

Table 36

The coverage of wastewater network all over the Governorates in Gaza Strip, 2011

Table 37

General features of wastewater production and collection in Gaza Strip.

Table 38

Treatment plants in the Gaza Strip, 2011.

Table 39

Wastewater projects under preparation, implementation and completed in 2011

6

List of Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19 Figure 20 Figure 21 Figure 22 Figure 23

Figure 24 Figure 25 Figure 26 Figure 27 Figure 28 Figure 29 Figure 30

Rainfall contour maps for the West Bank, 2010/2011 season and long term average West Bank average annual rainfall Averages of rainfall in the Gaza Strip Rainfall contour maps for the Gaza Strip, 2010/2011 season and long term average Current utilization of Jordan River water Surface water catchments and wadis Location of wells in the West Bank Average annual abstraction rate from all Palestinian Wells in the West Bank Annual spring discharge in the West Bank Annual average water level in well 14-17/005, northern part of WAB Representative water level decline in well L/57 in Gaza Annual average nitrate content in selected wells in the Jordan Valley Annual average chloride content in selected wells in Qalqilia and Tulkarem Representative chloride trend graph for the Gaza Strip Annual quantity of domestic water purchased from Mekorot (MCM X Selected indicators for water supply in the Palestinian Territory Water supply and demand in the west Bank (MCM) Water supply deficit in the west Bank- Summary Water Supply and Demand in the Gaza Strip (MCM) Supply Rate versus Consumption Rate in the West Bank Governorates (2011) Average selling price compared to the operating costs of the main 10 WSP in the West Bank governorates, 2011 Distribution of tested water samples (Coliform test) by District, West Bank, 2011 Distribution of testes water samples, networks and resources (Coliform test) by District, West Bank, 2011 Nitrates in West Bank wells monitored by PWA Nitrates in Gaza Strip wells monitored by PWA Water Supply based on the water use and water source- Governorate scale (MCM) West Bank population connected to sewers or cesspits West Bank population connected to sewers or cesspits by locality type. Existing and Planned Wastewater Plants in the West Bank Existing and Planned Wastewater Plants in the Gaza Strip

7


Abbreviations AFD EAB EC MENA GIZ GOI HSI ICA IWSR IWRM JSC JV JWC JWU LA LACS l/c/d MCM MCM/Y Mm MYWAS NEAB NGO NWC OSP OR GUT PIU PMU PNA ppm PSC PWA PWEG RCU RO RSC SIDA SP

8

Agence Française de Développement (French Developmen t Agency) Eastern Aquifer Basin European Commission Ministry of Environmental Affairs Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (German Development Agency) Government of Israel Hydrological Service of Israel Israeli Civil Administration Institutional Water Sector Review project (integral part of Sector Reform Program) Integrated Water Resources Management Joint Service Council Jordan Valley Joint Water Committee Jerusalem Water Undertaking Lower Aquifer Local Aid Coordination Secretariat liter per capita per day Million Cubic Meter Million Cubic Meter per Year millimeters Multi-Year Water Allocation System Northeastern Aquifer Basin Non-governmental Organization National Water Council occupied State of Palestinian Consortium led by ORGUT Consulting AB, also including Finnish Consulting Group Ltd. and Palestinian Wastewater Engineering Group Project Implementation Unit Project Management Unit Palestinian National Authority Parts per Million Project Steering Committee Palestinian Water Authority Palestinian Wastewater Engineers Group Reform Committee Unit Reform Office Reform Steering Committee Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency Service Provider

TOR Terms of Reference TPAT Technical, Planning and Advisory Services project (integral part of Sector Reform Program) Upper Aquifer UA United Stated Agency for International Development USAID Western Aquifer Basin WAB World Bank WB West Bank Water Department WBWD Water Evaluation and Planning WEAP Water Resources Management WRM Water Supply and Sewerage Authority WSSA Water Sector Working Group WSWG WWF

World Water Forum

9


Froreword In the framework of the water and waste water sector reform, the Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) in close cooperation and coordination with Technical Planning Advisory Team (TPAT) has accomplished the Water Status Report for 2011. The main objective of this report is to address the general status of all available water in Palestinian territories for 2011 with respect to sources, supply and wastewater. The report includes three parts that reflect the water status in the State of Palestine; the first part discusses the Palestinian utilization of the available water resources in Palestine in 2011 with respect to water quantity and quality. The report includes also detailed analysis and evaluation for rainfall pattern, surface water and groundwater resources supported by illustration figures and tables. The second part of the report shows the current water supply figures for all Palestinian communities, it also gives general overview on the crisis of supplying water to Palestinians and the severe water shortage problem in Palestinian territories due to the current political conflict. The third part contains an overview of the wastewater situation in Palestine. This part gives general figures on the raw wastewater quantities generated in Palestinian territories and shows the current PWA efforts with international donors to construct several waste water treatment plants including large-scales and small-scales plants.

10

I would like to express my deep gratitude to the team of PWA for their commitment and efforts led to publishing this report, especially to the Water Resources Directorate; Omar Zayed, Deeb Abdelghafour, Majedah Alawneh; Salam Abu Hantash, Hazem Jouma and Anwar Zohlouf, and to the Planning Directorate, Adel Yasin, Dr.Hani Qasim, Hadeel Faydi, Ashraf Dweikat, Shahd Tibi, Fadi Safi ,and Rawan Isseed from TPAT Project Implementation Unit, and from PWA Gaza, Ahmed Yaqoubi, Mahmoud Abdullatif, and Jamal Dadah, for their efforts as a team to setup a concrete process to issue such report. Lastly, I would like to express my gratitude to the TPAT team for their technical support and the UNICEF team for their technical and financial support to enable PWA to set up a sustainable mechanism to disseminate the data and information on water and wastewater sector. In addition, special thanks to World Bank for funding the printing of this report.

Dr.Shaddad Attili Head of Palestinian Water Authority

11


Introduction This Annual Water Status Report aims to provide an overview on the water sector situation in the Occupied State of Palestine during the year 2011. It is intended that this report will be the first in a series of annual water status reports. The report is divided in to three parts that describes the water resources, water supply and the wastewater. The report has been produced by PWA with assistance of TPAT Capacity Building Program, which is co-funded by the World Bank and Sida(of Sweden) in a trust Fund and the French Agency for Development (AFD). This report targets water sector stake holders including but not limited to government institutions, water professionals, water service providers, municipalities, universities, NGOs and donor organizations, and is illustrated with a large number of tables, figures and maps. The report will be produced in the English language for this year only, English and Arabic versions will be produced for the following years. The report can also be downloaded from the PWA website (www.pwa.ps).

12

Water Resources Part one

13


Al -14 Auja Dam, March 2012

1.1 Introduction Groundwater is the main source of water for Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territory (West Bank and Gaza Strip) and provides more than 90% of all water supplies. The main aquifer systems can be divided into four distinct units; the Western Aquifer Basin, the North-eastern Aquifer Basin and the Eastern Aquifer Basin for the West Bank, and the Coastal Aquifer for Gaza, where the groundwater is available at much shallower depth. Following the 1967 occupation, Israel has controlled all shared water resources including surface and groundwater, and has utilized more than 85% of these resources, leaving only 15% for Palestinian use. The surface water in OSP is represented by several seasonal wadis, as well as the Jordan River, which is currently controlled and used exclusively by the Israelis. Due to the above mentioned, the OSP is among the countries with the scarcest renewable water resources per capita; average domestic water consumption is only 72 l/c/d in the West Bank, and 96 l/c/d in Gaza but with water quality is much below international standards. This is far below the per capita water resources available in other countries in the Middle East and in the world, constraining economic development, increasing running costs leading to health problems. More than half of the available groundwater is u sed for domestic water supply, severely limiting the available volume for irrigated agriculture and industry. The water situation in Gaza is much worse than in the West Bank. The Coastal Aquifer in the Gaza Strip receives an annual average recharge of 50-60 MCM/y mainly from rainfall, while the annual extraction rate of this aquifer complex is estimated at about 178.8 MCM. These unsustainably high rates of extraction have led to lowering the groundwater level, the gradual intrusion of seawater and upwelling of saline groundwater. Tests have indicated high salinity levels of more than 1,500 ppm chloride, making significant parts of the aquifer unsuitable for drinking water, domestic applications and for many irrigated crops. The shallow aquifer complex is also very vulnerable to ongoing and serious pollution from agriculture, solid waste and wastewater. In fact it is believed that the Gaza Aquifer has already passed the point of no return and needs to be regenerated before it can be sustainable used again, leaving the population of the Gaza Strip without a reliable and affordable water source. This report gives a general overview of the current water resources available for Palestinians covering both local resources and non-conventional sources.

15


1.2 Rainfall and recharge 1.2.1 Rainfall The climate in the Palestinian territory is Mediterranean in its basic pattern, and varies from semi-arid in the west to extremely arid in the east and southeast. he mean annual rainfall in the West Bank varies from about 650 mm in the western part to less than 100 mm in the east; the long-term annual average is about 454 mm. During the past 8 years, average accumulated annual rainfall increased in the northern and north western parts of the West Bank. In 2010/2011 however rainfall in the northern and western parts of the area peaked at only 538 mm/y, while in the east it was as low as 70 mm/y. The average annual rainfall for the year 2010/2011 for the entire West Bank was about 347 mm. For the West Bank Figure 1 shows the spatial distribution for the average annual rainfall in 2010/2011 and for the long-term annual average rainfall. Annual rainfall normal display most extreme spatial distribution, the spatial rainfall variation is uneven, and the areas receiving different amounts of rainfall are not of the same size. Figure 2 shows the historical records of annual average rainfall in the West Bank.

Figure (1) Rainfall contour maps for the West Bank, 2010/2011 season and long term average

16

Figure (2) West Bank average annual rainfall

In Gaza Strip, the average rainfall is calculated over the period 1981-2010 for 12 stations as shown in Figure 3, while Figure 4 presents the spatial distribution of average rainfall for the 2010/2011 season.

Figure( 3 Averages of rainfall in the Gaza Strip

Rainfall in Gaza Strip during the season 2010-2011 is classified low (225mm) if compared with the long-term annual average rainfall of 372.1 mm. Rainfall is unevenly distributed it varies considerably by governorates from the North to the South.

17


Figure (4)Rainfall contour maps for the Gaza Strip, 2010/2011 season and long term average.

1.2.2 Recharge estimate for the Season 2010/11 Based on rainfall figures for the hydrological year 2010/2011, the total water volumes over the West Bank and Gaza Strip were 2390 MCM and 81 MCM, respectively. The 2010/2011 season average recharge for the three West Bank ground water basins was estimated at 598 MCM. This recharge quantity was calculated as follows: about 153 MCM received as a net recharge to the Eastern Basin, around 311 MCM to the Western Basin and around 134 MCM to the North-eastern Basin. Meanwhile, the groundwater recharge in the Gaza coastal aquifer was about 33MCM. Table 2 shows the recharge estimate for the groundwater aquifers in the West Bank and Gaza strip.

18

Table (1) Recharge Estimates

Area within

Average

Recharge

rainfall

Long-term

Volume

Average

)mm(

2011/ 2010

Recharge

2010/2011

)MCM(

)MCM(

1,767

407

311

318-430

981

433

134

135-187

Eastern Aquifer

2,896

281

153

125-197

West Bank Total

5,644

347

598

578-814

Coastal Aquifer

365

225

33

55-60

Palestine Total

6,009

631

633-874

Aquifer-Basin

West Bank ) Km2(

Western Aquifer Northeastern Aquifer

* Note: the indicated areas and recharge are those within the West Bank and Gaza.

It is obvious from the table above that the total recharge rates for all aquifers in season 2010/2011 were less than the long-term annual average rates. If this trend continues it will have a negative impact on the water resources in the West Bank; for the Gaza Strip the effect is even more immediate and it will accelerate the aquifer collapse.

1.3

Surface water

Surface water resources are represented mainly by the Jordan River and ephemeral wadis flowing towards three basic directions: towards the Mediterranean (West Bank and Gaza Strip), toward the Jordan Valley and towards the Dead Sea.

