The Use of Economic Water Allocation Models in Regional Planning – Tulkarm Governorate a Case Study

The Use of Economic Water Allocation Models in Regional Planning –

Tulkarm Governorate a case study

HALA BARHUMI

(Registration#: 1095463)

Supervisor: Dr. Rashed Al-Sa`ed

January, 2015

The Use of Economic Water Allocation Models in Regional Planning –

Tulkarm Governorate a case study

HALA BARHUMI

(Registration #: 1095463)

Supervisor: Dr. Rashed Al-Sa`ed

This thesis was submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master Degree in Water and Environmental Engineering from the Faculty of Graduate Studies at Birzeit University - Palestine

January, 2015

DEDICATION

TO MY WONDERFUL SUPPORTING MOTHER

TO MY FATHER'S SOUL

TO MY SONS (AMEED & AMR)

TO MY WONDERFUL BROTHER (IMAD)

TO ALL OF MY FRIENDS

MAY THIS THESIS ENLIGHTEN THEIR PATH TO MORE SUCCESS

Acknowledgment

I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Rashed Al-Saed, whose expertise, understanding, and patience, added considerably to my graduate experience. I would like to thank the other members of my committee, Dr. Nidal Mahmoud, and Dr. Ziad Al Mimi for their valuable suggestions and comments. A very special thank go out to Dr. Anan Jayyousi from the Water and Environment Studies Institute – An-Najah National University for taking time out from his busy schedule to serve as my external supervisor.

I would like to express my deepest thank to Dr. Annette Huber -Lee, without whose motivation, encouragement, and assistance I would not have considered a Thesis in modeling. And also a great thank to Dr. Karen Assaf for her assistance and encourage. It was under her guidance that I developed a focus and became interested in the MYWAS model.

I must also acknowledge Palestinian Water Authority especially Deeb Abdulghafour, Salam Abu Hantash, and Dr. Subhi Samhan for their assistance and help in providing me with the necessary data.

I would also like to thank my family for the support they provided me through my entire life and in particular, I must acknowledge my mother and my wonderful brother and my best friends Beesan Shonnar and Samar Ibraheem without whose love, encouragement I would not have finished this thesis.

Finally I would like to acknowledge the University of Karlsruhe (KIT) and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) for funding the Master work.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 1.1 General ...... 1 1.2 Research Questions ...... 2 1.3 Objectives ...... 2 1.4 Methodology...... 3 Chapter 2: Literature Review ...... 6 2.1 General ...... 6 2.2 Water Resources Management and Planning using DSS System ...... 7 2.3 The Economics of Water ...... 9 2.3.1 The Concept of Water Value ...... 9 2.3.2 Shadow Values and Scarcity Rents ...... 10 2.4 MYWAS/WEAP Model Development ...... 11 2.4.1 WAS model ...... 11 2.4.2 MYWAS...... 12 2.4.3 MYWAS/WEAP ...... 13 2.4.4 The Software ...... 13 Chapter 3: Study Area...... 16 3.1 General ...... 16 3.2 Soil and Geology ...... 18 3.3 Social and Economic Characteristics of the Tulkarm Governorate ...... 20 3.3.1 Demography ...... 20 3.3.2 Social and Economic Aspects ...... 20 3.4 Climate ...... 21 3.5 Water Resources ...... 23 3.5.1 Surface Water ...... 23 3.5.2 Groundwater ...... 24 3.6 Status of the Existing Infrastructure ...... 28 3.6.1 Status of the Water Networks ...... 28 3.6.2 Status of the Wastewater Networks ...... 30 Chapter 4: Description of MYWAS/WEAP Model as a Planning Tool ...... 32 4.1 Introduction ...... 32 4.2 Model Concept ...... 32 4.3 Net Benefits of Water ...... 35 4.4 Input Data Needed ...... 37 4.5 Demand Properties...... 38 4.6 Water Supply Data ...... 40 4.7 Infrastructure ...... 42 4.8 Cost ...... 44 Chapter 5: Modeling of the Current Water Conditions in Tulkarm Governorate ...... 49 5.1 Introduction ...... 49

5.2 Data for the Base Year Model (Current Account) ...... 51 5.2.1 Demand Properties ...... 51 5.2.2 Water Supply Data ...... 53 5.2.3 Infrastructure ...... 54 5.2.4 Cost ...... 56 Chapter Six: Future Proposed Scenarios and Management Options ...... 60 6.1 Introduction ...... 60 6.2 Future Proposed Scenarios ...... 60 6.3 Management Options ...... 61 6.4 Quantification of Management Options ...... 63 6.5 Estimated Future Water Demand ...... 64 6.6 Population Growth Rate ...... 65 6.7 Description of Runs ...... 65 6.7.1 Status Quo Scenario ...... 66 6.7.2 Full Application of Oslo Agreement Scenario ...... 70 6.7.3 Water Spring Scenario ...... 70 Chapter Seven: Results and Discussion ...... 73 7.1 Results of the Current Account...... 73 7.1.1 Shadow Values ...... 73 7.1.2 Affordability to pay ...... 74 7.1.3 Unaccounted for Water in Tulkarm Governorate ...... 75 7.2 Results of the Status Quo Scenario ...... 76 7.2.1 Results of the Status Quo Scenario and the Management Options until year 2017...... 77 7.2.2 Results of the Status Quo Scenario and the Management Options until year 2025...... 78 7.2.3 Results of the Status Quo Scenario and the Management Options until year 2032...... 79 7.3 Results of the Water Spring Scenario ...... 80 7.3.1 Results of the Water Spring Scenario and the Management Options until year 2017 ...... 80 7.3.2 Results of the Water Spring Scenario and the Management Options until year 2025 ...... 80 7.3.3 Results of the Water Spring Scenario and the Management Options until year 2032 ...... 81 Chapter Eight: Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 82 8.1 Conclusions ...... 82 8.2 Recommendations ...... 83 References ...... 84

VII

List of Tables

Table 3.1: Climate Data for Tulkarm Governorate …………………………………………... 21 Table 3.2: Domestic Wells in Tulkarm Governorate ……………………………………….. 26 Table 3.3: Agricultural Wells in Tulkarm Governorate …………………………………….. 27 Table 3.4: Status of the Water Networks in Tulkarm Governorate ………………………… 29 Table 5.1: Clustering of Tulkarm Governorate …………………………………………….. 49 Table 5.2: Water Supply Data ……………………………………………………………… 53 Table 5.3: Infrastructure Data ……………………………………………………………… 55 Table 5.4: Supply Cost and the Network Cost ……………………………………………… 57 Table 6.1:Proposed Quantities for each Management Option under each Scenario in (MCM) 64 Table 6.2: Estimated Public Water Demand ……………………………………………….. 65 Table 6.3: Estimated Agricultural Water Demand ………………………………………… 65 Table 6.4: Quantities for Management options for each cluster until 2017 ……………… 66 Table 6.5: Capital and Operational Cost for Management Options for each Cluster until 2017 67 Table 6.6: Quantities for Management options for each cluster until 2025 ……………… 68 Table 6.7: Capital and Operational Cost for Management Options for each Cluster until 2025 68 Table 6.8: Quantities for Management options for each cluster until 2032 ………………….. 69 Table 6.9: Capital and Operational Cost for Management Options for each Cluster until 2032 69 Table 6.10: Quantities for Management options for each cluster until 2017 ………………. 71 Table 6.11: Capital and Operational Cost for Management Options for each Cluster until 2017 71 Table 6.12: Quantities for Management options for each cluster until 2025 ……………….. 71 Table 6.13: Capital and Operational Cost for Management Options for each Cluster until 2025 72 Table 6.14: Quantities for Management options for each cluster until 2032 ……………… 72 Table 6.15: Capital and Operational Cost for Management Options for each Cluster until 2032 72 Table 7.1: Shadow Values for each cluster in Tulkarm Governorate. …………………….. 74 Table 7.2: Groundwater Outflows to the Clusters in Tulkarm Governorate ………………. 75 Table 7.3: Outflows from the other Supply to the Clusters in Tulkarm Governorate ……… 75 Table 7.4: Supply Delivered to the Cluster from all the Sources without Loss …………….. 76 Table 7.5: Losses in the Systems ……………………………………………………………. 76

VIII

List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Schematic of the Methodology …………………………………………… 5 Figure 1.2: Schematic of the Model Process ………………………………………….. 14 Figure 4.1: Demand Curve ……………………………………………………………. 35 Figure 4.2: Marginal Cost Curve ……………………………………………………… 36 Figure 4.3: Demand Properties Menu …………………………………………………. 39 Figure 4.4: Supply Data Menu ………………………………………………………… 41 Figure 4.5: Transmission Links Menu ………………………………………………… 43 Figure 4.6: Supply Cost Menu ………………………………………………………… 45 Figure 4.7: Infrastructure Cost Menu …………………………………………………. 47 Figure 5.2: Demand Elasticity ………………………………………………………… 52

Figure 5.3: Quantity Point of Tulkarm City ……………………………………….…. 52

Figure 5.4: Price Point of Tulkarm City ………………………………………..……. 52

Figure 7.1: Shadow Values for each cluster in Tulkarm Governorate. …..………….. 74 Figure 7.2: Shadow Values for the Status Quo Scenario ……………………….…….. 77 Figure7.3: Shadow Values for the Status Quo Scenario until 2017 ………………….. 78 Figure 7.4: Shadow Values for Status Quo scenario until year 2025 …….……….….. 79 Figure 7.5: Shadow Values for the Status Quo Scenario until 2032 …………………. 79 Figure 7.6: Shadow Values for Water Spring Scenario until year 2017 ……………… 80 Figure 7.7: Shadow Values for Water Spring Scenario until year 2025………………. 81 Figure 7.8: Shadow Values for Water Spring Scenario until year 2032 ……………… 81

List of Maps

Map 3.1: Location Map of the Study Area ………………………………………………. 17

Map 3.2: Out Cropping formations in Tulkarm Governorate ………………………….… 19

Map 3.3: Rainfall of Tulkarm Governorate ……………………………………………… 22

Map 3.4: Location of the Groundwater Wells in Tulkarm Governorate ………………… 25

Map 5.1: Clusters in Tulkarm Governorate ……………………………………………… 50

Map 5.2: The schematic of the Current Account model ………………………………… 59

Abstract

The shortage of water resources in Palestine in addition to the political situation makes the efficient and sustainable water resources management very difficult and faces many challenges to fill the gap between the demand and the existing and available supply. This thesis focuses on developing a model using the MyWAS/WEAP tool which is an optimizing tool designed specifically for Palestine, Jordan and Israel. This model is a powerful and innovative tool that enables the cost- benefit analysis and can be used as a DSS to guide decision makers at all levels of water management. The Tulkarm governorate was divided into four clusters (Al Kafriyyat, Deir Al Ghusun, Tulkarm, and Anabta) and the needed data to build the current account model were collected and analyzed. Three proposed future scenarios were suggested and they are: Status Quo scenario, Full Application of the Oslo

Agreement scenario, and Water Spring scenario.

Under each scenario of the above, a set of management options were suggested, such as development of new renewable water resources, wastewater reuse, rainwater harvesting, water import from Mekorot, and demand management. In the Status Quo scenario, the current conditions in Tulkarm governorate is not feasible to continue as it is. The average shadow values for each cluster in the governorate decreased to reasonable values after applying the management options. Under the Water Spring scenario, the shadow values are accepted and feasible. The average shadow value for domestic is 5 NIS and for the agriculture is 3.25 NIS.

Based on the three scenarios, the wastewater reuse is a necessary management option in

Tulkarm governorate. Also, the rainwater harvesting is a preferable management option as it has a very low operation and maintenance cost. A leak reduction program should be adapted as soon as possible from the Tulkarm Municipality to reduce the water loss in the governorate.

يهخص

XII

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Background

The water crisis in Palestine requires efficient, adaptable and sustainable water management and also requires ways of resolving water disputes. Fortunately, tools exist for accomplishing both of these tasks. By marrying economic benefits with responsible stewardship of precious resources, these tools can mutually guide the beneficial cooperation necessary for efficient water management and the resolution of water-related disputes.

Following the Oslo I (1993) and the Oslo II (1995) Peace Accords between the Palestinian

Liberation Organization and Israel, the concern was to accommodate the anticipated stage of rapid transformation that would be the result of accelerated economic, physical, and social developments and urbanization. In addition to the uncertainties of climate change and the trans- boundary nature of the hydrologic system, the threat was that these anticipated rapid developments would create pressure on available water resources.

