Deliverable 2b 3-7-2013 Hebron Reportsent To Majid For Finalization

Palestinian Water Authority
Update Feasibility Study for Hebron

Governorate Regional Wastewater
Management Project - Module 2.
Deliverable 2B – Task 7-Conceptual

Design of Reclaimed Effluent and
Biosolids Reuse Scheme and
Proposal for Project Component on
Effluent and Biosolid Reuse.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT 1
2. REFINED CROP AND FARM MODELS 2

2.1. Current Farming in the Project Area 2
2.2. Farmers’ Survey 3
2.3. Refined crop models 7
2.3.1. Review of Palestinian TWW Reuse Standards and the expected
effluent quality and their impact on the preliminary crop selection 8
2.3.2. The project expected effluent Quality 9
The expected main effluent criteria for the project area are as follow: 9
2.4. Basic Crop Selection 12
2.4.1. Fruit Tree Crops 13
2.4.2. Fodders Crops 14
2.5. Preliminary Benefit Cost Analysis for the Potential Crops 15
2.5.1. Preliminary Benefit/Cost (B/C) analysis for Pistachios, Dates and
Pomegranates 15
2.5.2. Preliminary Cost benefit for Almonds 16
2.5.3. Barley crop 16
2.5.4. Alfalfa 17
2.5.5. Sorghum 17
2.5.6. Maize 18
2.5.7. Summary of the Net Returns for the Selected Potential Crops 18
2.6. Intercropping of Potential Fruit Tree Crops 18
The potential high returns Almonds and Date palms were intercropped with the high
returns alfalfa, and maize and barley to absorb winter surplus, the inter-
cropping aims at: 18
2.6.1. Dates Intercropping 19
2.6.2. Almond Intercropping 20
3. THE FINALIZED OUTLINE DESIGN OF THE RECLAIMED WATER REUSE

FACILITIES 21
3.1. Reuse Area Selection 21
3.1.1. potential area 1 – the lands along wadi es-samin 21
3.1.2. potential area 2 – The Al-Furejat Lands 25
3.2. reuse potential area screening, prioritization and project phasing 28
3.2.1. project phasing 29
3.3. Water, Salt and Nutrient Balance for the Refined Cropping Pattern 30
3.3.1. Water and Salt for the Individual Crops and Intermixed Cropping
Pattern for Al-Fureijat Area 30
3.3.2. Nutrients balance 33
3.3.3. Water and Salt Balance for the Individual Crops and Intermixed
Cropping Pattern for Wadi Es-Sammin Area 35
3.3.4. Wadi Es-Sammin Nutrients Balance 36
3.4. Conceptual Reuse Scheme Facilities 36
3.4.1. Design Criteria 37
3.4.2. Potential Reuse Areas Scheme Design 38
3.5. Farm Models Selection 44
3.5.1. Assumption for the Analysis 45
3.5.2. Miscellaneous Irrigation System Costs 45
3.5.3. General Notes 46
J.V,. of Witteveen+Bos Consulting engineers & Consulting Engineering Service (Sajdi & Partners) i
Deliverable 1.C., draft final 01, dated June 26, 2013
4. THE FEASIBILITY STUDY COMPONENTS 53
4.1 Investment Costs 53
5. PALESTINIAN EXPERIENCE IN WW, TREATMENT AND REUSE 73

5.1. General 73
5.2. Wastewater Treatment Plants 73
5.2.1. Al-Bireh WWTP 74
5.2.2. Gaza WWTP 74
5.2.3. Wastewater Treatment Systems in Rural Areas 75
5.3. Treated Wastewater Reuse for Irrigation 76
5.4. Experience with Reuse Schemes and Lessons 76
5.5. Recent Reuse Pilot Projects 80
6. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGMENT 86
6.1. Institutional Set Up and Organizations Involved 86
6.2. water users association (WUA) 86
6.3. Agricultural Sector Financing 88
6.4. Funding for Individual Farmers 89
7. CAPACITY BUILDING 94
Target Groups 94
7.1. Capacity Building: Human Resource Development 95
7.2. Capacity Building: Policy and Legal Framework Development 95
7.3. Capacity Building: Institutional Development and Organizational Management 95
7.4. Capacity Building: Financing 95
7.5. Capacity Building: Raising Public Awareness and Participation 96
8. HEALTH MONITORINGN PLAN 97

8.1. Strategy to Protect Human Health and Environment 97
8.2. Crop Selection for Health Protection 98
9. PUBLIC AWAIRNES PROGRAM 102

9.1. Farmers’ Attitude towards the Use of Effluent 102
9.2. Demonstrationof Pilot Ruese Project Concept 105
9.2.1. Pilot Project at Hebron project 105
APPENDICES Number of pages.

(I) Farmers questionnaire 108
(II) Crop Budget 118
(III) Livestock questionnaire 121
(IV) Names of farmers who are ready to found wua and their clusters numbers 123
(V) List of organizations and lending institutions financing the agricultural sector 125
J.V,. of Witteveen+Bos Consulting engineers & Consulting Engineering Service (Sajdi & Partners) ii
Deliverable 2B., draft final 01, dated June 12, 2012
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: The Total Cultivated Area in Hebron Governorate ......................................... 2
Table 2-2: Type of Work in Agriculture ............................................................................. 3
Table 2-3: Agricultural Monthly Income ............................................................................ 4
Table 2-4: Non-Agricultural Income.................................................................................. 4
Table 2-5: Type of Other work .......................................................................................... 5
Table 2-6: Level of Experience in Agriculture .................................................................. 6
Table 2-7: Palestinian TWW Reuse Technical Obligatory Regulations 34/2012 in

comparison to the expected effluent quality. .................................................................. 10
Table 2-8: Permitted Use of Treated Wastewater for the Different Effluent Quality
Grades ............................................................................................................................ 11
Table 2-9: Guidelines for Interpretations of Water Quality for Irrigation Quoted from
FAO "Water Quality for Irrigation" .................................................................................. 12
Table 2-10: Chloride and Salinity Sensitivity of the Chosen Tree Crops....................... 14
Table 2-11: Chloride and Salinity Sensitivity of the Chosen Crops ............................... 15
Table 2-12: Comparison between Costs and Returns of Pistachios, Dates, and
Pomegranates Plantations ............................................................................................. 16
Table 2-13: Comparison of Returns and Costs of Rainfed and Irrigated Almonds, both
in Palestine ..................................................................................................................... 16
Table 2-14: Comparison of Returns and Costs of Rainfed and Irrigated Barely, .......... 16
Table 2-15: Comparison of Returns and Costs of Irrigated Alfalfa in Sacramento-USA

and Palestine .................................................................................................................. 17
Table 2-16: Comparison of Returns and Costs of Irrigated Sorghum in USA and
Palestine ......................................................................................................................... 17
Table 2-17: Comparison of Returns and Costs of maize ............................................... 18
Table 2-18: Summary of the Net Returns for the Selected Potential Crops .................. 18
Table 2-19: Sensitivity Analysis for the Four Combinations of Dates Intercropping Net
Returns (US$) ................................................................................................................. 19
J.V,. of Witteveen+Bos Consulting engineers & Consulting Engineering Service (Sajdi & Partners) iii
Table 2-20: Sensitivity Analysis for Almonds Intercropping Net Returns (US$)............ 20
Table 3-1: Potential Area 1 - Along Wadi Es-Sammin ................................................... 21
Table 3-2: Potential Area 1 – Cost of Pumping Stations ............................................... 22
Table 3-3: Core Area 1 – Cost of Irrigation Pipelines .................................................... 22
Table 3-4: Clusters Unit Area Cost of Irrigation Pipelines and Pumps .......................... 23
Table 3-5: Al-Fureijat Whole Area Option Conveyance System, Pumping and per ha
Conveyance Sytem Costs .............................................................................................. 25
Table 3-6: Potential Area 3 - Cost of the Pump station and Irrigation Pipelines ........... 26
Table 3-7: Prioritized Clusters Conveyance and Pumping Costs ................................. 28
Table 3-8: Reference Evapotranspiration ETo for Al-Fureijat Area Calculated by FAO
CROPWAT Software ...................................................................................................... 30
Table 3-9: Reference Evapotranspiration ETo for Wadi Es-Sammin Area Calculated by
FAO CROPWAT Software .............................................................................................. 31
Table 3-10: The Leaching Fraction for the Selected Crops ........................................... 32
Table 3-11: The Resultant Cropping Patterns Based on Water Balance Model
Calculations for Al-Fureijat Area ..................................................................................... 33
Table 3-12: Water Balance for Al-Fureijat Area ............................................................. 33
Table 3-13: Nitrogen Balance for Al-Fureijat Area ......................................................... 34
Table 3-14: Phosphates Balance for Al-Fureijat Area ................................................... 34
Table 3-15: The Resultant Cropping Patterns Based On Water Balance Model
Calculations for Wadi Es-Sammin Area ......................................................................... 35
Table 3-16: Water Balance for Wadi Es-Sammin Area ................................................. 35
Table 3-17: Nitrogen Balance for Al-Fureijat Area ......................................................... 36
Table 3-18: Phosphates Balance for Wadi Es-Sammin Area ........................................ 36
Table 3-19: Hydraulic Calculation Units ......................................................................... 37
Table 3-20: Scheme Design Results for the Identified 34 Clusters ............................... 38
Table 3-21: The Pump and Pumping Costs for the Identified 34 Clusters .................... 40
Table 3-22: Cost Estimate for Alternative One .............................................................. 41
J.V,. of Witteveen+Bos Consulting engineers & Consulting Engineering Service (Sajdi & Partners) iv
Table 3-23: Cost Estimate for Alternative Two .............................................................. 42
Table 3-24: Cost Estimate for Alternative Three ............................................................ 43
Table 3-25: Cost Estimate for Alternative Four .............................................................. 44
Table -3-26: Distribution of Planted Area According To the Questionnaire Results ..... 44
Table 3-27: Implementation Phases of the Project ........................................................ 45
Table 3-28: The Cropping Patterns Based on Water Balance Model Calculations in Al-
Fureijat ............................................................................................................................ 45
Table 3-29: The Cropping Patterns Based on Water Balance Model Calculations in
Wadi Es-Sammin ............................................................................................................ 46
Table 3-30: Intercropping Percentages .......................................................................... 46
Table 3-31: Main Technical Assumption for the Livestock Component ........................ 48
Table 3-32: Investment Costs of the Livestock Component for the 2-ha Farm ............. 50
Table 3-33: Investment Costs of the Livestock Component for the 5-ha Farm ............. 51
Table 3-34: Investment Costs of the Livestock Component for the 50-ha Farm ........... 52
Table 4-1: Investment Costs for the 2-ha Farm in Wadi Es-Sammin ............................ 53
Table 4-2: Investment Costs for the 5-ha Farm in Wadi Es-Sammin ............................ 54
Table 4-3: Investment Costs for the 50-ha farm in Wadi Es-Sammin ........................... 55
Table 4-4: Investment Costs for the 2-ha Farm in Al-Fureijat ........................................ 56
Table 4-7: Operational Costs for 2-Ha Farm with 25 Heads of livestock in .................. 58
Table 4-8: Operational Costs for 5-Ha Farm with 70 Heads of livestock in .................. 59
Table 4-9: Operational Costs for 50-Ha Farm with 100 Heads of livestock in .............. 60
Table 4-10: Total Operational Costs for the 2-ha Farm with 25 Heads of Livestock .... 61
Table 4-11: Total Operational Costs for the 5-ha Farm with 70 Heads of Livestock .... 61
Table 4-12: Total Operational Costs for the 50-ha Farm with 100 Heads of Livestock 62
J.V,. of Witteveen+Bos Consulting engineers & Consulting Engineering Service (Sajdi & Partners) v
Table 4-13: Total Returns for the 2-ha Farm in Wadi Es-Sammin ................................ 63
Table 4-14: Total Returns for the 5-ha Farm in Wadi Es-Sammin ................................ 63
Table 4-15: Total Returns for the 50-ha Farm in Wadi Es-Sammin .............................. 64
Table 4-16: Total Returns for the 2-ha Farm in Al-Fureijat ............................................ 65
Table 4-17: Total Returns for the 5-ha Farm in Al-Fureijat ............................................ 65
Table 4-18: Total Returns for the 50-ha Farm in Al-Fureijat .......................................... 66
Table 4-19: Al-Fureijat farm Size 2 HA, Livestock 25 .................................................... 67
Table 4-20: Wadi Es-Sammin Farm Size =5 HA, Livestock= 50 heads ........................ 67
Table 4-21: Al-Fureijat Farm size = 50 HA, Livestock 70 heads ................................... 68
Table 4-22: Wadi Es-Sammin, Farm Size 2 Ha, Livestock = 25 heads ........................ 68
Table 4-23: Wadi Es-Sammin, Farm Size 5Ha, Livestock = 50 heads ......................... 69
Table 4-24: Wadi Es-Sammin, Farm Size 50 Ha, Livestock = 70 heads ...................... 70
Table 4-25: Results and Sensitivity Analyses for the 2-ha farm in Wadi Es-Sammin ... 71
Table 4-26: Results and Sensitivity Analyses for the 5-ha farm in Wadi Es-Sammin ... 71
Table 4-27: Results and Sensitivity Analyses for the 50-ha farm in Wadi Es-Sammin . 71
Table 4-28: Results and Sensitivity Analyses for the 2-ha farm in Alfurejat .................. 72
Table 4-29: Results and Sensitivity Analyses for the 5-ha farm in Alfurejat .................. 72
Table 4-30: Results and Sensitivity Analyses for the 50-ha farm in Alfurejat................ 72
Table 5-1: Basic Data of the Existing Wastewater Treatment Plants in the Palestinian
Territory by Location ....................................................................................................... 73
Table 5-2: Wastewater treatment systems in institutional and rural Palestine ......................... 75
Table 5-3: Results of El Bireh Wastewater Treatment Pilot Plant Using Treated
Wastewater. .................................................................................................................... 81
Table 6-0-1: Willingness to Join and Found WUA ......................................................... 87
Table 6-2: financing access questionnaire ..................................................................... 90
Table 8--81- Safety and Occupational Health monitoring program ............................. 100
J.V,. of Witteveen+Bos Consulting engineers & Consulting Engineering Service (Sajdi & Partners) vi
Table 9-1: Main subjects and target groups for awareness campaigns ...................... 103
Table 9-2: Estimated investment and operation costs for the training center at Hebron
WWTP ........................................................................................................................... 107
J.V,. of Witteveen+Bos Consulting engineers & Consulting Engineering Service (Sajdi & Partners) vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1: POTENTIAL 1 - Lands along Wadi Es-Sammin .......................................... 24
Figure 3-2: Overview of Al-Furejat three clusters subschemes ..................................... 26
Figure 3-3: Clusters Irrigation Areas .............................................................................. 38
Figure 3-4: Alternative One; Gravity dam with central pumping station and large
distribution network ......................................................................................................... 41
Figure 3-5: Alternative Two; Gravity Dam with Long Main Force Pipe and Large
Distribution Network ........................................................................................................ 42
Figure 3-6: Alternative Three; Central Pump Station with Minimized Pipe Distribution 43
Figure 3-7: Alternative Four; Phazing System ............................................................... 43
Figure 5-1: General View of Al-Bireh Wastewater Treatment Plant .............................. 74
Figure 5-2: Citrus trees irrigated with treated wastewater from Gaza WWTP .............. 82
J.V,. of Witteveen+Bos Consulting engineers & Consulting Engineering Service (Sajdi & Partners) viii
1. PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT
This document is Deliverable 2B, “Prepare a conceptual design of reclaimed effluent and
biosolids reuse scheme and proposal for the project component on effluent and Biosolids
reuse" and includes the results of Task 7 of Module 2 of the Terms of Reference (TOR) for
this project.
As per the TOR, this document includes a number of items as follows:
 An expanded and refined crop and farm models.

