Palestinian Water I: Resources, Allocation and Perception

Palestinian Water I: Resources, Allocation and Perception

Marwan A. Hassan1*, Graham McIntyre1, Brian Klinkenberg1,Abed Al-Rahman Tamimi2, Richard K. Paisely3, Mousa Diabat4

and Khaled Shahin5

1Department of Geography, The University of British Columbia2Palestinian Hydrology Group (PHG)3GEF Global Transboundary International Waters Initiative, The University of British Columbia,Institute of Asian Research4Department of Geosciences, Oregon State University5AECOM

Abstract

Transboundary water issues are not new; however, the Palestinian case represents a unique situa-tion that is atypical from most transboundary water conflicts. This difference is marked mostimportantly by the issue of lack of domestic control over water resources within the PalestinianTerritories. Since the Israeli occupation of the West Bank in 1967, Palestinian water policy hasbeen dictated by Israeli control, which has resulted in an allocational shift in water distribution inthe Palestinian Territories. In this article we review transboundary water practices and conflicts,water resources, allocation and consumption, water perception, and water reuse and conservationin the Palestinian West Bank in order to assess contemporary trends in water practices as well asrecommend strategies for improving regional water management. Water use and perception areassessed based on an extensive unpublished research survey conducted by the Palestinian Hydrol-ogy Group in 2002. The final report from this survey focused on developing criteria and linkinginitial results from the survey to the design of a cost effective and equitable water delivery systemthat would provide all Palestinians with basic water needs. In this article, through a reassessmentand statistical analysis of their data, we support the recommendations of this initial survey, includ-ing the implementation of an increasing block tariff system as a means of sustainably deliveringwater throughout the West Bank. However, any future water management cannot proceed in aneffective manner unless some level of water control is relinquished by Israel.

1 Introduction

Apart from air, (fresh) water is the only natural resource that the human species cannot dowithout.

El-Hadji Guisse, Special Rapporteur on the Right to Water,UN Commission on Human Rights

The Palestinian Territories are located within one of the most water-poor regions of theworld (Figure 1). Although the Jordon River forms the eastern boundary of the Palestin-ian West Bank territory, Palestinians are unable to extract any water from the river underthe accords of the 1995 Oslo II agreement (Zeitoun 2008) and are, therefore, almostentirely dependent on groundwater resources that are controlled, de facto, by Israel. Pal-estinian water managers maintain little to no control over domestic water allocations,making it increasingly difficult to equitably meet the basic water needs for all Palestiniancitizens. Thus, Palestinians are faced with significant water issues such as lack of suitable

Geography Compass 4/2 (2010): 118–138, 10.1111/j.1749-8198.2009.00293.x

ª 2010 The AuthorsJournal Compilation ª 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Fig. 1. Map showing the current boundaries of the Palestinian Territories and Israel.

Palestinian water I: resources, allocation and perception 119

ª 2010 The Authors Geography Compass 4/2 (2010): 118–138, 10.1111/j.1749-8198.2009.00293.xJournal Compilation ª 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

access, dwindling supplies and overexploitation, a situation exacerbated by this lack ofdomestic control.

This conflicted aspect of water resource control makes the Palestinian case unique.While the majority of groundwater resources in the region are replenished from withinPalestinian boundaries, the aquifers themselves are transboundary between Israel andPalestine. Since Israel occupied Palestine in 1967, these transboundary aquifers have beenheavily utilized by Israel through increasing abstractions and strict control (Allan 2001).As a result, overexploitation, leading to over-abstraction, is now a problem and, in lightof the increasing risk of drought, the long-term sustainability of water resources in theregion is increasingly threatened (e.g. Lowi 1993).

Some recent initiatives have attempted to redress the increasing water scarcity forPalestinians. In particular, water recycling, conservation, and reuse have all been moder-ately successful in reducing water stress. However, the ongoing power dynamic mani-fested within Israeli-Palestinian relations with respect to water resources (Zeitoun 2007,2008) continues to encourage overexploitation and to limit Palestinian control overgroundwater resources. Furthermore, it is evident that long term climate change, aginginfrastructure, and increasing urbanization in the region will serve only to exacerbate thecurrent strain on water resources. A cooperative and equitably controlled water manage-ment system, coupled with suitable water conservation initiatives, should help to achievegreater stability for groundwater resources in the region and improve sustainability.

Not surprisingly, some authors postulate that violent water conflicts in the Middle Eastare possible as water resources dwindle while populations and demands increase (Lowi1993). Other authors present more optimistic scenarios, suggesting that instead of violentconfrontation, cooperation has been and will continue to be the dominant result ofwater-related disputes between independent nations (Gleick 1993; Wolf 2000). While itseems that there has, in fact, never been a war over water, the existence of two contrarystates of ‘conflict’ and ‘cooperation’ underscore the complexity of relations between Israeland Palestine. Conflict can exist without overt military action (e.g. Lowi 1993; Zeitoun2007, 2008) and cooperation can be used to veil the hegemonic power of one groupover another (Zeitoun 2008). It is within this uncertain realm between conflict and coop-eration that Israeli-Palestinian water politics must be considered. In the last 10 yearsattempts have been made to develop a common understanding of the needs of both sidesand an appropriate shared management regime (e.g. Feitelson and Haddad 2001; Shuvaland Dweik 2007). Nonetheless, Israel has maintained its position as a dominant hege-monic power over a majority of the regional freshwater resources (Zeitoun 2008).