Everyone knows that water is essential for human life. We need it for drinking, for bathing, for irrigating our crops, and for watering our livestock, among other things, so putting a value for water is very important, for example, for any country with a seacoast, the cost of seawater desalination puts an upper ceiling on the value of water. For such a country, the value of water at the coast is no more than the cost of desalination. Realizing this leads to an important tool for resolving conflicts over existing water resources, (Fisher, 1998).

Therefore, Demand Management appears to be one of the main alternatives to control high increase in the demand until there is a political solution to the water issues with Israel.

However, successful management of water requires systematic, comprehensive, and coordinated approaches that will provide decision- relevant information at an affordable cost to water managers.

Two important models have been developed: the Water Allocation System (WAS) and its improved successor, the Multi-Year Water Allocation System (MYWAS). Those models analyze information on current and potential future water sources, water-related infrastructure and demand for water. The resulting information can be the basis for smart decision-making on water-related issues, from conservation to new infrastructure development. The models also take into account constraints that reflect the relevant social values for water. For example, extra importance might be placed on setting aside water for environmental purposes, subsidizing water for agriculture, or ensuring affordable water for the needy. Taking these constraints and values into account, the models optimize the benefits to be obtained from the available water.

1.2 Research Questions

The research questions of this study are:

1. What are the optimal management options for Tulkarm Governorate under the different

proposed scenarios?

2. What is the optimal sectoral and intra - district allocation for available and future potential

water resources under different scenarios?

1.3 Objectives

The main objective of this research work is to apply the available MYWAS/WEAP model in order to develop a set of water management options to be adapted under the different scenarios. The specific goals of this main objective are:

 Apply and test the capabilities of the MYWAS/WEAP model.

 Introduce the concept of water economics into planning of water resources in Palestine on

the governorate level.

 Develop a set of optimal management options to be further analyzed and adopted by water

sector stakeholders.

 Propose a preliminary set of actions to be taken in the future to optimize water usage.

1.4 Methodology

To achieve the objective outlined for this study, the following methodology was followed.

1. Data Collection and Manipulation

- In order to evaluate the existing situation of the water system in the study area, it was

divided into four clusters: (Deir Al- Ghusun Cluster, Anabta Cluster, Tulkarm Cluster,

and Al- Kafriyyat Cluster) .The data related to the water supply quantities, water

sources and water demand properties and the infrastructure data were collected

through a questionnaire that was prepared and distributed to the communities in the

Tulkarm Governorate.

- Also the data related to the groundwater wells in the governorate was collected from

the database of the Palestinian Water Authority and water supply report, 2010.

- The agricultural data was collected from the Ministry of Agriculture.

2. Modelling of the Current Water Conditions

The current water conditions model (base year model) was built for the base year of the 2010.

The following steps were followed:

 The supply sources within the cluster were specified with the cost of extraction and the

sustainable yield for the groundwater basin.

 The water demand properties were specified for domestic uses. Those properties are not

simply the amount of consumption; they consist of demand curves showing the quantity of

water that would be demanded at different prices.

 Information on water infrastructure and its costs was also specified.

 Finally, constraints were imposed on the model, constraints that reflect the maximum

withdrawal of water from the groundwater basin.

 MYWAS/WEAP Model took these inputs and calculated the water flows that will

maximize the system-wide net benefits received from the available water. These consist of

the gross benefits subtracted from the costs.

 Run the model to get the results for the current conditions.

3. Scenarios Development

Three scenarios were adapted in order to study the different management options in

Tulkarm Governorate. These scenarios were: the Status Quo scenario, the Full Application of the Oslo Agreement scenario, and the Water Spring Scenario. Under these three scenarios different management options were analyzed for the Tulkarm Governorate. And finally a comparison between these management options was made based upon an economic evaluation.

The following figure represents the methodology that was followed in accomplishing this study.

Problem Statement

Objectives statement

Data Collection statement

Scenarios Development

Scenario 2 Scenario 1 Scenario 3 Status Quo Full Application of Water Spring Scenario Scenario Oslo Agreement

Scenarios

Analysis

Management Options

Economic Evaluation

Figure 1.1: Schematic of the Methodology

Chapter 2: Literature Review

This chapter uses a variety of academic articles to establish a basis from which to understand the concept and principles of the water value in general and the theory of the model used in order to accomplish the study.

2.1 General Conflict over water is as old as human beings, where the tribes were involved in struggle for life. Water was the main cause of conflicts between states and nations as water is the essential element for life and health and it is important in the economic and social development of any human society. Palestine is located in a dry and semi-dry climate, where the low rain precipitation and the limited water resources result in an increased strategic importance of water in the region. Israel has worked since the occupation of the West Bank in

1967 in order to control the water resources in the region and it established the Israeli settlements over the most important areas of groundwater recharge.

The Palestinians have been denied their water rights for more than 45 years and the

Palestinian’s right to equitable and reasonable utilization of shared water resources has been violated by the Israeli occupation. As a result, Palestinian people often suffer from lack of adequate water. Moreover, Israel has played a major role in depleting Palestinian water resources, (Khair and Abu Mohor, 2011).

The Tulkarm governorate in West Bank suffers from lack of water in the rural areas, land confiscation by the separation wall, high UFW in the water network system and deteriorated

water quality in the water supply. In the next chapter we will talk about the situation of the water and wastewater network systems in details.

2.2 Water Resources Management and Planning using DSS System

The Global Water Partnership (GWP) defines IWRM as “a process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land, and related resources in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems". The three most critically important concepts for an IWRM process are:

1. The economic efficiency, equity and environmental sustainability.

2. The enabling environment, institutional framework and the management tools.

3. And the cross-sector/horizontal integration across the natural systems and the human

systems, combined with the vertical integration across local-basin-city-national and trans-

boundary levels.

A DSS in the IWRM context can be defined by its components. It will typically include a database and processing environment, knowledge and information system, a modeling and analysis framework, a socioeconomic modeling and analysis framework, and a communication framework.

Water is usually considered in terms of quantities only. Demands for water are projected, supplies are estimated, and a balance is struck. Where that balance shows a shortage, alarms are sounded, and engineering or political solutions to secure additional sources are sought.

Disputes over water are also generally thought of in this way.

The WEAP model can be used as a DSS tool for sustainable water resources management, it was applied on the whole West Bank and the results obtained showed that water demand

varies significantly according to the assumed political situation, and underlined the importance role of water management aspects. Also the results revealed that an additional amounts more than 700 MCM is needed to satisfy water needs and development, otherwise the gap between demand and supply will grow dramatically if current supply conditions continued, (Abu Hantash, 2007).

Also it was applied on the Jerusalem Water Undertaken service area and the results obtained in this study show that the service area of the central water utility should be connected together to allow better management of the available water resources. Results also show that the estimated future water needs for the service area of the central water utility is 40 MCM by the end of year 2025. The results reveal that applying a demand management program and involvement the private sector resulted in decreasing the water demand by about 14 MCM by the end of year 2025, (Sanjaq, 2009).

There is another way of thinking about water problems and water disputes, a way that can lead to dispute resolution and optimal water management. That way involves thinking about the economics of water, (Fisher et al, 2002).

Water can be given a monetary value, since water cannot rationally be valued above the cost of replacing it. For any country with a seacoast the cost of seawater desalination puts an upper bound on the value of water that can be surprisingly low, (Fisher and Huber - Lee,

2011).

Actual water markets will not work because markets must really be competitive, consisting of very small buyers and sellers who cannot individually affect the price.

Furthermore, all social costs and benefits must consist of private costs and benefits so that they are reflected in the functioning of the private market, but water markets are generally not

competitive and water in certain uses can have a social value that exceeds its private value,

(Fisher and Huber - Lee, 2009).

Even when the water markets will not work, the economic analysis will be effective in water management and agreements. By using the MYWAS/WEAP model the user is permitted to use its own water policies and values, then the model shows how to optimize the net benefits to be received from water. Optimizing the allocation of water is a way that free markets cannot do. While the models do not determine public water policies, they assist the actual policy makers, (Fisher and Huber - Lee, 2011).

2.3 The Economics of Water The next sections describe the concept of water value and economics of water and how that mode of thinking can lead to a powerful optimizing tool for water management and the analysis of water policy and infrastructure. It forms an economic approach for water management and conflict resolution in the Middle East.

2.3.1 The Concept of Water Value

Fisher et al, (2005) in the book “Liquid Assets” describe the concept of water value as follow:

For any country with a seacoast, the possibility of seawater desalination puts a ceiling on the value of water. And that ceiling can be surprisingly low – so low that, with rational thinking, the assertion that the next war will be about water is the repetition of a myth. But the important lesson here is not that desalination is an answer to water disputes, it is that water is not beyond price and that thinking about water in terms of its value rather than in terms of quantities and ownership leads to powerful results.

The cost of desalination on the Mediterranean coast of Israel and Palestine is not more than roughly US $0.60 per cubic meter, including capital costs. Hence water in Tel Aviv or

Gaza is not worth more than $0.60 per cubic meter. With proper planning, where an alternative to this desalinated water to cost more than $0.60 per cubic meter, it would be inefficient to use it. A large amount of the water in dispute between Israel and Palestine, however, is not on the coast but instead lies underground in the so-called “Mountain Aquifer”.

To extract it and convey it to the cities of the coast would cost roughly $0.40 per cubic meter, so that the value of ownership of Mountain Aquifer water is not more than $0.20 per cubic meter ($0.60 at the place where it is used - $0.40 to get it there), (Fisher and Huber – Lee,

2005).

2.3.2 Shadow Values and Scarcity Rents

Shadow values: It is an important theorem that in any optimization under constraints, the solution brings with it a set of parameters, here called "shadow values" (often called "shadow prices"). Each shadow value is associated with a constraint, and shows the rate at which the thing being maximized would change if the associated constraint were slightly loosened. The principal (but not the only) shadow values in WAS or MYWAS are associated with the constraints stating that the amount of water consumed in each governorate cannot exceed the amount produced there plus the amount imported less the amount exported. Thus the shadow value of water in a given governorate shows by how much net benefits (in the entire system) would increase if a net cubic meter of water were costless to appear there, (Fisher et al, 2005).

Scarcity rents: it is a measure of scarcity, which means that water scarcity is a matter of cost and value not merely quantity. The scarcity rent will be positive in a location where the value of water in that location is greater than its direct cost of supply, (Fisher et al, 2005).

2.4 MYWAS/WEAP Model Development

The MYWAS/WEAP model was developed from the first version of WAS and then into

MYWAS versions and the final version is the MYWAS/WEAP model which was adopted in order to accomplish this study. The following sections are a description of each version of the model.

2.4.1 WAS model

The Water Allocation System (WAS) was developed by Professor Frank Fisher and his team in the early 1990s as part of the Middle East Water Project and is a joint project between

Israeli, Jordanian, Palestinian, American and Dutch scholars. The WAS is an annual steady state model which focuses on water resources of annual, renewable amounts. By looking at the economics of water, WAS is able to illustrate that, rationally, you cannot value water by more than the cost of replacing it, (Fisher and Huber – Lee, 2012).

The WAS model allocates the flow of water to users in each governorate so as to produce the greatest net benefits for all people based on the data used and the assumptions made.

Associated with these flows is a system of prices (shadow values) for water in different locations. These prices and the quantities of water allocated are those that a competitive market would reach if demand considerations included both the private willingness to pay and the social value of water as reflected in social policies, (Fisher, 2005).

It is based on two fundamental concepts: first, it is the scarcity of water and not just its importance for sustaining human life that gives water its value, i.e. where water is very scarce such scarcity is reflected in a private willingness to pay relatively large sums for small amounts of water. Where water is somewhat more abundant, the value of a unit of water is lower. Second, water can have a social value that goes beyond its private value, i.e. in a country where agriculture is socially desirable the government may decide to subsidize water

for agriculture. This subsidy reflects an excess of the social value of water over its private value, (Fisher, 2002).

2.4.2 MYWAS

The MYWAS model is the multiyear water allocation system version of WAS model. It is a powerful and innovative tool that enables the cost- benefit analysis of water infrastructure projects, taking into consideration forecasts of such things as climate change, rainfall, and population growth. Also MYWAS takes into consideration the users’ own values and polices concerning water. It is a powerful tool for the analysis of the current, future and proposed water management issues, water infrastructure planning, and alternative water policies. The

MYWAS methods can be applied to real project planning, leading to informed decision- making at all levels of water management.

MYWAS deals readily and directly with problems over time by maximizing the present value of net benefits over a number of future years or time periods using a discount rate specified by the user. Capital costs are treated as cash outflows when they occur. Here is a

(presumably partial) list of applications. In all of them, as in all WAS applications, system- wide effects and opportunity costs are automatically dealt with, and the user’s own decisions and values are implemented.

