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
Water Status Report 2011
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
Water Status Report 2011
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
Water Status Report 2011
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
Water Status Report 2011
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
Water Status Report 2011
Al -14
Auja Dam, March 2012
1.1Introduction
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
Water Status Report 2011
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
Water Status Report 2011
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
Water Status Report 2011
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
1.4Groundwater
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
Water Status Report 2011
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
Water Status Report 2011
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
Water Status Report 2011
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
Water Status Report 2011
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
Water Status Report 2011
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
Water Status Report 2011
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
Water Status Report 2011
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
Water Status Report 2011
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
Water Status Report 2011
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
Water Status Report 2011
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
Water Status Report 2011
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:
Water Status Report 2011
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
Water Status Report 2011
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
Water Status Report 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
Water Status Report 2011
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
Water Status Report 2011
60
Extracting water from Maythloun well
Wastewater
Part three
61
Water Status Report 2011
Ein 62
Sinia wastwater stream, Ramallah
3.1Introduction
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
Water Status Report 2011
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
Water Status Report 2011
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
Water Status Report 2011
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
Water Status Report 2011
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
Water Status Report 2011
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
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
853
mg/l
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
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
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
132.3
mg/l
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
60
mg/l
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
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
Water Status Report 2011
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
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
502
mg/l
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
282
mg/l
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
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
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
662
mg/l
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
334
mg/l
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
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
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
764
mg/l
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
578
mg/l
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
1495
mg/l
Reference: (An-Najah University, 2011)
79
Water Status Report 2011
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
Water Status Report 2011
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
Water Status Report 2011
Table (33) Average Influent and Effluent Wastewater Characteristics - ‘Ein Siniya
WWTP, April 2008 - January 2009
Parameter
Influent
Effluent
(mg/l)
(mg/l)
Efficiency (%)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
438
44
90.4
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
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
Water Status Report 2011
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
Water Status Report 2011
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
Water Status Report 2011
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, Capacity
22,000 Collection system, WWTP,
Reuse system
59,000 Collection system, WWTP,
Reuse system
110,000 Collection system, WWTP,
Building
Reuse system, Capacity
25,000 Collection system, WWTP,
Reuse system
4,000 Collection system, WWTP,
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
Reuse system, Capacity
30,000 Collection system, WWTP,
Building
Reuse system, Capacity
80,000 Collection system, WWTP,
22,000 Collection system
Construction of WWTP
collection system
8,000 Construction of WWTP &
Building
Reuse system, Capacity
150,000 Collection system, WWTP,
Building
Reuse system, Capacity
20,000 Collection system, WWTP,
Population
Water Status Report 2011
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
Reuse system, Capacity
25,000 Collection system, WWTP,
Building
$ M 0.5
Population
phase
-
Status
Reuse system, Capacity
USTDA
WB
16 Rawabi Regional
Cost
Capacity
(m3/d)
Estimated
Design
sewerage project. F.S
Donor
Area
No Wastewater Project
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
No Wastewater Project
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
Water Status Report 2011
95
Water Status Report 2011
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