19


1.3.1 The Jordan River The Jordan River is one of the main rivers in the region, and the only permanent river in the West Bank and in the whole of the OSP. It flows from north to south from an altitude of 2200 meters above sea level to end at the Dead Sea at an altitude of 425 meters below sea level. The Jordan River is shared among five riparian countries: Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Israel, with the latter using most of the water. The Jordan River flows into Lake Tiberius, and continues south to join with the Yarmouk River at the Yarmouk Triangle, then flows south to end at the Dead Sea. Historically, the quantity of water flowing into the Lower Jordan River and discharging into the Dead Sea is estimated 1400 MCM/y. This amount decreased dramatically during the past six decades and is presently no more than 30 MCM/y (FOEME-2010). This huge reduction in flow is mainly due to diversion of its water by Israel of more than 500 million cubic meters through the National Israel Water Carrier that extends south to the Negev, in addition to the construction of many dams upstream. Moreover, natural factors such as evaporation also had an adverse impact on Jordan River flows. Furthermore, the Jordan River is threatened by the discharge of large quantities of untreated wastewater from Israeli settlements located along south of Lake Tiberius. Figure 5 shows the current utilization of the Jordan River by riparian countries. 130000

155000

180000

205000

230000

255000

Lebanon

300000

5 MCM

275000

Israel

Syria

800 MCM

160 MCM

Meddeirainian Sea

250000

2011Utilization of Jordan River

·

225000

400 – 550 MCM to the NWC

Jordan River

200000

175000

West Bank

Jordan

0 MCM

235 MCM

150000

30 MCM

125000

Residual Water raeched to Dead Sea

Legend

100000

Jordan river basin Political Borders

130000

20

155000

180000

205000

230000

255000

1.3.2 Wadis Runoff water flowing in wadis during the rainy season forms an important potential source of water. The long-term average annual flow of flood water through wadis in the West Bank is estimated at about 165 MCM/y. During the 2010/2011 season the average flow reached 131 MCM/y. The West Bank wadis are classified into eastern (toward the Jordan Valley and the Dead Sea) and western (towards the Mediterranean) by the direction of flow as shown in Figure 6. About 33 major West Bank surface catchments are recognized, Table 2 lists the annual average flow.

Figure (6) Surface water catchments and wadis

21

Water Status Report 2011 Table (2) Estimated discharge in West Bank wadis, 2010/2011 season

In the Gaza Strip, the main wadi is Wadi Gaza, which originates at the eastern border where Israel is trapping the natural flow for irrigation purposes. This (action dries the Wadi except in very wet years. Due to the flat topography in Gaza for storing and using any remaining surface water resources is very limited. In the overview (Table 2) the flow from the Gaza Wadis is not included for this reason. Surface water harvesting of wadis was not taken into account in the National total volume as it is still not much developed, despite

22

significant interest. The required investments are high and in addition the Israeli occupation imposes severe restrictions on dam-construction permits. Table 3 shows the existing storm water harvesting structures in the West Bank and the harvested quantities. Table (3) Summary of existing water harvesting structures .No

Harvesting method Location

Use

Potential (CM(

1

Dams

Al Auja

Agriculture

700,000

2

Cisterns

West Bank

Domestic

4,000,000

3

Agricultural Ponds

Jordan Valley, Marj Ibn A’mer

Agriculture

750,000

1.4 Groundwater 1.4.1

General Overview

Groundwater is the main source of water for the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, providing more than 90% of fresh water supply for various purposes. The main aquifer systems are comprised of several deepseated rock formations from the Lower Cretaceous to the recent age. The spatial and vertical hydro-geological variety of the Mountain Aquifers in the West Bank determines the quantity, quality, and extraction cost of groundwater, which differ greatly within this relatively small area. The system is divided into four units, three units on the West Bank and one in the Gaza Strip. For the descriptions below only the Palestinian parts of the shared aquifers are considered when discussing sustainable yield and abstraction. If Israeli abstraction within the West Bank is considered, then the sustainable yield is comparable but not equal to long term average recharge. Western Aquifer Basin: This is the largest basin and the most important among the West Bank Aquifer basins. It has an annual yield ranging from 362400 MCM per year. However, this basin is heavily exploited by the Israelis at variable rate of 340-430 and in some years it reaches more than 520 MCM/Y, while the Palestinians utilization is about 25MCM/y from wells in 2011. The main aquifer system in this basin is the upper and lower Cenomanian aquifers. Northeastern Aquifer Basin: Most of the recharge areas of this basin are located within the West Bank boundaries and it has an annual yield of 100145 MCM. Despite this, the Israelis exploit the aquifer at a rate of 103 MCM/Y, most of this quantity taken from springs in the Galbou’ Area. The Palestinians utilized only 20 MCM/Y from wells and springs in 2011, mainly from the shallow Eocene aquifer. The aquifer system in this basin includes the shallow Eocene Aquifer, Upper and Lower Cenomanian Aquifers.

23


Eastern Aquifer Basin: The basin is divided into three main sub-aquifers, namely the Mountainous Heights, Northeastern Tip and Jordan Valley. The annual yield of this basin varies from 145 to 185 MCM. However, the Israelis exploit the aquifer at a rate of 50 MCM/Y from wells in addition to 100 MCM/y from Dead Sea Springs that are controlled by Israel; while the Palestinians utilized about 42 MCM/y from groundwater wells and springs in 2011. Table 4 shows the groundwater allocations for both sides according to Oslo agreement and the consumption figures in 2011 from the three shared groundwater aquifers (West Bank area only). It is obvious from Table 4 that, 17 years after the Oslo Agreement came into force, the Palestinians in the West Bank are still utilizing only less than 14% of available shared groundwater resources, while the Israelis utilizing more than 86%. Table (4) Water allocation according to Oslo agreement and utilization in 2011

*This includes 100 MCM from Dead Sea springs, which Israel prevents Palestinians from developing ** This doesn’t include the water quantity from unauthorized wells.

The Gaza Coastal aquifer: The Coastal Aquifer is the only source of water in the Gaza Strip, with the thickness of the water bearing strata ranging between several meters in the east and south-east to about 120-150 m in the western regions and along the coast. The aquifer consists mainly of sand and gravel and sandstone (Kurkar) intercalated by clay and silt. A hard and non-productive layer of clay and marl with low permeability (Sakia Formation) has a thickness of about 800-1000 m situated below the coastal aquifer. The yearly recharge volume for this limited aquifer is in the range of 55-60 MCM/yr.

24

1.4.2 Well Abstractions The total number of the Palestinian wells in the West Bank tapping all aquifer systems is 383, of which 119 wells are not pumping or abandoned and in need for rehabilitation Figure 7. The total annual abstraction from the pumping wells is approximately 65.5 MCM in year 2011 among of which 33.5 MCM for domestic uses and 32 MCM for agricultural; Figure 8 shows the annual average abstraction from Palestinian wells during the period of 2007-2011. The number of Israeli wells inside West Bank is 39, and the average annual abstraction of these wells is estimated at about 54 MCM. Furthermore, Israel has more than 500 wells inside the Green Line (mainly in the Western Basin), which abst ract more than the annual recharge rate of all aquifers. As a result, the Palestinians are inevitably affected due to general decline of water level in the aquifers, as the total annual abstraction greatly exceeds the recharge rates.

Figure(7) Location of wells in the West Bank

25


Figure (8 ) Average annual abstraction rate from all Palestinian Wells in the West Bank

Table 5 and Table 6 summarize the total abstractions from Palestinian wells per use and per aquifer, respectively. In Gaza, the total abstracted volume in 2011 for municipal uses is about 92.8 MCM in addition to 4.2 MCM/y supplied from Mekorot and for agricultural use is about 86 MCM with total supplied volume of about 178.8 MCM. This means that the total recharge is only one third of total abstractions. Consequently, the cumulative water deficit is still increasing even when there was a remarkable increase in the amount of rainfall received in the season of 2010-2011 compared with previous years. Table ( 5) Summary of total abstraction from Palestinian wells per use Palestinian Abstractions (MCM) in 2011 Basin Domestic

Agriculture

Total

Western Basin

7.9

17.1

25.0

Eastern Basin

7 .13

12.0

25.7

North-eastern Basin

11.9

2.9

14.8

Total West Bank

33.5

32

65.5

Gaza Coastal Aquifer

92.8

86

178.8

26

Table (6) Summary of 2011 Palestinian wells abstractions per aquifer, West Bank Basin

Eastern

Aquifer

Type

Alluvium

Shallow

6.7

Beida

Shallow

1.7

Eocene

Shallow

3.3

Upper Aquifer

2.2

Lower Aquifer

11.8

Upper Cenomanian Lower Cenomanian

25.7

Total Eastern Basin Western

Upper Cenomanian Lower Cenomanian

Upper Aquifer

24

Lower Aquifer

1.0 25

Total Western Basin North-eastern

)Abstractions (MCM

Beida

Shallow

0.7

Eocene

Shallow

3

Upper Cenomanian Lower Cenomanian Total North-eastern Basin

Upper Aquifer

5.6

Lower Aquifer

5.5 14.8

1.4.3 Springs Discharge In addition to abstraction from wells, there are many springs that discharge water from the three groundwater system of the West Bank. There are about 300 main springs emerging from different aquifers in the Eastern Basin and North-eastern Basin and Western Basin; most of them are small springs with an average discharge of less than 0.1 liter/second. The long-term annual discharge of these springs is around 54 MCM. Recently the overall yearly discharge has dramatically decreased to about 21 MCM in 2011. This significant decrease is attributed to several reasons, one of them is drought. Figure 9 shows the decline in annual discharge of West Bank springs during

27


2005-2011. Meanwhile, the Dead Sea springs which are located in the Eastern Basin discharged about 110 MCM/yr, these springs are under the control of the Israelis. Generally, the springs in the Eastern Aquifer Basin are divided into two groups: 1. Jordan River Basin Springs: A group of 42 main springs that flow towards the east to the Jordan River Basin through the eastern wadis of the West Bank. Their long term annual discharge is about 33 MCM. The most important springs of this group are: Bardala, Far’a, Fasail, Diouk, Nou’meh Ein Sultan, Qilt and Auja. 2. Dead Sea Basin Springs: A group of about 21 main springs located directly near the north western areas of the Dead Sea inside the West Bank. Their long term annual discharge reaches about 110 MCM; and has a brackish quality. The most important springs of this group are: Fashkha springs Ghuweir, Turaba and Ein Gedi. There are 36 main springs in the North-eastern Basin that has long-term annual discharge of 14 MCM. Generally, variation of springs discharge from one year to another depends mainly on rainfall and abstraction rates from the aquifer.

Figure (9) Annual spring discharge in the West Bank

28

1.4.4 Water Level Fluctuation During the past years, a clear decline was observed in groundwater levels of many production wells in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Declines occurred mainly in the southern parts of the West Bank as a result of the recent repeated drought and intensive abstraction from the nearby Israeli wells. The decline in water level varies from well to another based on well location, hydro-geological properties and pumping in terms of quantity and duration. Generally, the decline varied from just a few meters in the north to more than 20 m in the south over the past 3 years. Figure 10 represents the annual average water levels in selected well in Western Basin.

Figure (10) Annual average water level in well 14-17/005, northern part of WAB

Moreover, the decline in groundwater levels was also observed in many groundwater wells in the Gaza Strip. This is a natural consequence of abstraction rates being significantly higher than the recharge rate of the coastal aquifer. The most serious declines have been observed in the northern and southern parts of Gaza Strip as a result of intensive local pumping (Figure 11).

29


Figure (11) Representative water level decline in well L/57 in Gaza

1.4.5 Water Quality As a general overview on water quality status in West Bank aquifers, a partial analysis including only chloride and nitrate content is presented. The used data are based on averaging the available time-series data in PWA during the period of 2005-20011. Furthermore, and in order to evaluate general trends in groundwater quality, data from selected representative wells in Jordan Valley, Qalqilya, Tulkarem were selected. In the Jordan Valley Area, many wells show a gradual increase in nitrate concentrations over time, Figure 12. This reflects significant agricultural activity in this area. Meanwhile, the nitrate concentration shows a general increase in the Jordan Valley area and in Tulkarem and Qalqilia districts from 2007 to 2009. For chloride, it was observed from the annual records (2005-2011) that none of the wells located in Qalqilia and Tulkarem districts exceed the acceptable limit. However, there is a gentle increasing trend in chloride concentration in some wells (Figure 13).

(A)

(B)

(c)

(A) Booster station kardala, Tubas

(B) wadi al qilt, alfuwar spring, Jericho

(c) Jenin well #2, Jenin

30

Figure (12): Annual average nitrate content in selected wells in the Jordan Valley

Figure 13: Annual average chloride content in selected wells in Qalqilia and Tulkarem

In Gaza, the direct consequences of over pumping of the coastal aquifer are seawater intrusion and uplift of the deep brine water; as a result the water quality falls below the accepted international guidelines for potable water resources. Currently, several agricultural wells are also showing high salinity levels. In addition to this Gaza is experiencing serious wastewater-driven problems, it is characterized by high levels of nitrates in the groundwater. The chloride concentration of the pumped water is in the range of 100-1000 mg/l, while the nitrate is in the range of 50-300 mg/l. resulting in less than 5% of the delivered domestic water matching prevailing drinking water standards. A significant water salinity increase was generally observed in 2011 as a result of continuous over-pumping. The trend of increase varies from well to well based on well location, abstraction rate and pumping duration (Figure 14).