In the following sections, we quantify and elucidate the allocations of groundwater forPalestinians, and to some extent, Israelis as well. Our primary objectives in this article are(1) to review the water resources in the West Bank accessible to Palestinians, (2) to assesswater allocations to both Palestinians and Israelis, and (3) to review the results of a surveyon water use and perceptions towards water amongst the West Bank Palestinians. Toachieve our goals we will (1) briefly discuss water resources and allocation in the WestBank, (2) consider water use and perception amongst the Palestinians using data obtainedfrom an unpublished research survey that was conducted by the Palestinian HydrologyGroup (PHG) in 2002, the aim of which was to establish criteria for an acceptable watermanagement system for the region that is equitable and cost effective, and (3) frame theIsraeli-Palestinian water conflict within the realm of transboundary water rights, by firstreviewing international water law, and then utilizing this framework to discuss area-spe-cific transboundary surface water issues. The impacts of land use (mainly urbanization)and climate change on future Palestinian water resources is the focus of another article

120 Palestinian water I: resources, allocation and perception


(see Hassan et al. this volume). The West Bank is the primary focus of this article becauseof the contemporary transboundary water issues and data availability on water use andperception; no analysis on the Palestinian territory of Gaza has been included.

2 The West Bank

The Palestinian Territories have endured a tumultuous political history within the 20thcentury. The two most significant political shifts have been the creation of Israel in 1948and the 1967 capture and occupation of the West Bank and surrounding areas by Israeliforces during the Six-Day War (Hourani 1991; Gregory 2004). Israeli control remains inplace, with Israeli settlements expanding into the region amongst primarily Arab resi-dents.

The West Bank is approximately 5500 km2, and is comprised of eleven districts(Figure 2A). Although the United Nations has estimated the population of the WestBank to be 2.3 million people (United Nations 2007), population estimates for the WestBank are contentious; there exists some debate over a ‘million person gap’ betweenfigures reported by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (2007) and the findings ofthe Israeli University of Bar Ilan (see Zimmerman et al. 2005; for more information). Amajority of Palestinians live along the western border of the West Bank within a popula-tion strip that extends from northern Ramallah to southern Hebron. High populationdensities can also be found, however, in northern capital cities such as Nablus and Jenin(Figure 2A). Approximately 30% of the population of the West Bank is comprised of ref-ugees, most of who tend to conglomerate on the outskirts of major urban centers, mostnotably in East Jerusalem, Nablus and Jenin (UNEP 2007).

The West Bank exhibits a highly interspersed mosaic of urban ⁄ rural land uses (Fig-ure 2B) as well as a dramatic east-west precipitation gradient (Figure 2C). Most of thefield crop areas are located in the north, while most of the urban areas are located in thewestern regions. These land use patterns reflect, in part, climatic influences. Such markedvariations in land use and precipitation, along with high variability in water availabilityand consumption between the districts (Figure 2D), create temporal and spatial allocationissues for water managers in the West Bank. The lowest consumption rates were observedin the agricultural districts of Jenin and Tubas, both of which also feature a relatively highpercentage of refugees coupled with low rates of urbanization. These rates contrast withthose from the more urban-oriented districts of Ramallah and Al-Quds (Jerusalem) in thecentral region of the West Bank, both of which feature areas with high rates of connec-tivity to a running-water network.

2.1 WATER RESOURCES IN THE WEST BANK

Since 1967 West Bank Palestinians have had difficulty accessing surface freshwaterresources, as control over the Jordan River and many of its tributaries are maintained byIsrael. Therefore, many Palestinians rely primarily on water that is extracted from theMountain Aquifer (Figure 3) and this is, hence, one of the foci of this article.

The Mountain Aquifer extends for approximately 150 km along a north-south axis,and lies partially within Israel and the occupied West Bank (PASSIA, Feitelson and Had-dad 2001). It is further divided into three sub-aquifers based on the direction of flow andthe position of major anticlines within the aquifer system: the Eastern, Western, andNortheastern aquifers (Figure 3). Geologically these three sub-aquifers are quite similar;they are each composed primarily of limestone and karst, and all feature a high storage



(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 2. (a) Districts (and population numbers in 1000’s) in the West Bank, (b) distribution of land use, and (c) meanannual precipitation patterns, (d) water supply and water consumption by districts.



Fig. 3. The Northeastern, Western, and Eastern Aquifers of the Mountain Aquifer.



capacity and good water conductivity (e.g. Mizyed 2001; Shachnai 2000; Weinbergeret al. 1994). With the exception of small areas of the Western aquifer, nearly all of therecharge for this aquifer system occurs within occupied Palestinian territory (Figure 3).This replenishment occurs mostly in the winter months in the central mountain rangewithin the West Bank, as much of the precipitation that falls during this time of year(Figure 2C) infiltrates into the aquifer through outcroppings of porous limestone. Theaquifers themselves are mostly contained within Palestinian territory as well; while 40%of the Western Aquifer lies within Palestinian territory nearly the entirety of the North-eastern and Eastern Aquifers occur within Palestinian territory (Feitelson and Haddad2001).

There is debate as to the rate of annual recharge that each aquifer receives. Most esti-mates of annual recharge comprise a wide range, a reflection of the erratic precipitationand uncertainties in infiltration rates. Fisher and Huber-Lee (2005) estimate a conservativeannual recharge for all three sub-aquifers to be between 590 and 690 million cubicmeters per year (mcm ⁄ yr). The Oslo II Accords of 1995 codified the total recharge to beapproximately 680 mcm ⁄ yr (Oslo II, 1995; see also Elmusa 1996).

