Wadi Zeimar Alexander River Progress report OPTIMA Optimisation

Wadi Zeimar – Alexander River Progress report OPTIMA Optimisation for Sustainable Water Management Gumpoldskirchen, Austria, May 18 -19, 2006 1

OPTIMA – 4 rd Board Meeting Wadi Zeimar – Alexander river Progress report Nir Becker Eran Friedler Marwan Haddad Nancy Rumman Research assistant: Aviad Kahana 2

3

Outline • • Background Integration GIS presentation Scenarios Benefit estimation 2005 scenario results Cooperation 4

Introduction: Alexander - Zeimar Catchment - Orientation Map 5

The Test case: Alexander - Zeimar River The River runs for about 44 km from the western side of the Mountain Belt across cultivated areas and past towns of the Coastal Plain to the Mediterranean Sea. 6

202 197 192 Tulkarem Natania Kalanswa 187 Taibe Tira 182 Nablus Kochav Yair km 5 7 177 136 141 146 151 156 161 166 171

8

Line Green Ap pr Schematic Representation of Wadi Zeimar Area oxi Tulkarem catchment ma te C atc h me nt Anabta catchment Bo und ary Sabastya catchment Nablus catchment 9

Added section: Vadi Zeimar 10

GIS Contribution Based on data from: – The meteorological central station – The geological institute – The ministry of Agriculture – The national center for mapping 11

Alexander - Zeimar Catchment 1930 - 1960 Data source: Israel Meteorological Service 12

Alexander - Zeimar Catchment, General Map View 13

Alexander - Zeimar Catchment, General Map Themes 14

Alexander - Zeimar Catchment, General Map Zoom-In West 15

Alexander - Zeimar Catchment, General Map Zoom-In East 16

Alexander - Zeimar Cat. , General Map Zoom-In Green Line 17

Alexander - Zeimar Catchment, Soil Groups and Precipitation 18

Alexander - Zeimar Catchment, Soil Groups 19

Alexander - Zeimar Catchment, Soil Groups Zoom-In 20

Alexander - Zeimar Catchment, Geology and Precipitation 21

Alexander - Zeimar Catchment, Geology 22

Alexander - Zeimar Catchment, Geology Zoom-In West 23

Alexander - Zeimar Catchment, Geology Zoom-In East 24

Precipitation 25

Total = 639. 5 mm DATE J. F. M. A. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 25. 5 36. 9 13. 5 2. 2 4. 6 24. 3 15. 3 0. 7 4. 2 1 0. 7 1 7. 3 16 6. 4 0. 4 0. 2 7. 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 16. 1 0. 6 8. 7 6. 6 0. 3 14 34 7 67. 9 7 3 3. 5 16. 6 8 1. 4 0. 3 1 2. 3 136. 2 24. 2 SUM 34. 7 230 M. J J A S O N 1. 2 0. 2 39. 9 1. 3 11. 1 1. 2 0 0 0. 4 0 30. 9 4. 3 0. 3 1. 6 1. 2 4. 2 0. 3 0. 8 30. 8 9. 2 40 24. 1 0. 5 45. 8 1 0. 4 D 152. 8 26 83. 6

Other meteorological data Month Temperature o. C Relative Humidity % Rain mm Penman Evapo -transpiration mm Wind speed km/hr Ave max Ave min Jan 12. 2 72 230. 0 61 4. 3 Feb 12. 8 6. 7 77 136. 2 65 4. 0 Mar 17. 4 7. 2 76 24. 2 99 3. 8 Apr 21. 9 12. 0 64 11. 1 130 3. 4 May 24. 0 14. 2 57 1. 2 150 3. 4 Jun 26. 2 16. 8 67 0 169 2. 9 Jul 28. 0 20. 5 63 0 180 2. 9 Aug 28. 8 21. 6 72 0 165 2. 7 Sept 27. 2 19. 1 67 0 131 2. 6 Oct 25. 2 16. 8 68 0. 4 116 2. 9 Nov 21. 8 11. 6 65 152. 8 82 3. 8 Dec 16. 9 9. 5 71 83. 6 63 4. 0 Ann Ave 21. 9 13. 6 68 639. 5 118 3. 4 27

Scenarios • River at 1995 • River at 2005 – Cost benefit Analysis of existing situation • Look into the future: Cost effectiveness analysis of a prespecified benefit target • W/O cooperation • With cooperation 28