31


Figure (14) Representative chloride trend graph for the Gaza Strip

1.5

Non-c onventional water resources

1.5.1 Treated wastewater reuse According to a recent PCBS survey in 2011, around 32% -35% of the households in the West Bank are connected to a wastewater (WW) collection system. Today, only one Palestinian wastewater treatment plant is functioning in the West Bank, treating less than 3% of all sewerage produced. Not only systematically blocking the development of Palestine’s wastewater and sanitation sector, but also Israel has been, unilaterally imposing new wastewater arrangements that are patently unfair. Around 15 MCM of the generated WW is treated inside of Israel from Jenin, Tulkarm, Nablus, Ramallah, Beit Jala, and Hebron. Since 1996, for example, Israel has unilaterally deducted over $US42 million from Palestinian tax revenues for the construction and maintenance of wastewater treatment plants in Israel built to treat and reuse Palestinian wastewater for the exclusive use of Israel’s agricultural sector. Palestinians receive no compensation for this lost resource (WWF6 Fact Sheet, 2012). Of the 30 proposed Palestinian wastewater treatment plant proposals submitted to the Joint Water Committee since 1995, only 4 have received approval from Israel. Even with Joint Water Committee approval, the construction of these wastewater treatment plants has been repeatedly delayed. In the Gaza Strip, four WWTPs exist (Beit Lahia, Gaza, Khan Younis and Rafah) where though Khan Younis WWTP is a matter of a collection pond. Collectively, these provide coverage of about 72% of the households but

32

the quality of treated effluent is far below Palestinian and International guidelines and remains a serious hazard to groundwater quality and public health (Table 7). There are plans started to be implemented for treating all Gaza wastewater by the construction new three regional WWTPs. Table (7) Wastewater network coverage, Gaza Strip, 2009 Governorate North Area Gaza Middle Area Khan Younis Rafah TOTAL

Population

Waste water

% Coverage

298,000 547,000 224,000 300,000 184,000 1,553,000

)Production (m3/day 23,000 60,000 10,000 9,000 10,000 112,000

80 90 75 40 75 72

1.5.2 Desalinated water Desalination of brackish water to achieve acceptable levels of drinking water quality is an important OSPion that is still not implemented in the West Bank. In Gaza it was implemented at small scale. Around 2-3 MCM/yr is provided for drinking through about 100 private water vendors (brackish groundwater desalination) in addition to one public sea water desalination plant and around six pubic brackish water desalination plants operated by CMWU and Municipal Departments. The PWA recently finalized a study of water supply OSPions for the short, medium and long term. At the short term, low volume (STLV) sea water desalination plant to be constructed with a total capacity of 13 MCM/y. In the long-terms regional seawater desalination plant will be constructed with a capacity of 55 MCM/y by the year 2017-2022.

1.5.2 Purchased water (Mekorot) West Bank water supply relies heavily on the import of water from Mekorot systems.These imports compensate to some extent the constraints imposed on the development construction of new wells and have been increasing during the recent years (see Figure 15). The total quantity provided to the Palestinian Communities in the West Bank through Mekorot is about 53MCM (around 49 MCM for domestic usage and 4 for agricultural usage) and about 4.2 MCM in Gaza Strip.

33


Figure (15) Annual quantity of domestic water purchased from Mekorot (MCM) Source: Draft water strategy report, 2012

1.6

Water resources projects completed in 2011

Several water resources infrastructre projects have been implemented during the year of 2011.Most of these projects were funded and implemented by different donors under close coordination and supervision from WBWD and PMU. Table 8 shows the implemented projects during 2011. Table (8) List of Water Resources Infrastructure projects in 2011

34

Water Supply Part two

35


36 & Al Fuwar Spring, Jericho Al Qilt

2.1 Introduction Access to clean drinking water is essential not only for human health, but also to the economic and municipal development of a society. Water scarcity in Palestine continues to be the cause of political conflict and additional costs while ensuring an adequate amount of clean water remains extremely difficult. Moreover, the Occupied State of Palestine (OSP) suffers from exceptional circumstances under the Israeli occupation that denies the Palestinians from their rights and restricts their access to water resources. This struggle that the Palestinians face within the water supply process is continuously increasing under the growing population and water demands. In 2011 a total volume of 323 million cubic meters (MCM) of water was supplied to the OSP. Table 9 explains that 137 MCM was utilized for agriculture while the remaining 186 MCM was utilized for domestic, public, commercial and industrial uses (which will be referred to hereafter as “water utilized for domestic uses”). This resulted with low quantity of water supplied in the West Bank and low quality of water supplied in the Gaza Strip. The situation in Gaza remains critical. 184MCM was available, 86MCM for agriculture and 98MCM for all other uses. The total volume available to the public supply system indicates a relatively high per capita use, however this figure can be misleading since over 90% is of poor quality and the volume of water extracted from the coastal aquifer is three times more than that recommended to sustain the aquifer for future use. Gaza plans to improve both the quality and quantity of existing supplies by constructing a 55MCM/yr desalination plant and is implementing parallel projects to rehabilitate its water supply networks to Non Metered Water which is as high as 45%. The West Bank suffers different but equally serious problems in that it is denied its access to water rights, whilst Israel abstracts water from the West Bank for ever expanding settlements and sells what little remains back again to Palestinians. Palestinian attempts to maximize and redistribute available supplies are hampered by a total control of Israel and severe restrictions in the building or rehabilitation of water infrastructure outside Area A.

37


Average consumption, excluding agriculture is around 73 l/c/d, remains low compared to Israel. Dramatically 70 communities, with a population of 112,733 remain without piped water supplies in 2011. Figure 16 shows a general description of the OSP water supply dependence on local and purchased resources on one hand; and its distribution to domestic and agricultural uses on the other hand. This figure clearly shows the difference in the water supply system in both West Bank and Gaza Strip. despite the fact that Gaza’s population makes no more than 68% of the West Bank’s, but the water supply for agricultural and domestic supplies is considerably higher, this is due to the high abstraction rates from the coastal aquifer despite the poor water quality where the aquifer is being over pumped with annual quantities that double that of the safe pumping rate (50-60 MCM/year); this has forced seawater and water from surrounding saline aquifers to intrude into this fresh water source leading to water salination. Hence, this made the purchased resources almost invisible compared to the large amounts of water abstracted from the local resources. Table (9) Total Supplied Amount (for Agricultural and Domestic Uses) Governorate Scale (MCM), 2011 Governorate

Total Resources (MCM)

Supply based on use Domestic use

Agricultural use

Jenin

6.8

5.7

1.1

Tubas

7.4

1.5

5.9

Tulkarem

15.1

5.2

9.9

Nablus

17.1

15.0

2.1

Qalqilya

10.9

4.7

6.2

Salfit

2.5

2.5

0.0

Jericho

27.9

3.8

24.1

Ramallah and Jerusalem

22.8

21.3

1.5

Bethlehem and Hebron

29.1

28.6

0.5

Total- West Bank

139.6

88.3

51.3

Total- Gaza Strip

183.7

97.7

86.0

Palestinian Territory

323.3

186.0

137.3

38

Figure (16) Selected indicators for water supply in the Palestinian Territory

In this chapter, an attempt is made to evaluate water supply and demand with the available secondary data that was not particularly designed for this purpose. The main focus of this section is to discuss the water supply, consumption, demand and deficit.

2.2

Water supply versus water consumption

In the year 2011, 58% of water supplied in the OSP was for domestic purposes -including industrial and commercial purposes- with 88 MCM supplied to the West Bank and 98 MCM supplied to Gaza Strip. And the rest 42% was supplied for agricultural purposes with 51 MCM supplied to the West Bank and 86 MCM supplied to Gaza Strip. This section will focus on the water supply for domestic purpose, which is explained in Table 10 below.

39

Water Status Report 2011 Table (10) Domestic Water Supply and Consumption in the Palestinian Governorates Governorate Jenin Tubas

Population

Total

Total

Supplied

Consumed

(MCM)

(MCM)

Total Losses (MCM)

Percent of Losses %

281,158

5.7

3.9

1.8

31

56,642

1.5

1.1

0.4

29

Tulkarem

168,973

5.2

3.3

1.9

36

Nablus

348,023

15.0

10.2

4.8

32

Qalqilya

100,012

4.7

3.4

1.3

28

64,615

2.5

1.8

0.7

27

310,218

16.6

12.5

4.2

25

Salfit Ramallah Jericho

46,718

3.8

2.9

0.9

24

Jerusalem

147,489

4.7

3.1

1.6

33

Bethlehem

194,095

11.3

7.5

3.8

34

Hebron

620,418

17.3

12.6

4.7

27

Total - West

2,338,361

88.3

62.3

26.0

30

North

309,345

21.9

11.8

10.1

46

Gaza

537,890

36.2

21.0

15.2

42

Middle

236,198

15.2

8.3

6.9

45

Khan Younis

301,136

15.2

8.4

6.8

45

Rafah

195,598

9.2

5.4

3.8

41

1,580,167

97.7

54.9

42.8

44

Bank

Total- Gaza Strip

Water consumption is the water delivered to customers from distribution network and metered (billing system). The water loss in the West Bank reached up to 36% of the supplied water (Tulkarem and Nablus). Table 10 shows that the amount of water loss in Nablus or in Ramallah (4.8 MCM and 4.7 MCM respectively) covers all the needed amounts for Tubas, Salfit, or Jericho (3.1 MCM, 3.5MCM, 2.6 MCM respectively as shown in Table 11 in the following section). This is why options should be clear regarding the further identification of losses occurrence and the efforts needed to control or eliminate them. However, PWA and local water service providers have

40

developed their capacity in detecting real losses and monitoring water theft. The term “Real Losses” is defined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the physical leaks that consist of leakage from transmission and distribution mains, leakage and overflows from the utilities storage tanks and leakage from service connections up to and including the meter. Locating and repairing the leak is part of the operation and maintenance (O&M) priorities. However, as the integrity of our aging infrastructure decreases, the loss of water in the distribution system increases. This has an extrusive relation with the water cost; to cover the additional cost, the suppliers pass the cost of the lost amounts of water to the consumers through their bills. Eventually, this increases the price of water and decreases the consumption rate.

2.3

Water supply and demand gap

Palestinians are accustomed to occasional droughts, scarcity of water, water restraints, and a frequent displacement of people as a result; reaching the needed amount of drinking water is a huge challenge in the middle of the on-going circumstances. Table 11 shows that the needed quantities to provide a per capita supply rate of 150 L/c/d (based on the WHO standard supply rate) in the West Bank are almost 40 MCM more than the currently available quantity. Moreover, and paying attention to the actual consumption (after deducting the losses in the supplied quantities) compared to the needed quantities, the gap (deficit) increases to almost 66 MCM. Table (11) Supply and Demand Quantities (for 150 l/c/d) Governorate

Jenin

Population

Needed

Supplied

Deficit

Actual

Actual

Quantities

Quantities

(MCM)

Consumption

Deficit

(MCM)

(MCM)

(MCM)

(MCM)

281,158

15.4

5.7

9.7

3.9

11.5

Tubas

56,642

3.1

1.5

1.6

1.1

2.0

Tulkarem

168,973

9.3

5.2

4.1

3.3

6.0

Nablus

348,023

19.1

15.0

4.1

10.2

8.9

Qalqilya

100,012

5.5

4.7

0.8

3.4

2.1

Salfit

64,615

3.5

2.5

1

1.8

1.7

Ramallah

310,218

17.0

16.6

0.4

12.5

4.6

Jericho

46,718

2.6

3.8

-1.2

2.9

-0.3

41

Water Status Report 2011 Jerusalem

147,489

8.1

4.7

3.4

3.1

5.0

Bethlehem

194,095

10.6

11.3

-0.7

7.5

3.1

Hebron

620,418

34.0

17.3

16.7

12.6

21.4

Total West Bank

2,338,361

128.2

88.3

39.9

62.3

65.9

North

309,345

16.9

21.9

-5.0

11.8

5.1

Gaza

537,890

29.4

36.2

-6.8

21.0

8.4

Middle Khan Younis

236,198 301,136

12.9 16.5

15.2 15.2

-2.3 1.3

8.3 8.3

4.6 8.2

195,598 1,580,167

10.7 86.4

9.2 97.7

1.5 -11.3

5.4 54.9

5.3 31.5

Rafah Total- Gaza Strip

Figure 17 shows the importance of depending on the actual consumption to get the realistic values; it shows the gap between the available amounts of water and the needed amounts (assuming an average supply rate of 150 l/c/d). This Figure shows that Jericho and Bethlehem have supply rates that cover and exceed the needed quantities. Yet, the actual surplus is only in Jericho (with a limited amount of 0.3 MCM) which refutes the fact that Bethlehem consumers are supplied with more than 150 l/c/d, but also suffer from water shortage that does not meet their demand. Refer to Figure 18 for a summary map on water supply and demand.

Figure (17) Water supply and demand in the west Bank (MCM)

42

Figure (18 ) Water supply deficit in covering domestic demand in the west Bank , 2011

43


Looking at water supply and demand situation in the Gaza Strip in Table 11, shows that there is a massive effect of the water loss in Gaza compared to that in the West Bank. This is reflected in Figure 19 below; where an additional indicator is added to the graph explaining the actual deficit rather than the “deficit” itself (that depends on the water consumption and takes the water losses into consideration). The losses in Gaza reached high percentages up to 46% -as mentioned earlier- which makes a huge difference and almost double the loss percentages in the West Bank. The demand gap based on the supplied amounts (deficit) calculations showed that all governorates (except Khan Younis and Rafah) have surplus in their water supplies, however the actual deficit calculations showed that none of the governorates cover the needed .amounts and there is an actual deficit of about 32 MCM in the Gaza Strip The thriving need for additional water quantities that cover the population’s need needs a serious action to be taken. This includes building adequate drinking water infrastructure to deliver the supplementary amounts along with preventing current and future infrastructure from falling into disrepair as a result of inadequate institutional arrangements, insufficient cost-recovery, poor operation and maintenance, overall lack of sound management practices, and above all adjustment of agreements set with the Israelis. Progress towards providing drinking water needs to be accelerated and sustained to contribute to breaking the circle of poverty, lack of education, poor housing and ill-health.