 The Timing, Order, and Capacity of Infrastructure Projects: MYWAS allows the user to

specify a menu of possible infrastructure projects, their capital and operating costs and

their useful life. The program then yields the optimal infrastructure plan, specifying which

projects should be built, in what order, and to what capacity (this is a major advance).

 Storage Management: Most obviously, it is now easy to deal with storage issues, in

particular the decisions as to how much water should be stored or released from

reservoirs. The decisions involved can be for inter-year or for inter-seasonal storage.

 Aquifer Management: Man-made storage is not the only kind. Water can also be

transferred between time periods by increasing aquifer pumping when water is relatively

abundant and reducing it when water is relatively scarce. This means that the use of

aquifers and other natural water sources no longer needs to be restricted to the average

yearly renewable amount in the model (with that average adjustable by the user). Rather,

by specifying the effects of withdrawal on the state of the aquifer, the user can obtain a

guide to the optimal pattern of aquifer use over time, including guidance as to aquifer

recharge.

2.4.3 MYWAS/WEAP

The link between MYWAS model and WEAP model was done in order to use the interface of the WEAP model to simplify the data entering, simplify the process of updating the input files, facilitate the evaluation of different management scenarios, and allow for the viewing of the MYWAS results in an easier way.

2.4.4 The Software

The software used to do the optimization is Generalized Algebraic Modeling System

(GAMS) which is the solution engine of MYWAS, and Python which links MYWAS and the interface for MYWAS, the Water Evaluation and Planning (WEAP) software developed by the Stockholm Environment Institute. This is illustrated in the figure below, and in the specific role of each piece of software is as follows:

MYWAS – Multi-Year Water Allocation System

 An innovative modeling tool that optimizes net benefits to be achieved from water subject

to the policies and values imposed by the model user/stakeholder.

 Programmed in GAMS

GAMS – General Algebraic Modeling System

 A high-level modeling system for mathematical optimization.

WEAP – Water Evaluation And Planning System

 An integrated water resources planning tool. Adaptable to varying levels of data

availability and system sophistication.

Python

 A general purpose, high-level programming language.

 WEAP provides an interface which:

 Simplifies the process of entering and updating input files

 Facilitates the evaluation of different management scenarios

 Allows for easy viewing of MYWAS results

The following figure is a schematic description of the model process.

PYTHON PYTHON

WEAP Create GAMS GAMS Read GAMS WEAP Input Files Output Files Interface for Optimize View MYWAS Allocation of MYWAS Input Data Water Output Files

Figure 2.1: Schematic of the Model Process

Results are displayed in a number of different ways, using the WEAP interface. These include shadow values as well as actual prices and water quantities by governorate and time period. These displays can be graphical or numerical and can be easily exported to Excel or other databases for further evaluation.

A critical aspect of the results is the ability to examine the impacts of various tariff structures on the overall water system, including financially sustainability, distributional implications across sectors and users with different income levels.

Chapter 3: Study Area

3.1 General

Tulkarm Governorate is located in the northwestern part of the West Bank as shown in map 3.1 below. The area of the governorate is about 243 km2 and forms approximately 4% of the West Bank area. Its elevation ranges between 40 to 500 m above sea level and is entirely within a fertile zone. The population of the Tulkarm Governorate is estimated at about

165,791 in 2010. The number of the communities in the governorate is 36, including 35 communities that have water networks, and only one community of population 275 persons does not have water network and they lack the service of a piped water supply and depend on water collected in cisterns during winter and on purchasing water by tankers from agricultural wells in the area.

Tulkarm Governorate is supplied by a total of 14.123 million cubic meters, (PWA, 2010) of domestic water per year through a number of sources that include Palestinian owned wells, in addition to purchasing water from the Israeli water company – Mekorot. The per capita average water supply in the governorate is about 76 l/c/d and the per capita water consumption is 46 l/c/d, (PWA, 2010). The UFW in the system is about 40% which is one of the highest in the West Bank which means that rehabilitation and improvements of the infrastructure is an urgent need.

Drinking and domestic water supply management in the governorate is carried out through municipalities, local councils, and joint services councils. Some of the service providers are supplied in bulk by West Bank Water Department while the others have their own water resources or are being supplied by other communities or from privately owned agricultural wells, (PWA, 2009).

Map 3.1: Location Map of the Study Area

3.2 Soil and Geology The geological formations of the Tulkarm governorate range in age from Upper

Cretaceous to Quaternary. The governorate is mainly covered by sedimentary carbonate rocks such as limestone, dolomite, marl and chalk. The general geology of the Tulkarm area is represented in map 3.2.

The Upper Cenomanian formation (also known as the Bethlehem formation) consists of limestone, dolomite with chalk, and marl. The Turonian formation (also known as the

Jerusalem formation) consists of a series of massive, thick-to-thin bedded limestone to dolomitic limestone and dolomites with a thickness of approximately 70 - 130 m. The

Turonian formation has a well-developed karst feature and is commonly used as a building stone. The Senonian formation is mainly made up of Cretaceous Rocks, which are composed of chalk. The chalk is thin and consists of a marly base and passes upwards through bedded and crystalline limestone that has few marl partings. The Eocene formation is mainly composed of chalk and limestone, (Aliewi et al, 2013).

The presence of the limestone and the conglomerate lenses form a good aquifer while the chalk and marl act as a good aquiclude. Quaternary rocks are divided into

1) Lisan Formation: these recent sediments are mainly composed of alluvium consisting of

limestone, chert and clay; and

2) Nari Formation: it occurs mainly in high rainfall areas where carbonate rocks are dissolved

by percolating water, (Aliewi et al, 2013).

Map 3.2: Outcropping Formations in Tulkarm Governorate

3.3 Social and Economic Characteristics of the Tulkarm Governorate 3.3.1 Demography

Population of the Tulkarm Governorate was estimated at 165,791 capita at the end of year

2010 including the two refugee camps Tulkarm and Nur-Shams, representing 12.4% of the total population of the West Bank. The number of people living in the rural areas is estimated at 102,906, representing 52.8% of the total population of the Tulkarm Governorate.

Approximately 19,493 people live in refugee camps, 64,255 live in urban areas and about

8,280 representing 4.2% of the population live in semi-urban areas. About 67% of households in this governorate have seven members or less, while the average household size is 6.2 compared to 6.7 in the remaining West Bank governorates. Most of the people in the Tulkarm

Governorate (78%) live in privately owned houses, (ARIJ, 1996).

3.3.2 Social and Economic Aspects

The Palestinian economy continues to suffer under the pressures of economic restrictions and political instability. In 2007, per capita GDP dipped to 60% of its levels in 1999, and investment dropped to precariously low levels. In the last two years, public investment has nearly ceased as almost all government funds have been used to pay civil service salaries and cover operating costs (World Bank, 2008).Palestinian economic development has historically been constrained, and per capita national income is in the range of “lower middle income” countries. Palestinian economy compared to other developing economies is to a large extent dependent upon labor wages, remittances from abroad which played a large role in the total income, and work in Israel. In Tulkarm Governorate, a large number of citizens moved increasingly to work inside Israel leaving behind their farms and simple ways of living. This led to a decrease in the agricultural products; however, these changes helped the enhancement of commercial activities in the city.

The results of PCBS survey indicate that the rate of the total diffusion of poverty among

Palestinian households in the West Bank is 30.9 percent in December 2003. More significant

is the fact that about 1 out of 4 poor households were suffering from deep poverty; unable to

meet the minimum requirement for food, clothing and housing, (www.pcbs.gov.ps).

3.4 Climate

The climate of Tulkarm is Mediterranean as the area surrounding it. The average

temperature in the winter ranges from 13 to 24 °C, while the average temperature in the

summer ranges from 22 to 32 °C. Humidity is moderate in summer reaches about 40-70%,

and it rises in winter to between 70-85%. The rainfall is limited to winter and Tulkarm

receives over 550 mm (22 in) of rain yearly. Table 3.1 shows the average monthly climate

data for Tulkarm governorate.

Table 3.1: Climate data for Tulkarm Governorate

Year

Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Av.

Average Temp. °C 13 15 21.7 24.6 24.8 28.7 29.8 30 29.1 25.2 23.7 18 23.6

Precipitation (mm) 77.8 104 10.5 0 2.1 0 0 0 10.5 18.3 32.7 151 407

The rainy season starts in October and continues through May. Between December and

February, almost 70% of annual rainfall occurs, while 20% of annual rainfall occurs in

October and November. Rain in June and September is rare and is almost negligible. July and

August have no rain at all. The mean annual rainfall in the city of Tulkarm is 642 millimeters

(25.3 in) for the period from 1952 to 1995, (ARIJ, 1996). The rainfall averages of the

Tulkarm governorate represented in the Map 3.3.

Map 3.3: Rainfall of Tulkarm Governorate.

3.5 Water Resources The Tulkarm Governorate is underlined hydrologically by the northern part of the

Western Groundwater Basin within the Auja-Tamaseeh drainage basin. This basin is shared between Palestinians and Israelis, where 7% of its capacity is being utilized by Palestinians while the rest is being utilized by Israelis. It is located geographically in the semi-coastal region.

3.5.1 Surface Water Surface water resources are represented by limited amounts of winter flood water. There are several drainage systems in the Tulkarm Governorate, and the main Wadis have a total annual runoff of about 8 MCM. The main drainage systems in the Tulkarm Governorate are:

1. Wadi Abu Nar in the northern part of the Tulkarm governorate with an annual discharge

of 2.77 MCM.

2. Wadi Massin with an average annual discharge of 1.35 MCM.

3. Wadi Zeimar with an average annual discharge of 3.18 MCM.

4. Wadi Et-Teen with an average annual discharge of 0.73 MCM.

Very limited uncalculated water quantities are being utilized from these floods through cisterns and small catchment areas to harvest water in the form of agricultural ponds. Many

Palestinians are using the roofs of their houses as well as plastic houses to collect water and store it in small reservoirs or cisterns, (ARIJ, 1996).

3.5.2 Groundwater

The main aquifer systems in the area are:

1. Upper Cenomanian-Turonian Aquifer system, where the majority of Palestinian wells are

tapped. It is composed of limestone, dolomite and marl with joints and karsts that give the

aquifer its properties. It has different aquifer formations including Hebron, Jerusalem and

Bethlehem, which are exposed in the study area, (ARIJ, 1996).

2. Lower Cenomanian Aquifer, which underlies the upper Cenomanian Aquifer. A small

number of Palestinian wells are tapping this aquifer. This system is represented by Lower

Beit Kahil and Upper Beit Kahil geological formations, which form good aquifers, (ARIJ,

1996).

3. Eocene Aquifer of the Tertiary chert, which consists of limestone and sandstone. Few

outcrops are found in the eastern part of the study area, (ARIJ, 1996).

As there are no springs in the area, groundwater in the Tulkarm Governorate is being utilized through wells constructed to tap the groundwater aquifers. Groundwater wells are used to provide Palestinians with water for both domestic and irrigation purposes. Map

3.4shows the location map of groundwater wells in the Tulkarm Governorate.

Map 3.4: Location of the Groundwater Wells in Tulkarm Governorate

Domestic wells

There are 13 groundwater wells used for domestic purposes in Tulkarm governorate. The abstraction of these wells was 5.83 MCM/yr in 2010 which was used for domestic purposes in addition to 1 MCM/yr which was obtained from agricultural wells. The basic data on the municipal wells in Tulkarm are shown in table 3.2 below.

Table 3.2: Domestic Wells in Tulkarm Governorate

Governorate Locality Well - ID Use Basin Abstraction (2010) M3

Tulkarm Kafr Zibad 15-18/015 Domestic Western 176,750

Tulkarm Shufa 15-18/024 Domestic Western 108,024

Tulkarm Nur Shams Camp 15-19/006 Domestic Western 15,330

Tulkarm Zeita 15-19/010 Domestic Western 335,690

Tulkarm Tulkarm 15-19/017 Domestic Western 874,571

Tulkarm Tulkarm 15-19/018 Domestic Western 1,100,064

Tulkarm Tulkarm 15-19/046 Domestic Western 1,250,255

Tulkarm Deir Al- Ghusun 15-19/047 Domestic Western 483,310

Tulkarm Bal'a 15-19/048 Domestic Western 346,530

Tulkarm Qaffin 15-20/008 Domestic Western 535,360

Tulkarm 'Anabta 16-19/001 Domestic Western 161,920

Tulkarm 'Anabta 16-19/002 Domestic Western 248,180

Tulkarm 'Anabta 16-19/003 Domestic Western 196,800

Total 5,832,784

Source: PWA Data Base, 2014

Irrigation wells

There are 46 wells in Tulkarm Governorate that are used in agriculture with an abstraction of 11 MCM/yr in year 2010. Some of these wells are partially used for domestic purposes.