2.2 WATER USE IN THE WEST BANK

Not surprisingly, there exists some debate regarding reasonable estimates for sustainableannual yield from the Mountain Aquifer. However, in most years the allocations agreedupon under the Oslo II accord (Table 1; up to 701 mcm ⁄yr) are greater than the esti-mated range of values for annual recharge (e.g. 590–690 mcm ⁄yr). The values presentedin Table 1 illustrate two important points: (1) water abstractions from the MountainAquifer meet or exceed most upper estimates of annual recharge, signifying the intensityof the water shortage in the area, and (2) water allocations are inequitable. Israel appearsto be allocated about 80% of the overall yield of all three aquifers.

Even given the population difference between the two nations (Israel has approxi-mately three times the population of the West Bank), water allocations are disproportion-ate (Table 1). As nearly all sources of surface water are off-limits to West BankPalestinians, they must rely almost entirely on groundwater supplies in addition to theutilization of rainwater cisterns. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

Table 1. Allocations of transboundary water resources between Israel and Palestine (Source:Zeitoun 2008).

Transboundary watersource

Israeli allocation(mcm ⁄ yr)

Palestinian allocation(mcm ⁄ yr)

Surface waterJordan River System 660 0

GroundwaterEastern Aquifer Basin 40 68North Eastern Aquifer Basin 103 42Western Aquifer Basin 340 22Groundwater Sub-total 569 132

Total 1229 132

Note: There is some discrepancy when considering allocation estimations for the Eastern Aquifer. TheOslo II Allocations (1995) for this sub-aquifer specify an abstraction of 54 mcm ⁄ year.



estimated in 2002 that the average per-capita Palestinian water consumption was 70 litresper day (UNEP 2007). This compares to the recommended basic water requirement of50 litres per person per day as a minimum to sustain life (Gleick 1996). It is evident thatin two districts – Jenin and Tubas – the daily water consumption is far below that level(Figure 2D).

The inequities reflect the large demand for water in Israel for agricultural and industrialpurposes; Israeli water consumption consistently hovers around 2 billion cubic meters peryear (Feitelson 2005). In particular, the agricultural sector in Israel has experiencedincreased production levels in the last half century as a result of a national focus on self-sustaining food production, and it is estimated that agricultural water consumption alonemay peak at 1.6 billion cubic meters ⁄ year (�80% of total consumption) (Allan 2001).However, domestic and industrial consumption has risen in recent years as a result ofincreasing urbanization and the rise in the industry and service-dominated economieswithin Israel (Feitelson 2005). Thus, we see that in 1995 Israel used just under 2 billioncubic meters of fresh water for all consumption purposes from all available sources (Fei-telson 2005) while residents of the West Bank used approximately 134 million cubicmeters (mcm) (approximately 7% of the total used by Israel); of that, 35% went towardsmunicipal and industrial water needs, while livestock and irrigated agriculture receivedthe remaining 65% (Fisher and Huber-Lee 2005).

Of all of the water supply resources recorded within the West Bank, Palestiniansconsume only approximately 52%, Israeli’s within the West Bank consume the remaining48% (for details see Table 3.2, p. 54, Zeitoun 2007). Of that proportion consumed byPalestinians, approximately 75% is under nominal Palestinian control, but since half ofthat amount is under joint Israeli ⁄Palestinian control, Palestinians have, at best, solecontrol of only approximately 36% of their water resources. Furthermore, Israeli manage-ment of a majority of the supply lines within the West Bank shows Israel’s strong handin the affairs of Palestinian water managers (Zeitoun 2007).

While the Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) oversees the operation of a number ofwells in some urban areas, a much more substantial amount of groundwater is drawnfrom agricultural and municipal wells only nominally under PWA control. However, theefficacy of these wells has declined in recent years following the construction of deeper,high-capacity Israeli wells just beyond the western border of the West Bank (Figure 4).These large wells have the potential to cause significant drawdown in the water table,and could greatly affect the efficacy of shallower Palestinian wells on the other side of theborder. Many of these Palestinian wells are also experiencing declines in water quality, asIsraeli overpumping has caused the presence of pockets of saltwater intrusions to becomemore prevalent (Attili 2005).

A challenge for Palestinian water managers is to provide efficient and equitable waterservices for all citizens within its borders. There are a large number of villages in theoccupied West Bank that are currently unconnected to a water network of any kind.Citizens within these villages depend almost entirely on rainwater cisterns, springs, wells,and, in some cases, outside water supplies such as water tankers for their potable water.Various estimates exist for the number of Palestinians that currently live in these condi-tions. One estimate places this percentage of unconnected Palestinians at around 19%(Feitelson and Haddad 2001), although recent data from the PWA in 2005 suggest thatthis proportion is a more modest 10% (B‘Tselem 2007). High percentages of unconnectedPalestinians are clustered in the northern arid districts, most notably in Nablus and Jenin(see Figure 5). As is to be expected, the greater the proportion of the district populationliving in an urban area, the lower the percentage of residents who are unconnected to a



Fig. 4. Comparison of quantity and capacity of Palestinian and Israeli wells in the Western Aquifer Basin (Source:Zeitoun 2008; Messerschmid 2005).



water network. This non-urbanized, unconnected demographic of residents in arid agri-cultural regions will be a difficult challenge for Palestinian water managers to overcome.

Increasing demand for water in both Israel and Palestine will invariably increasetensions between these two parties. Recognizing the importance of water to its future,Israel has maintained control over Palestinian water supplies since 1967, and any negotia-tion that has proceeded since has maintained Israeli control (e.g. Zeitoun 2008) (Fig-ure 6). While bodies such as the Joint Water Committee (JWC) give the perception ofthe possibility of cooperative management over water resources, these organizations oftenonly provide a veil of cooperation, masking absolute Israeli control over most riparianand subsurface decisions and, thereby, diminishing the power and ability of Palestiniansto govern their domestic water affairs (Zeitoun 2007).