Figure 19 Water Supply and Demand in the Gaza Strip(MCM)

44

Al auja spring Canal, Jericho

2.4 Water consumption rate - individual analysis 2.4.1 Average Water Supply Rate The quantity of water delivered and used at the household level is an important indicator that measures the adequacy of domestic water supply and influences hygiene and public health. The supplied water must meet the minimal quality standards for the particular use, with drinking water having extremely strict standards. This was applied in the West Bank resulting with a total available amount of water for domestic uses of about 88 MCM supplied to 2,34 million capita, with an average daily water supply rate of 103 Liters per capita as shown in Table 12. In 2011, the supplied amounts did not exceed 70% of the international recommended supply rate. Nevertheless, this does not deny the fact that water supply rates increased significantly in the last five years. This change is a result of the rising production from local resources as well as purchased amounts with minimal decrease in the water loss and unaccounted for water. Jericho and Bethlehem have the highest water supply rates in the West Bank governorates as expected. Jericho always had the highest supply daily rates among other governorates; this is due to the high temperature of the area compared to other governorates accompanied with the use of additional water-consuming applications such as the wet cooling systems. On the other hand, Tubas was always the one with the least water supply rates. Though, this was not the case in 2011 where Jenin suffered from the least daily supplied amounts for domestic uses.

45

Water Status Report 2011 Table (12) Water Supply and Consumption Rates in the Palestinian Governorates

Governorate Jenin Tubas Tulkarem Nablus Qalqilya Salfit Ramallah Jericho Jerusalem Bethlehem Hebron Total- West Bank North

Total Supplied (MCM) 5.7 1.5 5.2 15.0 4.7 2.5 16.6 3.8 4.7 11.3 17.3 88.3

Total Consumed (MCM)

Per capita Supply Rate (l/c/d)

Per capita Consumption Rate (l/c/d)

3.9 1.1 3.3 10.2 3.4 1.8 12.5 2.9 3.1 7.5 12.6

56 73 84 118 129 106 147 223 87 160 76

38 52 54 80 93 77 110 169 58 105 56

62.3

103

73

11.8 21.0 8.3

-

-

8.3 5.4

-

-

54.9

-

-

21.9

Gaza Middle

36.2 15.2

Khan Younis

15.2

Rafah Total- Gaza Strip

9.2 97.7

The quantity of water supplied to domestic uses in the Gaza Strip (98 MCM as clarified earlier) is considered misleading if used in calculating the per capita supply and consumption, this is reflected in this report as the supply and consumption rates are calculated for the West Bank only. Table 12 shows that there are no calculated rates in Gaza governorates, or else these values could be misleading due to the poor quality of the water supplied for this purpose.

46

2.4.2 Average water Consumption Rate Although the available drinking water quantity reached 88 MCM, the total consumed amount of water was less than 63 MCM in the West Bank. This means that over 26 MCM (30% of water supplied for domestic uses) was lost. This resulted in an average water consumption rate of 73 l/c/d (Figure 20) compared to an average water supply rate of 103 l/c/d. This divergence between the two values is very clear in Figure 20. However, the visual analysis could be misleading. For example, from the Figure one can conclude that Jericho recorded the highest water loss and hence the highest loss percentage. On the contrary, this is not true and what is shown in the Figure is due to the higher amounts of available water in Jericho compared to other governorates. This is why this Figure is an indication of the difference between supply and demand on the governorate level only.

Figure (20) Supply Rate versus Consumption Rate in the West Bank

Governorates (2011)

2.5 Water supply costs and tariffs There is a complexity in describing the tariff system in the OSP, where there is no unified system that controls the water prices for the consumer and each water service provider (which can be a municipality, utility, village council) applies a different structure than the others. These distinctive structures are designed based on several determinants:

47


Source of water: whether local or purchased; not more than 2% (4.2 MCM) of Gaza’s water supply and not less than 40% (52.7 MCM) of West Bank’s water supply; are purchased resources from Mekorot through the West Bank Water Department (WBWD). These supplied quantities are characterized with a relatively high price that was set depending on the Israeli life conditions that are quite different than those in the OSP. A good example on the variation in water tariff based on the source is seen through the different tariffs applied in Tulkarem, Ramallah and Jerusalem; Tulkarem does not depend on more than 3% (0.4 MCM)of their water supply on the purchased resources which has a different delivery cost from the local resources abstraction (which is solely groundwater wells in Tulkarem), Ramallah and Jerusalem on the other hand; depend on more than 86% (19.7 MCM) of their water supply on the purchased resources. This is the major reason behind the tariff difference between those governorates, where the average selling price per cubic meter from the major water service providor in Tulkarem is 3.08 NIS compared to 4.11 NIS and 4.07 NIS in Ramallah and Jerusalem respectively. It should be noted that in some cases, the water tariff can be different despite the similarity of the source, Tulkarem and Qalqilya depend on groundwater wells -that lay on the Western aquifer- as the main and only source for their water supply, nevertheless, the average selling price in Tulkarem different than that in Qalqilya. Quantity of water consumed; these prices take in most municipalities a gradual increase depending on the consumed quantity, this is a policy used to reduce the water consumption. There are several categories; each category has a different tariff connected to the quantity of the water consumed. However, there is always a minimum charge that differs according to the WSP. Cost of water production; especially when the WSP depends on local resources (springs or groundwater wells). These costs depend on many factors: pumping rate, depth of the wells, passed distance, and most of all energy cost which is the main element of cost depending on the source and type of energy used. Most of the wells use diesel motors for producing water while the rest depend on electricity. These costs are higher in the West Bank than in Gaza Strip as the depth of wells (and hence the energy costs) is pretty higher than those in the coastal aquifer (in Gaza) and can reach up to 70% (e.g. Qalqilya) from the total costs. Unaccounted for Water cost; there is additional cost for the water before it reaches the supply points or main meters for the municipalities and utilities. The lost amounts of water due to any reason (leakage from main lines and

48

water networks, water thefts through illicit connections,…) is costing the WSP all of the previously mentioned costs which are reflected on the water tariff in return. Operation and maintenance costs, which include the cost of delivery, rehabilitation, staff salaries, etc., as these costs increase, the costs of lost quantities (water loss) decrease. Nablus for example, has an increased cost for each lost cubic meter which is associated with an increase in the operating costs needed that reaches up to 1.3 NIS/ m3. Cost recovery, which is not maintained in most cases due to the arbitrary fee collection, where many consumers are not able/ willing to pay their bills. As a result, most of the WSPs suffer from the accumulation of debt, which often limits the process of upgrading the water supply services and the rehabilitation of deteriorating networks in the area. Moreover, this gap widens when the operating costs exceed the selling price of the WSP which is very common as shown in Figure 21 below.

Figure (21) Average selling price compared to the operating costs of the main 10 WSP in the West Bank governorates, 2011 Opening Rujeeb Well, Nablus

49


2.6 Water network coverage Continuous efforts are desperately needed to serve a total population of 2,338,361 residents (this does not include the residents living in the parts of Jerusalem that was annexed by Israel in 1967) by water networks, distributed over 490 communities in the West Bank, of which 420 of them are currently served with a water network. The total served population in the West Bank (2,225,628 capita) is more than 95%. This population is distributed over different types of localities: urban areas, rural areas and camps. Water network coverage is available for all camps and urban areas. Rural areas (villages) are served up to 96%, and the rest are still need piped networks. Table 13 below shows that 112,733 Palestinians living in 70 villages are still without a running water network. Table (13) Population and communities served/ un-served with a water network in 2011 Governorate Population Served Communities Jenin 281,158 63

Served Un-served Un-served population Communities Population 262,145 9 19,013

Tubas

56,642

11

42,989

8

13,653

Tulkarem

168,973

33

167,880

2

1,093

Nablus

348,023

46

300,788

16

47,235

Qalqilya

100,012

32

98,209

1

1,803

Salfit

64,615

20

64,615

0

0

Jericho

46,718

13

46,718

0

0

Ramallah

310,218

74

309,383

1

835

Jerusalem

147,489

28

145,939

2

1,550

Bethlehem

194,095

44

194,095

0

0

Hebron

620,418

56

592,867

31

27,551

2,338,361

420

2,225,628

70

112,733

Total

Comparing the un-served population/communities in the West Bank in the year 2011 with those in the previous year; shows that the un-served communities have increased, the explanation of this is that the PWA has changed the policy in calculating the served population/ communities through this year. In 2010, the community was considered served if it was receiving or within an ongoing project

50

phase, this however has changed in the 2011 due to the unbalanced situation and the ongoing obstacles in implementing the projects, the community now is considered un-served unless there is water coming out of the taps whether it is currently receiving a project or not.

2.7 Water quality The Palestinian Water Authority is concerned with the water quality from the water resource itself, while the quality of water after being supplied to the consumers is considered a Health Ministry’s responsibility and the results of their tests are obtained upon request. There is a difference between the type, number, intensity, and results of the tests conducted b y the two facilities as the quality of supplied water for different purposes could be hindered during the transmission from the water source to the consumer due to the presence of pollutants in addition to the deteriorating water networks. As section 2.3 in the water resources chapter discusses the water quality of the water in the ground water aquifers. The following table (Table 14) and figures (Figure 22 and Figure 23) show the water quality of samples taken from the water tabs at the end users.

Delbah spring hebron

51

52

750

Ramallah

383

950

860

Bethlehem

Hebron

South

51

1358

328

149

36

31

89

51

32

104

108

157

16

38.1

15.7

9.4

6.2

16.2

6.8

7.0

14.9

18.0

18.5

6.4

20.2

samples

contaminated

Percentage of

5690

530

320

130

120

240

500

400

620

600

800

710

720

samples

No. of

(Coliform test)

715

55

25

13

9

60

25

22

85

100

99

22

200

samples

contaminated

No. Of samples

12.6

10.4

7.8

10

7.5

25

5

5.5

13.7

16.7

12.4

3.1

27.8

contaminated

Percentage of

Tested water samples from networks and resources

1 tested water samples, including sources, networks, cisterns,rain water cisterns...

Health Annual Report of Palestine 2011, Palestinian Health Information Centre, Ministry of Health, Palestinian National Authority, 2012.

Total

8498

500

Jerusalem

Hebron

550

Jericho

& Al Bireh

700

455

600

Nablus

Qalqilya

850

Tulkarem

Salfit

800

Tubas

222

samples

samples

1100

No. of contaminated

No. of

Tested water samples (Coliform test)1

Jenin

District

Table (14) Distribution of tested water sample by district, West Bank, 2011Source:


Figure (22) Distribution of tested water samples (Coliform test) by District, West Bank, 2011

Figure (23) Distribution of tested water samples, networks a nd resources (Coliform test) by District, West Bank, 2011

Based on the household environmental survey conducted by the PCBS for the year 2011:“47% of households in the Palestinian Territory considered the water quality to be good: 71% in the West Bank compared to 5% in the Gaza Strip”1. This difference in how people perceive the supplied water quality in the West Bank than that in Gaza is due to many reasons that include the population density, level of served population, level of occurring water borne diseases, and so on. However, this does not mean that the water quality in the West Bank is out of discussion; the increase in the population density in the West Bank –which is much lower than that in Gaza- with a combination of poor sanitation facilities and aquifer vulnerability (karstic aquifers) is causing nitrate contamination levels to increase, meaning that, over time, it will become increasingly more difficult to supply West Bank citizens with water that complies with WHO domestic water standards. Moreover, the situation in Gaza is completely different and the quality is continuously deteriorating day after day as discussed earlier. The very dense population discharge huge amounts of pollutants to a relatively small area. Groundwater pollution by nitrates is already wide spread in 1 For the whole report you can refer to the PCBS publidhed reports, available online on: http://www. pcbs.gov.ps/Portals/_PCBS/Downloads/book1813.pdf

53


the Gaza Strip and exceeds WHO-recommended threshold (50 ppm). This percentage is continuously growing (with higher concentrations under urban areas, suggesting that a major component of the contamination is from sewerage, and not from agriculture). Figure 24and Figure 25 below show the nitrate concentration in the West Bank and Gaza strip wells as monitored by the PWA.

Figure (24) . Nitrates in West Bank wells

Figure (25) Nitrates in Gaza Strip wells moni-

monitored by PWA

tored by PWA

Source: TPAT computation from PWA water quality data base

2.8

Water supply for agricultural purposes

There is a direct relation that connects the water resource with the water use. Areas with limited access to local resources cannot have a distinctive agricultural activity due to the non-feasibility of purchasing water for this purpose, Figure 26 clearly shows this relation, for instance, about 30 MCM was supplied in Jericho for a population of 46,718, the high dependence on the local resources (93%) explains the small mounts purchased from Mekorot. The Figure also shows the high supplies of water for agricultural purposes (86%). Table 15 shows the water abstracted from local resources for agricultural purposes per basin.