 Assessment of the capacity building needs of farmers to make the transition from rainfed to
irrigated agriculture and for the use of biosolids on agricultural lands.
 The finalized outline design of the reclaimed water reuse facilities.
 A phased approach to the implementation of the reuse scheme.
 The options for O&M of the reclaimed effluent and biosolids facilities, including the
formation of water users associations.
 An inventory of existing knowledge and expertise on reclaimed water and effluent reuse in
West Bank and Gaza.
 Capacity building and technical assistance program to future reclaimed water users,
including pilot and demonstration projects.
 A health monitoring program for farmers and surrounding population.
J.V,. of Witteveen+Bos Consulting engineers & Consulting Engineering Service (Sajdi & Partners) 1
Deliverable 1.C., draft final 01, dated July 3, 2013
2. REFINED CROP AND FARM MODELS
This section of the report discusses the refined crop and farm models, existing, available
farmland and land use patterns; available water sources and the potential for reuse of
treated wastewater in in the project area the areas adjacent to the HRWWTP.
2.1. Current Farming in the Project Area
The rain fed agriculture is dominant in Hebron governorate; the total cultivated area is
about 5,800 ha, the main cultivated crop is Grapes 55%, as shown in the following table
Table 2-1: The Total Cultivated Area in Hebron Governorate
Area
Crop Area Dunom Crop
Dunom
Grape 31,872 Potato 30

Olive 3,786 Dry Onion 91
Lemon 572 Wheat 2,460
Plum 4,445 Barley 4,233
Fig 2,034 Sern 1,376
Aloe 499 Thyme 53
Almond (hard) 1,250 Dry Garlic 6
Almond (soft) 1,762 Chick-peas 95
Peach 782 Vetch 510

Apple 201 Lentil 214
Apricot 394 Broad bean 6
Cherry 124 Sesame 2
Pomegranate 216 Meramieh 52
Loquat 201 Ment 18
Walnut 302 Broom Corn 13
Pears 145 Sorghum 64
Quince 136 Local Tobacco 70
Nectarine 6 Dry Cowpea 2

Sumak 49
Source:PCPS2011
Deliverable 2b., draft final 01, dated July,2013
2.2. Farmers’ Survey
A second run of farmer’s survey was oriented toward the farmers of the selected potential
areas of Wadi Es-Sammin and Al-Fureijat after excluding Yatta lands as per finding of
deliverable 1C which showed the very high required investment cost of Yatta lands (See
Annex 1). This run was carried out to collect essential information on socio-economic
characteristics of the farmers and on the current farming practices in the potential areas
and to define specific issues, such as:
- Existing land use and tenure system, ownership of land, income from farming and
information on actual living and farming conditions;
- Current types of crops and crop sequence, use of fertilizer and livestock, reared in the
area;
- Willingness and capability of farmers to practice intensive irrigated agriculture;
- Willingness and ability to pay to treatment wastewater, and suggest possible sources of
financing for farmers’ possible irrigation investments.
-
The first questionnaire was prepared, filled and analyzed for 65 farmers in the project area;
the report was presented in deliverable one. Since there are additional items in the second
questionnaire, the two results were not combined together.
The research team interviewed 59 farmers who own land around the station and the Wadi,
they are living in Hebron Governorate. The results indicated that about 59% of the farmers’
household numbers in the sample have 5-10 persons/household while about 33.3% have
more than ten persons in each household. The average age of the respondents was 49
years.
The results showed that about 25.8% respondents carry a university degree (BSc) and
(MSc), 17.2% have high school certificate, and about 16% of them were illiterate.
On the other hand, about 98.3 % of the respondents in the sample work as famers, only
15% of them live in their farms, the others live out of their farms, and about 78% live at a
distance of less than 5 km. About 60% of the farmers use tractors as a transportation
mean, while 20% use cars and the rest use public transportation.
Moreover, about 97% of the respondents own their agricultural land, while the rest rent it.
Two thirds of the agricultural land is plain, 29% with mild slope and the rest was medium
slope. On the other hand, about 55% of the farmers said that their land needs reclamation.
Table 2.2 shows that about 85.2% of the respondents work in agriculture as part time job
while 13% work full time in agriculture. Also this table shows that about 60% of the full time
farmers are old (more than 61 years old).
Table 2-2: Type of Work in Agriculture
Age of Household Head Type of Work in Agriculture Total
Full Time Part Time Do Not Work
Less than 30 Years 100.0% 100.0%
30-40 Years 9.1% 81.8% 9.1% 100.0%
41-50 Years 5.0% 95.0% 100.0%
51-60 Years 22.2% 77.8% 100.0%
More Than 60 Years 37.5% 62.5% 100.0%
Total 13.0% 85.2% 1.9% 100.0%
Moreover, about 51% of the responders said that they use family labor in agricultural
practices, while 14% said that they do not have family labor. The rest did answer this
question. About 63% of the respondents said that they will use more family labor if they
start irrigating their land, while about 17% of them will hire additional labor and 58% will not
hire additional labor.
Only 15 farmers declared about their income from agriculture, the average monthly income
per farmer was about 229 US$. All the respondents having elementary of High School
certificates , and the illiterates got monthly income of 130 -26 US$, while 60% of the
Primary and BSC certificate holders get 52 – 130 US$/month, and 20% of the BSc
certificate holders get more than 260 US$/month. (Table 2.4)
Table 2-3: Agricultural Monthly Income

Agricultural Monthly Income
Education Level More than 260 Total
52-130 US$ 130.01-260 US$ US$
Illiterate 100.0% 100.0%
Primary 60.0% 40.0% 100.0%
Elementary 100.0% 100.0%
High school 100.0% 100.0%
Diploma 100.0% 100.0%
BSc 60.0% 20.0% 20.0% 100.0%
Total 46.7% 46.7% 6.7% 100.0%
On the other hand, since there are farmers who hold BS and MSC, about 60% of the
respondents in the sample get more than 260 US$/month from non-Agricultural resources.
Table 2.5. All the high school certificate holders get low monthly income (60-130 US$)
while the illiterates were divided equally been the lower and middle level of income.
Table 2-4: Non-Agricultural Income

Non-Agricultural Monthly Income
Education Level
More than 260 Total
52-130 US$ 130.01-260 US$S US$
Illiterate 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%
Primary 33.3% 66.7% 100.0%
Elementary 33.3% 66.7% 100.0%
High school 100.0% 100.0%
Diploma 100.0% 100.0%
BSc 10.0% 10.0% 80.0% 100.0%
MSc 100.0% 100.0%
Total 27.3% 13.6% 59.1% 100.0%
The types of work other than agriculture are illustrated in Table 2.6. About 36.4 0f the
respondents work as laborers, while 21.2%, 18.2%, 12.1%, and 9.1% work as employees,
traders, drivers and teaches respectively.
Table 2-5: Type of Other work

Education Type of Other Work Total
Level
Laborer Trader Employee Teacher Driver Carpenter
Illiterate 100.0% 100.0%
Primary 75.0% 25.0% 100.0%
Elementary 50.0% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 100.0%
High school 40.0% 20.0% 40.0% 100.0%
Diploma 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%
BSc 33.3% 8.3% 25.0% 25.0% 8.3% 100.0%
MSc 100.0% 100.0%
Total 36.4% 18.2% 21,2% 9.1% 12.1% 3%
When asked about the ability to use Treated wastewater, about 79% of the respondents
said yes, while about 19.3% said no, the rest did answer this question.
Only 14% of the respondents own tractors and 2% only own irrigation system, since only
two farmers in the sample irrigate part of their farms.
The survey showed that 64.4% of the farmers could be reached by cars and 7% of them
have accessibility to electricity. The last result shows that most of the farmers cannot use
electrical pumps after moving to irrigation system.
Table 2.6 shows that about 14.8% of the respondents have less than 5 years experience in
agriculture, while 27.8% have 5-10 years of experience and 22.2% have 11-20 years of
experience in agriculture. It is also noticed from the table that 87.5% of the farmers who
have more than 20 years of experience are illiterate. On the other hand, all the MSc holders
have less than 5 years experience in agriculture.
Table 2-6: Level of Experience in Agriculture
Experience in Agriculture
Education
Level Less than 5 More than 20
Years 5-10 Years 11-20 Years Years Total
Illiterate 12.5% 87.5% 100.0%
Primary 9.1% 18.2% 27.3% 45.5% 100.0%
Elementary 12.5% 25.0% 37.5% 25.0% 100.0%
High school 55.6% 44.4% 100.0%
Diploma 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 100.0%
BSc 30.8% 38.5% 30.8% 100.0%
MSc 100.0% 100.0%
Total 14.8% 27.8% 22.2% 35.2% 100.0%
When asked about the level of training in agriculture, about 78% of respondents said that
they do not have. Accordingly about 84% of them said that they need training, 50% of them
in agricultural practices, 40% in Irrigation practices and the rest were divided equally
between nursery and plant protection practices.
About 90.2% of the respondents said that they have access to the extension services.
About 64% of the farmers in the sample buy their farm inputs from Hebron suppliers, 19%
from Dura and the rest from Yatta.
Crops produced in the area are mainly olives (36 farmers), almonds (16 farmers) and field
crops (44 farmers), with few grapes (8 famers) and vegetables (6 famers), all of them are
rain fed.
The average olive farm area in the sample was 8 dunums, with a maximum 40dunums, and
minimum of 1.5 dunums. The average yield is 118 kgs/dunum with a maximum 250
kgs/dunum and minimum 50 kgs/dunum.
On the other hand, olive fruits were sold, on average, 1.06 US$/Kg, with a maximum of
1.30 US$/kg and Minimum 1.04 US$/kg. The average total return per dunum was 135.60
US$/dunum.
The study showed that the farmers in the sample add different quantities of manure to their
olive orchards, The average was 8.7 kg/tree, with a maximum 40 kgs/tree and minimum 0.5
kgs/tree.
The average almonds farm area in the sample was 4.3 dunums, with a maximum15
dunums, and minimum of 0.5 dunums. The average yield is 230 kgs/dunum with a
maximum 250 kgs/dunum and minimum 50 kgs/dunum.
On the other hand, almond fruits were sold 3.90 US$/Kg. The average total return per
dunum was 779.22 US$/dunum.
The study showed that the farmers in the sample add different quantities of manure to their
almonds orchards, The average was 4 kg/tree, with a maximum 15 kgs/tree and minimum
0.5 kgs/tree.
The average field crops (mainly barley) farm area in the sample was 35 dunums, with a
maximum 280 dunums, and minimum of 1.5 dunums. The average yield of seeds is 280
kgs/dunum, and for hay 600 kg/dunum, with a maximum 444 kgs/dunum and minimum 67
kgs/dunum for seeds.
On the other hand, baley seeds and hay were sold at 0.39 US$/Kg. The average total
return per dunum was 103.90 US$/dunum for seeds and 257.14 US$/dunum of hay.
When asked about their acceptance of establishing nurseries, only one farmer’s answer
was negative, while three farmers did not accept to produce seeds using reclaimed
wastewater.
About 28% of the respondents confirm that they are members of an agricultural
cooperative, but about 96 % of them accepted to join a TWW user association. This result
helps in subsidizing the irrigation system in their farms when applying Reclaimed
wastewater as declared by the Ministry of Agriculture officers.
The analysis show that about 72.3% uses manure alone, 23.4% uses manure and
chemicals, and the rest uses chemical fertilizers only. This result encourages producing
organic products which could be sold at higher prices.
Moreover, about 95% of the respondents accepted to use sludge as organic fertilizer, and
about 85% of them are willing to buy treated wastewater, since about 97% of the farmers in
the area know about treated wastewater uses.
When applying treated wastewater, about 88% of the respondents accept to buy pumps,
about the same ratio accepted to share pumping costs and about 83% of them accept to
pay for the irrigation network in their farms. On the other hand, only one farmer accepted to
construct a storage facility.
About two thirds of the respondents are willing to pay 0.05 US$/m3, 15% are willing to pay
0.08 US$/m3, 2.2% are willing to pay 0.10 US$/m3, and 15.2% are willing to pay 3.95
US$/m3. The average willing to pay price is about 0.27 m3.
Annex 2 summarizes the crop budgets for alfalfa, irrigated maize and barley.
2.3. Refined crop models