Quality measures Past Present Future Parameter Units 1995 2005 BOD 5 mg/l 30 -70 10 -20 Riv. Wat. Qaul. Stand. (2003) 10 D. O. mg/l 3 -4 4 -9 >3 F. Coli. CFU / 100 ml 106 -107 104 -105 200 29

Benefit Estimation • Travel Cost Model • Contingent Valuation Model 30

TCM • 300 surveys at the site (Dec. 2005 – March. 2006) • Used to estimate only Use-value. Only 2005 situation. • We used two sub-models – Zonal travel cost – Individual travel cost (will not be described here but was done). 31

Step 1: ZTCM base table Number of visitors from the region Visit per capita % of visitors from the region Population in the region 0. 0747831 0. 5 668, 600 50, 000 87 ₪ 0. 0163443 0. 38043 2, 327, 600 38, 043 174 ₪ 0. 0062916 0. 08695 1, 382, 000 8, 695 261 ₪ 0. 0019071 0. 02173 1, 139, 400 2, 173 348 ₪ 0. 0060704 0. 01086 178, 900 1, 086 435 ₪ 0 0 235, 900 0 522 ₪ 5, 932, 400 99, 997 Total 32 Travel cost

Step 2: Visitation against price increase 33

Step 3: Fitting a function 34

Step 3 (cont. ) Total benefit of the site: (MNIS per year) Linear function: Visits =65577 -157. 32*(Travel Cost) TB=15, 471, 164 Cubistic function: 3 – 0. 0022 (TC)2 Visits = 96554. 5 – 796. 7*TC + 2. 3 (TC) TB=10, 268, 534 Exponential function: Visits =[6. 504756 -ln(Travel Cost)]/0. 00008426 Travel Cost =668. 3*exp{-0. 00008426*(Visits)} TB=7, 929, 665 35

CVM (In process) 300 surveys (200 at the site + 100 sample of general effected population) Payment card Can estimate Use + nonuse values Can estimate future hypothetical scenarios - We asked about future water quality improvement which can be thought of as almost usable for every purpose 36

Before 37

Present conditions Now 38

Later Possible future scenarios 39

Was it worth it? Is it worth it? 40

Was it worth it? Is it worth it? 41 2005 Scenario (MNIS per year) Future scenarios (MNIS per year) Costs Annualized capital cost – 2. 5 O&M cost – 1 _______ Total: 3. 5 Annualized capital cost – 3 O&M cost – 2 _______ Total: 5 Benefits Ag. water use – 1 Land enhanct. – 1. 25 Social value (TCM) – 11 ________ Total: 13. 25 ? ? ? Net Benefit 9. 75 ? ? ?

Technical/Technological Treatment Options and Site Selection: IL 42

Zeimar – Alexander basin • The comparison between the years 1995 – 2005 focuses primarily on the four following points: Many secondary pollution sources were eliminated Natanya’s wastewater treatment facility Kubani Creek Wadi Zeimar. 43

General Features – (changes in river perception): A quick look at the two models shows that in 2005 the river was used by fewer points (sources of both water and pollution) than in 1995. In 1995, Alexander River was thought of mainly as a “waste sink” – an easy way to dispose of wastes, both liquid and solid. In 2005, the river was hoped to be restored to its natural condition for recreational use 1995 44 2005

Natanya’s Wastewater Treatment Plant: 1995 These plant treat the wastewater of Natanya (population: 146, 000 people in 1995). The plants had a direct effect on our point of interest, Turtle Bridge. The large amount of water diluted most of the pollutants that were carried by the current. Turtle Bridge 1 E 4 5 E 3 Values were taken from this reach 45 FLOW: 12 MCM/year. DO: 0 mg/l B. O. D: 50 -60 mg/l F. coli: 10000 CFU/100 ml

Natanya’s Wastewater Treatment Plants: 2005 As of 1999, this source stopped discharging treated wastewater into the river. Today this water is instead used for agricultural irrigation. Therefore, there is no contribution to the river from this point. Turtle bridge 46

Kubani Creek: 1995 This creek used to collect wastewater from 4 towns and 2 factories into a sedimentation pond. The waste was then moved to a waste reservoir and from there to the main river. In reality, the ponds and the reservoir were not maintained and their capacity was only 5 -10% of its original plan. This meant that most of the flow went straight into the river year round. -The fish farm contributes water to the creek once a year, which in 1995 was not considered to be a major problem. Turtle Bridge 1 E 7 47 Values were taken from this reach 5 E 6

