| |

Visit Shows Israel Faces Similar Water
Management Issues as Arizona
By Sharon Megdal
 |
I traveled to Israel this summer to present a paper
at a conference and to meet with researchers and other water professionals
to learn about Israeli water management and policy. My perception was
that, while quite a bit of Arizona-Israeli collaboration on technical
water issues seemed to have occurred, less had taken place in the social
science and policy arenas. I hoped to build upon recent collaboration
with an Israeli resource economist. My trip was extremely productive.
Fortunately my travels were unaffected by the violence in Gaza; the trouble
to the North did not erupt until after I returned to the United States.
I met with officials from the Israel Water Commission and Mekorot (the
national water supplier); I also met with researchers from several disciplines
and university campuses. I heard conference presentations on issues relating
to water for the environment and water levels in the Sea of Galilee.
Although Israel and Arizona have much different systems for managing water
resources, the water management issues are very similar: drought, salinity,
seawater desalination, effluent re-use, institutions, water pricing, and
allocation across water using sectors (including the environment). I will
discuss a few of these issues.
The institutional setting for water policy in Israel is changing. The
Ministry of Infrastructure’s Water Commission had set water allocations
and oversaw much water policy. Different ministries handled other water
matters, such as water quality and determining allocation of water for
the environment. I was told, however, that a new Water Authority, recently
established by the legislature, will bring together various ministries
to promote better coordinated water management. The head of the Water
Authority, to be housed in the Ministry of Infrastructure, will have a
five-year appointment and will work with a board of representatives from
the various ministries (Agriculture, Treasury, Infrastructure, Environment,
Interior Affairs) plus two appointees from the public. Time will tell
if the Water Authority, which is just being implemented, will work as
envisioned.
Israel has a very centralized approach to allocating water. The country
faces the same issues as Arizona does in times of drought: how much water
to take out of storage and the extent of water cuts. Israeli agriculture
is viewed as a sector more able than the municipal sector to cut back
water use during drought. Agricultural water allocations are largely at
the discretion of the central government; cutbacks do not depend on voluntary
arrangements for water transfers, as contemplated in the western United
States. The papers I read in preparation for my trip noted that the agricultural
sector represents a strong lobby in Israel; it emphasizes the importance
of its operations for providing home-grown food supplies and preserving
open space and green areas.
Israel has the advantage of a seacoast. I visited what is said to be the
world’s largest operating seawater RO (reverse osmosis) desalination
plant and surprised Israelis with my interest in seawater desalination.
I explained that desalination along coastal California has the potential
to enable landlocked Arizona to gain more Colorado River water. Israel,
like the United States, has long considered seawater desalination. Repeated
droughts there have prompted a program to construct several plants over
a five-year period to eventually deliver 315 million cubic meters of freshwater.
With construction having begun in 2003, the plant in Ashkelon was built
through a public-private partnership as a build-operate-transfer (BOT)
facility. Fully operational in 2005, the plant produces 100 million cubic
meters (approximately 81,100 af) of desalted water per year. It is a 20-minute
process to produce fresh water. Also Israel shares Arizona’s interest
in removing salts from brackish groundwater, with projects underway in
the southern part of the country.
Using detailed hydrologic information, the Water Commission and Mekorot,
which supplies about two-thirds of the water used in Israel, have developed
a management system to limit the amount of high-salinity water entering
the water system from the Sea of Galilee. The Galilee’s lowering
water levels, however, are a concern, reflective of recent drought conditions
and decisions regarding how much water to draw out of storage.
An important global concern is environmental water needs, an issue the
Israeli Ministry of the Environment must consider in response to recent
legislation. As we in Arizona know, restoring lost riparian areas, necessary
for flora and fauna and valued by people, is difficult. Yet Arizona has
not developed a strategy for recognizing the environment as a water-using
sector. Observing Israeli efforts as well as those of other locales, including
Victoria, Australia (the subject of two presentations at the conference),
could be of value to Arizona and other semi-arid or arid regions.
Water re-use is an important issue. The Israelis hope to increase agriculture’s
approximately sixty percent use of the country’s effluent to 80
to 85 percent. Arizona’s effluent picture is much different, with
reclaimed water mostly used for golf courses, turf irrigation and as cooling
water for the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Station. Various factors limit
Arizona’s agricultural use of effluent, including a lack of proximity
to sources of effluent, as well as cost and other considerations.
My limited introduction to Israeli water pricing indicated that, as is
true elsewhere, water pricing involves economic as well as political/policy
considerations. Compared to Arizona, water pricing is a much more centralized
function. Prices are set in ways, however, that do not necessarily cover
costs of service. Tiered pricing has been introduced in the agricultural
sector, and an extraction levy has been assessed to reflect the scarcity
value of the water resource, a policy economists advocate but rarely see
considered, let alone adopted, by policy makers.
Water resource management concerns across the globe are frequently very
similar, although countries often approach them differently. That we can
learn from each other’s experiences is clear. I hope my visit leads
to future collaborations and additional learning opportunities for myself
and others.
.

|
|