3 Palestinian perceptions towards water use and management

In 2001 and 2002, the Palestinian Hydrology Group (PHG), a Palestinian non-profit,non-governmental organization, conducted a research survey within ten of the elevendistricts in the occupied West Bank (Figure 7). The aim of this survey was to help

Fig. 5. Unconnected population of the West Bank (Source: B‘Tselem 2007).

Fig. 6. State power comparison between Israel and Palestine (modified from Zeitoun 2008).



planners develop a suitable water pricing scheme that could be applied to all Palestinians,which would ensure sustainability of the resource, good water governance, and someform of cost recovery. Notwithstanding that approximately seven to eight years havepassed since the survey was conducted, it remains a valuable source of information thatcould aide in establishing water policy. We argue that data obtained several years ago isstill relevant for contemporary Palestinian water managers, as most of the problemsremain the same.

The survey was designed within a conceptual framework that held the following con-siderations as key:

• Being connected ⁄non-connected to a water network would affect all responses.• Both open and close-ended questions would be used for particularly sensitive issues as a

means of obtaining more informative data.• Insight into the following issues was necessary: water use levels, existing rates structures,

willingness-to-pay, quantity and quality of freshwater, and socioeconomic ⁄genderissues.

Fig. 7. Map of distributed questionnaires within the West Bank districts.



The combination of these considerations guided the formulation of the survey question-naire, which was further modified through a pilot study of fifty households using differentsocioeconomic strata (such as village, city, and refugee camp). Training courses were heldfor PHG water professionals that were charged with conducting the survey. A multistagecluster sampling technique was used to identify eligible households. A population locationwould be selected using probability proportional to size sampling (PPS), and then furtherrefined by selecting a cluster of census tracts from this larger area, narrowing the focus toapproximately 100–150 households. One household would be selected from this clusterusing systematic sampling, and from this household one adult would be selected as a par-ticipant using simple random sampling or the Kish method.

Each of the 1003 individual respondents to the questionnaire had their answers to over100 questions recorded in a computer database. While the survey was conducted in orderto aid in the development of relevant water pricing policy, the PHG collected a wealthof auxiliary information that is useful in studying trends and attitudes concerning wateruse and water habits amongst Palestinians. The information collected in these question-naires was reduced to four generalized categories by the PHG (2002), as summarizedbelow.

3.1 WATER USAGE AND PRICING DATA

A summary of the water usage and pricing data shows clear differences between thoseconnected to a network and those not connected (Table 2), with non-connected house-holds spending an average of 1.5–3 times more per cubic meter of water, depending onavailable supply and seasonality than those in connected households. Average water billsin the winter time were 50% lower for non-connected than connected households, butthe situation is dramatically reversed in the summer, with respondents from non-con-nected households reporting that they paid over five times the amount they did in thewinter, 1.6 times what the average connected user pays in the summer. It is no surprisethat water consumption and usage rates are generally significantly lower in non-connectedareas. However, this lowered consumption may also be a result of a variety of other

Table 2. Water use and price in the connected and unconnected areas.

Water pricing and consumption variationsConnectedareas

Unconnectedareas

Average monthly water bill in the summer (NIS ⁄ month) 121.6 194.6Average monthly water bill in the winter (NIS ⁄ month) 69.5 35.0Average monthly water use in the summer (m3) 26.1 18.0Average monthly water use in the winter (m3) 20.0 13.0Highest water bill (location and NIS ⁄ month) 91.9 (Jericho) 199.0 (Hebron)Lowest water bill (location and NIS ⁄ month) 30.0 (Tulkarem) 95.0 (Tulkarem)Highest water use in the summer (location and m3 ⁄ month) 98.3 (Jericho) 19.8 (Tulkarem)Lowest water use in the summer (location and m3 ⁄ month) 13.5 (Jenin) 9.9 (Nablus)Lowest water use in the winter (location and m3 ⁄ month) 18.2 (Hebron) 15.7 (Qalqilya

and Salfeet)Estimated average monthly water need (m3) 25.0 22.7Average price per cubic meter (NIS) 3.2 11.3Percentage of respondents who believe that the pricepaid for water is expensive

47.8 86.7



factors, such as water shortages, distance to supply, and the inability to access the supplyon a regular basis. While approximately half of Palestinian respondents in connected areasfelt that their water was too expensive, this dissatisfaction is much more pervasiveamongst non-connected households, wherein 87% reported that the price they paid forwater is excessive. Further analysis into water pricing and consumption data has been per-formed by McIntyre (2007). His analyses, comparing seasonal water usage and consump-tion by district, income level and connection to water network, revealed that:

• Unconnected respondents are faced with relatively limited supplies of consumable waterand report relatively high perceived water needs when contrasted with connectedrespondents (McIntyre 2007).

• Certain districts are disproportionately under-serviced under the current water manage-ment regime, most notably the more agricultural, less wealthy, and less urbanizeddistricts of Jenin, Nablus, and Hebron, and there is significant variation in seasonalwater pricing and availability in these regions, signalling the need for a stable waterdelivery system (McIntyre 2007).

• A large disparity exists between higher-income and lower-income Palestinians in termsof water pricing and consumption, with much greater seasonal fluctuations observed forpoorer respondents than wealthier. This indicates the need for an increasing block tariffsystem (see section 3.4 for more information), as water should be set at a low flat-ratefor all citizens with higher-tier pricing available for non-necessary consumption.