In refining the crop models, the following approach was used:
a. Initially a group of potential crops was selected based on farmer's inventory and
meetings, import export data, regulations and climate compatability, and the
supporting FAO mission reccomendations.
b. Then the selected crops were screened according to their salinity and chloride
tolerance of the expected effluent quality.
c. A preliminary cost-beneifit analysis was carried out for tolerant crops and only high
returns crops were maintained.
d. Intercropping patterns were proposed for the high return crops
e. Second B/C analysis and sensitivity analysis were carried out for the
intercropped patterns and the highest return intercropping patterns are kept.
f. The proposed highest return intercropping patterns were adopted for the water,
nutrient balances and farm model analysis.
2.3.1. Review of Palestinian TWW Reuse Standards and the expected effluent quality and
their impact on the preliminary crop selection
The Palestinian TWW Reuse Technical Obligatory Regulations, 34/2012 and the
Palestinian Treated Waste Water Specification, PS 742-2003 provide the bases for future
TWW reuse. Their influence on the design parameters for the TWW reuse is therefore
assessed in this section.
The assessment of the parameters that have fundamental importance such as TSS, TDS,
and total Nitrogen was first done to determine the permissiable crop categories,then the
other quality parameters were assessed to determine the group of potential crops or /and
the required mitigation measures to minimize the crop reduction i.e. leaching fraction .
In general the Palestinian standards PS 742-2003 are affected by the regional regulations
in Jordan and Israel and follow the same approach in defining TWW quality classes based
on physical, chemical, parasitological, and heavy metal parameters as the case of the
Jordanian standards and at the same time it adopted the Israeli approach of barriers which
are additional measures allows to irrigate the same crop with the different quality grades
but with different required barriers.
Four classes (A-D) of different quality levels are specified mainly according to the complete
set of physical, chemical, parasitological, and heavy and other metal parameters and with
specific reference to BOD, TSS, and Fecal Coliforms. Total nitrogen ranged from 10-60
mg/l according to quality class.
Although the Palestinian specification classifies the treated effluent to 4 classes, these
classes do not refer to certain crops allowed as in the case of the Jordanian standards.
Instead, depending on additional measures termed “barriers" these 4 classes can be used
to irrigate the same crops.
Barriers which in addition to water quality determine the types of crops to be irrigated with
TWW are shown next:
i. A distance not less than 50 cm between drippers and the fruit is considered 2
barriers
ii. A distance not less than 25 cm between drippers and the fruit is considered 1
barrier
iii. A distance not less than 50 cm between the sprinkler nozzle and the lower fruit
branch level fruit is considered 1 barrier, this barrier is adopted from the Israeli
standards,in which the sprinkler nozzles refer to the microsprinklers used in
greenhouses, pointing downwards, away from the fruit. This barrier could be
implemented for tree crops by lowering the sprinkler nozzles below the lower fruit
branches and/ or raisng the fruiting branches above the nozzles as clarified by
ministry of agriculture.
iv. Plastic Soil mulch between the TWW and the fruit is considered 1 barrier
v. Subsurface drip irrigation is considered 2 barriers
vi. Other barriers:
vii. A fruit with shell or un edible cover is considered 1 barrier
viii. A crop that is only cocked eaten is considered 1 barrier
ix. Filtering ,retention and disinfection :
a. Sand filter is considered 1 barrier
b. The retention of TWW not less than 15 days is considered 1 barrier
c. A storage /collecting pool containing no more than 10 % TWW is considered
1 barrier
d. The disinfection of TWW with Chlorine , and the residual chlorine not less 0.5
mg/l and contact time not less than half an hour or any other disinfection
method is considered 1 barrier
x. Crops that do not need barriers:
a. Industrial crops like cotton
b. Crops for seed, seedling
c. Timber trees and forestry with no public contact
d. The production of turfs and lawns to be sold without public contact with the
production sites
e. Nurseries
f. Ornamental and decorative plants
Given that the Palestinian specifications and regulation prevents irrigating vegetables, it
can therefore be considered internationally competitive regulations on TWW for agricultural
reuse. Most parameters are strictly regulated which reflects its close approach to the Israeli
standard. In addition to the strict exclusion of all vegetables, the regulation conditioned that
each TWW reuse scheme should obtain a specific reuse permit that is renewed periodically
and is given for specific grower, crops, areas and duration.
2.3.2. The project expected effluent Quality

The expected main effluent criteria for the project area are as follow:
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD5): 20 mg/l
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 30 mg/l
Total Nitrogen (TN, as nitrogen) 50 mg/l
Fecal E-coli bacteria 200 MPN/100 ml
Accordingley the project TWW falls in the "D" quality grade for its total nitrogen content,
thus the cultivation of green fodders is prohibited, limiting the permissible crops to tree
crops and dry fodders.
Nitrogen loading in the treated effluent depends essentially on the waste water treatment
technology, but the treatment technology does not have direct effect on reducing salinity or
the mineral composition of the treated effluent which may impose restrictions on the
potential crops according to their tolerability as will be shown in the crop selection section.
The results of the measurement campaign for the raw wastewater which was conducted
during the course of this project showed that the different quality parameters fall mostly in
the grade "A" quality, despite this fact, the resultant effluent quality grade in the project area
is "D" because of the total nitrogen of 50 mg/l.
Table 2-7 below, shows a translation of The Palestinian TWW Reuse Technical Obligatory
Regulations 34/2012 quality classification table in comparison to the expected effluent
quality, while table 2-8 indicates the allowable use of the different quality effluents and the
minimum barriers required for such use.
Table 2-7: Palestinian TWW Reuse Technical Obligatory Regulations 34/2012 in
comparison to the expected effluent quality.
Measurement
Palestinian TWW Reuse Technical Obligatory Regulations
campaign / Expected
34/2012
effluent quality
Maximum limits for Quality of Treated Water

Concentration
chemical and Grade
mg/l
biological High Good Medium Low
properties (mg/l ) Quality Quality Quality Quality
(A) (B) ( C) (D)
Biological Oxygen
20 20 40 60 20.0 A
Demand (BOD5)
Total suspended
30 30 50 90 30.0 A
Solid (TSS)
FC (COLONY /
200 1000 1000 1000 200.0 A
100ML)
Chemical Oxygen
50 50 100 150 50 A Commented [BGU2]: Here
Demand (COD)
Dissolved Oxygen Commented [BGU1]: Please fill with the expected COD
>1 >1 >1 <1 <1 A and DO :WHO May be Dr peter ?
(DO)
Total Dissolved
1200 1500 1500 1500 1,071.0 A
Solid (TDS)
Ph 6-9 6–9 6–9 6-9 6.8 A
FAT, OIL, &
5 5 5 5 **
GREASE
PHENOL 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 **
MBAS 15 15 15 25 **
NO3-N 20 20 30 40
NH4-N 5 5 10 15
TOTAL –N 30 30 45 60 50.0 D
CL 400 400 400 400 276.0 A
SO4 300 300 300 300 63.5 A
Na 200 200 200 200 210.7 D
G 60 60 60 60 33.5 A
Ca 300 300 300 300 162.9 A
SAR 5.85 5.83 5.83 5.83 3.9 A
PO4-P 30 30 30 30 17.0 A
Al 5 5 5 5 3.2 A
Cu 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 A
Fe 5 5 5 5 3.8 A
Mn 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 A
Ni 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 <0.025 A
Pb 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 A
Se 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 <0.025 *
Cd 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.025 *
Zn 2 2 2 2 0.8 A
Cn 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 **
Cr 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 <0.025 A
Hg 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.0 A
Co 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 <0.025 A
B 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.3 A

E. coli (COLONY /
100 1000 1000 1000 200.0 A
100ML)
Nematodes
1> 1> 1> 1> **
(Eggs/L)
*below detection limit of .025 and believed to be less than the standards limit
** was not measured in the campaign
Table 2-8: Permitted Use of Treated Wastewater for the Different Effluent Quality
Grades
Class Parameter Concentration Allowable use and required barriers
BOD 20mg/l  unrestricted irrigation of all crops, except

vegetables
TSS 30mg/l
 no barriers needed under any type of
Grade A F. coli <200 CPU/100ml irrigation systems
 under sprinkler systems 50m from public
Total –N 30mg/l areas is conditioned as public protection
TDS 1200mg/l measure
BOD 20mg/l  unrestricted irrigation of dry and green

fodder without barriers under any irrigation
TSS 30mg/l system
Grade B <1000  tree crops require 2 barriers
F. coli  under sprinkler systems 80m from public
CPU/100ml
Total –N 30 mg/l areas is conditioned as public protection
TDS 1500mg/l measure
BOD 40mg/l  unrestricted irrigation of dry and green
fodder without barriers
TSS 50mg/l under any irrigation system
Grade C <1000  tree crops require 2 barriers
F. coli
CPU/100ml  under sprinkler systems 120m from public
areas is conditioned as public protection
Total –N 45 mg/l measure
TDS 1500mg/l
BOD 60mg/l
 unrestricted irrigation of dry fodder without
TSS 90mg/l barriers under any irrigation system
<1000  irrigation of green fodder is prohibited
Grade D F. coli
CPU/100ml  tree crops require 3 barriers
 under sprinkler systems 150m from public
Total –N 60 mg/l areas is conditioned as public protection
measure
TDS 1500mg/l
The last important effluent quality parameter is the effluent sodicity (SAR) of 3.9 , which is
expected to slightly impact the crop performance as shown in the following table quoted
from the FAO "water quality for irrigation" guideline book.The expected yields of the
proposed crops at the final farm modeling stage is set to 95 % of the standard yield to
compensate for this slight effect of sodicity ,this reduction was adopted from the 2005
feasibility study ,besides the sodicity negative impact reflected in the 5% yield reduction,
it is further covered in the carried out sensitivity analysis as a decrease in returns and /or
the increase in input cost.
Finally the salinity of the Treated effluent of 1.7 dS/m will be used to screen the potential
crops and the required leaching fraction of these crops as will be shown in the crop
selection sections and crop water and salt balance.
Table 2-9: Guidelines for Interpretations of Water Quality for Irrigation Quoted from
FAO "Water Quality for Irrigation"
Potential Irrigation Problem Degree of Restriction on Use
Units
None Slight to Moderate Severe
Salinity
ECw dS/m < 0.7 0.7 – 3.0 > 3.0
(or)
TDS mg/l < 450 450 – 2000 > 2000
Infiltration
SAR =0–3 and ECw = > 0.7 0.7 – 0.2 < 0.2
=3–6 = > 1.2 1.2 – 0.3 < 0.3
= 6 – 12 = > 1.9 1.9 – 0.5 < 0.5
= 12 – 20 = > 2.9 2.9 – 1.3 < 1.3
= 20 – 40 = > 5.0 5.0 – 2.9 < 2.9
2.4. Basic Crop Selection

In order to assess the best combination of crops to be irrigated with the TWW in the project
area, several screening steps were applied as will be shown next.
The proposed crops to be irrigated in the project area were identified based on:
1- Responses to the farmers’ survey, information provided by farmers during the
workshop conducted by the Consultant, fodder crops and stone fruit tree crops are
highly attractive and were chosen by the farmers. It is believed that these crops
were selected by the farmers themselves based on the anticipated profits, market
needs and their experience.
2- The Palestinian TWW regulations: which indicate that vegetables are not allowed to
be irrigated by TWW. This limits TWW reuse to fodder and trees.
3- Expected TWW quality grade: D quality grade prevents the cultivation of green
fodder Sorghum and Sudan grass which are not suitable as a dry fodder are
excluded .3 barriers are required for tree crops, for date palm drip irrigation is 2
barriers and filitering included in farm head control unit is the third barrier, while for
almonds the unedible shell is a fourth barrier.
4- The traditional national crops i.e. olive, grapes and citrus are excluded from the
proposed crops, in accordance with the wishes of the Ministry of Agriculture and
local farmers, so as not to harm their symbolic value which is perceived to occur if
they are irrigated with TWW and it is clear that this exclusion is not based on
contamination concerns.
5- The recommendation of the supporting FAO experts
6- Imported crops resemble demanded crops: alfalfa, barley and maize are heavily
imported; the imported quantities for the year 2010 of alfalfa, barley and maize
were 260,000, 82,000 and 33,000 tonns repsectivley.
7- Selected crops are moderate to high salinity and chloride tolerant crops the
intolerant crops are excluded.
8- Crops must have high water demands and,
9- Winter and summer crops that can be staggered and intercropped so as to
maximize TWW , applied nutrients utilization and to increase profits.
The potential crops are described in the following sections.
2.4.1. Fruit Tree Crops