Table 3.3 shows the basic data for the agriculture wells in Tulkarm Governorate.

Table 3.3: Agricultural Wells in Tulkarm Governorate

Governorate Locality Well - ID Use Basin Abstraction (2010)

Tulkarm Far'un 15-18/006 Agricultural Western 197,668 Tulkarm Far'un 15-18/007 Agricultural Western 146,900 Tulkarm Far'un 15-18/008 Agricultural Western 218,351 Tulkarm Tulkarm 15-18/009 Agricultural Western 117,793 Tulkarm Tulkarm 15-18/010 Agricultural Western 106,200 Tulkarm Kafr Jammal 15-18/012 Agricultural Western 164,904 Tulkarm Tulkarm 15-18/017 Agricultural Western 37,367 Tulkarm Tulkarm 15-18/019 Agricultural Western 225,580 Tulkarm Far'un 15-18/020 Agricultural Western 189,722 Tulkarm Tulkarm 15-18/022 Agricultural Western 142,299 Tulkarm Tulkarm 15-19/002 Agricultural Western 214,438 Tulkarm Tulkarm 15-19/003 Agricultural Western 230,500 Tulkarm Tulkarm 15-19/004 Agricultural Western 360,210 Tulkarm Tulkarm 15-19/005 Agricultural Western 140,560 Tulkarm Zeita 15-19/011 Agricultural Western 335,280 Tulkarm Dennabeh 15-19/012 Agricultural Western 277,620 Tulkarm Tulkarm 15-19/013 Agricultural Western 64,958 Tulkarm Tulkarm 15-19/015 Agricultural Western 40,470 Tulkarm Tulkarm 15-19/016 Agricultural Western 50,820 Tulkarm Tulkarm 15-19/019 Agricultural Western 39,470 Tulkarm Tulkarm 15-19/020 Agricultural Western 618,150 Tulkarm 'Attil 15-19/021 Agricultural Western 284,401 Tulkarm 'Al llar 15-19/022 Agricultural Western 497,710 Tulkarm 'Al llar 15-19/023 Agricultural Western 256,950 Tulkarm Tulkarm 15-19/025 Agricultural Western 194,580

Governorate Locality Well - ID Use Basin Abstraction (2010)

Tulkarm Kafr Al- Labad 15-19/028 Agricultural Western 349,420 Tulkarm Deir Al- Ghusun 15-19/029 Agricultural Western 472,910 Tulkarm Dennabeh 15-19/030 Agricultural Western 232,744 Tulkarm Zeita 15-19/031 Agricultural Western 108,673 Tulkarm 'Attil 15-19/032 Agricultural Western 200,989 Tulkarm Tulkarm 15-19/033 Agricultural Western 8,700 Tulkarm Tulkarm 15-19/034 Agricultural Western 207,120 Tulkarm 'Attil 15-9/035 Agricultural Western 220,724 Tulkarm 'Attil 15-9/036 Agricultural Western 342,530 Tulkarm Dennabeh 15-9/038 Agricultural Western 246,200 Tulkarm Dennabeh 15-9/039 Agricultural Western 33,190 Tulkarm 'Attil 15-9/041 Agricultural Western 303,920 Tulkarm 'Al lar 15-9/042 Agricultural Western 927,865 Tulkarm Iktaba 15-19/043 Agricultural Western 359,870 Tulkarm Tulkarm 15-19/044 Agricultural Western 129,030 Tulkarm Baqa Ash- Sharqiya 15-20/001 Agricultural Western 288,031 Tulkarm Baqa Ash- Sharqiya 15-20/002A Agricultural Western 420,551 Tulkarm Nazlat 'Isa 15-20/003 Agricultural Western 214,320 Tulkarm An Nazla Al –Gharbiya 15-20/004 Agricultural Western 238,150 Tulkarm Baqa Ash- Sharqiya 15-20/005 Agricultural Western 256,574 Tulkarm Baqa Ash- Sharqiya 15-20/006 Agricultural Western 221,790 Tulkarm Qaffin 15-20/007 Agricultural Western 122,930 Total 11,059,132 Source: PWA Data Base, 2014

3.6 Status of the Existing Infrastructure

3.6.1 Status of the Water Networks

The Tulkarm Governorate consists of 36 communities; all of them are served by water networks except one community which has a population of 275 persons which is served by

cisterns in winter and by tankers in summer. The UFW in the governorate is high compared with other governorates in West Bank; where it reaches 50% in Tulkarm city. There are around 15 communities in the governorate that need rehabilitation of their old water network where the UFW is high. The table 3.4 shows the status of the water network for the communities in the Tulkarm Governorate. Most of these water networks need rehabilitation and suffer from high water loss and there are just 4 communities that are recently served with new water networks.

Table 3.4: Status of the Water Networks in Tulkarm Governorate.

Population (2010) Locality Water Loss% Network Age (PCBS) Qaffin 8,801 25% 32 Nazlat 'Isa 2,449 29% 40 An- Nazla Ash- Sharqiya 1,589 25% 14 Baqa Ash- Sharqiya 4,304 15% 9 An Nazla Al- Gharbiya 983 5% 15 Zeita 2,993 13.5% 14 Seida 3,074 5% 5 Illar 6,496 4% 7 Attil 9,484 33% 38 Deir Al- Ghusun 8,649 29% 26 Al Jarushiya 978 5% 5 Bal'a 6,930 35% 16 Anabta 5,691 35% 14 Kafr Rumman 2,000 33% 16 Kafr Al- Labad, Izbat Abu 4,440 20% 17 Khamis, Al- Hafasa Ramin 1,895 21% 13 Saffarin 798 Beit Leid 5,241 33% 24

Population (2010) Locality Water Loss% Network Age (PCBS) Iktaba 2,797 50% 16 Nur Shams Camp 6,799 40 Tulkarm Camp 11,167 35 Dhinnaba 50% 40 Tulkarm 53,834 50 Kafa 424 Far'un 3,253 32% 35 Shufa, Izbat Shufa 2,302 35% 22 Ar- Ras 567 43% 27 Kafr Sur 1,172 33% 27 Kur 275 NA NA Kafr Zibad 1,131 29% 27 Kafr Jammal 2,544 42% 24 Kafr 'Abbush 1,529 22% 12 Source: (PHG, 2005)

3.6.2 Status of the Wastewater Networks

Parts of the sewage collection network in Tulkarm city was constructed during the rule of the Ottoman Empire in the 1890’s, and are still in use to this day. Some areas of the city center are still served by clay channels which are still act but suffer from cracks which cause leakage of wastewater to the ground. Wastewater generated by households is either transported by sewers to a central facility for sedimentation. Pre-treatment and disposal or wastewater is disposed of on-site by the use of cesspits. Wastewater collection services

(sewage networks) extend to 25 km and are available for about 75% of the localities within the Tulkarm municipality borders and refugee camps. The remaining 25% are served with cesspits, the contents of which are pumped by tanker trucks, transported and dumped into

Wadi Zeimar and open areas, accompanied by large amounts of harmful bacteria, viruses and undesired microorganisms, (Aliewi et al, 2013).

Anabta, Attil, and Zeita are partially served with wastewater network. In Anabta the percentage of served people does not exceed 50% and it reaches 80% in Zeita, but in Attil, it is 2% as a pilot project. The other communities in the governorate are not served by wastewater networks and depend on cesspits. The content of these cesspits is pumped and discharged into the nearest Wadis and open areas. This causes harmful pollution to the groundwater basin in the area as most of these cesspits are not sealed with concrete basement which enables the wastewater to percolate into the groundwater aquifer.

Chapter 4: Description of MYWAS/WEAP Model as a Planning Tool

4.1 Introduction

The WAS and MYWAS models are powerful and innovative tools that can be used in developing countries to economically optimize and analyze different water management options. In this chapter a detailed description of the concept of these models will be presented in addition to the input data needed to build the model.

4.2 Model Concept

Disputes over water usually occur when there is a shortage of water and the engineering or political solutions to secure additional sources are sought. Disputes over water may occur between two parties regardless of whether the parties are different countries, different states or regions, or different consumer types. There is another way of thinking about water problems and water disputes, a way that can lead to dispute resolution and optimal water management. That way involves thinking about the economics of water. The main concept of the water value is that water resources are scarce so that scarce resources have a value but that value shouldn’t be more than the cost of the desalination plus the conveyance cost from the seacoast for any country in disputes and has a seacoast. This means thinking about water by analyzing water values and not just water quantities which imply the social and strategic values.

The model used and developed for the country-specific case of Palestine was the basic

WAS (Water Allocation System) model that was jointly developed by teams based in

Palestine, Jordan, Israel, the Netherlands and the United States (Fisher et al, 2005). This model has been expanded into MYWAS (the Multi-Year Water Allocation Model) which was developed by Professor Frank Fisher and Dr. Annette Huber-Lee, (Fisher and Huber-Lee,

2011). The major differences between MYWAS and WAS are twofold. First is that WAS optimizes the allocation of water for a single year. That year could be a current or future year.

MYWAS (Multi-year Water Allocation System) runs over sequences of years. The advantage of MYWAS is that it allows for more precise evaluations of timing of infrastructure, sequences of wet and dry years, operating policies for managing reservoirs and aquifers, as described above. The second major difference is that MYWAS was interfaced with WEAP

(Water Evaluation and Planning Model) of the Stockholm Environment Institute, whereas the

WAS has its own independent interface.

Both the WAS and the new MYWAS models are based on a key concept, i.e., that efficient and sustainable water management requires a system-wide approach that takes into account the special characteristics and values associated with water. MYWAS provides the tool for that approach, maximizing the net benefits to be obtained from the available water while taking into account the special social values of water as specified by the user. MYWAS considers water values (both private and social) and allows a systematic analysis of water issues. In particular, it permits the examination of the system-wide benefits and costs of proposed infrastructure projects and assists in the choosing of which ones to build, when to build them, and to what capacity.

The MYWAS/WEAP model allocates the flow of water to users in each governorate so as to produce the greatest net benefits for all people based on the data used and the assumptions made. Associated with these flows is a system of prices (shadow values) for water in different locations. These prices and the quantities of water allocated are those that a competitive market would reach if demand considerations included both the private willingness to pay and the social value of water as reflected in social policies.

In this context, it is important to note two fundamental concepts underlying the model.

First, it is the scarcity of water, and not just its importance for sustaining human life, that

gives water its value. Where water is very scarce, such scarcity is reflected in a private willingness to pay relatively large sums for small amounts of water. Where water is somewhat more abundant, the value of a unit of water is lower.

Second, water can have a social value that goes beyond its private value. For example, in a country where agriculture is socially desirable, (but not necessarily profitable to the public), the government may decide to subsidize water for agriculture. This subsidy reflects an excess of the social value of water over its private value. The MYWAS/WEAP model explicitly allows for such social values to be taken into account. Also, MYWAS/WEAP enables the user to impose his or her own values and constraints on the model and then optimize net benefits subject to those constraints.

The model is based on annual average conditions. The study area is divided into clusters, with data for supply, demand, and water treatment. In addition, data on the conveyance between each pair of governorates, whether by pipeline or natural means, is used in the model. Water supply includes both fresh water and recycled water. The fresh water supply is the average annual renewable quantity. Another potentially important supply source is desalinated seawater; this possibility may be investigated easily with the model. The costs of water extraction, transportation between governorates, recycling, and desalination are taken into account and play an important role. The model considers water demand by households, industry, and agriculture.

It is important in the use of the model to be able to differentiate between the concept of

“demand” and the concept of “consumption”. Demand means how much water users would want to consume if they could get it at the stated price. “Consumption” is an estimate of how much they will (or do) in fact consume given actual availability. Consumption includes supply features. Demand does not.

4.3 Net Benefits of Water

The demand curve in figure 4.1 shows the amount of water a hypothetical household would be willing to buy at various prices. The first few units are the amount used for the essential uses that are very valuable, while the latter units represent those used for purposes less essential, (WAS User Guide, 2008).

Figure 4.1: Demand Curve (WAS User Guide, 2008)

Consider the worth to the household of having a quantity of water (Q*). We ask how much that household would be willing to pay for the first small unit; the price is given by a point on the curve above the interval on the horizontal axis from 0 to 1. (Exactly where that point lies does not matter.) The amount to be paid (one unit times the price in question) is approximately the area of the leftmost vertical strip in figure 4.2. Similarly, the amount to be paid for the second unit can be approximated by the area of the second-to-left vertical strip, and so on until we reach Q'. As the size of the unit decreases, the total amount that the household would be willing to pay to get Q*, approaches the area under the demand curve to

the left of Q*, (WAS User Guide, 2008).