We observe that the majority of respondents from the two lowest income groups paidless than 60 NIS ⁄month (NIS = New Israeli Shekel) for water in the wintertime(Figure 8), while significant proportions of the two higher income groups were willingto pay over 150 NIS ⁄month. In the summertime conditions were such that a greater pro-portion of the two lowest income groups had to pay up to 90 NIS ⁄month for their water(Figure 9), and while, once again, the two higher income groups stood out in the higherpricing classes (above 91 NIS ⁄month), there are some in the lower income groups thatcould not avoid paying higher prices for their water. It is particularly noteworthy toobserve that almost 40% of the highest-income group were willing to pay more than150 NIS ⁄month for their water.

Fig. 8. Variations in average monthly wintertime water bill based on income level.



3.2 WATER CONSERVATION AND WATER PRACTICES

In developing a long-term sustainable water policy for the West Bank, it is important toconsider how water is used and conserved amongst all households in order to determinethe best method of targeting water-saving practises. The PHG (2002) survey identifiedthat while water shortages in this region are abundant, Palestinian residents felt that theyshould be more engaged in the process of water conservation (Figures 10 and 11).

The differences in water conservation and practices between connected and non-con-nected areas are minor when contrasted with the differences observed in water pricingand usage data, but there exist a few notable observations. Non-connected householdsare roughly twice as likely to reuse grey water as connected households, which mayreflect the fact that while 22% of households in connected areas lack a flushing toilet,57% of non-connected households lack one. These differences reflect in part a lower

Fig. 9. Variations in average monthly summertime water bill based on income level.

Fig. 10. Water conservation and water use profiles in the West Bank.



standard of living amongst unconnected households and illuminate hygienic concerns thatmay be more pervasive. It is evident (and not surprising) that water conservation is moreprevalent in non-connected households than connected households (Figure 10). How-ever, given the very low percentages overall of respondents who reduce water usage intoilet flushes or boil water before drinking, concerns about conservation practices andwater safety should be raised. This is especially relevant when considering the increasingproblem of sewage disposal in the recharge areas of the Mountain Aquifer (e.g. Hassanand Egozi 2002; Rabi and Titi 1998; Tal et al. 2008) (discussed in more detail below).Tagar et al. (2007) estimated that Palestinian villages and cities create 46 mcm ⁄yr ofsewage that is disposed of either in cesspits or is treated in inadequate sewage treatmentplants. Providing adequate sewage treatment and sufficient water connections to all Pales-tinians would go a long way towards ensuring sustainable yields of clean water from theMountain Aquifer.

It is also interesting to note the politicized nature of water (Figure 10), particularlyhow water is perceived in relation to Israel. Eighty-seven percent of non-connectedrespondents identify Israeli water control as the source of their current problems relatedto water quantity and quality (or lack thereof), while only a third of connected house-holds feel the same way. Finally, it is encouraging for water managers to note the highpercentages of all residents who support the need to pay for water (Figure 11), as costrecovery will be necessary in any future water pricing scheme. The high percentages ofrespondents who agreed with the question ‘Are you facing a problem of high water pric-ing?’ provides clear support for a block tariff system.

3.3 SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILES AND GENDERED ASPECTS OF WATER

Socioeconomic data was also collected (Table 3). In many ways, socioeconomic statusdoes not vary substantially between connected and non-connected households. Not sur-prisingly, respondents from non-connected households reported possessing fewer modernconveniences such as washing machines, dishwashers and private cars, and, on average,paying less for amenities and sewage disposal. Average monthly incomes of respondentswho live in connected houses are generally higher than those who reside in unconnectedhouses. Approximately 79% of respondents living in unconnected homes earn between 0and 3200 NIS ⁄ month, compared to 66% of respondents living in connected homes, while

Fig. 11. The gendered aspects of water.



over 20% of respondents in connected homes have incomes greater than 4400 NIS ⁄month, compared to only 8% in unconnected homes. This income disparity does notappear to affect home ownership rates, however, as 96% of the respondents living inunconnected homes own them, compared to a home ownership rate of 85% for thoseliving within connected houses.

A few of the gendered results of the questionnaire are summarized in Figure 11.Women are much more likely to reuse gray water, and the majority are not concernedwith the possibility of waterborne diseases and are satisfied with the quality of the water.Men seem to be slightly more concerned with waterborne illness, the quality of thewater, and grey water reuse. There is also a universal perception amongst both gendersthat women should play a greater role within water management.

3.4 ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS

Additional recent research has identified further concerns over wastewater reuse anddisposal within the West Bank (PHG 2008). The fact that 73% of Palestinians rely on theuse of cesspits as a means of wastewater disposal, a method that creates hygienic andsustainability issues, as well as the potential for further aquifer and surface water contami-nation via seepage, raises serious environmental concerns.

Key observations from this 2008 report are summarized below:

1. Direct preference is stated towards the implementation and utilization of an increasingblock tariff (IBT) system as a means not only to provide equitable water serviceamongst all residents, but also to emphasize cost-recovery and multi-tiered water uses.Under an IBT system, a ‘lifeline’ block would be established for all residents, whichwould reflect a marginal cost of delivery with limited financial recovery. As residentsconsume greater quantities of water, they may exceed their allocation under the first‘block’ and therefore be charged higher consumption rates within the second block.Pricing blocks, and their associated cost to the consumer, would both rise accordingly,

Table 3. Mean socioeconomic profiles of the connected and unconnected areas.