Kubani Creek: 2005 • Today the 4 towns and 2 factories are separated from the creek. Now the creek collects only runoff, and its flow is calculated using the RRM model. • The fish ponds are now considered to be the only pollution point in the creek. This pollution occurs once a year – for a week long period – at the end of December, when the ponds recycle their water back into the creek. Turtle bridge 48

Zeimar : 1995 Zeimar stream gets waste from Nablus, Sabastya, Anabta and Tul-Karem. This contains waste from industries, stone sawmills, solid wastes, leather factories, garages and more. In addition, for two months every year (October-December) olive waste is released into the stream from approximately 26 olive mills that are spread along the stream. Ten months out of every year, the color of the water is white, due to the stone powder in it. For two months every year, the water is black, due to the organic matter in the olive waste. In 1995, the total amount of flow from Zeimar Stream was 1. 5 -2 MCM. Turtle bridge CFU/L 1 E 7 49 5 E 6

Zeimar: 2005 In 2002, a treatment plant was built to take all of the flow (~10 MCM) that runs through Zeimar Stream (not including floods). This treatment plant removes the solid waste, stone powder, sawdust, sand oils from the water. The water is then stored in a Reservoir that is used as an extensive treatment facility (flow in=flow out). The water is released back into the main stream in a much better quality, although still not meeting the water quality standard that is needed to restore it to its natural condition. In the time of the olive harvest, the facility does not work. Instead, there is an “Emergency Solution”. Turtle bridge 1 E 5 50 5 E 4

Zeimar Stream: 2005 The “Emergency Solution” that is applied during the olive harvest is a dam that diverts 100% of the flow into a reservoir, until the reservoir reaches its full capacity (400, 000 M 3). The waste water then stays in the reservoir, where it is released back into the river during times of floods (defined as above 5 m 3/sec). Turtle bridge The values that are shown were taken from this reach 51 0. 03 MC M/year 10 MCM /year CFU/L 1 E 5 5 E 4

An example of comparison-use of the model to estimate costeffectiveness of changes that were made in the river: In this case, we are trying to see what would be the water quality in the “turtle bridge” node if Natanya’s water treatment facility was still contributing it’s water to the river, as was the case in 1995. Wadi-Zeimar is flowing into the river as it is today, but without treatment. The rest of the points are as they were in 1995, and has a minor affect, since their flow is very low in comparison. Turtle bridge 12 MCM /year 10 MCM /year 52

2005 - CURRENT 2005 – If Wadi Zeimar was not treated Flow: 15. 97 MCM/year 1 E 7 1 E 5 5 E 4 Flow: 24. 2 MCM/year 53 5 E 6

Model Challenges: a. No option of setting pollution values for reaches (diffuse pollution). b. Half-life – The process of arbitrary pollutant decay is not clear. (either half-life time or decay rate). c. Treatment nodes can only reduce a fixed % of BOD and arbitrary pollutant together. d. The model does not take into consideration effect of waterfalls on DO. e. The model does not take into account the effect of one substance on another (salinity VS F. coli). 54

Technical/Technological Treatment Options and Site Selection: PA 55

Treatment Plant Site Selection Site Land Availability, Dunams Land Cost Additional Pumping Closeness to Inhibited Areas 75 10, 000/dunam 0 Close 2. South of Exiting Ponds 55 15, 000/dunam 0 Close 3. West of Irtah 130 15, 000/dunam 0 Close 4. Wadi Zeimar – Green Line Crossing 90 6000/dunam ++ Not close 5. East of Yad Hanna Reservoir 70 6000/dunam 0 not close 6. South of Irtah 85 15, 000/dunam 0 Not close 1. Khadouri 56