Figure 4.2: Marginal Cost Curve (WAS User Guide, 2008)

Now reinterpret figure 4.1 to represent the aggregate demand curve of all households in a governorate. The gross (private) benefits from the water flow Q* can then be represented as the total area under the demand curve to the left of Q*. (WAS User Guide, 2008)

To derive net benefits from Q*, we subtract the costs of providing Q*. This is illustrated in figure 4.2, where the line labeled "marginal cost" shows the cost of providing an additional unit. Additional units cost more as more expensive water sources are used. The area under the marginal cost curve to the left of Q* is the total cost of providing the flow, Q*, to the households involved. Thus the net benefit from providing Q* to these households is the

(shaded) area between the demand curve and the marginal cost curve, (WAS User Guide,

2008).

In order to deliver water so as to maximize net benefits, Q* (where the two curves intersect) is the amount that should be delivered. If one were to deliver an amount QL less than Q*, one would have a smaller shaded area reflecting the fact that households consuming

QL would be willing to pay more for additional units (marginal value) than the cost of such

* additional units (marginal cost). If one were to deliver an amount QH, greater than Q , then one would have a negative value (the darker area) to subtract from the shaded area reflecting the fact that households consuming QH would not be willing to pay the cost of providing the last few units. Hence Q* is the optimal amount of water to deliver, (WAS User Guide, 2008).

4.4 Input Data Needed

The data (actual and projected) are required for each year (or other time period). Such data include:

 Demand curves for water for each district or governorate and each user group (currently

households, agriculture, and industry). Demand curves do not mean quantities supplied,

but rather the value of water based on the quantity supplied to each water usage.

 Data on naturally occurring water sources (location, annual renewable flow, water quality,

costs of extraction, source type). The user must also specify how low the water supply for

each aquifer and storage facility will be allowed to go and what the end conditions are to

be.

 The nature, costs, and capacities of existing infrastructure.

 As described above, the user must specify a menu of possible infrastructure projects, such

as desalination plants, conveyance lines, treatment plants, or dams, their capital and

operating costs and their useful life.

 The user must also specify other things such as forecasts as to rainfall, the discount rate to

be used, and – most importantly – any policies or water values that are to be imposed on

the system. (All of these can be changed to see their effects.)

4.5 Demand Properties.

The first step in building the model is to specify the demand curve for each sector (urban, industrial, and agricultural). There are two features of demand curves that can be easily specified, one which affects the shape of the curve (more accurately, the elasticity of demand), and one that allows proportional changes to the curve. The demands in MYWAS are represented by a constant elasticity function of the form Q=MP-, where Q is quantity, P is price, and M and  are parameters. The parameter  is the absolute value of the elasticity of demand, and measures how responsive demand is to price.

In order to build the demand curve in the model the area is divided into clusters and a demand point was specified for each cluster. The demand curve can be built by specifying a quantity point, price point and elasticity for each cluster as shown in figure 4.3 below.

Figure 4.3: Demand Properties Menu

4.6 Water Supply Data

In the figure 4.4 below the water supply and resources data that should be entered and specified for the whole study area as groundwater resources and other supplies like water tankers and Mekorot. For the groundwater resources the maximum theoretical capacity of an aquifer can be specified for each source in the study area by the icon –“Storage Capacity”.

The icon “Initial Storage” is the amount of water stored in the aquifer at the beginning of the simulation. And a constraint can be put on the amount of water that is allowed to be withdrawn by the icon “Maximum Withdrawal” which means the maximum yearly quantity that can be withdrawn from an aquifer.

Figure 4.4: Supply Data Menu

4.7 Infrastructure

The transmission links from the water sources to the demand sites are in the current account model and can be defined by the icon “Existing Capacity” which represents how much these linking rules transmit in million cubic meters to the demand site from the specified sources. In addition, the losses from these transmission links can be entered by the icon “Losses” under the term “Leakage” as a percentage as shown in figure 4.5 below.

Figure 4.5: Transmission Links Menu

4.8 Cost

The cost data needed in the model are of two types: first type is the supply cost which means how much it costs the supplier to develop one cubic meter of water from the specified source. The figure 4.6 below shows that the cost icon is divided into four items:

 Variable operating cost: which means the variable (per unit of water) operating and

maintenance costs in NIS.

 Size-dependent capital cost: which means additional capital cost of withdrawing water

from aquifer as it is drawn down in NIS.

 Fixed capital cost: which means fixed capital cost of tapping a fossil aquifer in NIS.

 Fixed operating cost: which means annual operating and maintenance cost in NIS.

Figure 4.6: Supply Cost Menu

The second is the cost for the infrastructure and it also has four items the same as the previously mentioned items for the supply source, see figure 4.7. It is important to notice that the capital cost in the case of new pipes must be taken into consideration and if the pipes are old it depends on their life and if they are older than 40 years the capital cost will not be considered as the pipelines can no longer be used. And the pipelines that for example 10 years old, their capital cost will be decreased and should be calculated.

Figure 4.7: Infrastructure Cost Menu

Though the fixed price policies are beyond the scope of this research study, however, the program enables the users to specify a set of prices at which consumers must purchase each quantity of water. And it is possible to specify different systems of fixed prices for different governorates, different demand sectors, and different water qualities. The user is allowed to specify up to 5 different steps for each governorate, demand sector, and water type. There are, however, two rules must be obeyed in defining a fixed-price policy, (WAS User Guide,

2008).

1. Prices must increase as quantities do. You cannot have later quantities purchased at lower

prices than earlier quantities.

2. The system of fixed prices must be completed. This means:

 Prices must be specified for all water quantities. Hence the last “step” must extend to

999 MCM. Otherwise, the lower quantity will be taken as an upper bound on the

quantity available to that consumer.

 If a fixed-price policy is imposed for either water type and the demand sector in

question can use both water types, then you must also specify a fixed-price policy for

the other water type. For example, you cannot set prices for fresh water and say that

users can buy recycled water at whatever price it turns out to be. If you set prices only

for fresh water for agriculture, then agriculture in that governorate will not be able to

consume any recycled water, (WAS User Guide, 2008).

Chapter 5: Modeling of the Current Water Conditions in Tulkarm

Governorate

5.1 Introduction

The MYWAS/WEAP model is used in order to build the base year model (current account of year 2010) for Tulkarm Governorate. The governorate was divided into four clusters as shown in map 5.1 below. The clustering was done according to the water supply for each community and depending on the future vision of the Ministry of Local Government (MoLG) in its document (Joint Councils Strategy (2010-2014)) as shown in table 5.1 below. In order to collect the needed data for each community a questionnaire was prepared and filled out by each community in the governorate. The questionnaire is attached in annex 1. The data surveyed by the questionnaire was divided into three categories: supply sources and quantities data, infrastructure data, in addition to data on tariff and cost. Building the model and the data required will be discussed in details in the next sections of this chapter.

Table 5.1: Clustering of Tulkarm Governorate

Total Population Cluster Name Communities 2010 Akkaba, Qaffin, Nazlat 'Isa, An- Nazla Ash- Sharqiya, Baqa Ash- Sharqiya, An- Nazla Al -Wusta, Nazlat Abu- Nar, An- Deir Al Ghosoun 50,424 Nazla Al-Gharbiya, Zeita, Seida, 'Illar, 'Attil, Deir Al- Ghusun, Al- Jarushiya Khirbet Jubara, Ar- Ras, Kafr Sur, Kur, Kafr Zibad, Kafr Al Kafryyat 7,525 Jammal, Kafr 'Abbush Iktaba, Nur- Shams Camp, Tulkarm Camp, Dhinnaba, Tulkarm, Tulkarm Khirbet At -Tayyah, Izbat AL- Khilal, Kafa, Far'un, Shufa, Izbat 80,576 Shufa Bal'a, Anabta, Kafr Rumman, Kafr Al- Labad, Izbat Abu Anabta 26,995 Khamis, Al -Hafasa, Ramin, Saffarin, Beit Leid

Map 5.1: Clusters in Tulkarm Governorate

5.2 Data for the Base Year Model (Current Account)

The model of the current account consists of three sectors: domestic, industrial and agricultural. The three sectors are represented as demand points in each cluster. As mentioned in the previous chapter the needed data to build the current account model are:

5.2.1 Demand Properties

The demand properties should be identified for the three sectors by the demand curve for each sector. In order for the model to build the demand curve for the domestic use we need one point and the elasticity of the curve, to be sure that this point is on the curve the supply quantities should not be restricted, but this is not the case in West Bank, because for sure the supply is restricted and customers are not allowed to consume enough water at affordable price, except in two cities in the West Bank. These two cities are Tulkarm city which consumes an average of 120 l/c/d at price of 2.5 shekels and Qalqiliya city which consumes an average of 170 l/c/d at price of 1.55 shekels. The elasticity of the demand curve was calculated to be - 0.3. The demand properties for the industrial use were taken as 16% of the domestic use in the West Bank. The demand properties for the agriculture use in Tulkarm governorate is (12900) donums with (750) cubic meter of water need, (Personal

Communications MOA, 2014).

The figures from 5.2 to 5.4 below illustrate how the point of Tulkarm and the elasticity values of the demand curve for each sector were entered.

Figure 5.2: Demand Elasticity

Figure 5.3: Quantity point of Tulkarm City

Figure 5.4: Price Point of Tulkarm City

5.2.2 Water Supply Data

The next step of data entry is to enter the data related to the water supply, both in quantities and source of supply for Tulkarm Governorate. The following table 5.2 shows the data that was collected on the supply quantities and supply source for each community. We notice from the table that the supply sources in the governorate are groundwater and Mekorot and that the majority of the governorate are supplied from the groundwater and just 4 communities are supplied from Mekorot. The supply quantities vary from one community to another depending on the source of water supply. The communities that have their own groundwater well and network have more supply than that which do not have their own sources or that which are supplied from Mekorot. Note that these quantities are the supply quantities not the consumption quantities. The consumption quantities are lower because of the high percentage of UFW in the governorate in general and in Tulkarm city in particular.

Table 5.2: Water Supply Data

Population Supply Supply Cluster Name Locality Source (2010) (PCBS) Q (m3) (l/c/d)

Qaffin 8,801 Groundwater 549770 171 Nazlat 'Isa 2,449 Groundwater 90140 100 An- Nazla Ash-Sharqiya 1,589 Groundwater 100000 172 Baqa Ash -Sharqiya 4,304 Groundwater 170670 108 An- Nazla Al- Gharbiya 983 Groundwater 34000 95 Deir Al Zeita 2,993 Groundwater 190866 175 Ghusun Seida 3,074 Groundwater 68430 61 Illar 6,496 Groundwater 153529 65 Attil 9,484 Groundwater 476100 138 Deir Al-Ghusun 8,649 Groundwater 371329 118 Al- Jarushiya 978 Groundwater 39426 110 Total 49800 2244260 Bal'a 6,930 Groundwater 318782 126 Anabta Anabta, Kafr-Rumman 7,691 Groundwater 588000 209

Population Supply Supply Cluster Name Locality Source (2010) (PCBS) Q (m3) (l/c/d)

Kafr Al -Labad, Izbat Groundwater 100 4,440 163520 Abu- Khamis, Al- Hafasa

Ramin 1,895 Groundwater 59188 86 Saffarin 798 Beit Leid 5,241 Mekorot 155729 81 Total 26,995 1285219 Iktaba 2,797 Groundwater 195800 192 Nur Shams Camp 6,799 Tulkarm Camp 11,167 Dhinnaba Groundwater 6,358,859 241 Tulkarm Tulkarm 53,834 Kafa 424 Far'un 3,253 Groundwater 156600 132 Shufa, Izbat- Shufa 2,302 Groundwater 204400 243 Total 80,576 6915659 Ar- Ras 567 Mekorot 21546 104 Kafr Sur 1,172 Mekorot 91105 212 Al Kafriyat Kafr Zibad 1,131 Groundwater 55470 134 Kafr Jammal 2,544 Mekorot 77816 84 Kafr 'Abbush 1,529 Groundwater 59292 106 Total 7250 305229

5.2.3 Infrastructure

Each cluster was entered into the model as one demand point and every point was connected with water supply source by conveyance. The existing capacity of these conveyances is how much the supply quantity from each source. Table 5.3 below shows the quantities supplied to each cluster by the conveyances and the water losses from these conveyances