Tree crops are highly demanded by farmers and this is in line with the FAO experts'
recommendations, the tree crops have the following merits:
1- They provide much higher value and thus, farmers believe that they are more
likely to assure positive return on investments into irrigation;
2- They are very labor intensive (3-5 people per ha requirement minimum, or
5000%-9000% more than for field crops) and thus, they would help boost local
employment;
3- Labor availability considering low costs of labor in West Bank, would give a
significant preference to local products over imported produce.
4- Intercropping could be used as tree crops will take a few years before they
bear.points 1- 4 as per the FAO experts review report
5- Their spring to late summer demand helps in leveling the demand all year
around.
The potential fruit tree crops considered suitable for irrigated agriculture in the project area
include:
a) Stone fruits like Peaches and almonds;
b) Sweet cherries;
c) Persimmons;
d) Pomegranates;
e) Pistachios;
f) Dates : proposed for Al-Fureijat area only because of its climatic adaptability ;
g) Avocados.
The potential tree crops are subjected to another screening step according to their salinity
and chloride tolerance as shown in the following Table.
Table 2-10: Chloride and Salinity Sensitivity of the Chosen Tree Crops
Cl ** Effluent Salinity
Cl salinity Effluent Screening
sensitivit Chloride sensitivity
Crop sensitivity sensitivity TDS result
y limit conc. conc.
group* group*** dS/m
meq/l meq/l Ppm
Very excluded
Avocado sensitive 3.5- 5.8 7.8 1.2 dS/m 1.7
Sensitive
Cherries Sensitive NA 7.8 Sensitive 1.5dS/m 1.7 excluded
Very excluded
Persimmon Sensitive NA 7.8 1 dS/m **** 1.7
sensitive
Partially included
Pistachios NA 7.8 Tolerant 4 dS/m 1.7
tolerant
Partially Semi included
almond 6-16 7.8 1.7 dS/m 1.7
tolerant* sensitive
Peaches Sensitive 7.8 sensitive 1.8 dS/m 1.7 included
Pomegrana Semi included
NA 7.8 2.7 1.7
tes tolerant
Date palm NA 7.8 Tolerant 4 dS/m 1.7 included
*http://www.kali.gmbh.com/uken/fertilizer/advisory_service/chloride_tolerance.html
**http://www.kno3.org/en/product-features-a-benefits/chloride-sensitivity-in-crops
Note: given in the reference in soil extract.
*** http://www.agric.wa.au.objtwr/imported_assets/content/lwe/water/irr/f07199.pdf
**** http://era.deedi.qld.gov.au/2210/10/persim-nutrition.pdf
The salinity and chloride screening resulted in excluding persimmon, avocado and cherries.
Also for the purpose of the preliminary cost benefit analysis Almond is chosen instead of
peach because of its high demand , storability, and returns in addition the almonds un
edible shell which is considered 1 barrier and thus with the drip irrigation system it meets
the required 3 barriers of the project effluent "D" quality requirements of tree crops .
2.4.2. Fodders Crops

Green fodder crops are excluded because of the "D" grade effluent quality which prohibits
the cultivation of green fodders the following dry fodders are considered:
a. Barley: proposed for the following reasons :
i. To absorb early fall and spring surplus TWW;
b. Highly demanded fodder grain crop as reflected in the high imported quantities.
c. Alfalfa: is widely grown throughout the world as forage, and is most often harvested
as hay, but because of the effluent quality it cannot be made into silage, grazed, or
fed green chop. Alfalfa is chosen for the following reasons :
i. It is highly demanded by the farmers
ii. Alfalfa is a good substitute for the excluded Sudan grass because of the effluent
quality grade "D".
iii. It has the highest feeding value of all common hay crops. It is used less
frequently as pasture, alfalfa is often the highest yielding forage plant, but its
primary benefit is the combination of high yield per hectare and high nutritional
quality.
iv. It has high water demand around the year especially in the warm Al-Fureijat area.
d. Maize: grains and plant residues are highly demanded for poultry and cattle
production and can be intercropped in summer time.
These fodder crops are subjected to further screening according to their salinity tolerance
and none of them was excluded because of salinity or chloride sensitivity as shown in the
following table.
Table 2-11: Chloride and Salinity Sensitivity of the Chosen Crops
Salinity
salinity
sensitivity Effluent TDS Screening
Crop sensitivity result
conc. ds/m
group***
ppm
Maize Semi sensitive 1.7 dS/m 1.7 included
Barley Tolerant 8 dS/m 1.7 included
Alfalfa Semi sensitive 2 dS/m 1.7 included
2.5. Preliminary Benefit Cost Analysis for the Potential Crops

The unexcluded crops are then subjected to cost return analysis using unpublished data
from the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA). This data was collected through a contract with a
specialized team to be used in evaluating the comparative advantage of selected crops
under different climatically zones in Palestine.The available data from the region or similar
conditions was used for comparison and verification.
2.5.1. Preliminary Benefit/Cost (B/C) analysis for Pistachios, Dates and Pomegranates
The fruit crops budgets for these crops were examined as follows:
1- Dates: the available data in Palestine was from the collected data by the MOA,
which did not take into consideration the establishment costs. So the published
data by the Agricultural Credit Corporation in Jordan, which included the
operational and investment costs for the period of 10 Years was used .Then the
NPV of all costs and returns for ten years and was calculated and divided by 10 to
estimate the annual returns and costs. Assuming that the productive live for the
trees is 20 years, so the NPV of the net profit for the next 10 years divided by 10 in
the tenth year of the analysis was added as returns.
2- Pomegranates: no data was found for the pomegranates crop budgets in Palestine,
or any adjacent Arab countries. Instead the information published from
California/USA wsa used to calculate the NPV for the returns and costs as in Dates
budgets.
3- Pistachios: no data was found for the pistachios crop budgets in Palestine, or any
adjacent Arab countries, except in Syria. But the information was presented as
grouped data, i.e. with no details for the annual benefits and costs.
The following table shows the final results for the three suggested crops.
Table 2-12: Comparison between Costs and Returns of Pistachios, Dates, and
Pomegranates Plantations
Total US$/Ha
Item Pomegranates
Pistachios Dates
Return 4940
1800 19142
4490
Total variable costs 1370 861
550
Total fixed costs 80
5040
Total cost 941
-110
Profit 430 18191
2.5.2. Preliminary Cost benefit for Almonds

The net return of irrigated almonds is almost double that of rainfed almonds (US$ 604/ha
VS US$ 339/ha respectively) as shown in the next table.
Table 2-13: Comparison of Returns and Costs of Rainfed and Irrigated Almonds,
both in Palestine
Item Unit Rainfed Almonds Irrigated Almonds
Returns US$ 701 1485
MAIN PRODUCT KG 165 350
Variable costs US$ 251 579
Fixed costs US$ 111 301
Total cost US$ 362 881
Gross Margins US$ 450 905
Net Return US$ 339 604
2.5.3. Barley crop

The gross margins for rainfed barley is about US$ 49/ha while it is for irrigated barley about
US$ 248/ha. There is loss of US$ 2/ha in rainfed barley while the net profit of irrigated
barley is about US$ 102/ha
Table 2-14: Comparison of Returns and Costs of Rainfed and Irrigated Barely,
Both in Palestine
Item Unit Rainfed Barley Irrigated Barley
Returns US$ 148 336
SUB_PRODUCT KG 303 750
Net Return US$ -2 102
2.5.4. Alfalfa
Since there is no detailed information related to the costs and returns available for
alfalfa in Palestine, the data used in the analysis were taken from a similar project in
Wadi Mosa in Jordan which uses reclaimed wastewater for drip irrigation. This data
was compared with alfalfa costs and benefits irrigated by basin flood fresh water in
Sacramento in the USA.
Table 2.15 shows that the net return in Hebron is almost six times of that in Sacramento
due to using sprinkler irrigation in Hebron and the prices of alfalfa in Hebron are higher
than in USA.
Table 2-15: Comparison of Returns and Costs of Irrigated Alfalfa in Sacramento-USA

and Palestine
Alfalfa-Irr-Sacramento-USA Alfalfa -Irr-hebron
Item Unit
Flood Irrigation sprinkler Irrigation
Returns US$ 237 755
Dry Green
Net Return US$ 56 362
2.5.5. Sorghum
Sorghum which is excluded because of being unsuitable for dry fodder and as it is not
allowed to be cultivated for green fodder because of the effluent quality grade D, faces a
loss in the USA while it gains about US$ 66 in the project, although the costs in Hebron
are higher, but the productivity and prices are higher in the project. Sorghum low
returns support the excluding of it as shown in the next table.
Table 2-16: Comparison of Returns and Costs of Irrigated Sorghum in USA and
Palestine
Item Unit Sorghum in USA Sorghum in Hebron
Returns US$ 48 519
MAIN PRODUCT KG -- 2000

Net Return US$ -65 66
2.5.6. Maize
The net return of irrigated maize is US$ 3595/ha as shown in the next table
Table 2-17: Comparison of Returns and Costs of maize

Item Unit Quantity Price
Returns US$ -- 6800
Sub product KG - -
Variable costs US$ - 2554
Fixed costs US$ - 650
Total cost US$ - 3205
Gross Margins US$ - 4246
Net Return US$ - 3595
2.5.7. Summary of the Net Returns for the Selected Potential Crops
The following table summarizes the results of the preliminary individual crop cost
returns analysis
Table 2-18: Summary of the Net Returns for the Selected Potential Crops
Total cost Total returns Net return
Crop
US$/ha US$/ha US$/ha
Date palm 951 18933 17982
Almond 2314 6340 4026
Pistachios 1370 1800 430
Pomegranates 5040 4940 -110
Alfalfa 5903 19250 13347
Maize 3205 6800 3595
Barley 234 336 102
Sorghum 453 519 66
As a result of this preliminary individual crop cost returns analysis the following crops
are excluded because of their low revenues:
1- Pistachios
2- Pomegranates
3- Sorghum
Barley crop is kept despite its low returns to absorb winter excess water as will be shown in
Water balance calculations.
2.6. Intercropping of Potential Fruit Tree Crops

The potential high returns Almonds and Date palms were intercropped with the high returns
alfalfa, and maize and barley to absorb winter surplus, the inter-cropping aims at:
1- Leveling the whole year water demand
2- Providing the farmers with income through the early growing period when fruit trees
are not yet bearing
3- Maximizing the returns of reusing TWW
The ntercropping pattern is as follows:

1- Stone fruits :
a. Almond intercropped with alfalfa
b. Almond intercropped with barley
c. Almond intercropped with Maize
2- Date palms :
a. Date palm intercropped with alfalfa
b. Date palm intercropped with barley
c. Date palm intercropped with Maize
d.
The intercropping model assumes that the production rate of the intercropped fodder crop
is 95 % of the normal production rate at the first year and decreases by 5 % every following
year until the productive age of the fruit tree crop as will be shown in the farm model part.
Further cost benefit analysis was conducted for the intercropped combinations of almonds
with the field crops in Wadi Es-Sammin and dates plantations in Al-Fureijat. The NPV of all
costs and returns for the ten years were calculated for almonds and dates, and then they
were divided by 10 to estimate the annual returns and costs assuming that the productive
live for the trees is 20 years only, so the NPV of the net profit was added for the next 10
years divided by 10 in the tenth year of the analysis as returns.
The three intercropping patterns which were analyzed for dates intercropping are: dates-
alfalfa, dates-barley and dates-maize. The results of this cost benefit analysis are shown
next.
2.6.1. Dates Intercropping

Table 2-19 shows that the best net return was for Dates-alfalfa intercropping (US$ 31.9
thousand/Ha).
A sensitivity analysis was conducted for the above three combinations, and the results are
shown in the same table below. The results show that the three intercropping will still be
feasible.
Table 2-19: Sensitivity Analysis for the Four Combinations of Dates Intercropping
Net Returns (US$)
Dates-
Date- Dates-
Scenario Dates Beans-
Alfalfa Barley
Maize
Basic Scenario 14906 31943 20541 22222
Decrease in returns by 10% 13320 28654 18400 19913
Increase in operational costs by
14811 31848 20454 22136
10%
14811 31753 20367 22049
20%
14811 31753 20281 21962
30%
2.6.2. Almond Intercropping
Table 2-20 shows that the combination Almonds-barley has the highest net return (US$ 6.3
thousand/Ha).
A sensitivity analysis was conducted for the almonds and almond barley intercropping and
the results are shown in in the same table bellow. The results show that the almonds and
barley intercropping will still be feasible.
Table 2-20: Sensitivity Analysis for Almonds Intercropping Net Returns (US$)
Almonds- Almonds- Almonds -
Scenario
Alfalfa Barley Maize
Basic Scenario 2017 6301 5445
Decrease in returns by 10% 1790 5647 4877
1991 62773 5422
10%
1965 6253 5399
20%
1939 6229 5375
30%
Finally, according to the results of the cost benefit analysis the date palm intercropped with
alfalfa, which is the most profitable pattern is proposed for Al-Fureijat area, but due to the
colder climate prevailing in the land along wadi Es-Sammin, almond intercropped with
alfalfa is proposed for the prioritized parcels there.
3. THE FINALIZED OUTLINE DESIGN OF THE RECLAIMED WATER REUSE
FACILITIES
This part of the report presents:
1- Reuse area selection

2- Phased approach for implementing the reuse scheme
3- Water salt and nutrient balance, for the refined cropping pattern,
4- Reuse scheme conceptual design
3.1. Reuse Area Selection

In this report, the previously identified potential irrigated areas excluding Yatta potential
area which requires the highest investment cost are re-assessed according to the required
pumping and conveyance cost.
3.1.1. POTENTIAL AREA 1 – The lands along Wadi Es-Samin

Currently, some of the raw waste water in Wadi Es-Sammin is used for irrigating the
adjacent lands along the Wadi with vegetables, lettuce, chard, and cauliflower, although
this is prohibited by law and current regulations and destroyed by the municipality regularly.
This suggests that farmers in the area are looking for water and the treated effluent could
be demanded and utilized in this area. Therefore this area was identified as a potential area
for irrigation.
The non-olive and non-grapes lands along Wadi Es-Sammin, with an area of approximately
403 ha, between the HRWWTP and Al-Fureijat plain area near Shokeit, are scattered along
the Wadi in a parcels differing in their size,elevation and distance from wadi course. These
lands were grouped to form 34 irrigation clusters, each of these clusters could be served by
a separate local pumping station and irrigation line with each pump station extracting water
from a pool created in the Wadi.
These parcels are then classified according to the required pumping head and the pump
capacity to meet their area peak demand as shown in table 3.1 and figure 3-1.
Table 3-1: Potential Area 1 - Along Wadi Es-Sammin

Number required
Required
of Pump
Category pumping Hp Area ha
separate capacity
head ( m )
parcels m3/hr
Clusters type 1 4 50 50 15 22.9
Clusters type 2 10 100 50 30 79.5
Clusters type 3 7 100 100 60 79.8
Clusters type 4 11 150 100 90 149.4
Clusters type 5 1 150 200 150 31.4
Clusters type 6 1 150 250 180 40.2
Total 34 403.4
The required conveyance system for this area includes 34 pumping stations and 33 km
long main PE pipeline as shown in table 3-1. The cost of the proposed irrigation systems is
shown on Tables 3-2 and 3-3.
Table 3-2: Potential Area 1 – Cost of Pumping Stations
Total
No of flow Hp Unit Price
Category Head Price
clusters m3/hr required US$
US$
cat 1 4 50 50 15 14,000 56,000
cat 2 10 100 50 30 32,000 320,000
cat 3 7 100 100 60 63,500 445,000
cat 4 11 150 100 90 95,500 1,050,000
cat 5 1 150 200 150 150,000 150,000
cat 6 1 150 250 180 200,000 200,000
Total 34 2,225,000
Table 3-3: Core Area 1 – Cost of Irrigation Pipelines