54

25 20 15 10 5

Domestic use (MCM) Agricultural use (MCM)

Hebron

Bethlehem

Jerusalem

Jericho

Ramallah

Salfit

Qalqilya

Nablus

Tulkarem

Tubas

Jenin

0

0 5 10

local Resources (MCM) Purchased Resources (MCM)

15 20 25 30

Figure (26) Water Supply based on the water use and water source- Governorate scale (MCM)

Destruction of water well in Jenin by the Israeli occupation, Jenin

55

56 _ _

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

14.2

Qalqiliya

Salfit

Ramallah and Al-Bireh

Jericho and Al-Aghwar

)Jerusalem(J2

Bethlehem

Hebron

West Bank

7.9

_

_

_

_

_

_

3.1

4.8

3 oslo II (1995) agreement quota is 56 MCM 78 MCM to be developed 4 oslo II (1995) agreement quota is 22 MCM 5 oslo II (1995) agreement quota is 42

5.8

_

_

_

_

_

3.56

10.00

Nablus

1.2 -

0.73

Tubas

1.12

Tulkarm

3.52

17.1

_

_

_

_

_

_

7.2

-

9.9

-

-

Agricultural

Non- Agricultural

Non- Agricultural

Agricultural

Western Basin Production (MCM) 4

North-Eastern Basin Production (MCM) 5

Jenin

Governorate

15.8

1.6

9.12

-

1.81

2.60

0.09

-

-

-

0.62

-

Non- Agricultural

Total

25.9

0.1

0.27

-

24.19

0.53

0.01

-

-

-

0.76

-

86.9

1.7

9.4

-

26.0

3.1

0.1

10.3

13.6

14.7

3.3

4.7

Agricultural

Eastren Basin Production (MCM)3

Table (15) Water produced from local resources (wells and springs) for agricultural and non-agricultural uses per basin, 2011


The purchased resources are used for domestic water supply (drinking water purposes) except for 4 MCM supplied for agricultural use in Tubas governorate. In general 37% of the water supplied in the West Bank is used for agriculture compared to 46% in Gaza. It must be noted that the water quantity used for agriculture in the West Bank is calculated based on the amounts abstracted from the agricultural wells and springs, while this value is estimated in Gaza and not calculated. The Agricultural sector in Gaza Strip in average consumes around 75-80 million cubic meters from the groundwater wells, with an irrigated area of more than two thirds of the total cultivated area. The agricultural water demand was roughly estimated from the available cultivated areas gathered from Ministry of Agriculture ( MoA) for the season 2009, multiplied by the irrigation water quota allowed for each crop allocated officially by PWA and MoA, as most of the agricultural wells distributed allover Gaza Strip are unmetered , not functioning well or not installed absolutely. The method used in estimating the agricultural water use is appropriately similar to the simulations applied by the Israeli Administration since 1967. The current cultivated lands in Gaza Governorates observed a remarkable decrease due to sequences of the last war launched against Gaza Strip which lasted 22 days of heavy intensive air strikes and land invasions. The total cultivated areas record in the last years witnessed an observed decline since the mid of the nineteen’s with drastically decrease in citrus, which considered the main consumer of water. Note : All agriculture and domestic wells in Gaza strip had water meter before 1992 “ Gaza and Jericho Agreement”.

2.9

Water supply projects completed in 2011

PWA cooperated with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and international donors to solve the water shortage issue by changing the old main lines and developing water systems -in areas with high water loss such as Bethlehem and Hebron- in one hand, reducing the commercial losses by preventing theft from the main lines on the other hand. This was not easy, facing the Israeli army that damaged water systems and storage tanks and created obstacles in the operation and maintenance processes. With regard to this, the following is a clarification for each governorate.

57


More than 11 million dollars were provided in 2011 to support water supply related projects. Some of those projects were concerned with constructing networks, tanks, or transmission lines; others were concerned with rehabilitating and expanding existing structures based on the area’s needs. All of the finished projects are implemented under the supervision of the project management unit (PMU) and the West Bank Water Department (WBWD). The distribution of the fund is primarily based on the area’s need; where the areas with the most critical situations have the priority of the next project. All governorates were targeted but with different types of projects as follows: Ramallah and Jerusalem: the projects that targeted the villages of northwest Jerusalem were aiming at increasing the supply and consumption rates from less than 25 l/c/d to more than 40 l/c/d by building water networks, water tank and installing a transmission line with a fund that exceeded 4 million dollars, in addition to the rehabilitation of “Altireh” village water network. Jericho: the projects ranged between “Akabet Jabr” project, rehabilitation of part of Jericho water network, Rehabilitation of the internal water network in the Auja. Hebron and Bethlehem: The projects that targeted Hebron were not only aiming at increasing the water supply through constructing water tanks in areas like Carmel, Khelet Almai, Qarn Al Thawr, Deir Samet and Yatta, but were also concerned with decreasing the water losses which reached 45% in 2010, through a number of rehabilitation projects that included the villages west of Hebron and Al Thahereya, rehabilitation of Saer and Halhul pump stations, and rehabilitation/expanding of internal network with the establishement of water lines for the villages in the west. The projects that targeted Bethlehem on the other hand, were mainly a pipe line and tank for the industrial zone, and a water network in the Dheisheh refugee camp. Moreover, the Northern area had a variety of water supply projects that included: Tubas: two main water supply projects targeted this area: construction of wells (Tammoun well, a water tank, poser, vertical well pump, electronic panel and transformer], and construction of water lines [Fara’a refugee camp water line and tank).

58

Jenin: Construction of internal water network for Bir Al-Basha area, drilling of “Balaa” well, Replacement of house connections for the villages of northwest of Jenin, Rehabilitation and expansion of the internal network in Qabatiya, Generation of transmission water line, and finally construction of water network and a new tank in Rapa. Tulkarem: water supply projects in this area included “Anabta” pumping station, drilling of “Balaa” well, construction of elevated water tank (500 m3) and transmission pipe line of 2.5km length in Em Reyaheya. Nablus: in 2011, there was an establishment of an integrated water system for the villages of north-west Nablus, constriction of 16 km transmission pipe line for 8 villages, and processing of Sabastya well.

(A)

(B)

(A) halhul water tank, hebron

(B) halhul water transmission line, hebron

(c) (c)Dahr al abed water tank, Jenin

59


60

Extracting water from Maythloun well

Wastewater Part three

61


Ein 62 Sinia wastwater stream, Ramallah

3.1 Introduction The wastewater sector in Palestinian territories has been neglected under Israeli occupation since 1967. The occupying power has not developed the Palestinian Territory infrastructure according to international conventions agreed upon. The wastewater sector has been marginalized since the creation of the Palestinian Authority due to the understandable need of providing citizens with safe drinking water. This has in the past absorbed the bulk of capital investments both by the government and the donor community. In the early stages of the PNA it was identified that there was a need to initiate capital investment activities in the sector prompted by a rapidly deteriorating existing infrastructure and a rapidly rising population predicted to be 3.75% annually. This was triggered by movement of the rural population into urban locations, crude birth rate and returning refugees. Some of the deterioration was attributed to negligence by Israel throughout the early history of occupation, resulting in an insufficient and inadequate infrastructure. Israel also prevented the Palestinian people from development and management of their own wastewater infrastructure. The objective of this part 3 on wastewater is to provide planners and the decision makers to establish a realistic strategy for the wastewater sector. It provides all basic elements that constitute and impact on the sector. It can also be used as a basis for researchers as it provided the most updated data available on the sector and the plans for future development. Management practices for wastewater disposal in the West Bank are limited to the collection of wastewater by piped sewage networks and on site household cesspits. Furthermore, wastewater treatment facilities are restricted to a few localities in the West Bank. This, combined with an expanding population , exerts pressure on sewage systems especially in urban areas and that together with under capacity wastewater treatment plants has become a major priority: In the West Bank, 31% of the population is connected to wastewater collection networks, many of them are old and poorly maintained, which is the cause of frequent spillage and leaks contaminating the surrounding areas, whereas the rest of the population depends on cesspits, open ditches and septic tanks, as it is shown in Table 16:

63

Water Status Report 2011 Table (16) Population connected to sewage network or cesspits, by type and locality and governorate ( Per 1000 persons connected) Governerate URBAN AREAS Jenin Tubas Tulkarm Nablus Qalqiliya Salfit Ramallah Jericho Jerusalem Bethlehem Hebron TOTAL RURAL AREAS Jenin Tubas Tulkarm Nablus Qalqiliya Salfit Ramallah Jericho Jerusalem Bethlehem Hebron CAMPS Sum Jenin Tubas Tulkarm Nablus Qalqiliya Salfit Ramallah Jericho Jerusalem Bethlehem Hebron Sum Grand Total

64

No. of localities Piped Networks persons connected(

Cesspits )persons connected(

13 3 9 8 3 3 14 2 9 12 20 96

32.3 0 51.1 132.7 3 .5 6.7 62.3 0 33.9 62.4 152.9 583.5

133.3 37.8 62.5 59.4 11.7 16.8 98.6 24.8 60.7 73.8 376.6 955.9

68 17 24 53 31 17 56 8 20 30 70

0.5 0.0 3.6 14.1 1.6 0.0 1.5 0.0 7.3 6.0 1.5

103.7 12.5 33.5 108.4 37.5 41.2 129.8 10.5 36.2 37.7 73.2

394 1 1 2 3 0 0 5 2 1 3 2 20 510

36.1 11.0 1.1 18.3 33.4 0.0 0.0 14.8 0.0 9.2 13.6 16.1 117.6 737.1

624.0 0.3 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 11.4 0.2 0.6 0.2 21.3 1601.2

3.2

Wastewater resources and quantities in West Bank

Management practices for wastewater disposal in the West Bank are limited to the collection of wastewater by piped sewage networks and on site household cesspits. Furthermore, wastewater treatment facilities are restricted to a few localities in the West Bank. This, combined with an expanding population, exerts pressure on sewage systems especially in urban areas and that together with under capacity wastewater treatment plants has become a major priority. Figure 27 represents the percent of population connected to a piped network collection system versus those that use another system either by using cesspits or dumping direct into the environment.

Figure (27) Population served by collection systems versus traditional systems

3.3

Wastewater collection and disposal in West Bank

In the West Bank 31% of the total population are served by sewerage collection networks, most of them are within the main cities and refugee camps. These are old networks constructed > 50 years ago. Unfortunately there are no records available on the status of these networks, but based on interviews with the operators these networks, have deteriorated as there has been limited budget to maintain or rehabilitate or upgrade. Table 17 shows the percent of population connected to sewerage network systems in the year 2011.

65

Water Status Report 2011 Table (17) Population connected to sewage network or by governorate Governorate

No. of

Total

Total

Total

served

unserved

communities

population

Served

unserved

population

population

population

population

)%(

)%(

(1000)

(1000)

Jenin

82

281,2

43,8

237,4

15.6

84.4

Tubas

21

56,6

1,1

55,5

1.9

98.1

Tulkarm

35

169,0

73,0

96,0

43.2

56.8

Nablus

64

348,0

180,2

167,8

51.8

48.2

Qalqiliya

34

100,0

50,1

49,2

50.9

49.1

Salfit

20

64,6

6,7

57,9

10.3

89.7

Ramallah

75

310,2

78,6

231,6

25.3

74.7

Jericho

12

46,7

0

46,7

0.0

100.0

Jerusalem

30

147,5

50,4

97,1

34.2

65.8

Bethlehem

45

194,1

81,9

112,2

42.2

57.8

Hebron

92

620,4

170,5

449,9

27.5

72.5

TOTAL

510

2338,4

737,1

1601,2

31.5

68.5

3.3.1 Urban Area Hebron, Nablus, Jenin, Tulkarem, Ramallah and Al Bireh have either totally or partially wastewater networks. Jericho and Tubas still lack wastewater collection networks. Work has started in Jericho, and construction expected to start in Tubas in 2013. Table 18 shows the status of population in the urban areas connected to sewerage systems. Table (18) Population connected to sewage network in the urban areas Governorate

No. of

Total

communities population

Total

Total

served

unserved

Served

unserved

population

population

population

population

)%(

)%(

(1000)

(1000)

Jenin

13

165.6

32.3

133.3

19.5

80.5

Tubas

3

37.8

0.0

37.8

0.0

100.0

Tulkarm

9

113.6

51.1

62.5

45.0

55.0

Nablus

8

192.1

132.7

59.4

69.1

30.9

Qalqiliya

3

60.9

49.3

11.7

80.8

19.2

Salfit

3

23.4

6.7

16.8

28.5

71.5

Ramallah

14

160.9

62.3

98.6

38.7

61.3

66

Jericho

2

24.8

0.0

24.8

0.0

100.0

Jerusalem

9

94.6

33.9

60.7

35.8

64.2

Bethlehem

12

136.2

62.4

73.8

45.8

54.2

Hebron

20

529.4

152.9

376.6

28.9

71.1

TOTAL

96

1539.4

583.5

955.9

37.9

62.1

3.3.2 Refugee camps United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) has constructed wastewater networks in the majority of West Bank camps, such as Jenin, Balata, Askar, Jalazoun, Dheisheh, etc. while wastewater collection services are still unavailable in Jericho camps (As-Sultan and Aqbat Jabr). Wastewater network services are provided to 85% of the refugee camps . 95% of the served refugee camps are connected to a sewage network. The piped network in the refugee camps collects both the rainwater and the domestic wastewater so that, during the rainy season, this additional rainwater infiltration causes the network to overflow into the streets, agricultural land, and into houses. Table 19 shows the status of the refugee camps areas. Table (19 ) Population connected to sewage network in the refugee camps Governorate