Table 5.3: Infrastructure data

Cluster Population (2010) Existing Losses Locality Source Name (PCBS) Capacity(m3) % Qaffin 8,801 Groundwater 549770 25% Nazlat 'Isa 2,449 Groundwater 90140 29% An- Nazla Ash- 1,589 100000 25% Sharqiya Groundwater Baqa Ash-Sharqiya 4,304 Groundwater 170670 15% Deir Al An Nazla Al- Gharbiya 983 Groundwater 34000 5% Ghusun Zeita 2,993 Groundwater 190866 13.5 Seida 3,074 Groundwater 68430 5% Illar 6,496 Groundwater 153529 4% Attil 9,484 Groundwater 476100 33% Deir Al- Ghusun 8,649 Groundwater 371329 29% Al- Jarushiya 978 Groundwater 39426 5% Total 49800 2244260 Bal'a 6,930 Groundwater 318782 35% Anabta, Kafr Rumman 7,691 Groundwater 588000 35% Kafr Al- Labad, Izbat Abu- Khamis, Al – 4,440 163520 20% Anabta Hafasa Groundwater Ramin 1,895 Groundwater 59188 21% Saffarin 798 Beit Leid 5,241 Mekorot 155729 33% Total 26,995 1285219 28% Iktaba 2,797 Groundwater 195800 45% Nur- Shams Camp 6,799 Tulkarm Camp 11,167 Dhinnaba Tulkarm 53,834 Groundwater 6,358,859 45% Tulkarm Khirbet At- Tayyah Izbat AL- Khilal Kafa 424 Far'un 3,253 Groundwater 156600 32% Shufa, Izbat –Shufa 2,302 Groundwater 204400 35% Total 80,576 6915659 Ar- Ras 567 Mekorot 21546 43% Al Kafriyat Kafr –Sur 1,172 Mekorot 91105 33%

Cluster Population (2010) Existing Losses Locality Source Name (PCBS) Capacity(m3) % Cisterns and Kur 275 8030 NA water tanks Groundwater Kafr- Zibad 1,131 55470 29% wells Kafr- Jammal 2,544 Mekorot 77816 42% Groundwater Kafr -'Abbush 1,529 59292 22% wells Total 7218 313259

5.2.4 Cost

The cost data is very important in building the model; we need two types of cost. First is the supply cost which means how much it cost the supplier to produce one cubic meter of water. In Tulkarm Governorate we have two supply sources: A) Groundwater from Western aquifer which it costs 2.3 NIS to produce one cubic meter and B) Mekorot which it costs the

Civil Council 2.6 NIS to buy one cubic meter from Mekorot Company. Second is the operation and maintenance cost and this is also divided into two types: one is the operation and maintenance supply cost which means how much it cost the supplier to pump one cubic meter and to transmit it to the supply point (reservoir) and the other is the operation and maintenance network cost which means how much it costs the supplier to operate the existing network and the service cost (it includes operation and maintenance cost and the administration cost). Table 5.4 shows the operation and maintenance supply cost and the operation and maintenance network cost for each community in Tulkarm Governorate.

Table 5.4: Supply Cost and the Network Cost

Supply Cost Network Cost Cluster Capital O & M Capital O & M Locality Name Variab Fixe variab variab Variabl Fixed fixed fixed le d le le e Qaffin 0.33 0.3 Nazlat 'Isa 1.5 0.1 An Nazla Ash - 1.5 Sharqiya 0.13 Baqa Ash - 1 Sharqiya 0.52 An- Nazla Deir Al AL- 1 Ghusun Gharbiya 0.1 Zeita 0.2 0.33 Seida 0.48 0.22 Illar 0.25 0.13 Attil 1.2 0.7 Deir Al - 0.37 Ghusun 0.63 Al Jarushiya 2.5 0.27 Total 0.31 Bal'a 1.4 0.94 Anabta, Kafr 0.65 Rumman 0.73 Kafr Al- Labad, Izbat Anabta Abu- 1.5 Khamis, Al – Hafasa 0.84 Ramin 2.8 1 Saffarin Beit Leid 2.6 1.52 Total 0.702

Supply Cost Network Cost Cluster Capital O & M Capital O & M Locality Name Variab Fixe variab variab Variabl Fixed fixed fixed le d le le e Iktaba 1.5 1.1 Nur -Shams Camp Tulkarm Camp Dhinnaba Tulkarm 0.37 0.17 Tulkarm Khirbet At- Tayyah Izbat Al - Khilal Kafa Far'un 1.4 0.35 Shufa, Izbat 2 Shufa 0.15 Total 0.4425 0.3 2.6 Ar- Ras 5 Kafr Sur 2.6 0.5 Al Kafr Zibad 3.5 0.5 Kafriyat 0.3 2.6 Kafr Jammal 5 Kafr 'Abbush 3.8 0.5 Total 0.475

Figure 5.5 shows the current situation model (current account model) for Tulkarm

Governorate. The model consists of four demand points (one demand point for each cluster), two supply sources which are groundwater (Western Aquifer) and Mekorot, and conveyance lines between the demand points and the supply sources for each demand point or cluster.

Map 5.2: Schematic of the Current Account model

Chapter Six: Future Proposed Scenarios and Management Options

6.1 Introduction

In this chapter we proposed three future scenarios under each scenario different water management options were analyzed. These three scenarios considered not only the political uncertainty but also the economic uncertainty both being the two main driving forces to the development and the shape of the Palestinian future water sector. The main assumptions behind these scenarios are presented in the next section.

6.2 Future Proposed Scenarios

The degree of uncertainty in the water sector in Palestine is very high due to the fact that

Palestinian water rights are still a subject for the final status negotiations. For that, any future water plans ought to consider different scenarios. Three future proposed scenarios are considered in this thesis to cover all potential future elements. These scenarios are:

1. Status Quo Scenario

This scenario means that the existing situation remains the same, which means no full peace is achieved and the Palestinians suffer from the political constraints on the water resources. The limited financial resources constraint the sustainable development of the water resources. The lack of the Israeli cooperation in some regional projects and the difficulty in getting the permits to implement important projects make the Palestinian environment suffers from the Pollution and accordingly deteriorated.

2. Full Application of Oslo Agreement Scenario

In this scenario we assumed that the Oslo agreement is fully applied and this means additional quantities of water will be allocated to the Palestinians. These quantities are based on the fact that the Israel would fulfill its obligations according to the Oslo Agreement for the interim period. The water resources development will continue to be dependent on the financial support from the donors and the cooperative projects will remain small-scale. The economic situation will enhance in this scenario in respect to the status Quo scenario because of the donors support.

3. Water Spring Scenario

This scenario is the most optimistic scenario in which we assumed economic growth and peace in the Middle East area, although the pressure on the natural water resources due to the population growth rate and the increasing water demand the water resources sustainable development can be achieved by the available financial resources and overall awareness. In this scenario the Palestinians will be able to have their own state and accordingly will be able to develop their own water resources according to the International Water Laws.

6.3 Management Options

Based on the above assumed future scenarios a set of management options were developed to meet the demand under each scenario. The following is a rational discussion of these management options.

1. Development of New Renewable Water Resources

This management option is to develop the Palestinian renewable water resources by either drilling new wells or rehabilitation of the old wells to increase their productivity. This management option in Tulkarm governorate is very important to apply especially in the status quo scenario to fulfill the gap between the supply and demand.

2. Wastewater Reuse

The reuse of wastewater in Palestine is essential and agriculture inevitably plays a key economic, social and political role in all plans for rebuilding the Palestinian economy.

Agriculture can create incomes and jobs, can provide independent food security, and contribute to poverty reduction. Therefore, agricultural use of treated wastewater is important, but the lack of funding and the rejection by farmers are the main obstacles for this option in the three scenarios.

3. Rainwater Harvesting

This option is suitable to the three scenarios as it allows the Palestinian to get more water quantities without the need for the cooperation from the Israeli side, in Tulkarm governorate there are Wadi Altein and Wadi Zeimar that their water discharge can be utilized.

4. Water Import

This management option is essential to fill the shortage of water especially in the Status

Quo scenario in which no additional water quantities will be utilized from the groundwater because of the political situation and the difficulty to get the permission to drill new groundwater wells in the Western Aquifer Basin, as a result Palestinians will be forced to buy water from the Israeli National Water Carrier company “Mekorot”.

5. Water Demand Management

This management option is important to better use of the existing resources rather than developing new one. The water demand management includes some actions in order to achieve objects such as: economic efficiency, social development, social equity, and environmental protection, sustainability of water supply and services, and political acceptability. These actions may include:

- Conservation policy

- Campaigns to raise awareness

- Reducing the physical loss

- Price incentives

- Intra-district management and inter-district management

6.4 Quantification of Management Options

The quantities of water that we assumed for each management option under each scenario are presented in table 6.1 below. The data for the Status Quo Scenario are the same for the

Full Application of Oslo Agreement Scenario and this is because the Tulkarm Governorate lies on the Western Aquifer Basin that in the Existing situation takes its share of water referred to in the Oslo Agreement while the other Basins in Palestine still abstract water less than their share referred to in the Oslo agreement. The quantities in the third scenario are based upon that the Palestinians will have their own state and the economic situation get enhanced until the 2032, which increase the investment in large scale projects and high-tech projects. The time horizon for the three scenarios was taken up to 2032 and divided into three phases (2017, 2025, 2032).

Table 6.1: Proposed Quantities for each Management Option under each Scenario in (MCM)

Scenario Management Options 2017 2025 2032

1. Development of New 0 2 3 Renewable Water Resources 2. Wastewater Reuse 0 1 2 1. Status Quo 3. Rainwater Harvesting 0.5 1 1.5 4. Water Import 0.5 1 2 5. Demand Management 1.4 1.6 2.2 1. Development of New 0 2 3 Renewable Water Resources 2. Full Application of 2. Wastewater Reuse 0 1 2 Oslo Agreement 3. Rainwater Harvesting 0.5 1 1.5 4. Water Import 0.5 1 2 5. Demand Management 1.4 1.6 2.2 1. Development of New 5 15 30 Renewable Water Resources 2. Wastewater Reuse 1.5 2.5 5 3. Water Spring 3. Rainwater Harvesting 1 1.5 4 4. Water Import 0 0 0 5. Demand Management 2.1 3.4 5.3 Source: PWA, 2014

6.5 Estimated Future Water Demand

In 2013 the Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) endorsed the Water Strategy that includes two phases; short term phase (2012-2017) and the long term phase (2017-2032). This document included the estimated water demands for Public use (domestic, commercial, municipal, industrial... etc.) and agricultural for both Gaza and the West Bank. In addition to the proposed options to meet these demands including imported water from Mekorot, groundwater, surface water, desalination, rainwater harvesting and re-allocation of conventional water resources.

Table 6.2: Estimated Public Water Demands for Tulkarm Governorate

2012 2017 2022 2027 2032

6.9 9.6 14.3 19.8 25.8

Source: Palestinian Water Authority, Water Strategy, 2013

For overall planning purposes, MoA recommends the use of an average figure of 600 m3/donum/year as the water requirements per donum in West Bank. This figure was calculated taking into account the recent considerable development of drip irrigation.

Table 6.3: Estimated Agricultural Water Demands

2012 2017 2022 2027 2032

3.3 9.9 11.9 14.3 17.1

Source: Palestinian Water Authority, Water Strategy, 2013

6.6 Population Growth Rate

The population of Palestine has been increasing at a very high rate for the last ten years:

3.5 %/year (PCBS, 2010). The growth rate will remain very high over the coming years, but is expected to slow down slightly as a result of changes in education and family structure, as has been observed in other Mediterranean countries.

6.7 Description of Runs

In this section a full description of the scenarios and the management options under each scenario will be presented in terms of quantities and cost.

6.7.1 Status Quo Scenario

Under this scenario three time steps were taken (2017, 2025, and 2032), for each time step a number of management options were taken as follows:

1. Status Quo until 2017

The management options that can be taken until 2017 in Tulkarm Governorate are rainwater harvesting, water import from Mekorot, and demand management. The quantities and cost data for these three management options are shown in tables 6.4 and 6.5 respectively.