Diameter mm / Unit Price Total Total Price
Category US$ Lengths US$
110 PE 100 6 Bar 22 2,015 44,000
110 PE 100 10 Bar 25 15,525 388,000
110 PE 100 16 Bar 30 13,250 398,000
160 PE 100 16 Bar 48 2,700 130,000
Fittings and contingencies 500,000
Total 33,490 1,460,000
While this option includes no force mains or gravity lines from the HRWWTP, it is assumed
that some of the flowing TWW will be pumped to the adjacent farms by the owners and
utilized mainly in summer time, as is the case with the raw waste water currently flowing
along the Wadi. The potential lands which are distributed among 34 clusters vary in the unit
area cost of required components to deliver water to them, the adjacent clusters require
less cost compared to the further ones. The unit area pipe and pump cost ranges from
3,000 to about 17,000 US$ per Ha with an average of 9125 us$/Ha, the following table
shows the hectare unit area irrigation components cost for these 34 clusters in an
increasing order .This unit cost is used as a screening criterion among the possible
irrigation areas.
The pumping cost for this potential area ranged from 0.04to 0.13 US $/m3.
Table 3-4: Clusters Unit Area Cost of Irrigation Pipelines and Pumps
Distance Pipe cost Total Cost of

from Unit Pipe including Pumping cost of pump
Cluster_No Area the wadi Price cost fittings and cost pump and pipe
(Ha ) course us$ us$ contingencies us$/m3 and per Ha
(m ) us $ pipe us$
Cluster 2 7.9 315 22 6,930 10,547 0.04 24,547 3,102

Cluster 21 7.1 700 22 15,400 23,439 0.04 37,439 5,256
Cluster 1 8.4 675 25 16,875 25,684 0.09 57,684 6,882
Cluster 25 8.5 700 25 17,500 26,635 0.09 58,635 6,927
Cluster 20 31.5 1,000 48 48,000 73,056 0.11 223,056 7,082
Cluster 4 12.4 650 25 16,250 24,733 0.09 88,233 7,094
Cluster 15 8.4 750 25 18,750 28,538 0.09 60,538 7,248
Cluster 5 8.3 750 25 18,750 28,538 0.09 60,538 7,305
Cluster 10 4.1 500 22 11,000 16,742 0.04 30,742 7,427
Cluster 8 17.2 800 30 24,000 36,528 0.13 132,028 7,668
Cluster 11 10.9 550 25 13,750 20,928 0.09 84,428 7,779
Cluster 3 13.1 1,000 25 25,000 38,050 0.09 101,550 7,780
Cluster 12 16.4 750 30 22,500 34,245 0.13 129,745 7,918
Cluster 31 9.3 1,100 25 27,500 41,855 0.09 73,855 7,932
Cluster 16 8.7 1,000 25 25,000 38,050 0.09 70,050 8,018
Cluster 17 11.5 750 25 18,750 28,538 0.09 92,038 8,034
Cluster 34 40.2 1,700 48 81,600 124,195 0.10 324,195 8,065
Cluster 27 12.5 1,000 25 25,000 38,050 0.09 101,550 8,109
Cluster 7 3.7 500 22 11,000 16,742 0.04 30,742 8,206
Cluster 28 8.4 1,000 25 25,000 38,050 0.09 70,050 8,342
Cluster 26 8.2 1,000 25 25,000 38,050 0.09 70,050 8,526
Cluster 14 16.1 1,000 30 30,000 45,660 0.13 141,160 8,752
Cluster 22 14.6 1,000 30 30,000 45,660 0.13 141,160 9,647
Cluster 19 14.2 1,000 30 30,000 45,660 0.13 141,160 9,934
Cluster 13 9.8 1,000 25 25,000 38,050 0.09 101,550 10,329
Cluster 24 12.1 1,000 30 30,000 45,660 0.13 141,160 11,700
Cluster 30 6.2 1,100 25 27,500 41,855 0.09 73,855 11,884
Cluster 6 9.7 1,500 25 37,500 57,075 0.09 120,575 12,422
Cluster 32 12.9 1,500 30 45,000 68,490 0.13 163,990 12,717
Cluster 23 11.3 1,200 30 36,000 54,792 0.13 150,292 13,275
Cluster 18 12.3 1,500 30 45,000 68,490 0.13 163,990 13,319
Cluster 29 5.2 1,000 25 25,000 38,050 0.09 70,050 13,594
Cluster 33 12.0 1,800 30 54,000 82,188 0.13 177,688 14,783
Cluster 9 10.3 1,700 30 51,000 77,622 0.13 173,122 16,889
Total 403 1,460,443
Figure 3-1: POTENTIAL 1 - Lands along Wadi Es-Sammin
3.1.2. POTENTIAL AREA 2 – The Al-Furejat Lands
The available large plains at the bottom of Wadi Es-Sammin in the Al-Furejat area about 40
km from the HRWWTP are considered potential TWW irrigated areas, this potential area
has the following advantages:
1- The area is currently cultivated with rainfed grains, no olives are cultivated there
which will simplify the required monitoring efforts
2- These potential lands are not scattered which makes it easier to be dealt with in
terms of technical services providing and monitoring.
3- It has warmer climate enhancing the whole year water demand and the cultivation
of date palms known for their high demand and returns.
4- The topography is not steep compared to Wadi Es-Sammin potential area favoring
the utilization of modern machinery
To utilize the TWW in this area a diversion structure and force main from the Wadi
to the reuse site is required.
For this potential area two options were studied the first is a whole area irrigation scheme
while the second option is dividing the whole area into three clusters subschemes; the
analysis showed that the irrigation system cost of the three sub schemes was little bit
higher than the complete area system ,but the three clusters subschems option enables
project prioritizing and phasing since the three sub schemes showed different per unit area
investment and pumping cost which is a useful criterion to prioritize as well as phasing the
implementation of the project as will be shown next.
The whole area option:
The hectare unit area irrigation system cost for the whole area option is 11,268 USD/ha
with average pumping cost of 0.13 USD /m3 as shown in table 3.5 next.
Table 3-5: Al-Fureijat Whole Area Option Conveyance System, Pumping and per ha
Conveyance Sytem Costs
Central pumping station option
Irrigation system
Area 410 Ha
Item Details Price us$
Channel Lighning + Storage 1100 M3 900,000
Pumps 2+1, h=150 m, Q=550 m^3/h 1,000,000
Pipes Grid 2,555 m 12" main 638,750
Pipes Grid 2,190 m 10" Distribution 394,200
Pipes Grid 5,912 m 8" Distribution 886,800
Fittings ---- 800,000
total cost ( us $ ) 4,619,750
Total cost /ha ( us $ ) 11,268
Pumping cost
Pump power Kw/hr 375
Cost us$/kw 0.19
Flow Q/hr 550
Cost us$/m3 0.130.48
The three clusters subschemes option:
In this option Al-Fureijat potential area was divided into three subschemes as shown in
figure 3.2 next, the first scheme has an area of 196.4 ha, the second scheme has an area
of about 120 and the third scheme has an area of 111 ha,
Figure 3-2: Overview of Al-Furejat three clusters subschemes
The hectare unit area irrigation system cost for the three schemes ranges from 10,525 to
15,283USD/ha, with an average cost for the whole three subschemes of 1277USD/ha, the
pumping cost ranges from 0.04 to 0.06 USD /m3. The first phase hectare unit area cost is
10525 USD/ha with pumping cost of 0.04 USD /m3, the second phase hectare unit area
cost is 1252 USD/ha with pumping cost of 0.04 USD /m3, and the third phase unit area cost
is 1528 USD/ha with pumping cost of 0.06 USD /m3. Table 3.6 provides a summary of the
estimated per unit area cost for the conveyance and pumping facilities for all three
schemes/phases.
Table 3-6: Potential Area 3 - Cost of the Pump station and Irrigation Pipelines
Phase 1
Irrigation system
Area 196.4 ha
Ground Storage 600 m^3 with channel --- 500,000
Pumps 1+1 , h=50 m, Q=490 m^3/h 600,000
Pipes Grid 1886 m 8" main 282,900
Pipes Grid 2186 m 6" Distribution 284,180
Fittings 400,000
2,067,08
Total 0
O&M us/ha.year 309.3
Pumping cost
Cost us$/kw 0.19
Flow Q/hr 490
Cost us$/m3 0.04
Phase 2
Irrigation system
Area 119.7 Ha
Pumps 1+1 , h=50 m, Q=300 m^3/h 400,000
Fittings 350,000
1,498,37
Total 0
Pumping cost
Pump power Kw/hr 63
Cost us$/kw 0.19
Flow Q/hr 300
Cost US$/m3 0.01
Phase 3
Irrigation system
Area Served ( ha ) 111 ha
Ground Storage 400 m3 with channel --- 400,000
Pumps 1+1 , h=80 m, Q=300 m^3/h 500,000
Fittings 400,000
1,696,37
Total Phase three 0
Pumping cost
Cost us$/kw 0.19
Flow Q/hr 300
Cost us$/m3 0.06
Whole scheme Average cost /ha ( us $ ) 12,775
3.2. REUSE POTENTIAL AREA SCREENING, PRIORITIZATION AND PROJECT
PHASING
The unit area required investment cost of conveyance system and pumping cost vary
among the clusters of Wadi Es-Sammin lands and also for the three clusters subschemes
of Al-Fureijat lands .This variation can be used to prioritize and phase the project
implementation.The priority will be given to the areas with the lowest cost.
The unit area conveyance and pumps cost of the first phase of Al-Fureijat area of 10,525
usd/ha is used here as a threshold cost for prioritization, Wadi Es-Sammin clusters that
require less than this threshold cost will have the first priority, followed by phase 1 of Al-
Furijat area.
The total area of the first prioritized clusters of Wadi Es-Sammin area is 311 ha , the
pumping cost ranges from 0.04 to 0.13 us$/m3 , excluding the high pumping cost clusters,
the prioritized clusters area becomes 189.6 ha .as shown in the following table.
Table 3-7: Prioritized Clusters Conveyance and Pumping Costs

Cost of
Total cost of
Pumping cost pump and
Cluster_No Area pump and
us$/m3 pipe per Ha
(Ha ) pipe us$
us$
Cluster 2 7.9 0.04 24,547 3,102
Cluster 21 7.1 0.04 37,439 5,256
Cluster 1 8.4 0.09 57,684 6,882
Cluster 25 8.5 0.09 58,635 6,927
Cluster 20 31.5 0.11 223,056 7,082
Cluster 4 12.4 0.09 88,233 7,094
Cluster 15 8.4 0.09 60,538 7,248
Cluster 5 8.3 0.09 60,538 7,305
Cluster 10 4.1 0.04 30,742 7,427
Cluster 8 17.2 0.13 132,028 7,668
Cluster 11 10.9 0.09 84,428 7,779
Cluster 3 13.1 0.09 101,550 7,780
Cluster 12 16.4 0.13 129,745 7,918
Cluster 31 9.3 0.09 73,855 7,932
Cluster 16 8.7 0.09 70,050 8,018
Cluster 17 11.5 0.09 92,038 8,034
Cluster 34 40.2 0.10 324,195 8,065
Cluster 27 12.5 0.09 101,550 8,109
Cluster 7 3.7 0.04 30,742 8,206
Cluster 28 8.4 0.09 70,050 8,342
Cluster 26 8.2 0.09 70,050 8,526
Cluster 14 16.1 0.13 141,160 8,752
Cluster 22 14.6 0.13 141,160 9,647
Cluster 19 14.2 0.13 141,160 9,934
Cluster 13 9.8 0.09 101,550 10,329
Total area (ha ) 311.5
Total area (ha) excluding
189.6
clusters 8,12,,34,20 ,19,22 and 14
The area of the first phase of Al-Fureijat is 196.4 ha, thus the total prioritized area becomes
386 ha, and clusters 8 and 12 with low investment cost will be the last prioritized area
resulting in a final area of about 420 ha.
3.2.1. PROJECT PHASING

The lowest conveyance system cost Wadi Es-Sammin clusters are of the first priority to be
irrigated with the treated effluent followed by the first phase of Al-Fureijat area. For the first
phase of Al-Fureijat area, the detailed design study and construction period will be long
enough for farmers along Wadi Es-Sammin and the Government to decide about the
investment in the prioritized clusters.
The proposed project phasing will be as follows:
1- After operating the WWTP farmers by themselves or encouraged by MoA