No. of

Total

Total

Total

served

unserved

communities

population

Served

unserved

population

population

population

population

)%(

)%(

(1000)

Jenin

1

11.4

(1000)

11.1

0.3

97.0

3.0

Tubas

1

6.4

1.1

5.3

17.0

83.0

Tulkarm

2

18.3

18.3

0.0

100.0

0.0

Nablus

3

33.4

33.4

0.0

100.0

0.0

Qalqiliya

Salfit

Ramallah

5

18.0

14.8

3.2

82.1

17.9

Jericho

2

11.4

0.0

11.4

0.0

100.0

Jerusalem

1

9.4

9.2

0.2

98.0

2.0

Bethlehem

3

14.2

13.6

0.6

95.5

4.5

Hebron

2

16.3

16.1

0.2

99.0

1.0

TOTAL

20

138.9

117.6

21.3

84.7

15.3

67


3.3.3 Rural Area The rural population of the West Bank, accounts for 28.5% of the total population, the situation here is not any better. Less than 30 towns or cities out of 394 in the West Bank are connected in part to a piped sewage network. Other communities discharge their wastewater into unlined cesspits. There are some projects now underway which are constructing WW collection systems in some of the rural areas. These are either to be connected to an existing system like Irtas, or to be connected to Israeli WWTP’s like Baqa Al-Sharqiya, Barta’a Al-Skharqiya and Habla. Other villages like Anza, Beit Dajan, Sarra, Hajja, Taybeh, Ramoun and Misilya will be connected to a small scale WWTP’s to serve only those villages. Table 18 on the previous page shows the population status in the urban areas connected to sewerage systems. Table 20 below shows population status in the rural areas connected to sewerage systems. Table (20) Population connected to sewage network in the rural areas Governorate

No. of

Total

Total

Total

served

unserved

communities

population

Served

unserved

population

population

population

population

)%(

)%(

(1000)

(1000)

Jenin

68

104.2

0.5

103.7

0.4

99.6

Tubas

17

12.5

0.0

12.5

0.0

100.0

Tulkarm

24

37.1

3.6

33.5

9.8

90.2

Nablus

53

122.5

14.1

108.4

11.5

88.5

Qalqiliya

31

39.1

1.6

37.5

Salfit

17

41.2

0.0

41.2

Ramallah

56

131.3

1.5

129.8

1.2

98.8

Jericho

8

10.5

0.0

10.5

0.0

100.0

Jerusalem

20

43.4

7.3

36.2

16.7

83.3

Bethlehem

30

43.7

6.0

37.7

13.7

86.3

Hebron

70

74.7

1.5

73.2

2.1

97.9

TOTAL

394

660.1

36.1

624.0

5.5

94.5

The percentage of population which is connected to sewage networks or cesspits according to location (urban, rural or refugee camp) in the study area is shown in the Figure 28.

68

Figure (28) West Bank population connected to sewers or cesspits by locality type. the following map shows connection to sewage networks around the west bank

3.3.4 Quantities of Wastewater Wastewater quantities generated yearly in the West Bank estimated at approx 62 MCM annually a daily rate, 170Ml/day including municipal. Industrial wastewater, in addition to 35 MCM annually 96Ml/day of untreated wastewater discharged by settlements and industrial zones into the West Bank environment. Less than 5% wastewater is generated from industrial activities like in Nablus, Ramallah and Hebron. Table 21 shows the estimated generated wastewater in 2011. Ein Sinia wastwater stream, Ramallah

69


Figure (28) Status of Connections to Sewagae Network in West Bank

70

Table (21) Estimated Annual Generated Wastewater (MCM) in the West Bank governorates Governorate

Population Estimated WS- Into 6

(10 )

Jenin Tubas Tulkarm Nablus Qalqiliya Salfit Ramallah Jericho Jerusalem Bethlehem Hebron TOTAL WB

0.281 0.057 0.169 0.348 0.100 0.065 0.310 0.047 0.147 0.194 0.620 2.338

5.7 1.5 5.2 15 4.7 2.5 17.6 3.8 4.7 11.3 17.3 89.3

Into

Israel

Wadi

1.10 0.00 1.46 4.02 2.19 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.40 1.17 3.83 14.97

0.00 0.11 0.00 3.21 0.00 0.29 0.44 0.00 0.26 1.64 0.42 6.38

Treated

Cesspits

Estimated WW

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2.90 0.94 2.18 3.27 1.10 1.46 9.25 2.66 2.63 5.10 7.86 41.17

3.99 1.05 3.64 10.5 3.29 1.75 12.32 2.66 3.29 7.91 12.11 62.51

The total collected quantities from these networks as shown in Table 21 is either treated in Palestinian central treatment plants like Al-Bireh or small collective treatment plants like Zeita and Attil. Wastewater is also dumped into surface water streams (Wadis) and then either treated in Israeli treatment plants like Jenin, Tulkarm, West Nablus, Beit Jala, and Hebron, or disposed into Wadis. Wastewater that is disposed of in wadis like Ramallah, East Nablus, Bethlehem, etc. or in cesspits. The following section will show detail of the final status discharged wastewater.

3.3.5 Treatment in Israeli WWTP’s (trans boundary streams) Around 15 MCM annually of wastewater is collected from several areas in the year 2011 is dumped in wadis, and then treated in WWTP’s inside the green line. At the expense of the Palestinian people, and treatment costs are directly deducted every month by the Israeli government from the Palestinian clearance account without any positive valuation of the treated waters. This water is reused by the Israelis. The estimated quantities of wastewater generated from Palestinian

71


communities and treated in Israel are summarized in Table 22. Parts of the influent which has infiltrated into the soil before reaching to the treatment plants depends on the soil characteristics and distance. One of PWA aims to reduce the quantities of Wastewater flowing in transboundary streams by constructing large scale treatment plants like Nablus West (under construction), Ramallah-Ein Jariout (under Design) and Hebron Regional WWTP (tendering process). Table (22) The Estimated Generated Wastewater in the West Bank wadis and treated in Israel

1

Wadi Al-Moqatta Jenin City & Jenin Camp

WWTP Gilbo

M3/Day MCM/ year 3,000 1.10

Wadi Zumer

WWTP

4,000

1.46

11,000

4.02

6,000

2.19 1.20 1.17

No Name

Service Area

West Nablus, Ein Beit Alma

Name of

Camp and some adjacent communities Tulkarem city, Tulkarem camp 3

Wadi Al-Zuhur

and Nur Shams Camp Qalqilia City

4 5

Wadi Suriq Wadi Beit Jala

Ramallah City Beit Jala and some parts of

WWTP

3,300 3,200

Wadi Al-Samen

Bethlehem City Hebron City and Kiryat Arbaa

Shoket

10,500

3.83

TOTAL

Colony

WWTP

14.97

6

Ner Elyaho WWTP Suriq

3.3.6 Influent flowing inside West Bank (local streams) More than 6 MCM of untreated wastewater estimated to be generated from several communities in the year 2011 disposed into several streams that flowing to the east and north east of the West Bank. Table 23shows the estimated generated wastewater that disposed in local streams.

72

Table (23) The Estimated Generated Wastewater in the West Bank local streams and non treated .No

)Stream (Wadi

Measuring Points

M3/d

2

Wadi Al-Sajour

Salfit 800 East Nablus,Askar and Balata Camps, 8,800

0.29 3.21

3 4 5 6

Wadi Al-Haramiya Wadi Al-Nar Wadi Sair Wadi Far›a TOTAL

Azmut, Salim and surroundings Al Jalazoun Camp and surrounding Beit Sahur and Beitlehem Al›Aroub Camp Far›a Camp

0.44 1.64 0.42 0.11 6.11

1,200 4,500 1,150 300

MCM/year

The other generated wastewater is stored in cesspits in the rural areas, where the estimated wastewater dumped into cesspits is around 41 MCM (112 Ml/day). Around 2 MCM (54 Ml/day) is collected in Al-Bireh and surrounding refugee camps and treated in Al-Bireh WWTP and then dumped into Wadi Al-Qilt without reuse. In addition to a few quantities treated in small scale collective systems and reused locally, but this amount considered as negligible compared to the total generated WW

3.4

Wastewater treatment in West Bank

There has been 3 WWTP constructed in Tulkarem, Jenin, Ramallah. These primary treatment lagoons have formed the only significant WW treatment in recent years. The ponds that were built in the mid-1970s had not been improved or upgraded until the advent of the Palestinian National Authority and the creation of the PWA in 1996. Despite the increase in wastewater quantities flowing into those ponds and plants they were all operating beyond their maximum capacities. The result of this has led to partially treated waste water being discharged in areas surrounding these plants. The result of this has been multiple environmental and sanitary problems. Throughout this period, wastewater from Palestinian cities has been and is still discharged into West Bank Wadis and natural waterways. In some cases, water even flows inside of the green line, where it is collected and treated in treatment plants built originally to treat Israeli Wastewater or plants build specifically to treat the Palestinian wastewater crossing the border. Examples of this are Yad Hanna WWTP that was built in Emek Hefer in 2003

73


to treat wastewater from Tulkarm and West Nablus. Shoket WWTP that was built in 2009 to treat wastewater flowing from Hebron. Those two treatment plants were financed by deducting funds from the Palestinian tax money collected by Israeli’s. The PNA has built one treatment plant at Al Bireh in 2000 in the West Bank. This plant has a treatment capacity of up to 2 MCM 5.5 Ml/day Work is also underway to complete plants built at West Nablus and it expected to start construction at Ramallah (Ain Jeriout), Hebron, Jericho,Tubas and Nablus East. In addition, there will be some de-centralized plants in rural areas is now under construction in Anza, Beit Dajan, Sarra, Hajja, Beit Hasan, TybehRammoun. Construction is expected to start in Misilya, Al-Aroub, and the Bethlehem Industrial Zone. In the following sections, the status of each treatment plant will be described according to the type of treatment (central, collective, and on-site)

3.4.1 Central Wastewater Treatment Plants There are three central wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) located in Al-Bireh, Ramallah, and Jenin cities in addition to the Tulkarm pre-treatment wastewater plant. The WWTP in Jenin is currently being rehabilitated and is expected to start operation in October 2012. A new central WWTP is now under construction to serve the western area of Nablus city and the nearby five villages with the support of the German Government. This is being funded through the German Development Bank (KfW). Table 24 outlines the location of the existing, under rehabilitation and construction centralised wastewater treatment plants the operational year and status of the plants.

74

Table (24) The existing central wastewater treatment plants Name of Wastewater Treatment plant

Operational Year

Design Flow for Dry Weather )m3/day(

Actual Flow Population )served (person )m3/day(

Status of WWTP

Al-Bireh Wastewater Treatment Plant Ramallah Wastewater Treatment Plant Tulkarm Wastewater Pre-Treatment Plant Jenin Wastewater Treatment Plant

2000

5,750

5,000

50,000

Operating well with good efficiency

and 1975 1400 rehabilitated in 2002/2003

2,400

25,000

Not operating well )(overloaded

and 1972 15000 rehabilitated in 2004

4,000

75,000

Not operating well (Sludge accumula)tion and odours

Operation is 9,250 expected to start in January 2012 15000 Operation is expected to )2020( start by the Mid 2013

3,000

40,000

Under rehabilitation

:)2013 10,500 :)2020( 15,000

110,000

Not operated yet (under construc)tion

West Nablus Wastewater Treatment Plant

Below, a complete description for the status of the treatment plants will be described.

Al-Bireh Wastewater Treatment Plant Location Al-Bireh wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) was constructed in the 2000 with the support of the German Government through the German Development Bank (KfW). It is located in Wadi Al-’Ein, 2 km south east of Al-Bireh City, over 22 dunums of land, with enough capacity to serve future expansion.

75


Wastewater Sources and Characteristics Table (25) Daily Wastewater Flow Rates of Al-Bireh WWTP Parameter

)Flow Rate (m3/day

Average daily flow

5.000

Average daily design flow for dry weather

5.750

Average daily design flow for wet weather (2xADW)

11.500

Reference: (Al-Bireh Municipality, 2010)

Wastewater T reatment Process and Effluent Characteristics Table (26) Treated Wastewater/Effluent Characteristics - Al-Bireh WWTP, 10 April 2010 Parameter

Concentration

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)

89

mg/l

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)

6

mg/l

Total Nitrogen (TN)

6.8

mg/l

Nitrate - Nitrogen (NO3-N)

3.3

mg/l

Phosphate (PO4-P)

1.3

mg/l

Electric Conductivity (EC)

1.3

Ms

Reference: (Al-Bireh Municipality, 2010)

Ramallah Wastewater Treatment Plant Location Ramallah WWTP was designed and constructed in 1973 by an Israeli company. It is located in Ramallah industrial zone at a distance of around 2 km south west of Ramallah City, over 40 dunums of land. Currently, Ramallah WWTP is not operating well and does not meet the requirements for effluent discharge. This is because it is hydraulically and organically overloaded funded by KFW has funded a new WWTP with an estimated value of 27 million Euro. This plant is scheduled for construction will be construction in 2013 near Ein Jariut to replace the old plant and to serve Ramallah, Beitunia and Surroundings by a new WWTP.