Table 6.4: Quantities for Management options for each cluster until 2017

Cluster Management Options Deir Al Ghusun Tulkarm Anabta Al Kafriyyat * 1. Rainwater Harvesting 0.16 0.24 0.08 0.02 ** 2. Water Import 0 0 0.25 0.25 *** 3. Demand Management 0.04 0.9 0.17 0.29

*: (Pop. For each cluster/total population)* the quantity proposed in table 6.1

**: Assumed 50% of the proposed quantity in table 6.1

***: 10% of the available Water Resources for each cluster in the specified year

Table 6.5: Capital and Operational Cost for Management Options for each Cluster until 2017

Deir Al Ghusun Tulkarm Anabta Al Kafriyyat

Management Capital Capital Capital Capital Operational Operational Operational Operational Options Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost (Million (Million (Million (Million NIS/M3 NIS/M3 NIS/M3 NIS/M3 NIS) NIS) NIS) NIS) 1. Rainwater 40 0 60 0 20 0 5 0 Harvesting1 2. Water 0 2.6 0 2.6 0 2.6 0 2.6 Import2 3. Demand 0.028 0 0.63 0 0.119 0 0.203 0 Management3

1: Capital cost: 250 NIS/m3*Quantity, Operational cost: zero

2: Capital cost =0, Operational cost: the Mekorot price for one cubic meter

3: Capital cost: 0.7 NIS/ m3*Quantity

2. Status Quo Scenario until 2025

In this phase we assumed that an extra quantity of water can be utilized from the Western

Aquifer Basin, wastewater reuse, rainwater harvesting, water import from Mekorot, and demand management options can be applied until 2025. The tables 6.6 and 6.7 below show the data for the quantities and cost respectively.

Table 6.6: Quantities for Management options for each cluster until 2025

Cluster Management Options Deir Al Ghusun Tulkarm Anabta Al Kafriyyat 1. Development of New Renewable 0 2 0 0 Water Resources 2. Wastewater Reuse 0 0 1 0 3. Rainwater Harvesting 0.04 0.49 0.16 0.30 4. Water Import 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 5. Demand Management 0.33 1.03 0.19 0.05

Table 6.7: Capital and Operational Cost for Management Options for each Cluster until 2025

Deir Al Ghusun Tulkarm Anabta Al Kafriyyat Capital Capital Capital Capital Management Operationa Operationa Operationa Operationa Cost Cost Cost Cost Options l Cost l Cost l Cost l Cost (Millio (Millio (Millio (Millio NIS/M3 NIS/M3 NIS/M3 NIS/M3 n NIS) n NIS) n NIS) n NIS) 1.Developmen t of New Renewable 0 0 7 0.7 0 0 0 0 Water Resources a 2.Wastewater 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 Reuse 3. Rainwater 10 0 122.5 0 40 0 75 0 Harvesting 4. Water 0 2.6 0 0 0 2.6 0 2.6 Import 5. Demand 0.231 0 0.721 0 0.133 0 0.035 0 Management a: Capital cost: 3.5 NIS/ m3*Quantity, Operational cost: variable (per unit of water) operating and maintenance cost (0.7 NIS/ m3 in Tulkarm Governorate).

3. Status Quo Scenario until 2032

In this phase until 2032 we assumed that more water can be utilized from the Western

Aquifer Basin in Tulkarm governorate and also more water will be used in agriculture from wastewater reuse, the quantities and the cost for the five management options are represented in the tables 6.8 and 6.9 respectively.

Table 6.8: Quantities for Management options for each cluster until 2032

Cluster Scenario Management Options Deir Al Tulkarm Anabta Al Kafriyyat Ghusun 1. Development of New 1.5 0 0 1.5 Renewable Water Resources 2. Wastewater Reuse 0 1.5 0.5 0 Status Quo 3. Rainwater Harvesting 0.45 0.70 0.25 0.10 4. Water Import 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 5. Demand Management 0.46 1.4 0.26 0.08

Table 6.9: Capital and Operational Cost for Management Options for each Cluster until 2032

Deir Al Ghusun Tulkarm Anabta Al Kafriyyat

Capital Capital Capital Capital Management Cost Operational Cost Operational Cost Operational Cost Operational Options (Million Cost NIS/M3 (Million Cost NIS/M3 (Million Cost NIS/M3 (Million Cost NIS/M3 NIS) NIS) NIS) NIS)

1.Development of New Renewable 5.25 0.7 0 0 0 0 5.25 0.7 Water Resources 2. Wastewater 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 Reuse 3. Rainwater 112.5 0 175 0 62.5 0 25 0 Harvesting

4. Water Import 0 2.6 0 2.6 0 2.6 0 2.6 5. Demand 0.322 0 0.98 0 0.182 0 0.056 0 Management

6.7.2 Full Application of Oslo Agreement Scenario

The data entered under this scenario is the same as the data under the Status Quo scenario because the Tulkarm governorate lies on the Western Aquifer Basin which in the existing situation takes its share of water referred to in the Oslo Agreement while the other basins in

Palestine still abstract water less than their share referred to in the Oslo Agreement.

6.7.3 Water Spring Scenario

Under this scenario three time steps were taken (2017, 2025, and 2032), for each time step a number of management options were taken. As we mentioned earlier this scenario is the most optimistic scenario that suppose an economic growth and peace in the region as a result the management options under this scenario will be emphasis on developing more new renewable water resources and to use treated wastewater in agriculture, while the management option of importing water from Mekorot, will not exist as a consequence.

1. Water Spring Scenario until 2017

The tables 6.10 and 6.11 represent the quantities and the capital and operational cost for the management options under this scenario until the year 2017 respectively. The tables 6.12 and 6.13 represent the quantities and the capital and operational cost for the management options under this scenario until the year 2025 respectively. The tables 6.14 and 6.15 represent the quantities and the capital and operational cost for the management options under this scenario until the year 2032 respectively. We note from these data that we emphasized on developing more water from the groundwater and to reuse the treated wastewater in agriculture.

Table 6.10: Quantities for Management Options for each Cluster until 2017

Cluster Management Options Deir Al Ghusun Tulkarm Anabta Al Kafriyyat

1. Development of New Renewable Water 0 3 1 1 Resources 2. Wastewater Reuse 0 1.5 0 0 3. Rainwater Harvesting 0.305 0.49 0.16 0.045 4. Water Import 0 0 0 0 5. Demand Management 0.44 1.35 0.25 0.06

Table 6.11: Capital and Operational Cost for Management Options for each Cluster until 2017

Deir Al Ghusun Tulkarm Anabta Al Kafriyyat Capital Capital Capital Capital Management Operational Operational Operational Operationa Cost Cost Cost Cost Options Cost Cost Cost l Cost (Million (Millio (Million (Millio NIS/M3 NIS/M3 NIS/M3 NIS/M3 NIS) n NIS) NIS) n NIS) 1.Development of New Renewable 0 0 10.5 0.7 3.5 0.7 3.5 0.7 Water Resources 2. Wastewater 0 0 0.75 0.5 0 0 0 0 Reuse 3. Rainwater 76.25 0 122.5 0 40 0 11.25 0 Harvesting 4. Water Import 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Demand 0.308 0 0.945 0 0.175 0 0.042 0 Management

2. Water Spring Scenario until 2025

Table 6.12: Quantities for Management options for each cluster until 2025

Cluster Management Options Deir Al Ghusun Tulkarm Anabta Al Kafriyyat 1. Development of New Renewable Water 3 6 3 3 Resources 2. Wastewater Reuse 0 1.5 1 0 3. Rainwater Harvesting 0.45 0.73 0.25 0.07 4. Water Import 0 0 0 0 5. Demand Management 0.7 2.2 0.4 0.1

Table 6.13: Capital and Operational Cost for Management Options for each Cluster until 2025

Deir Al Ghusun Tulkarm Anabta Al Kafriyyat

Capital Capital Capital Capital Operational Operational Operational Operational Management Options Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost (Million (Million (Million (Million NIS/M3 NIS/M3 NIS/M3 NIS/M3 NIS) NIS) NIS) NIS)

1. Development of New Renewable 10.5 0.7 21 0.7 10.5 0.7 10.5 0.7 Water Resources

2. Wastewater Reuse 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0

3. Rainwater 112.5 0 182.5 0 62.5 0 17.5 0 Harvesting

4. Water Import 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Demand 0.49 0 1.54 0 0.28 0 0.07 0 Management

3. Water Spring Scenario until 2032

Table 6.14: Quantities for Management options for each cluster until 2032

Cluster Management Options Deir Al Ghusun Tulkarm Anabta Al Kafriyyat 1. Development of New Renewable Water 6 12 6 6 Resources 2. Wastewater Reuse 1 1.5 1.5 1 3. Rainwater Harvesting 1.2 2 0.65 0.18 4. Water Import 0 0 0 0 5. Demand Management 1.1 3.4 0.65 0.15

Table 6.15: Capital and Operational Cost for Management Options for each Cluster until 2032

Deir Al Ghusun Tulkarm Anabta Al Kafriyyat

Capital Capital Capital Capital Operatio Operatio Operation Management Options Cost Cost Cost Operational Cost nal Cost nal Cost al Cost (Million (Million (Million Cost NIS/M3 (Million NIS/M3 NIS/M3 NIS/M3 NIS) NIS) NIS) NIS)

1.Development of New 21 0.7 42 0.7 21 0.7 21 0.7 Renewable Water Resources

2.Wastewater Reuse 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

3. Rainwater Harvesting 300 0 500 0 162.5 0 45 0

4. Water Import 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Demand Management 0.77 0 2.38 0 0.455 0 0.105 0

Chapter Seven: Results and Discussion

7.1 Results of the Current Account

The detailed data entered for the current account were presented in chapter 5, after running the model a set of results were obtained as following:

7.1.1 Shadow Values After running the current account model we get the following shadow values for each cluster shown in figure 7.1 and in table 7.1. There are large differences between clusters – notably Deir al Ghusun and Tulkarm, with a difference of about 6 NIS indicating the possible benefits in conveying water from Tulkarm cluster to Deir al Ghusun cluster. These shadow values means each cluster in the governorate is willing to pay this price to get one cubic meter of water as an extra. For example in Al Kafriyyat cluster the shadow value is 10 NIS in 2010 which means that they are willing to pay 10 shekels for getting cubic meter more than what they already have which is the price of the tanked water. Also the other clusters have high shadow values which mean that there is a shortage of water in these clusters that do not meet the demand of the users especially in the domestic use. This reflects the current situation in most of the communities in Tulkarm Governorate.

Figure 7.1: Shadow Values for each cluster in Tulkarm Governorate.

Table 7.1: Shadow Values for each cluster in Tulkarm Governorate.

Demand Site Shadow Value (NIS)

Cluster 2010 2011 2012 2013 Al Kafriyyat 10.19 9.43 10.01 10.29

Anabta 11.45 9.36 10.19 11.1

Deir al Ghusun 12.71 14.19 15.46 16.85

Tulkarm 6.02 5.83 6.35 6.92

Tulkarm Agriculture 3.29 3.29 3.29 3.29

7.1.2 Affordability to pay

The affordability to pay can be defined as the amount of income someone is willing to forego to obtain a certain service. In more precisely it can be expressed as the share of utility payments in total household expenditures. In order to estimate the affordability to pay in

Tulkarm governorate we assume that 3-5% of the average income is what a household in

Tulkarm governorate can pay for the water and wastewater bills. The average income in the

Tulkarm governorate is 800 US$ which is equal to around 3000 NIS and the average

household size in Tulkarm governorate is 6 persons, if we assume that 5% of the average income is paid for both the water and wastewater bills equally this means that each household in Tulkarm can pay 75 NIS for water bill as well as for the wastewater bill. The average consumption for the household is 18 m3/month this means that the household can pay 4

NIS/m3and this is higher than the average price of water in Tulkarm governorate which means that the water in Tulkarm is affordable.

7.1.3 Unaccounted for Water in Tulkarm Governorate

To calculate the unaccounted for water in Tulkarm governorate we should know exactly the amount of water that has been delivered for each cluster from each source of supply and the amount of outflow from each source (supply). Tables 7.2 and 7.3 represent the quantities delivered by the model to each cluster from the groundwater and other supply (Mekorot) respectively.