/PWA/donors/water user association will start irrigating utilizing TWW in Wadi Es-
Sammin given that the conveyance systems for Alfuriejat area is not yet
constructed,this stage will give the government /donors time to assess the actual
demand and practices in the project area in Wadi Es-Sammin and to design the
required facilities for Al-Fureijat first phase, during this stage the studies on the
accurate estimates of demand and losses will be accomplished. The detailed design
of the first phase of Alfureijat area may also start during the construction of the
treatment plant since the expected effluent quantities are enough for both areas
prioritized clustersalong Wadi Es-Sammin and the first phase of Al-Fureijat area.
2- Wadi Es-Sammin : After operating the treatment plant ,the installing of the
conveyance systems for the lowest cost of the prioritized clusters may start either by
the farmers them selves or by the support of the Government and/or donors .until the
first phase of Al-Furijat scheme is operated ,the installation of conveyance system for
the clusters along Wadi Es-Sammin will be under careful watching ,only the low
investment cost prioritized clusters should be financed and permitted as the
regulations conditioned that each reuse scheme/farm should have a permit from MoA
, this permission will be used to limit the clusters to be irrigated to those of low cost ,
this control aims at maintaining enough water for the first phase of Al-Furiejat
scheme.
3- Pilot reuse project :a pilot project is proposed to be established immediately after
operating the treatment plant ,further elaboration on the pilot reuse project is found in
"demonstration pilot reuse project section 9.2" next .
4- The second and the third phase of Al-Fureijat scheme will be considered only if no
large area of the prioritized clusters is irrigated for any reason or in case that
additional effluent quantity is made available.
Several supporting activities are required through and before the Treatment plant
construction to support the reuse project, the following steps are required:
1- Installing agrometerological station in Al-Fureijat area to estimate crop water

demand precisely, and conducting a hydrological monitoring study for accurate
estimating of losses along the wadi.
2- Establishing 2demonstration farms at Al-Fureijat and Wadi Es-Sammin areas as
soon as possible: transplanting fruiting date palms trees in Al-Furerijat area with
different species under the supervision of the local agricultural directorate to
determine the best species for the area and this also applies for almond in Wadi
ES-Sammin area.Irrigation water should be made available for these farms.
3- Organizing the farmers into water user association: the farmers interested to found
this association as per the questionnaire should be listed and invited to meet MoA
and PWA relevant officials to follow up the establishment of the water user
assocaiation.
4- The farmers /owners of the prioritized clusters and the first phase of Al-Fureijat
area should be listed for training at the Reuse pilot and training ceneter at Nablus
west treatment plant, this training ceneter is expected to start training earlier to the
Hebron treatment plant construction.
3.3. Water, Salt and Nutrient Balance for the Refined Cropping Pattern
Water balance model was based on the following criteria:
1. Storage : Due to the demand seasonal variability being high in summer time and low
in winter time ,the possibility to store water starts from early winter until the mid of
spring ,the stored water cannot support significant expansion of the cultivation of
perennial crops demanding mainly in summer time , the storage option can only
support the expansion in winter crops as was shown in the earlier deliverable ,but
because of the required huge investment cost and the low returns of these winter
crops and the fact that the winter surplus can support considerable area it was
agreed not to consider storage under the scope of this project .
2. The Average wastewater production—15,000 m3/day
3. The water demand of the wide set of crops was estimated to allow carrying out the
C/B analysis, water balance then was done for the high return crops aiming at
increasing water utilization and returns.
3.3.1. Water and Salt for the Individual Crops and Intermixed Cropping Pattern for Al-
Fureijat Area
The Water balance planning tool prepared during the previous feasibility study was
handeled to the consultant and was modified during the course of this project, the
crop water balance steps and input parameters include:
1- Crop evapotranspiration: reference crop evapotranspiration was calculated with

the FAO CROPWAT Software using hebron and Bear Sheva metrological data
as shown in the following tables :
Table 3-8: Reference Evapotranspiration ETo for Al-Fureijat Area Calculated by FAO
CROPWAT Software
Min Max
Humidity Wind Sun Rad ETo
Month Temp Temp
°C °C % km/day Hours MJ/m²/day mm/day
January 6 16.4 62 216 6.7 11.9 2.18
February 6.9 18.4 60 190 7.7 15.2 2.65
March 8.9 21.3 60 216 8.5 18.9 3.58
April 11.5 25.6 51 216 9.7 23 4.98
May 13.9 29.3 44 199 11.2 26.4 6.13
June 16.7 31.9 48 181 11.2 26.9 6.4
July 18.5 32.9 49 164 10.8 25.9 6.3
August 18.6 32.8 55 147 10.6 24.7 5.76
September 17.1 31.1 58 147 9.4 20.9 4.81
October 14.7 28.6 54 147 8.6 16.9 3.89
November 11 23.4 53 156 7.7 13.4 2.92
December 7.3 17.9 60 181 7.3 11.8 2.18
Average 12.6 25.8 54 180 9.1 19.7 4.32
Table 3-9: Reference Evapotranspiration ETo for Wadi Es-Sammin Area Calculated by
FAO CROPWAT Software
Min Max
Month Humidity Wind Sun Rad ETo
Temp Temp
°C °C % km/day Hours MJ/m²/day mm/day
January 4 10.2 74 298 4.7 9.9 1.56
February 4.7 11.5 72 307 4.8 11.8 1.92
March 6.5 14.6 66 302 6.4 16.2 2.78
April 9.9 19.6 55 276 8.1 20.7 4.2
May 13.2 23.6 48 223 9 23.2 5.15
June 15.8 25.9 51 223 8.3 22.5 5.4
July 17 27.2 57 221 9.6 24.2 5.57
August 17 27.2 60 209 10.9 25.1 5.44
September 15.9 26 62 194 10.3 22.1 4.61
October 14 23.2 59 192 9.8 18.4 3.72
November 9.9 17.5 64 211 7 12.6 2.47
December 5.6 12.1 73 242 4.7 9.3 1.61
Average 11.1 19.9 62 242 7.8 18 3.7
2- Crop factors and Planting dates : the planting dates of the chosen crops of the
project area and the FAO crop factors were used to convert reference
evapotranspiration to crop water demand
3- Leaching requirements: the leaching fraction was calculated for the crops
based on the expected effluent quality and the tolerance salinity threshold of
the crops according to the following equation
LF = Eci / ((5*(Ece)) – Eci) Where
Eci: EC of Irrigation water; 1.7 dS/m for the project TWW
Ece: Crop salinity tolerance threshold Value in dS/m
The leaching fraction for the selected crops is shown in the following table.
Table 3-10: The Leaching Fraction for the Selected Crops
crop salinity
irrigation water
tolerance LF
salinity
threshold
crop
Ece dS/m Eci dS/m %
Alfalfa 2 1.7 20
Barley 8 1.7 4
Stonefruits 1.7 1.7 25
Maize 1.7 1.7 25
Palm date 4.00 1.7 9
4- Effective precipitation: effective precipitation was used tosatify crop water

demand and or leaching requirements partially / or totally.
5- Irrigation efficiency: Irrigation efficiency of 85 % was used; this efficiency is
believed to be realistic given that leaching requirements are added to cropwater
demand.
6- Pan evaporation: was used to calculate the lost quantities along the wadi
course, the resultant loss amounts to about 15 % of the total effluent
compensating for evaporation and deep percolation from the wadi for Al-
Fureijat area and 7% for Wadi Es-Sammin area.
7- The best possible cropping pattern to utilize the maximum amount of the
available TWW was then prepared.
The following table shows the resultant cropping patterns based on water
balance model calculations
Table 3-11: The Resultant Cropping Patterns Based on Water Balance Model
Calculations for Al-Fureijat Area
Total area
Percent of Water
Crop/ intercropping Water
the total Area (ha) demand
pattern demand
area m3/ha
m3
Palm dates
intercropped 15% 61.5 18,580 1,142,665
with Alfalfa
Palm dates
intercropped 25% 102.5 13,433 1,376,859
with Barley
Barley 60% 246 3,274 805,418
Maize 10% 41 6,033 247,354
Total 110% 451 3,572,297
The proposed cropping pattern utilization percentage is 65 % as shown in the following

table.
Table 3-12: Water Balance for Al-Fureijat Area

Pond
Evaporation
demand
Effective Pan Irrigation ,deep WWTP WWTP
defficit/
Precip Evap Requirements percolation and Production Production
surplus
Rainfall/
Loss/Gain
(month) (mm) (mm) (m3) (m3) (m3/d) (m3/m) (m3)
January 47.6 70 159,830 -10,163 15,000 465,000 295,008
February 38.8 68 216,749 -13,327 15,000 420,000 189,924
March 29.5 115 429,354 -38,578 15,000 465,000 -2,931
April 12.4 170 222,225 -70,972 15,000 450,000 156,803
May 2.6 235 294,498 -104,539 15,000 465,000 65,964
June 0.0 260 334,334 -117,045 15,000 450,000 -1,379
July 0.0 268 322,490 -120,690 15,000 465,000 21,820
August 0.0 240 373,589 -108,135 15,000 465,000 -16,724
September 0.0 204 245,618 -91,935 15,000 450,000 112,447
October 5.6 122 440,415 -52,169 15,000 465,000 -27,585
November 18.9 85 330,071 -29,560 15,000 450,000 90,369
December 40.2 53 203,125 -5,794 15,000 465,000 256,081
Monthly
Average 16.3 158 297,691 -63,576 456,250 456,250 94,983
Annual
Total 195.6 1,891 3,572,297 -762,907 5,475,000 5,475,000 1,139,797
% TWW 65% 14% 21%
3.3.2. Nutrients balance
Nitrogen:
The nutrient balance for the chosen crops is calculated based on the estimated water
demand and the N concentration of the effluent assuming overall nutrient application
efficiency of 90% .The balanace shows that only the Palm dates- Alfalfa intercropping
recieved the required amounts while the Palm dates- Barley intercropping receives 31%
,Maize receives 9% and finally barley receives about 50 % more than the required Nitrogen
as shown in the following table.The Nitrogen amount that will be discharged to the wadi
amounts to about 57 ton/year.
Table 3-13: Nitrogen Balance for Al-Fureijat Area
Crop/ Water Crop N Applied
Applied N
intercropped demand requirements N/Required
kg/ha
pattern m3/ha kg/ha N%
Palm dates 360

Alfalfa 510
Maize 6,033 271.5 250 109%
Barley 3,274 147.3 100.0 147%
Palm dates
intercropped 18,580 836.1 870.0 96%
with Alfalfa
Palm dates
intercropped 13,433 604.5 460.0 131%
with Barley
Phosphorus
The P concentration in the effluent is 17mg/l ,based on the required crop water demand
and assuming application efficiency of 90 % ,the following table shows the Phosphate
balance for the cropping pattern, it shows that the applied phosphate exceeds the required
amounts, but because of the calcareous nature of the project area excess applied
phosphates will be fixed by the soil through surface adsorption and precipitation depressing
its transportability thus no specific actions are necessary for phosphate management in
case of effluent irrigation in the project area .
Table 3-14: Phosphates Balance for Al-Fureijat Area

Water Crop P Applied
Crop/ intercropped Applied P
demand requirements P/Required
pattern kg/ha
m3/ha kg/ha P%
Palm dates 60
Alfalfa 35
maize 6,033 92.3 40 231%
Barley 3,274 50.1 24.0 209%
Palm dates
intercropped 18,580 284.3 95.0 299%
with Alfalfa
Palm dates
intercropped 13,433 205.5 84.0 245%
with Barley
3.3.3. Water and Salt Balance for the Individual Crops and Intermixed Cropping Pattern for
Wadi Es-Sammin Area
Using the same previous steps the resultant cropping pattern for Wadi Es-Sammin area
is shown in the following table based on the water balance model calculations
Table 3-15: The Resultant Cropping Patterns Based On Water Balance Model
Calculations for Wadi Es-Sammin Area
Total area
Percent of Water
Water
Crop/ intercropped pattern the total Area (ha) demand
demand
area m3/ha
m3
Almonds intercropped
35% 143.5 12,487 1,791,880
with Alfalfa
Maize 35% 143.5 5,043 723,679

Barley 65% 267 870 231,974
Total 135% 554 2,747,533
The proposed cropping pattern utilization percentage is 50 % as shown in the following

table
Table 3-16: Water Balance for Wadi Es-Sammin Area

Pond
Evaporation
demand
Effective Pan Irrigation ,deep WWTP WWTP
defficit /
Precip Evap Requirements percolation Production Production
surplus
and Rainfall/
Loss/Gain
(month) (mm) (mm) (m3) (m3) (m3/d) (m3/m) (m3)
January 66.8 70 0 -850 15,000 465,000 464,150

February 70.8 68 0 600 15,000 420,000 420,600
March 55.0 115 166,477 -15,045 15,000 465,000 283,478
April 19.1 170 247,886 -37,763 15,000 450,000 164,352
May 4.7 235 363,698 -57,550 15,000 465,000 43,752
June 0.5 260 394,623 -64,900 15,000 450,000 -9,523
July 0.0 268 377,597 -67,050 15,000 465,000 20,353
August 0.0 240 307,931 -60,075 15,000 465,000 96,994
September 1.6 204 396,610 -50,675 15,000 450,000 2,715
October 14.5 122 463,294 -26,762 15,000 465,000 -25,055
November 50.0 85 29,418 -8,644 15,000 450,000 411,938
December 57.8 53 0 1,163 15,000 465,000 466,163
Monthly
Average 52.4 158 228,961 -32,296 456,250 456,250 194,993
Annual
Total 340.7 1,891 2,747,533 -387,550 5,475,000 5,475,000 2,339,916
% TWW 50% 7% 43%
3.3.4. Wadi Es-Sammin Nutrients Balance
Nitrogen:
The nutrient balance for the chosen crops shows that non of the crops recieved the
required amounts of Nitrogen, this is mainly due to the moderate water demand due to the
moderate climatic conditions compared to Al- Fureijat area as shown in the following
table.The Nitrogen amount that will be discharged to the wadi with the excess winter water
amounts to about 117 ton/year.
Table 3-17: Nitrogen Balance for Al-Fureijat Area

Water Crop N Applied
Applied N
Crop/ intercropped pattern demand requirements N/Required N
kg/ha
m3/ha kg/ha %
Almonds 200
maize 5,043 226.9 250 91%
Barley 870 39.2 100 39%
alfalfa 8,995 404.8 510.0 79%
almonds intercropped
12,487 561.9 710.0 79%
with Alfalfa
Phosphorus:
The Phosphate balance for the cropping pattern shows that the applied phosphate exceeds
the required amounts for maize and almond intercropped with alafalfa, but was less than
the required amounts for barley.
Table 3-18: Phosphates Balance for Wadi Es-Sammin Area

Water Crop P Applied
Applied P
Crop/ intercropped pattern demand requirements P/Required
kg/ha
m3/ha kg/ha P%
Almonds 120
maize 5,043 77.2 40 193%
Barley 870 13.3 24.0 55%
Alfalfa 8,995 137.6 35.0
almonds intercropped
12,487 191.1 155.0 123%
with Alfalfa
3.4. Conceptual Reuse Scheme Facilities
The study for the irrigation schemes were made based on the PWA design criteria for water
networks, using the Peak Month crop water requirements , the data inputs were processed
using Bentley WateCAD a program that is used in different areas for water network
analysis around the globe.
3.4.1. Design Criteria
The following units are used for hydraulic calculations:
Table 3-19: Hydraulic Calculation Units