Connected areas Unconnected areas

Family size (persons) 7.49 8.36Number of children under 15-year-old 3.3 4Number of rooms ⁄ house 3.84 4.27Monthly electricity bill(NIS) 170.28 145.58Monthly telephone bill (NIS) 118.13 70.44Monthly bill for sewage disposal (NIS) 21.00 6.27Have no private cars (%) 56.9 68.8Have clothes washing machines (%) 95.5 87.3Do not own dish washing machines (%) 95.2 99.1Own their houses (%) 85.3 96.4Monthly income (%)

<1200 (NIS) 15.6 17.81200–3200 (NIS) 50.0 61.13200–4400 (NIS) 9.4 13.14400 (NIS) 21.9 8.0

Notes: NIS (New Israeli Shekals) – conversion rate: 1 USD is approximately 4 NIS.



allowing water to be used for higher consumption services at an appropriately highercost. The PHG state in their report that although some issues exist within an IBT sys-tem, namely with respect to defining blocks rates and the marginal costs of delivery, ‘aprogressive tariff system…truly reflects the social and environmental costs of water andallocates the basic water needs for people before it is allocated to other needs’ (PHG(2002), p. 13). Based on the further exploration of the PHG data presented above, theauthors of this article support the PHG’s statement that an IBT system would beappropriate for the region, as the issues of both equity and cost recovery are pivotal inresolving the region’s water crisis.

2. Wastewater reuse within the realm of agriculture could play a vital role in alleviatingcurrent and future strains on water resources in both the West Bank and Gaza. Byutilizing ‘grey water’ in a more efficient manner, greater allocations of freshwatercould be used for domestic uses. Aggressive municipal campaigns for water conserva-tion can be extremely effective, as observed in Jerusalem, in which a conservationcampaign reduced overall water consumption by 10–30% (Gleick et al. 2002). Suchinitiatives taken in nearby Jordan have also proven to be effective. Fardous andAl-Hadidi (2007) estimate that by the year 2020, Jordan will be efficiently reusingapproximately 227 mcm ⁄ year of wastewater, most of which would be redirected foragricultural purposes.It was observed by the PHG that while many people who lack available water utilizetheir supplies as efficiently as possible, if supplies are readily available they do not usetheir wastewater as efficiently. This statement reflects the findings reported above(Section 3.2; Figure 10), wherein residents in connected areas were much less likelyto re-use grey water. Rainwater harvesting remains an important means of combatingfreshwater deficits on a local and regional scale. The impact and importance of rain-water cisterns in providing supplemental water resources is discussed within this vol-ume (see Hassan et al., 2010, this series).

3. The Palestinian Territories are suffering from a contemporary crisis with regards tosewage treatment. In most non-urban areas, there exists no sewage treatment, and therisk for contamination is very high. Furthermore, many existing sewage treatment sys-tems in the region suffer from ‘limited capacity, poor maintenance, process malfunc-tioning…and… no experienced or trained staff’ (PHG 2008, p. 14).

4. Recent technologies and initiatives aimed at water conservation within the Palestinianterritories have had some success, but further funding is required. The report empha-sizes the success of trickling filter systems and contact stabilizer systems in their abilityto produce reusable grey water for agricultural and industrial purposes. However, forany widespread initiatives to be successful, funding or aid would be necessary to securesustainable water resources that are free from environmentally hazardous sewage prac-tices.

4 A review of transboundary water rights and duties

While the Israel–Palestine transboundary water issues are unique in many aspects, therelations between Israel and Palestine should, ultimately, reflect precedents establishedunder international water law. International water law may take either of two generalforms, treaty law or customary international law. If states sharing international freshwaterresources are not parties to an applicable treaty, their rights and obligations are governedby customary international law (Caponera 1985). The most salient international water



law treaty is that which was concluded under United Nations auspices in 1997 and isentitled the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses ofInternational Watercourses (United Nations 1997). The most basic rules outlined in thisconvention require the following:

• A state uses an international watercourse in a way that is ‘equitable and reasonable’vis-a-vis other states sharing the watercourse. This entails a reasonable allocation offreshwater to all relevant states from a transboundary source.

• International watercourse states take ‘all appropriate measures’ to prevent the causing of‘significant harm’ to co-riparian states, including measures taken to prevent, reduce,and control pollution that may cause degradation.

• International watercourse states provide ‘prior and timely notification’ to other interna-tional watercourse states concerning any ‘new use or change in existing uses’ of aninternational watercourse, together with relevant technical information, and that it‘consult’ with the other international watercourse states. (United Nations 1997).

Within this realm of international water law, it may be useful to reflect upon specificaspects of the Israeli-Palestinian situation. This can be illustrated by exploring the trans-boundary implications of several streams that cross between Israeli and Palestinian territo-ries. The management problems encompassed by these streams are twofold. First, thesestreams are heavily polluted and modified, exceeding newly created water qualitystandards, posing a health hazard to humans, and altering ecological conditions. This pol-lution often is generated in one region, and crosses the border into another. Second,given the geopolitical tension between Israel and Palestine, cooperation in managing thesestreams is problematic. Some monitoring and restoration efforts have been made, butwithout much success. Monitoring, furthermore, has been done at a narrow level, ignor-ing the biological systems and the groundwater interface (Tal et al. 2008). Restorationefforts have been focused on a few selected streams, but have been ineffective in reducingpollution levels (Tal et al. 2008).