Table 7.2: Groundwater Outflows to the Clusters in Tulkarm Governorate

Groundwater Outflows (Million Cubic Meter) 2010 2011 2012 2013 Sum Natural Recharge 361.00 361.00 361.00 361.00 1444.00 Outflow to Al –Kafriyyat -0.20 -0.20 -0.20 -0.20 -0.80 Outflow to Anabta -1.13 -2.00 -2.00 -2.00 -7.13 Outflow to Deir Al- Ghusun -2.24 -3.00 -3.00 -3.00 -11.24 Outflow to Tulkarm -6.91 -7.50 -7.50 -7.50 -29.41 Outflow to Tulkarm Agriculture -4.94 -4.94 -4.94 -4.94 -19.75 Overflow -345.58 -343.37 -343.37 -343.37 -1375.68

Table 7.3: Outflows from the other Supply to the Clusters in Tulkarm Governorate

Other Supply Outflows (Million Cubic Meter) 2010 2011 2012 2013 Sum Outflow -10.69 -14.05 -17.11 -20.16 -62.01 Outflow to Al- Kafriyyat -0.19 -0.41 -0.43 -0.46 -1.49 Outflow to Anabta -0.15 -0.04 -0.12 -0.20 -0.52 Yearly Inflow 11.04 14.51 17.66 20.81 64.02 Sum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

The supply quantities delivered for each cluster in Tulkarm Governorate are as shown in table 7.4. The water loss in the systems are calculated in table 7.5 which shows that there is a high percentage of water loss in most of clusters of the Tulkarm Governorate, which represents the current situation.

Table 7.4: Supply Delivered to the Cluster from all the Sources without Loss

Supply Delivered (Cubic Meter)

2010 2011 2012 2013 Sum

Al- Kafriyyat 0.27 0.3 0.30 0.30 1.18 Anabta 0.92 1.064 1.064 1.064 4.11 Deir Al- Ghusun 1.64 1.68 1.68 1.68 6.68 Tulkarm 3.53 3.82 3.82 3.82 14.99 Tulkarm Agriculture 4.94 4.94 4.94 4.94 19.76 Sum 11.2878 11.8021 11.80311 11.8123 46.70531

Table 7.5: Losses in the Systems

Quantities Delivered by Model not Outflows from Cluster Name Losses Included Loss (MCM/yr) Water Resources

Deir Al- Ghosoun 1.64 2.24 27%

Al –Kafriyyat 0.27 0.39 30%

Tulkarm 3.53 6.91 49%

7.2 Results of the Status Quo Scenario As we mentioned in the previous chapter the Status Quo scenario is representing the current situation to expand as it is, so we run the model for the year 2032 without adding any additional quantities of water in Tulkarm governorate, figure 7.2 below represents the shadow values for the clusters in Tulkarm governorate. We notice from this figure that the shadow values are very high in the year 2032 which means that this scenario is unfeasible. As a result

a set of management options should be taken to tackle the shortage of water resources in the governorate. The runs of these management options will be discussed in detail in the next sections:

Figure 7.2: Shadow Values for the Status Quo Scenario

7.2.1 Results of the Status Quo Scenario and the Management Options until year 2017 Under this scenario until the year 2017 the management options that can be achieved are the rainwater harvesting, the water import from Mekorot, and to apply a demand management policy in the governorate. The figure 7.3 represent the shadow values for the Status Quo

Scenario after applying all the management options mentioned above, we notice from this figure that the shadow values are lower than the previous in all of the clusters but there is still a problem of water shortage in the governorate in general and specifically in Deir Al Ghusun cluster as the shadow prices there are still high (more than 12 shekels) which means the people in this cluster are willing to buy water from tanked water.

Figure 7.3: Shadow Values for the Status Quo Scenario until 2017

7.2.2 Results of the Status Quo Scenario and the Management Options until year 2025 Under this scenario until the year of 2025, the five management options can be achieved as we can develop 2 Mcm from the Western Aquifer Basin in Tulkarm and to reuse 1 Mcm treated wastewater in Anabta. Figure 7.4 represents the shadow values for all clusters in

Tulkarm governorate. We notice from this figure that the shadow values are lower in all of the clusters especially the Deir Al Ghusun cluster as it gets more water from Mekorot and demand management policy.

Figure 7.4: Shadow Values for Status Quo scenario until year 2025

7.2.3 Results of the Status Quo Scenario and the Management Options until year 2032 Under this scenario until year 2032, the five management options can be achieved as we can develop more water from the Western Aquifer Basin in Deir Al Ghusun and Al Kafriyat clusters and reuse 2 Mcm treated wastewater in Anabta and Tulkarm clusters. Figure 7.5 below represents the shadow values for all clusters in Tulkarm governorate. We notice from this figure that the shadow prices are lower than before which means that applying these management options make the situation better in Tulkarm governorate until the year 2032.

Figure 7.5: Shadow Values for the Status Quo Scenario until 2032 79

7.3 Results of the Water Spring Scenario

7.3.1 Results of the Water Spring Scenario and the Management Options until year 2017

Under this scenario until the year 2017, the management options that can be achieved are developing new renewable water from Western aquifer Basin, Wastewater reuse, rainwater harvesting and demand management policy. Figure 7.6 below represents the shadow values for all the clusters in Tulkarm governorate. We notice from this figure that the shadow values get lowered especially in Anabta and Al Kafriyyat clusters due to drilling more water from

Western Aquifer Basin, and the shadow values are still higher than 10 NIS in the Deir Al

Ghusun cluster which means that the cluster still suffers from lack of water resources.

Figure 7.6: Shadow Values for Water Spring Scenario until year 2017

7.3.2 Results of the Water Spring Scenario and the Management Options until year 2025

Under this scenario and until year 2025, also all the management options can be achieved with more quantities from Western Aquifer Basin, wastewater reuse, rainwater harvesting and the demand management policy. Figure 7.7 below represents the shadow values for each cluster in the Tulkarm Governorate. These shadow values are lower than before which means

that the water shortage in Tulkarm governorate is partially solved by achieving these management options.

Figure 7.7: Shadow Values for Water Spring Scenario until year 2025

7.3.3 Results of the Water Spring Scenario and the Management Options until year 2032

Under this scenario and until the year 2032, all of the management options will also applied with more quantities. Figure 7.8 below represents the shadow values for each cluster in Tulkarm Governorate. The average shadow value for domestic uses is 5 NIS which is reasonable and somehow affordable and 3.25 NIS for agricultural uses.

Figure 7.8: Shadow Values for Water Spring Scenario until year 2032

Chapter Eight: Conclusions and Recommendations

8.1 Conclusions

Based on the results of the three scenarios in the previous chapter and the management options taken under each scenario, the following are the main conclusions that we can draw:

1. Under the Status Quo scenario, it is obvious that the existing conditions cannot continue

into the future as the shadow values reach to very high values around 85 NIS and more.

The set of management options taken under this scenario were efficient in solving the

problem as it lower the shadow values to around 6.5 NIS.

2. Under the Oslo scenario, as mentioned in the chapter six that no difference between the

Status Quo scenario and the Oslo Scenario because no additional water quantities will be

added to the Palestinians from the Western Aquifer Basin, because in the existing situation

the amount of discharged water from the Western Aquifer Basin exceed the Palestinians’

share according to the Oslo agreement.

3. Under the Water Spring scenario, the shadow values are accepted and feasible. The

average for domestic is 5 NIS and for the Agriculture is 3.25 NIS.

4. The wastewater in Tulkarm governorate is a necessary management option in the three

proposed scenarios, and accordingly the water reallocation from the agriculture sector to

the domestic sector is very important and feasible.

5. Rainwater harvesting is a preferable management option especially in the clusters that

suffer from shortage of water, as it has low maintenance and operation cost.

6. Demand management option is very important in the three scenarios as it saves around 8-

10 % of the available water quantities and respectively it reduces the average shadow

values of the water in the three scenarios.

8.2 Recommendations

Based on the above conclusions, the following recommendations can be drawn:

1. The wastewater reuse is very important to implement in West Bank and Palestinian Water

Authority should consider it in its strategic planning.

2. More precise data is needed to build an accurate demand curve in West Bank, so that I

suggest that Palestinian Water Authority in cooperation with the Ministry of Agriculture to

develop the demand curve for both domestic and agriculture sectors.

3. Tulkarm municipality in cooperation with the Palestinian Water Authority should build a

leak reduction program to reduce the losses in Tulkarm Governorate as it is very high in all

of the clusters.

4. The MyWAS/WEAP model should be adapted from the PWA as a planning tool, and to

continue on this work to test further scenarios and management options for efficient water

resources management.

References

Abu Hantash S., 2007. Development of Sustainable Management Options for the West

Bank Water Resources using WEAP, An-Najah National University.

Aleiwi A., Imseih N.and Abdulghafour D., 2013. Protecting the Groundwater

Environment of Tulkarm City of Palestine from Industrial and Domestic Pollution.

Journal of Environmental Protection, 4, 27-39 Published Online November 2013

(http://www.scirp.org/journal/jep) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jep.2013.411A2004.

ARIJ, Applied Research Institute- Jerusalem, 1996. Environment Profile for the West

Bank, Volume 8: Tulkarm Governorate.

Fisher F., 2002. The Economics of Water Dispute Resolution, Project Evaluation and

Management: An Application to the Middle East. Water Resources Development,

Vol. 11, No. 4, pp 377-390.

Fisher F., 2005. Water Management Infrastructure, Negotiations and Cooperation: Use of

the WAS Model.

Fisher F. and Huber-Lee A., 1998. Water for Peace: A Game Changer for Israel, Palestine,

and the Middle East.

Fisher F. and Huber-Lee A., 2011. Sustainability Efficient Management and Conflict

Resolution in Water. The Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International

Relations, 19-34.

Fisher F. and Huber-Lee A., 2009. WAS-Guided Cooperation in Water: the Grand

Coalition and Sub-Coalitions. Environment and Development Economics, Vol.14,

Special Issue 01, February 2009, pp 89-115.

Fisher F. and Huber-Lee A., 2012. Using Economics for Sustainability, Efficient

Management, and Conflict Resolution in Water. Public Economics, no 26-27 –

2011/1-2.

Fisher F. and Huber-Lee A., 2005. Sustainability, Efficient Management, and Conflict

Resolution in Water.

Fisher F., Huber-Lee A, Amir I., Arlosoroff S., Eckstein Z., Haddadin M., Hamati S.,

Jarrar A., Jayyousi A., Shamir U., and Wesseling H., 2005. An Economic

Approach for Water Management and Conflict Resolution in the Middle East and

Beyond.

Khair A., Abu Mohor E., 2011. Status of Environment in the occupied Palestinian

territory, Chapter 5: Access to Water and Wastewater Management in the oPt.

Ministry of Agriculture, Personal Communications, Eng. Issam Nofal, Ramallah,

Palestine, 2013.

Ministry of Local Government, 2010. Joint Councils Strategy (2010-2014).

Palestinian Hydrology Group, 2005. Water for Life, Continued Israeli Assault on

Palestinian Water Sanitation and Hygiene during the Intifada.

- Palestinian Water Authority, 2010. Water Supply Report.

Palestinian Water Authority, 2009. Basic Needs and Development: Ongoing and Proposed

Activities by Governorate.

Palestinian Water Authority, Data Base of 2014.

Palestinian Water Authority, 2014. Strategic Water Resources and Transmission Plan.

Sanjaq L., 2009. The Use of Water Evaluation and Planning "WEAP" Program as a

Planning Tool for Jerusalem Water Undertaking "JWU" Service Area, An-Najah

National University.

World Bank, 2008. The Economic Effects of Restricted Access to Land in the West Bank.

Water Economics Project, 2008. WAS Version 3.6 User Guide.

http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/site/lang__en/881/default.aspx#Housing

Annex Questionnaire

انًحافظة : ......

انتاريخ: ...... عذد انسكاٌ : ......

اسى انتجًع: ...... يعذل اننًى : ......

سعر انبيع كهفة انًتر كًية انًياه انكًية انًشتراه نهتجًعات سعر انبيع 1 يصذر انتزود انًكعب انًباعة أو انًنتجة األخري نهجًهىر عهً انًزود نهجًهىر ) اٌ وجذ( ميكروث آببر بهذيت آببر زراعيت آببر دائرة انميبي وبع أببر تجميع ميبي انمطر

2 انًذيىنية انكًية )شيكم( يالحظات حجم مذيىويت انتجمع نذائرة

انميبي حجم مذيىويت انجمهىر نهتجمع

تكهفة 3 يكىنات نظاو انشبكة انحجى انتفاصيم االنشاء ) شيكم( بئر مبء شبكت ميبي _ خط رئيسي شبكت داخهيت خسان محطت ضخ عذد انىصالث انمىسنيت عذد انىصالث غير انمىسنيت

4 وضع شبكة انًياه يالحظات عمر انشبكت وسبت انفبقذ هم يىجذ آببر بحبجت نتأهيم هم تحتبج انشبكت انى تأهيم هم تحتبج انشبكت نتىسعت

5 تكهفة انصيانة يالحظات عمبل صيبوت تشغيم _ ضخ قطع غيبر مىاد كيمبويت

6 انصرف انصحي يالحظات هم يىجذ شبكت صرف صحي وسبت انتغطيت مكبن اانتخهص مه انميبي

انعبدمت