76

Wastewater Sources and Characteristics Ramallah WWTP was designed in 1973 for a capacity of 1,500 m3/day and an influent BOD5 of 1,083 mg/l the plant treats the water using the extended aeration treatment technology. The WWTP receives the wastewater generated by around 22,000 persons. The wastewater flow into the treatment plant is approximately 2,200 m3/day. The influent wastewater characteristics are shown in Table 27. These are based on the results of the monitoring and evaluation program of Ramallah WWTP that was carried out by the Civil Engineering Department at Birzeit University in the period from March 2007 until February 2008. Table( 27) Influent Wastewater Characteristics – Ramallah WWTP, 17 February 2008 Parameter

Concentration


853

mg/l


280

mg/l

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

6,212

mg/l

Ammonium - Nitrogen (NH4-N)

28.8

mg/l

Phosphate (PO4-P)

15.4

mg/l

pH

9.55

Conductivity (EC)

7.61

Ms

Reference: (Birzeit University, 2008)

Wastewater Treatment Process and Effluent Characteristics Table (28) Treated Wastewater/Effluent Characteristics – Ramallah WWTP, 17 February 2008 Parameter

Concentration


132.3

mg/l


60

mg/l


1,748

mg/l

Ammonium - Nitrogen (NH4-N)

14.9

mg/l

Phosphate (PO4-P)

8.4

mg/l

Fecal Coliforms

6.00E+02

cfu/100 ml

pH

7.55

)Conductivity (EC

3.23

ms

Reference: (Birzeit University, 2008)

77


Tulkarm Wastewater Pre-treatment Plant Location

Tulkarm Wastewater Pre-Treatment Plant (WWPTP) was constructed in year 1972. It is located at a distance of 1 km west (western region) of Tulkarm city and close to the Green Line (Armistices line, 1949), over 8 dunums of land. In 2004, Tulkarm Municipality rehabilitated the WWPTP. Funding for this was provided through the German Government through the German Development Bank (KfW).

Wastewater Sources and Characteristics Currently, the Tulkarm WWPTP serves around 73,270 persons, Nur Shams camp, and Tulkarm camp. This plant treats an average daily flow of 4,000 m3 of wastewater originating from domestic, commercial and industrial sources.

Wastewater Treatment Process and Effluent Characteristics Table (29) .Pretreated Wastewater/Effluent Characteristics – Tulkarm WWPTP, February 2011 Parameter

Concentration


502

mg/l


282

mg/l


326

mg/l

Reference: (PWA ,Transboundary project, 2012)

Jenin Wastewater Treatment Plant Location The Jenin Wastewater Treatment Plant is located in the Al Basateen Area, approximately 1.5 km north of Jenin city at the Jenin Governorate. The Jenin WWTP was originally built in the 1972 and covers 23 dunums, the facilities have a total surface area of approximately 3.12 dunum. Wastewater Sources and Characteristics Currently, Jenin WWTP serves around 39,000 persons residing in Jenin city and Jenin Camp. It treats an average daily flow of 3,000 m3 of wastewater originating from domestic and commercial sources. Wastewater Treatment Process and Effluent Characteristics

78

Table (30) Pretreated Wastewater/Effluent Characteristics – Jenin (Wadi Moqatta’, February 2011 Parameter

Concentration


662

mg/l


334

mg/l


617

mg/l

Reference: (PWA ,Transboundary project, 2012)

West Nablus Wastewater Treatment Plant Location The l WWTP at West Nablus is currently under construction to serve the western parts of Nablus city and the nearby five villages. This project is being supported by the German Government through the German Development Bank (KfW). The WWTP will be located over 110 dunums of Deir Sharaf Village lands a distance of 10 km North West of Nablus City.The Nablus Municipality expects the construction of the WWTP to reach completion in Spring 2013.

Wastewater Sources and Characteristics West Nablus WWTP will serve around 55% of the population, in addition to those living in the villages of Deir Sharaf, Beit Wazan, Zawata, Beit Iba and Qusin. A total population of 110,000 persons. The plant is designed to be built in three phases to serve 150,000, 225,000 and 300,000 persons in the 1st (year 2020), 2nd (year 2025) and 3rd (year 2035) phases, respectively with activated sludge treatment technology. Wastewater Treatment Process and influent Characteristics Table (31) Pretreated Wastewater/Effluent Characteristics – Nablus West (different locations, 2011 Parameter

Concentration


764

mg/l


578

mg/l


1495

mg/l

Reference: (An-Najah University, 2011)

79


3.4.2 Collective Wastewater Treatment Plants In addition to the existing central WWTPs, some non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and academic institutions have established collective wastewater treatment systems in several localities that lack sewage collection networks and depend on cesspits for wastewater disposal. Table(32) Existing collective wastewater treatment systems Governorate

Locality

Operational Year

Design Flow (m3/day)

Actual Flow (m3/day)

Status of PWWT

Implementing Institution

Hebron

Kharas

2003

120

100

Not Functioning)

PHG

Hebron

Nuba

2002

120

200

Malfunctioning

Ramallah

Bani Zeid (Al-Gharbiyeh)

2004 (rehabilitated 2011)

100

50

Not Functioning (under rehabilitation)

Hebron

Deir Samit

2001

13.5

n.a. (Over)loaded

Malfunctioning

Qalqiliya

Hajja

2004

40 - 30

40

Functioning well (under rehabilitation)

Nablus

Sarra

2004

-

-

To be replaced by new WWTP

Salfit

Biddya

2007

11.2

Tulkarm

Attil‹

2006

14

30

Malfunctioning with PARC low efficiency

Tulkarm

Zeita

2008

14

30-35

Malfunctioning with low efficiency

Qalqiliya

Sir

2006

14

18-20

Functioning well with medium efficiency

Tulkarm

Zeita

2004

Na

.n.a

Malfunctioning with UNDP low efficiency

Ramallah & Ein Siniya‹ Al-Bireh

2007

10

.n.a

Not Functioning )since mid 2009(

Birzeit University

Bethlehem Nahhalin

2007

50

25

Not Functioning operational problem

ARIJ

Malfunctioning Under rehabilitation

Below, a complete description for the status of the treatment plants.

80

PHG

PARC

Kharas Wastewater Treatment System The existing wastewater treatment system in Kharas was implemented 2003. The system is composed of a 7.75 km gravity sewage collection network and provides WW treatment for 150 housing units, 2 mosques, 4 schools and a clinic. The WWTP is constructed on 2 dunums of land, which does allow for future expansion of the plant. The plant was designed to serve around 2,000 persons with a capacity of 120 m3/day. The actual daily flow to the WWTP was estimated at 100 m3 of wastewater originating from domestic and commercial sources. Since February 2010 the WWTP has not functioned due to lack of maintenance, the constructed wetlands have not functioned satisfactorily due to problems associated with the gravel media

Nuba Wastewater Treatment System The wastewater treatment system in Nuba was implemented by the PHG in 2002. The system was composed of 1.8 km gravity sewage network and a WWTP designed to serve around 2,000 persons with a capacity of 120 m3/ day. The sewage network was expanded gradually from 1.8 km in 2002 to 6.7 km in 2008, connecting an additional 205 housing units (Nuba Village Council, 2011). The WWTP is covers 2 dunums of land. The daily flow to the WWTP was estimated at 200 m3 of wastewater originating from domestic and commercial sources. Initially the WWTP was operated well with a high COD removal efficiency of 90%. Unfortunately it is now malfunctioning. The constructed wetlands have not functioned since commissioning due to a design failure that has not been remedied. Currently there is uncontrolled wastewater leakage from the wetland area into the surrounding area.

Bani Zeid Wastewater Treatment System Bani Zeid (Al-Gharbiyeh) plant was constructed by the PHG .The system is composed of 3 km gravity sewage, installed in 2002, and a WWTP designed to treat 100 m3/day.The WWTP is covers 9 dunums of land. It was commissioned in 2004 and is currently serving 31 houses and a school. The daily flow to the WWTP is estimated at 20 m3 of wastewater, originating from domestic and commercial sources. As a result of the plant not operating efficiently a new project funded through the PWA. The rehabilitation of the plant was funded via an Austrian project and implemented by PHG. Construction started in June 2011 and it is expected to be completed in summer 2012. The WWTP capacity will be increased and more population will be served.

81


Deir Samit Wastewater Treatment System Deir Samit was constructed in 2004. The system has 900 m gravity sewage network and a WWTP for 40 houses and a school. The WWTP covers 0.5 dunum of land, and is designed to treat 13.5 m3 of domestic wastewater per day. The WWTP operated well during the period between November 2004 and April 2005. Recently it has been reported by the Deir Samit Village Council that the WWTP is overloaded and has suffered from lack of maintenance and incorrect operation due to a lack of financial resources

Hajja Wastewater Treatment System Hajja was constructed in 2004. The system has 2 km gravity sewer and a WWTP for 100 houses, 4 schools, 4 mosques and a clinic. The WWTP was designed to treat 30 – 40 m3 of wastewater per day. The daily flow to the plant is estimated at 40 m3 of wastewater originating from domestic and commercial sources, the plant is operating with moderate efficiency. A new project funded by EU through the food security project and will be implemented by JVC to rehabilitate and expand the plant. This work is ongoing and expected to be completed in summer 2012.

‘Attil Wastewater Treatment System ‘Attil was constructed in 2006. The system is 1.9 km gravity sewer and a WWTP for 44 houses. The plant covers 400 m2 of land designed to treat 14 m3 of domestic wastewater per day with a population equivalent of 175. The treated effluent is currently used by four local farmers for restricted irrigation of 15 dunums of agricultural land cultivated with fruit trees. The WWTP is functioning well with low efficiency. The treated effluent is currently used by two local farmers for restricted irrigation of 4 dunums of agricultural land cultivated with fruit

82

Zeita Wastewater Treatment System The system was designed treat 14 m3 of domestic wastewater from 54 houses using 1.3 km gravity sewer and a collective WWTP that covers 1.5 dunums of land. The Zeita Municipality expanded the sewage network which allowed an additional 75 – 80 houses to be connected to the treatment system. The daily flow to the plant is estimated to be 30 – 35 m3, which exceeds the design capacity of the plant. The plant is functioning well with low efficiency. The treated effluent is used by two local farmers for restricted irrigation of 4-5 dunums of agricultural land cultivated with fruit

Sir Wastewater Treatment System Sir was constructed in 2006. The system is 1.5 km gravity sewer and a WWTP for 41 houses. The plant covers 300 m2 of land and was designed to treat 14 m3 of domestic wastewater per day. The actual daily flow to the plant is 15 m3. The plant is functioning well with moderate efficiency. The treated effluent is used by three local farmers for restricted irrigation of 10 dunums of agricultural land cultivated with fruit

Biddya Wastewater Treatment System Biddya was designed to daily collect and treat 11.2 m3 of domestic wastewater from 42 houses, with a population equivalent of 140, using 1.2 km gravity sewer and a collective WWTP that covers 2-3 dunums of land. Currently, the treatment system receives the wastewater generated from 38 houses, one clinic, and a mosque. The plant is currently malfunctioning with low efficiency as it is overloaded and not operated and maintained effectively. The treated effluent is discharged in an open area. An Austrian project managed by PWA and implemented by PHG to rehabilitate the WWTP was started in October 2011. It is expected to be completed in autumn 2012. The plant’s capacity will be increased to treat all the Wastewater generated from the connected population.

‘Ein Siniya Wastewater Treatment System ‘Ein Siniya is a pilot wastewater treatment plant that was constructed in 2007. The pilot plant was designed to treat 10 m3 of wastewater per day. The average influent and effluent wastewater characteristics for the period between April 2008 and January 2009 are shown in Table below

83


Table (33) Average Influent and Effluent Wastewater Characteristics - ‘Ein Siniya WWTP, April 2008 - January 2009 Parameter

Influent

Effluent

(mg/l)

(mg/l)

Efficiency (%)


438

44

90.4


1363

6

99.5

Biochemical Oxygen Demand BOD

258

25

90.3

At the start of operation, the WWTP was operating well with a high COD, BOD, and TSS removal efficiencies of 90.4%, 90.3% and 99.5 % respectively; however it is not currently operating. The plan is to transfer the WWTP to another location to be used for experimental and educational purposes.