4 1 5 2 3 6 57

Wastewater Treatment Options Three different scenarios were evaluated for wastewater management within the Wadi Zeimar catchment area involving: 1. Primary treatment at Tulkarem pools only (BAU Scenario), No additional Costs except for O&M 2. 1 Extended Aeration Treatment and Reuse System at Tulkarem only (Expected Future Scenario #1. 1), 40 million US for the first phase and about 31 million US$ additional funds needed until 2030 2. 2 Activated Sludge Treatment and Reuse System at Tulkarem only (Expected Future Scenario #1. 2) 41 million US for the first phase and about 32 million US$ additional funds needed until 2030 3. Activated Sludge or Extended Aeration Treatment and Reuse System plus advanced treatment at Tulkarem and Nablus-West (Expected Future Scenario #2), 100 million US for the first phase and about 80 million US$ additional funds needed until 2030 58

Condition Scenario 1 Low Population Net Growth Medium Scenario 2. 1 High Low Medium X Scenario 3 High X Low Medium High X Econ Dev. Other than Agriculture X X X Agricultural Development X X X Environmental Control/Protection X X X Peace and Stability X X X Bilateral /Agreement Cooperation X X X Water-Wastewater Infrastructure Dev X X X Water Availability X X X Basin Management Integration X X X Cost Benefit X X X Technology Level X X X Livelihood/Poverty X X X 59

Extended Aeration – Two Stage Plant Cost Description 2016 2030 Total A. Wastewater Treatment Plant 12, 400, 000 9, 900, 000 22, 300, 000 Land Cost, % 7 0 4 Civil, % 31 34 32 Mechanical & Electric, % 54 57 55 Miscellaneous, % 9 9 9 B. Effluent Treatment and Distribution 1, 500, 000 3, 100, 000 4, 600, 000 Discharge to Wadi Zeimar, % 0 61 41 Effluent Reuse, % 71 35 57 Discharge to Yad Hannah Reservoir, % 29 4 2 C. Collection System 21, 000 14, 300, 000 35, 300, 000 Interceptors, % 21 0 12 Trunk Sewers, % 12 3 8 Force Mains, % 1 4 2 Pumping Stations, % 1 1 1 Laterals and House Connections, % 66 92 76 Total Investment Costs 34, 900, 000 27, 300, 000 62, 200, 000 Contingencies 15% 5, 235, 000 4, 095, 000 9, 330, 000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 40, 135, 000 31, 395, 000 71, 530, 000 60

Activated Sludge, Tulkarem Two Stage Plant Cost Description 2016 2030 Total A. Wastewater Treatment Plant 13, 000 10, 300, 000 23, 300, 000 B. Effluent Treatment and Distribution 1, 500, 000 3, 100, 000 4, 600, 000 C. Collection System 21, 000 14, 300, 000 35, 300, 000 Total Investment Costs 35, 500, 000 27, 700, 000 62, 200, 000 Contingencies 15% 5, 325, 000 4, 155, 000 9, 330, 000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 40, 825, 000 31, 855, 000 72, 680, 000 61

Activated Sludge, Tulkarem + All Nablus West Two Stage Plant Cost Description 2016 2030 Total A. Wastewater Treatment Plant 32, 650, 000 26, 300, 000 58, 950, 000 B. Effluent Treatment and Distribution 3, 770, 000 7, 800, 000 11, 670, 000 C. Collection System 52, 740, 000 36, 300, 000 89, 040, 000 Total Investment Costs 89, 160, 000 70, 400, 000 159, 560, 000 Contingencies 15% 13, 374, 000 10, 560, 000 23, 934, 000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 102, 534, 000 80, 9605, 000 183, 494, 000 62

Annual O & M Costs Ranging from 1, 500, 000 US$ in 2016 to 2, 750, 000 US$ in 2030 Distributed as : Wastewater treatment plant, % Effluent Distribution and Reuse Sys, % Wastewater Collection Sys, % 80 5 15 63

Future scenarios - PA: 1. Current situation continues (i. e. – no collaboration between the two sides): Water treatment facility for Wadi-Zeimar will be expanded by Israel, in order to treat the olive wastes as well, and to bring the water into a better quality. 2. The Palestinian side treats the wastes of Wadi-Zeimar – to be used in agriculture. (about half the flow (5 MCM) will not reach the river) 3. The Palestinian side is capturing the runoff, and treat the wastes of Wadi-Zeimar – to be used in agriculture. (almost all the flow (8 -9 MCM) will not reach the river) 64

Future scenarios - IL: E: מחקריםנחל אלכסנדר alexander. GIS 1. xls 1. Better water treatment to be estimated at the “Turtle bridge” 2. Water alternatives: Agriculture – Nature 65

Cooperation 66

67