Further research has been performed to study the cases of both the Al-Khalil ⁄Bessorwatershed in the south and the Alexander ⁄Zomar watershed in the western region of theWest Bank (Tal et al. 2008). Their research reports that approximately 15,000 cubicmeters per day of raw sewage is generated in the Al-Khalil ⁄Hebron region, 60–70% ofwhich percolates into the water table while leaving the rest to flow into Israel (Cohenet al. 2008; Tal et al. 2008). Likewise, in the Alexander ⁄Zomar watershed, more than10,000 cubic meters per day of raw sewage are generated in Palestinian towns such asNablus, Anabta and Deir-Sharaf (Tal et al. 2008). In total, approximately 24 million cubicmeters (mcm) of untreated raw sewage, along with 5 mcm of treated wastewater, aredrained into transboundary stream channels per year (Cohen et al. 2008). Given theresults of the PWG survey (see section 3), and the ongoing tensions between the twoparties, it should not be unexpected to find that streams flowing through the West Bankinto Israel are severely polluted. The lack of access to, and control over, water resourcesafforded to the Palestinians, and the attitudes that such a situation engenders amongst thePalestinians, certainly contributes to the situation.

Absent an appropriate international organization or some other system allowing regularcommunication, it can be challenging at best to maintain a regime of utilization that isequitable vis-a-vis a state’s co-riparians. This is especially true when considering trans-boundary pollution and equitable management within the Israeli-Palestinian waterconflict. While some organizations exist to facilitate communication in the West Bank,



such as the Joint Water Commission, many of these organizations are subject to an abso-lute Israeli veto, thereby diminishing any true sense of cooperation amongst these twostates (Zeitoun 2007).

5 Conclusions

The lack of control over water resources afforded to the Palestinians is the most signifi-cant hurdle to overcome when planning long-term water policies. It is also importantto understand that the chimera of transboundary governmental cooperation does nottranslate to tangible feelings of trust amongst most Palestinians towards Israeli watercontrol.

An analysis of the 2002 questionnaire and more recent work leads us to conclude thatthe most suitable water pricing scheme for the West Bank is an increasing block-tariffsystem, especially one that is focused on first providing necessary water resources to rela-tively underserviced districts such as Jenin, Nablus and Hebron. This system charges abase fee for a minimum initial ‘block’ of water that is seen as necessary to survive but alsoallows for increased water use at a proportionally higher cost. Such a system would theo-retically satisfy the criteria of fair, equitable, sustainable, and cost efficient water deliveryto a greater number of Palestinians, while providing some financial backing for the neces-sary expansion of water-related infrastructure. Most importantly, it could be designed insuch a way to properly allocate basic water needs to all Palestinians before allocatinggreater water resources to districts and communities of greater abundance.

It is also clear from the final PHG report and from the collected data that while reduc-tion of Israeli control is vital for sustainable water management, the Palestinian peoplemust also become more active in conserving water by, for example, recycling grey waterfor use in irrigation. The authors concede that while many Palestinians ‘in bothconnected and non-connected areas are aware of the importance of water rationing…they don’t do much to practice such rationing’ (PHG 2002). The importance of waterrecycling is becoming more evident, and would prove to be extremely beneficial inreducing the amount of freshwater allocated to irrigation. It is estimated that within theoccupied West Bank 60% of urban wastewater could theoretically be treated and used inagriculture and irritation (Yakhin 2006).

While Israeli concessions over water resource control would appear to be necessary toimprove the quality of life within the West Bank, it would also appear to be necessaryfor Palestinians to take as much action as possible in reusing and rationing water suppliesas a means of combating freshwater deficits.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Lina Azeez, David Reid, Hans Schreier, Matt Sulkis, and MarkZeitoun for helping and commenting on an early draft of the article. Eric Leinbergerprepared the figures. Two anonymous reviewers and Murugesu Sivapalan provided usefulcomments on the manuscript.

Note

* Correspondence address: Marwan A. Hassan, Department of Geography, The University of British Columbia,Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z2. E-mail: [email protected].



References

Allan, T. (2001). The middle east water questions: hydropolitics and the global economy. London, UK: I.B. Taurus.Attili, S. (2005). ‘‘Israel’s Hydrohegemony’’. Occasional paper submitted to the School of Oriental and Asian Stud-

ies at the University of London. Available at: http://www.soas.ac.uk/waterissuesfiles/occasionalpapers/OCC76Attili.pdf (last accessed 7 October 2007).

B’Tselem. (2007). B’Tselem – The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights In The Occupied Territories.Available at: http://www.btselem.org/English (last accessed 17 April 2007).

Caponera, D. A. (1985). The role of customary international water law. In: Ali, M., Radosevich, G. and Khan, A.(eds) Water resources policy for Asia 365, 367–68, 372, 380–81. SEE APPENDIX G.

Cohen, A., Sever, Y., Tzipori, A., and Fieman, D. (2008). Monitoring of Judia and Samria Streams: based on 2007Sampling, edited by E. Unit. Jerusalem: Israeli Ministry for Environmental Protection.

Elmusa, S. S. (1996). Negotiating water: Israel and the Palestinians. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Palestinian Studies.Fardous, A.-N. and Al-Hadidi, L. (2008). Waste water management and reuse in Jordan. In: Shuval, H. and Dweik,

H. (eds) Water resources in the Middle East: Israeli-Palestinian water issues – from conflict to cooperation. New York:Springer, pp. 399–408.

Feitelson, E. (2005). Political economy of groundwater exploitation: The Israeli case. International Journal of WaterResources Development, 21(3), Pp. 413–423.