Parameter Unit
Length Meter (m)
Diameter Millimeter (mm)
Velocity Meters / Second (m/s)
Flow Cubic Meter per Hour (m3/h)

Demand Liters / Second (l/s) or liters / capita / day
(l/c/d)
Volume Cubic meters (m3)
Pressure bar or Meter Head (m)
The Hazen-Williams Formula is used for calculating the pressure in the pipe network and
friction losses, it is frequently used in the analysis of pressure pipe systems (such as water
distribution networks and sewer force mains). The formula is as follows:
Q = k . C . A . R0.63 . S0.54
Where: Q = Discharge in the section (m3/s, cfs)

C = Hazen-Williams roughness coefficient (unitless)
A = Flow area (m2, ft.2)
R = Hydraulic radius (m, ft.)
S = Friction slope (m/m, ft./ft.)
k = Constant (0.85 for SI units, 1.32 for US units).
Identical Hazen roughness C - Factor will be 110 for steel pipes via Bentley material
Library.
Pressure Limits
The highest pressure in the main water pipes should not exceed 24 bar or the value
mentioned in the product manual and 6 bar at the point of sub main connections to prevent
their damage.
The Minimum allowable pressure in a distributer water supply pipe should not be less than
2 bars and the farm gate pressure is 1 bar.
Velocity Limits
The velocity through network pipes should be within its minimum 0.6 m/s and maximum 3
m/s limits according to PWA Design Guidelines.
3.4.2. Potential Reuse Areas Scheme Design
In the design of irrigation schemes, the study of irrigation area were divided into two major
areas, the plains allocated along Wadi As-Samen and the Al-Furijat area, based upon
these two schemes different scenarios were built up to study the reliability of an irrigation
system and its cost, these scenarios are listed below for each area.
For Wadi Es-Sammin area, the gentle sloping non-olives areas were identified and
summarized into 34 clusters as shown in the following figure and listed by area in the
following table.
ArcMap software was used to define the required length of the irrigation pipeline according
to spatial analysis, and based on peak requirements, the pump required head was
calculated taking into consideration elevation difference, head loss due to friction and on
farm required pressure of 1 bar using built in watercad model, the results are also listed in
the table 3-20 below.
Figure 3-3: Clusters Irrigation Areas
Table 3-20: Scheme Design Results for the Identified 34 Clusters

Pipe Pump
Cluster Cluster Pipe Elev. Required C Pipe Head Total Head
No Area Length Deference Side flow Value Dia. loss Head Class
83822.17
Cluster 1 5 675 25 1 44.426 130 101.6 17.834 42.834 2
79143.70
Cluster 2 7 315 20 2 41.946 130 101.6 7.483 27.483 1
130525.3
Cluster 3 25 1000 20 2 69.178 130 101.6 59.999 79.999 3
124376.3
Cluster 4 68 650 35 2 65.919 130 101.6 35.665 70.665 3
82875.98
Cluster 5 3 750 35 2 43.924 130 101.6 19.403 54.403 2
97068.27
Cluster 6 1 1500 15 2 51.446 130 101.6 52.004 67.004 3
37461.56
Cluster 7 7 500 15 1 19.855 130 101.6 2.973 17.973 1
172186.8
Cluster 8 02 800 20 1 91.259 130 101.6 80.175 100.175 4
102505.7
Cluster 9 99 1700 30 2 54.328 130 101.6 65.198 95.198 4
Cluster 41392.84
10 5 500 20 1 21.938 130 101.6 3.576 23.576 1
Cluster 108535.7
11 01 550 30 1 57.524 130 101.6 23.449 53.449 3
Cluster 163856.5
12 78 750 30 1 86.844 130 101.6 68.569 98.569 4
Cluster 98319.14
13 8 1000 15 1 52.109 130 101.6 35.501 50.501 3
Cluster 161285.6
14 27 1000 20 1 85.481 130 101.6 88.786 108.786 4
Cluster 83526.30
15 6 750 15 2 44.269 130 101.6 19.686 34.686 2
Cluster 87363.52
16 7 1000 30 1 46.303 130 101.6 28.525 58.525 2
Cluster 114562.8
17 72 750 15 1 60.718 130 101.6 35.341 50.341 3
Cluster 123124.5
18 85 1500 15 2 65.256 130 101.6 80.777 95.777 4
Cluster 142095.9
19 83 1000 35 2 75.311 130 101.6 70.22 105.22 4
Cluster 314968.7
20 94 1000 50 1 166.933 130 154.2 40.28 90.28 5
Cluster 71236.61
21 4 700 15 1 37.755 130 101.6 13.683 28.683 1
Cluster 146329.1
22 04 1000 30 2 77.554 130 101.6 74.142 104.142 4
Cluster 113214.7
23 43 1200 30 2 60.004 130 101.6 55.321 85.321 4
Cluster 120647.7
24 4 1000 30 2 63.943 130 101.6 51.862 81.862 4
Cluster 84649.97
25 9 700 25 1 44.864 130 101.6 18.834 43.834 2
Cluster 82164.81
26 7 1000 25 1 43.547 130 101.6 25.461 50.461 2
Cluster 125237.6
27 16 1000 15 1 66.376 130 101.6 55.576 70.576 3
Cluster 83969.71
28 9 1000 15 2 44.504 130 101.6 26.507 41.507 2
Cluster 51528.19
29 6 1000 20 1 27.31 130 101.6 10.73 30.73 2
Cluster 62146.18
30 2 1100 20 1 32.937 130 101.6 16.698 36.698 2
Cluster 93112.48
31 4 1100 20 2 49.35 130 101.6 35.309 55.309 2
Cluster 128949.0
32 89 1500 30 2 68.343 130 101.6 87.996 117.996 4
Cluster 120198.6
33 48 1800 20 2 63.705 130 101.6 92.709 112.709 4
Cluster 401955.3 107.56
34 38 1700 30 2 213.036 130 154.2 7 137.567 6
The resultant pump head and capacity were used for the cost estimates based on the available pumps and current prices
The unit water quantity pumping cost which is needed for the screening process and the economic analysis was calculated based on
the following assumption:
1- The KW/hr cost is 0.16 USD to which 0.03 USD was added to compensate for O&M ,because different crops and
combinations are used differing in their water requirements and thus different pumping durations and that the clusters
differ in their area .
The pump and pumping costs for the identified 34 clusters is shown in the following table.
Table 3-21: The Pump and Pumping Costs for the Identified 34 Clusters
Pump Pumping
Pump Pump
Cluster_No cost Hp KW/Hr Us$/hr cost
Head Flow
us$ us$/m3
Cluster 2 50 50 14,000 15 11 2.1 0.04

Cluster 21 50 50 14,000 15 11 2.1 0.04
Cluster 1 100 50 32,000 30 22 4.3 0.09
Cluster 25 100 50 32,000 30 22 4.3 0.09
Cluster 20 150 200 150,000 150 112 21.8 0.11
Cluster 4 100 100 63,500 60 45 8.8 0.09
Cluster 15 100 50 32,000 30 22 4.3 0.09
Cluster 5 100 50 32,000 30 22 4.3 0.09
Cluster 10 50 50 14,000 15 11 2.1 0.04
Cluster 8 150 100 95,500 90 67 13.0 0.13
Cluster 11 100 100 63,500 60 45 8.8 0.09
Cluster 3 100 100 63,500 60 45 8.8 0.09
Cluster 12 150 100 95,500 90 67 13.0 0.13
Cluster 31 100 50 32,000 30 22 4.3 0.09
Cluster 16 100 50 32,000 30 22 4.3 0.09
Cluster 17 100 100 63,500 60 45 8.8 0.09
Cluster 34 150 250 200,000 180 134 26.1 0.10
Cluster 27 100 100 63,500 60 45 8.8 0.09
Cluster 7 50 50 14,000 15 11 2.1 0.04
Cluster 28 100 50 32,000 30 22 4.3 0.09
Cluster 26 100 50 32,000 30 22 4.3 0.09
Cluster 14 150 100 95,500 90 67 13.0 0.13
Cluster 22 150 100 95,500 90 67 13.0 0.13
Cluster 19 150 100 95,500 90 67 13.0 0.13
Cluster 13 100 100 63,500 60 45 8.8 0.09
Cluster 24 150 100 95,500 90 67 13.0 0.13
Cluster 30 100 50 32,000 30 22 4.3 0.09
Cluster 6 100 100 63,500 60 45 8.8 0.09
Cluster 32 150 100 95,500 90 67 13.0 0.13
Cluster 23 150 100 95,500 90 67 13.0 0.13
Cluster 18 150 100 95,500 90 67 13.0 0.13
Cluster 29 100 50 32,000 30 22 4.3 0.09
Cluster 33 150 100 95,500 90 67 13.0 0.13
Cluster 9 150 100 95,500 90 67 13.0 0.13
For Al-Furijat area different scenarios were studied to identify the best cost effective one to
compare it with the Wadi As-Samen scenario.
WaterCAD model was built up based on the 2011 satellite image and contour of 5 m span
for the west bank area.
Four main alternatives were studied:
1. Gravity dam with central pumping station and large distribution network
Figure 3-4: Alternative One; Gravity dam with central

pumping station and large distribution
network
Table 3-22: Cost Estimate for Alternative One
Item Details Price

Retention Structure
(gravity dam) --- 1,500,000
Pumps 2+1 800,000
Pipes 4.5 km 18" main 1,800,000
Pipes Grid 10 km 12" main 2,000,000
15 km 8"
Pipes Grid Distribution 2,250,000
Fittings ---- 800,000
Total 9,150,000
2. Gravity dam with long main force pipe and large distribution network
Figure 3-5: Alternative Two; Gravity Dam with Long Main Force Pipe and Large
Distribution Network
Table 3-23: Cost Estimate for Alternative Two

Item Details Price
Retention Structure (gravity dam) --- 1,500,000
Pipes 9 km 18" main 3,600,000
Pipes Grid 15 km 8" Distribution 2,250,000
Fittings ---- 700,000
Total 10,050,000
3. On stream central pumping station with minimized pipe distribution
Figure 3-6: Alternative Three; Central Pump Station with Minimized Pipe Distribution
Table 3-24: Cost Estimate for Alternative Three

Item Details Price
Channel Lining 1 Km 100,000
Pumps 2+1 1,000,000
Pipes Grid 15 km 8" Distribution 2,250,000
Fittings ---- 400,000
Total 5,750,000
4. Phasing System
Figure 3-7: Alternative Four; Phazing System
Table 3-25: Cost Estimate for Alternative Four
Phase 1 Area 1964 Donum
Item Details Price
Pumps 1+1 , h=50 m, Q=490 m^3/h 600,000
Fittings ---- 400,000
Total 2,067,080
Item Details Price
Pumps 1+1 , h=50 m, Q=300 m^3/h 400,000
Fittings ---- 350,000
Total 1,498,370
Item Details Price
Pumps 1+1 , h=80 m, Q=300 m^3/h 500,000
Fittings ---- 400,000
Total 1,696,370
3.5. Farm Models Selection

Table 3.19 shows the planted land sizes according to the questionnaire results. Accordingly
the farm feasibly study will cover three sizes 1) 2ha, 2) 5ha and 3)50ha.
Table -3-26: Distribution of Planted Area According To the Questionnaire Results

Planted Area/ha Planted Area/ha %
<10 <2ha 42.3

11-50 2-5 ha 42.4
>50 >5 15.3
3.5.1. Assumption for the Analysis
A. Plant Production
1. The project will be implemented through four phases as shown in table 3.20.
Table 3-27: Implementation Phases of the Project

Stages Year Location
Stage 1 1-5 first Group of Clusters in Wadi Es-Sammin
Stage 2 5-10 AL-Fureijat 1
2. Drip Irrigation network per hectare: cost, area, and active life:
a) Each farm regardless its size requires a head unit control at a cost of 1000 US$,
which includes filter, pressure controller and fertilizer.
b) Drip/sprinkler irrigation for tree crops: 3000 US$/ ha
c) Drip /sprinkle irrigation system for intercropped tree crops (Almonds and Dates)
and alfalfa/barley 4000 US$/ ha
d) Drip irrigation for maize /barley 3500 US$/ha
e) For both areas water requirements are included in cropping pattern table.
3. Total cultivated areas in the two project regions and the cropping pattern in each
region, i.e. the total area for each crop, either single or inter-cropping are shown in
tables 3-28and 3-29.
4. The farm model analysis was done to the prioritized clusters of Wadi Es-Sammin
area and the three phases of Alfureijat shown in the above tables.
3.5.2. Miscellaneous Irrigation System Costs

 Ponds : each farm requires a pond with capacity of 100 m3/ha for Wadi Es-
Samminand Al Fureijat
 Cost : US$ 2078 / Pond of 100 M3
 O&M per Pond is US 208/year and active life:10 years
 The Maintenance costs (rate): 10-20 % of pump cost annually for each crop/farm
/cropping pattern in Wadi Es-Sammin. In the analysis we used 15%
 Engineering costs are included in fittings and contingencies.
Table 3-28: The Cropping Patterns Based on Water Balance Model Calculations in Al-
Fureijat
Water
% of the Area Total Water
Pattern Demand
Total Area (ha) Demand (M3)
(m3/ha)
Palm dates intercropped
15% 61.5 18580 1142665
with Alfalfa
Palm dates intercropped
25% 102.5 13433 1376859
with Barley
Barley 60% 246 3,274 805,418
Maize 10% 41 6,033 247,354
Total/ Average 110% 451 7921 3,572,297
Table 3-29: The Cropping Patterns Based on Water Balance Model Calculations in
Wadi Es-Sammin
Percent of Area Water

Total area
Crop/ intercropped pattern the total (ha) demand
Water demand
area m3/ha
m3
Almonds intercropped
with Alfalfa 35% 143.5 12,487 1,791,880
Maize 35% 143.5 5,043 723,679
Barley 65% 267 870 231,974
Total /Average 135% 554 4960 2,747,533
3.5.3. General Notes