Nahhalin Wastewater Treatment System Nahhalin is a storage/ removal system (cesspit) and is designed to daily collect and treat 50 m3 of domestic wastewater generated from around 1,300 persons. The wastewater is collected using a 7 m3 vacuum truck which conducts around 7 trips per day to the plant. The WWTP plant is 750 m2 of land rented by the village council, however it is not currently operating. The reasons why the Village Council have stopped operation of the system was said to be lack of financial resources.

3.4.3 Onsite Small Scale Black Wastewater Treatment Plants In addition to the existing central and collective WWTPs, onsite small scale wastewater treatment plants have been established in several rural localities of the West Bank where the dispersed pattern of houses in these rural localities makes it economically unfeasible to construct wastewater collection networks and centralized wastewater treatment plants. On-Site small scale wastewater treatment plants, which can serve a single house or a cluster of houses, respond to the needs and conditions in rural localities. They can solve the wastewater collection and disposal problems in such communities, along with the benefit of generating a water resource

84

that can be utilized for irrigation purposes as land and agriculture are available. Two types of onsite small scale wastewater treatment systems were implemented in the West Bank, namely: 1. Black wastewater treatment and, 2. grey wastewater treatment. Table 34 shows the agencies that implemented on-site small scale black/grey wastewater treatment plants, and the number of the implemented units. Table (34) Agencies that implemented on-site small scale black/grey wastewater treatment plants Implementing Agency

WWTP Type

Total Number of WWTPs

Applied Research Institute – Jerusalem (ARIJ)

Black WW

180

Grey WW

107

Palestinian Hydrology Group (PHG)

Grey WW

156

Union of Agricultural Work Committees (UAWC)

Grey WW

67

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO)

Grey WW

67

Palestinian Wastewater Engineers› Group (PWEG)

Grey WW

81

Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committees (PARC)

Grey WW

80

(Source: Implementing Agencies, 2011) The status of the small scale treatment plants is difficult to report. The efficiency of the treatment plants, their operation, maintenance, and reuse depends on the behavior and willingness of the owners. According to surveys done by PWA through the Austrian project in 2011 indications are that the majority of those on site plants are not working effectively, initial indications are that this is due to lack of O&M experience or lack of awareness. These results show, the quality of treatment in most cases do not comply with the Palestinian standards for treatment and reuse.

85


3.5

Wastewater Collection and Treatment in Gaza Strip

In Gaza Strip, water is used for three main categories: domestic, agriculture and industry. The existing population of the Gaza Strip is approximately 1.416 Million inhabitants (PCBS, 2007) distributed between urban and rural areas and based on current trends is expected to reach 2,910,400 inhabitants by 2025. This means that the population will be more than doubled in the coming 20 years. Regarding future distribution and projection of population growth in the most densely area in the World. The Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation (MOPIC) forecasts that the growth of 3.5% is distributed proportionally between to the urban areas. As a result the population of the rural areas will increase by natural growth only and the impact of immigration will be in the urban areas (MOPIC, 1997) as shown in Table 35. Table (35) Projection of population in Gaza Strip, PCBC, 2007 Governorates

1996

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

Northern

148,700

169,259

198,234

228,614

258,495

286,549

318,892

Gaza Governorate

354,400

415,835

501,156

671,327

839,375

950,816

1,075,038

Deir El Balah

145,200

165,212

193,427

223,016

252,129

279,382

310,822

201,400

242,903

300,615

546,933

743,731

850,319

968,875

Rafah Governorate

113,100

128,091

149,339

171,656

193,735

213,637

236,801

TOTAL

962,800

1,121,300

1,342,771

1,841,546

2,287,465

2,580,703

2,910,428

Global density

2,638

3,072

3,679

5,045

6,267

7,070

7,974

3.80

3.60

6.27

4.32

2.41

2.40

Governorate

Governorate Khan Younis Governorate

(inhab/km²) Rate of population growth (%/year)

Around two thirds of the population in the Gaza Strip is served by sewage network system and the remainder disposes raw wastewater into cesspools, open drains and vaults. Khan Younis Governorate in the south of Gaza represents the poorest area in wastewater collection as well as

86

poor treatment and infrastructure. The collected wastewater through the sewage network system is pumped to four wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), as shown in Table 36.

Table (36) The coverage of wastewater network all over the Governorates in Gaza Strip, 2011 Governorate

Population (Capita(

Coverage

Wastewater production (m3/day(

)%( North Area

298,125

80

23,000

Gaza

546,959

90

60,000

Middle area

223,679

75

10,000

Khan Younis

299,918

40

10,000

Rafah

183,649

75

10,000

TOTAL

1,552,330

72

113,000

Water uses in Gaza Strip for domestic purposes varies from 75 l/c/d to 107 l/c/d with an average of 96l/c/d (PWA, 2011). Wastewater generation is around 80% of water use for domestic purposes. The quantities of treated wastewater are expected to reach 80 MCM per year by 2025. This waste water if collected and treated effectively has the potential to minimize the shortage in water sources in the area. The quality of the wastewater is considered acceptable for reuse after treatment. The analyses carried for heavy metals and toxic elements shows that the raw sewage is nearly free from these hazardous elements. The wastewater is considered heavily polluted if the organic loading is high. Hence the concentration of the waste water from the area is considered high. It has been suggested that this is due to water consumption, which is below the required demand according to WHO. The consumption per head is generally low resulting in a more concentrated effluent. Wastewater treatment has been considered in the Gaza strip since 1970. Stabilization ponds were the technology proposed at that time. During the Israeli occupation period, there was no real attention towards improvement of wastewater treatment. In cooperation with international agencies, the

87


Palestinians have carried many trials to treat and reuse wastewater in this region. Greater attention has been paid to improve this sector following the creation of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) in 1993. The PNA intends to prepare a Palestinian policy regarding wastewater treatment and reuse. This policy will guide agencies in the proper treatment technology by using local and international experience in treatment technology and cost. To achieve this objective the consultants intend to access the data from the existing treatment plants and monitor rehabilitation carried out in the last few years to evaluate the quality of effluent compared and carry out cost benefit analysis from each of the treatment plants studied.

3.5.1 Existing wastewater treatment plants There are four wastewater treatment plants operating in the Gaza Strip: Jabalia in the north, Gaza in the Gaza City, Khan Younis and Rafah in the south. The type of treatment, quantity and final disposal of each plant is summarized in Table 37. The existing three plants are heavily overloaded as the actual flow exceeds the design flow. Blocked pipes and flooded manholes are daily events in Gaza Strip. The total capacity of the existing three WWTPs is approximately 41. MCM/year. Table (37) General features of wastewater production and collection in Gaza Strip. Governorate

Population

Connect to

Sewage

Treatment

Final Destina-

Capita

Sewage net-

Production

Availability

tion

work (%)

(m /day) 3

Available ParNorthern

290, 000

80%

23,000

tially Treatment

100% Infiltration basins East & North of Gaza Strip

Available Gaza

550, 000

90%

60,000

80% Partially Treatment & 20% Raw

88

100% to sea)

100% Wadi Middle

220, 000

75%

10, 000

Not Available

Gaza and indirectly to the Sea 10,000 Raw

Available ParKhan Younis

280, 000

40%

10,000

tially Treat-

100% to sea

ment Available parRafah

185, 000

75%

10,000

tially Treat-

100% to sea

ment TOTAL

1,525,.000

41 Mcm

33 Mcm /y To

/ yr

sea

Table 38 presents the general comments of the status and condition of wastewater treatment plants in Gaza Strip in2011 . The Mediterranean Sea represents the final disposal of most treated or partially treated wastewater in Gaza strip. Table (38) Treatment plants in the Gaza Strip, 2011. Location

Beit Lahia

Construction

Treatment

Quantity

Date

method

m3/day

1976

Stabilization

23,000

ponds and

Final disposal

Remarks

Surroundings

The new treatment

and dunes

plant is under construc-

aerated lagoons

tion while the old one is overloaded

Gaza

Khan

1977

2007

Younis

Anaerobic ponds

60,000

To the sea

followed with

under rehabilitation by

bio-towers

KFW in 2012

Anaerobic lagoon

10,000

To the sea

followed by aero1983

Anaerobic ponds followed with

The treatment plant is under rehabilitation

bic lagoon Rafah

The treatment plant is

by ICRC 10,000

To the sea

The plant is new rehabilitate by ICRC

bio-towers

89


Figure (30) Existing and Planned Wastewater Plants in the Gaza Strip

3.6

Wastewater projects in 2011

As mentioned in the previous sections, several donors committed to help the Palestinian to improve the wastewater sector in terms of collection, treatment, reuse and capacity building. The following table shows the status of the ongoing projects (name, service area, donor, budget, type of the project).

90

91

Nablus west, WWTP

Ramallah, Betunia- Ein

3

4

8

Rehabilitation of Jenin

7

Project

Tulkarm Sewerage

TP

Hebron, WWTP

project

Jericho sewerage

6

5

Tubas, Tayaseer

2

Jariot

WB

Jenin, Misilya village

1

WB

WB

WB

WB

WB

WB

WB

Area

No Wastewater Project

KFW

KFW

AFD

WB &

Japan

KFW

KFW

EU

AFD

Donor

-

9000

15000

9600

10000

12000

3000

400

€ M 19

€ M 1.5

$ M 38

$ M 32

€ M 27

€ M 30

€ M 22

€ M 2.8

Cost

Capacity (m3/d)

Estimated

Design

Construction

Under

Completed

F.S. & EIA

Construction

Under

Design phase

Construction

Under

phase

F.S& EIA &Design

&Design phase

F.S. & EIA

Status Components

line, pre-treatment

75,000 Collection system, trunk

WWTP

55,000 Rehabilitation of existing

Building

Reuse system, Capacity

300,000 Collection system, WWTP,

Building



Reuse system


Reuse system


Building



Reuse system


Population

Table (39) Wastewater projects under preparation, implementation and completed in 2011

92

WW project

15 North East Jerusalem

WB

WB

14 Nablus East sewerage

project

WB

WB

WB

13 Habla, Baqa, Barta’a

project

12 Al’Aroub WWTP

project

11 Beit Hasan sewerage

,Tarqumiya, Dura

Ya’abad, Azzun, ,

10 Al-Yamun, Qabatiya,

Rammun

Hajja, Sir, At-Taybah,

WB

Finland

KFW

Japan

Spain

Spain

USAID

EU

WB

9

Anza, Beit Dajan,

Donor

Area

No Wastewater Project Cost

Capacity

-

14000

-

1200

€ M 30

$ M 6.2

€ M 1.5

$ 0.31M

30,000 100

Each (20)25M USD

18,000-

baseline Study

Sanitation and

&Design phase

F.S. & EIA

Completed

Design Phase

completed

Design

Under Construction

)each(

Status

200-400 € 9

(m3/d)

Estimated

Design

Components

Building



Building



22,000 Collection system

Construction of WWTP

collection system

8,000 Construction of WWTP &

Building



Building



Population


93

Feasibility study

Collection system, WWTP,

Components

Zone WWTP

21 Bethlehem Industrial

WB

WB

20 Hebron Industrial area

WW project

WB

WB

WB

19 Artas sewage project

Rural Area

small scale WWTP in

18 Upgrading existing

and sanitation project

villages water supply

17 West Bethlehem

AFD

USAID

BTC

Austria

WB

-

-

€ 3.5 M

Phase 2:

0.5

Phase 1:

$ M 1.5

€ M 0.6

€ M 0.22

$ M 3.65

Construction

Under

phase

Implementation

Completed

phase

Implementation

feasibility study

TOR for the

Phase 2: 500

system

Phase 1:100 WWTP and Collection

stone cutting factories

from slurry generated by

- Cleaning industrial zone

station

5,000 Collection system & poster

WWTP

20,000 Rehabilitation of existing

Building



Building

$ M 0.5

Population

phase

-

Status


USTDA

WB

16 Rawabi Regional

Cost

Capacity (m3/d)

Estimated

Design

sewerage project. F.S

Donor

Area


94

GZ

GZ

GZ

26 Gaza Central

27 Khan Younis

WB

25 North Gaza Beit Lahiah

WW project

24 Diplomatic Compound

WW project

23 Al-Tireh Neighborhood

project

WB

Japan

IDB,

KFW

SIDA, BTC

WB, AFD,

Private

Private

Private

WB

22 Al-Rihan

Neighborhood WW

Donor

Area


44,000

50000

30000

Construction

Under

Construction

Under

Construction

Under

Status

$ 56M

€ M 19

Components

Under Design

Rehabilitation & expansion

System

WWTP and Collection

of existing WWTP

Emergency Phase:

Under

of existing WWTP

Rehabilitation & expansion

Emergency Phase:

system

500 WWTP and Collection

system

2,000 WWTP and Collection

system

500 WWTP and Collection

Population

Construction

Construction

$ M 75/40 Under

$ M 1.5

$ M 3.8

Cost

Capacity (m3/d)

Estimated

Design


95


This publication has been produced by the Palestinian Water Authority in partnership with UNICEF in support of the data bank enhancement initiative. The views expressed in this publication are those of authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies or views of UNICEF and the designations and presentation of material do not imply any expression of opinion of the United Nations or UNICEF as to the legal status of any country, territory, city, or area, or of the authorities thereof, or as to the delimitation of boundaries or national affiliation.

96