Feitelson, E. and Haddad, M. (2001). Management of shared groundwater resources: the Israeli-Palestinian case with an inter-national perspective. Norwell, Massachusetts: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Fisher, F. and Huber-Lee, A. (2005). Liquid assets: an economic approach for water management and conflict resolution inthe Middle East and beyond. Washington: RFF Press.

Gleick, P. H. (1993). Water and conflict: fresh water resources and international security. International Security 18,pp. 79–112.

Gleick, P. H. (1996). Basic water requirements for human activities: meeting basic needs. Water International, 21,pp. 83–92.

Gleick, P. H., Wolff, G., Chalecki, E. L. and Reyes, R. (2002). The world’s atfer 2002–2003: the biennial report onfreshwater resources. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Gregory, D. (2004). The colonial present: Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Hassan, M. A. and Egozi, R. (2001). Impact of wastewater discharge on channel morphology of ephemeral streams.

Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 26, Pp. 1285–1302.Hassan, M. A., Shahin, K., Klinkenberg, B., McIntyre, G., Diabat, M., Tamimi, A.-Al., Nativ, R. (2010).

Palestinian water II: climate change and land use. Geography Compass, 4(2).Hourani, A. H. (2002). A History of the Arab People. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Lowi, M. (1993). Bridging the divide: transboundary resource disputes and the case of West Bank water. Interna-

tional Security, 18, pp. 113–138.McIntyre, G. (2007). An analysis of water pricing and consumption variations within the occupied West Bank. Unpublished

MA Thesis, Vancouver, British Columbia: Department of Geography, University of British Columbia.Messerschmid, C. (2003). Protecting the mountain aquifer – a missed opportunity. Open Letter to Friends of the Earth

Middle East, In response to FOEME conference Protecting the Mountain Aquifer’’, Israel 2003, 19 January 2003.Mizyed, N. (2001). Land use management in the context of joint management, of shared aquifers. In Feitelson, E.

and Haddad, M. (eds) Management of shared groundwater resources: the Israeli-Palestinian case with an internationalperspective. Norwell, Massachusetts: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 445–452.

Oslo II Accords (1995). Article 40 of Oslo II. September 28, 1995.Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (2007). Home – Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. Available at: http://

www.pbcs.gov.ps (last accessed 10 October 2007).Palestinian Hydrology Group (2002). Pricing policy: willingness to pay and affordability, West Bank – Palestine.

Final report submitted to the International Development Research Center of Canada.Palestinian Hydrology Group (2008). Water resources assessment in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Internal Report,

Ramallah, West Bank: Palestinian Hydrology Group.Rabi, S. and Titi, R. (1998). Environmental pollution and settlements. Water and Environment, February 1998 issue

(Palestinian Hydrology Group), pp. 33–37.Shachnai, E. (2000). The geological map of Israel 1:50,000; the Ramallah Page. Jerusalem: The Israel Geological

Survey.Shuval, H. and Dweik, H. (2007). Water Resources in the Middle East: Israel-Palestinian water issues – from conflict to

cooperation. New York: Springer.Tagar, Z., Keinan, T., and Bromberg, G. (2008). A seeping timebomb: pollution of the Mountain Aquifer by

sewage. In: Shuval, H. and Dweik, H. (eds.) Water resources in the Middle East: Israeli-Palestinian water issues – fromconflict to cooperation. New York: Springer, pp. 417–426.



Tal, A., et al. (2008). Watershed Modeling: Biomonitoring and Economic Analysis to Determine Optimal Restora-tion Strategies for Ttransboundary Streams Covering the Period from September 2004 to December 2007.Report MERC project -M23-019, U.S Agency for International Development.

United Nations. (1997). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of InternationalWatercourses, annexed to U.N. Doc. A ⁄ RES ⁄ 51 ⁄ 229, of 8 July 1997. SEE APPENDIX A.

United Nations. (2007). The Occupied Palestinian Territories. Available at: http://esa.un.org/unup/p2k0data.asp(last accessed, 18 November 2008).

United Nations Environment Programme. (2007). UNEP mapping website. Available at: http://www.grid.unep.ch/product/map/index.php (last accessed 7 October 2007).

Weinberger, G., Rosenthal, E., Ben-Zvi, A. and Zeitoun, D. G. (1994). The Yarkon-Taninim groundwater basin,Israel hydrogeology: case study and critical review. Journal of Hydrology, 161, pp. 227–255.

Wolf, A. (2000). Hydrostrategic territory in the Jordan Basin: water, war, and Arab-Israeli peace negotiations.Hussein, A. and Wolf, A. (eds.) Water in the Middle East: A geography of peace. Austin, Texas: University of TexasPress, Pp. 63–120.

Yakhin, Y. (2006). Water in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Paper submitted to the Baker Institute at Rice Univer-sity. Available at: http://bakerinstitute.org/Pubs/rp_2006_005.pdf (last accessed 10 October 2007).

Zeitoun, M. (2007). The conflict vs. cooperation paradox: fighting over or sharing of Palestinian-Israeli groundwa-ter? Water International, 32, pp. 105–120.

Zeitoun, M. (2008). Power and water in the Middle East: The hidden politics of the Palestinian-Israeli water conflict. NewYork, NY: I.B. Tauris.

Zimmerman, B., Seid, R. and Wise, M. (2005). The million person gap: the Arab population in the West Bankand Gaza. Mideast Security and Policy Studies, 65, The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, Bar-Ilan Univer-sity. Available at: http://www.biu.ac.il/Besa/MSPS65.pdf (last accessed 09 April 2009).



Palestinian Water I: Resources, Allocation and Perception

Documents

Transcript of Palestinian Water I: Resources, Allocation and Perception