 35 % maize will be grown in the same place where barley is grown so they will
utilize same irrigation system.
 The ratio of cropping pattern will be the same for all farms equally.
 In Wadi ESsammin region: Nitrogen and phosphorus are inadequately supplied by
the irrigation water for some crops, so there is a need for further fertilization for
them
Table 3-30: Intercropping Percentages

Year
Cropping
Combination/ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9-20
year
Date Palms mixed
cropping with
alfalfa 95 90 85 80 75 70 70 65 60 0
Alfalfa production
rate (%)
/Date
Palms/barley
95 90 85 80 75 70 70 65 60 0
barley production
rate (%)
Almonds mixed
cropping with
alfalfa 95 90 85 80 75 70 No barley No barley No barley 0
Alfalfa production
rate (%)
Farm budgets for alfalfa, Barley, Maize and fruit trees intercropping are shown in Annex 2.
B. Livestock
A questionnaire was collected from 8 livestock hearders in the selected two regions, (See
Annex 3) all of them were males, one of them is illiterate, three elementary/preparatory
grades, two secondary grades, and one has a BSc. The average family size of the
respondents was 11, with a minimum of 2 persons and a maximum of 35 persons. The
averge owned farm size was 8.2 Ha including one farmer owing 35 Ha alone.
All workers were family members. Five respondents own sheep only, one owns cattel only,
and two owns sheep and goats. The average annual newborn sheep lambs were 122
heads, out of which 105 were sold at an average price of US$ 136/head. The mortality
rates in sheep were about 8% annually.
The cattele owner has 300 heads, and newborns were 100 calves, out of which 50 calves
were sold at a price of US$ 193/calve. On the other hand, one herder owns 29 goats and
the other owns 200 heads of goats, the average annual newborns was 113 heads, out of
which 80 heads were sold at aprice of US$ 114/head. The mortality rate in goats was 11%.
All the livestock owners by barley, about 285 ton/year, while no body buys alfalfa, but two
of them buy hay (wheat and barley hay). Fime herders buy concentrate (205 tons) and all
of them buy bran (217 tons).
The annual vaccination for the livestock in the sample was US$ 1143. The cattle owner
sold 15 tons of youghort and 7.5 tons of butter. One og the goat owners sold about 22 tons
of butter. On the other hand, five of the livestock owners sold about 85.5 tons of dried
youghort (Jameed).
Seven of the livestock owners use their wells for water in addition ofpurchasing addition
water. Only one farmers (cattle owner produces alfalfa) on 10 Ha of land, and he used
treated wastewater for irrigation, accordingly he is willing to pay US$ 2.6/M3. While, the rest
of the farmers are willing to pay, on average, US$ 0.26/M3.
The livestock Questionnaire showed that the livestock numbers per farm were:
1) 142 head of sheep,
2)115 head of goats (only two farms in the sample).
The average area of land owned by the herders was 8 ha, with a minimum of 3 ha and a
maximum (one farm) 35ha. If we exclude the large farm, the average size of farms owned
by livestock owners was 4.3 ha. Accordingly, the economic analysis will include raising 70
heads of sheep in the medium size farm only, 25 heads of sheep in the small size farm,
and 100 heads of sheep in the large farm.
The livestock analysis will be included in the three farm models. Moreover, the analysis will
be conducted for the three farm sizes in each area, i.e. Wadi Es-Sammin and Al-Fureijat.
This means that we will have six scenarios in the analysis. The results will contain the basic
scenario and the sensitivity analysis by increasing the costs by 10%, 20 % and 30%, and
by decreasing returns by 10%, 20 % and 30%.
Main Livestock Assumptions:
Table 3-31: Main Technical Assumption for the Livestock Component

Unit Quantity/value
No. of births (per year) No 1
Lambing rate ratio 0.9
Twins ratio 1.1
Death rate of ewes 0.03
Culled ewes and rams 0.15
Culled two years ewes 0.05
Death rate for raising females 0.05
Death rate for fattened lambs 0.1
Death rate for rams 0.05
Age of the first mating 18-16
Productive live for ewes 6
% of males to females in lambs % 0.5
% rams to ewes % 0.04
% of processed cheese to milk % 0.25
% of processing dry yoghurt to milk % 0.08
% of processing ghee to milk % 0.06
Wool production per ewe or ram kg 2.5

Milk production /ewe/year (120 days of lactation) kg 100
% of produced milked processed to cheese % 0.7
% of produced milk processed to ghee and hard yoghurt % 0.3
Feeding
Concentrate ration/ewe/year Ton 0.23
Filling ration/ewe/year Ton 0.25
Concentrate ration/ram/year Ton 0.16
Filling ration/ram/year Ton 0.15
Concentrate ration/2 years old ewe/year Ton 0.15
Filling ration/2 years old ewe/year Ton 0.06
Concentrate ration/one years old ewe/year Ton 0.13
Filling ration/one years old ewe/year Ton 0.06
Concentrate ration/fattened lamb/year Ton 0.65
Filling ration/fattened lamb/year Ton 0.035
Veterinary medicine /fattened lamb/year US$ 1.5
Veterinary medicine /ewe/year US$ 0.8
Water/ewe/year US$ 5
Water/fattened lamb/year US$ 0.6
Cost of ration (US$/Ton) US$ 120
Cost of Concentrate ration (US$/Ton) US$ 120
Purchases
Pregnant ewe us$ 250
Ram us$ 250
Yard areas /head
Ewes M2 1.5
Rams M2 2
two years ewes M2 1.5
one year ewes M2 1.2
fattening yards M2 0.8
Birth pens M2 1.7
Selling /unit
Culled ewes US$ 70
culled rams US$ 80
culled 2 years ewes US$ 120
fattened lambs US$ 150
Manure/ewe and ram/year US$ 4
Manure/fattened lamb /year US$ 0.2
Wool production per head US$ 5.0
Wool price US$ 1.5
Cheese price US$ 2.5
Hard yoghurt Price US$ 30
Ghee Price US$ 15
Source: partly from the livestock questionnaire and the rest from expers opinion.
The investment costs components of the livestock activities are shown in the following
tables; the data source for the following tables was collected from experers:
i) Farm Size 2ha with 25 heads of Sheep:
The total investment costs for the 2-ha farm with 25 heads of sheep in Wadi Es-
Samminwas US$ 32493. It is composed of buildings used for milk processing, and yards
for the different types of livestock, machinery and equipment, furniture, transportation, live
animals and contingencies. Table 3.32
Table 3-32: Investment Costs of the Livestock Component for the 2-ha Farm
Buildings
total Active Life
Type of building Area Cost/unit
costs (year)
M^2 US$/M^2
milk processing room 20 200 4000
Other buildings
Ewes yards 26 15 383 10
Rams Yards 2 15 29
2-years ewes yards 11 15 168
1-year ewes yards 9 15 136
Fattening yards 6 15 90
Birth yards 30 20 598
Feed store 320 20 6400
Machinery & equipments
Feeders &drinkers (one meter
long) 100 1 100 5
Milk bucket 10 10 100
Cheese presser 1 300 300
Incubator 1 200 200
Scale 1 200 200
Others 1 200 200
Furniture and Stationary
total Active Life
Type No Cost/unit costs (year)
desk, tables etc. 1 500 500 5
Transportation
Pickup 1 10000 10000 10
Pregnant ewes 25 250 6250
Rams 1 250 250
Contingencies 2590 15
Total Investment costs 32493
ii) Farm size 5ha with 70 heads of Sheep:
Samminwas US$ 44477. It is composed of buildings used for milk processing, and
yards for the different types of livestock, machinery and equipment, furniture,
transportation, live animals and contingencies. Table 3.33
Buildings
Active
total
Type of building Area Cost/unit Life
costs
(year)
M^2 US$/M^2
milk processing room 20 200 4000
Other buildings
Ewes yards 71 15 1071 10
Rams Yards 5 15 80
Feed store 320 20 6400
Feeders &drinkers (one meter long) 300 0.5 150 5
Incubator 1 100 100
Scale 1 200 200
Others 1 200 200
Transportation
Pickup 1 10000 10000 10
Other Investment Costs
Rams 3 250 700
iii) Farm size 50ha with 100 heads of Sheep:
Samminwas US$ 52204. It is composed of buildings used for milk processing, and yards
for the different types of livestock, machinery and equipment, furniture, transportation, live
animals and contingencies. Table 3.34
Buildings
Active Life
Type of building Area Cost/unit total costs
(year)
M^2 US$/M^2
milk processing room 20 200 4000 25
Other buildings
Ewes yards 102 15 1530 10
Rams Yards 8 15 114
Feed store 20 0
Feeders &drinkers (one meter
400 ` 400 5
long)
Incubator 1 200 200
Scale 1 200 200
Others 1 200 200
Transportation
Pickup 1 10000 10000 10
Other Investment Costs

Rams 4 250 1000
4. THE FEASIBILITY STUDY COMPONENTS
The Feasibility analysis will include the following:

 Wadi Es-Sammin region and Al-Fureijat region will be analysed separately due to
the difference in the crop pattern between them.
 Three farm sizes will be analyzed in each region, they are 2-Ha, 5 Ha, and 50 Ha in
each of them.
 The first size farm will raise 50 sheep, the second will raise 50 sheep and the third
will raise 70 sheep.
 The “With and without the project” analysis will be conducted. Since in Al-Fureijat
only barley can be grown under reainfed conditions, its net return will be included
as cost to the project. In Wadi Es-Sammin, Almonds and barley could be produced
under rainfed conditions, but since almonds net returns are higher than Barley’s
return, it will be the best alternative and its net return will be included as costs to the
project in this area.
4.1 Investment Costs

The investment costs components are consist of main pipes, pumps &fittings, bonds, head
unit control in each farm, irrigation systems in the farms and the investment costs
components of the livestock activities, as shown in the following tables:
i) Wadi Es-SamminFarms:
a. Two-hectares Farm
The total investment costs for the 2-ha farm with 25 heads of livestock in the first and
second years were US$ 70017 and US4 6784 respectively. In the next years, the cost of
maintenance per pond is US$ 208 annually. Table 4.1.
Table 4-1: Investment Costs for the 2-ha Farm in Wadi Es-Sammin
Year
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Investment Costs 70017 6784 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208
Pipes, Pumps &fittings 19347
Bonds (ground storage) 7170
maintenance per pond 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208
Head Unit Control 1000
Drip/Sprinkler Irrigation
intercropping/Assamin 2800
Drip for barley/maize/Assamin 7000
Working Capital 6576
Livestock 32493
Table 4.1: Investment Costs for the 2-ha farm, cont….
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Pipes, Pumps &fittings
Bonds (ground storage)
20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Head Unit Control
intercropping/Assamin
Drip for barley/maize/Assamin
Working Capital
Livestock
b. Five-hectares Farm
second years were US$ 8881 and US$ 50945 respectively. In the next years, the cost of
maintenance per pond is US$ 208 annually. Table 4.2.
Table 4-2: Investment Costs for the 5-ha Farm in Wadi Es-Sammin
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
intercropping/Assamin 7000
Drip for
barley/maize/Assamin 17500
Livestock Purchases 44477
Year 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Head Unit Control
intercropping/Assamin
Drip for
barley/maize/Assamin
Working Capital
Livestock Purchases
c. Fifty-hectares Farm
second years were US$ 598240 and US$ 65460 respectively. In the next years the cost of
maintenance per pond is US$ 208 annually. Table 4.3
Table 4-3: Investment Costs for the 50-ha farm in Wadi Es-Sammin
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

70000
intercropping/Assamen
Drip for
175000
barley/maize/Assamen
Livestock 52204
Year 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Head Unit Control

intercropping/Assamen
Drip for
barley/maize/Assamen
Working Capital
Livestock
ii. Al-Fureijat
The construction of phase one in Alfureijat will start in year 4, and for the second and third
phases the years 9 & 14 respectively.
a. Two Hectares Farm
The total investment costs for the 2-ha farm with 25 heads of livestock in the years 4 and
year 5, respectively were US$ 17781 and US$ 35066. The working capital is US$ 4709 in
the sixth year. In the next years the cost of maintenance per pond is US$ 208 annually.
Table 4.4.
Table 4-4: Investment Costs for the 2-ha Farm in Al-Fureijat
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1778 3506
Investment Costs 7 6 4917 208 208 6891 208
Bonds (ground storage) 5092 6683
maintenance per pond 208 208 208 208 208
intercropping/Fraijat 3200
Drip for barley/maize/Fraijat 5950
3506
Livestock 6
Year 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Head Unit Control
intercropping/Fraijat
Drip for barley/maize/Fraijat
Working Capital
Livestock
b. Five Hectares Farm
The total investment costs for the 5-ha farm with 70 heads of livestock in the years 4 and
year 5, respectively were US$ 39150 and US$ 46644. The working capital is US$ 4633 in
the sixth year. In the next years, the cost of maintenance per pond is US$ 208 annually.
Table 4.5.
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3915 4664
Pipes, Pumps &fittings 2,546
1272
Bonds (ground storage) 9 16,708
1487
4664
Livestock 4
Year 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
1822
1801
Head Unit Control
Drip for barley/maize/Fraijat
Working Capital
Livestock
c. Fifty Hectares Farm
The total investment costs for the 50-ha farm with 100 heads of livestock in the years 4
and year 5, respectively were US$ 359587 and US$ 52204. The working capital is US$
14133 in the sixth year. In the next years the cost of maintenance per pond is US$ 208
annually. Table 4.6.

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Pipes, Pumps &fittings 2,546
Bonds (ground storage) 127291 167,084
Drip for barley
/maize/Fraijat 148750
Livestock 52204
Years 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
4074

4054
Bonds (ground storage) 0 180180
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Head Unit Control
Drip for
barley/maize/Fraijat
Working Capital
Livestock
4.2 Operational Costs
The operational costs are composed of pumping costs, operation& maintenance costs Crop
production costs, and livestock costs. The operational coasts differ annually due to
decreasing intercropping rates until year 10 of the project, at which the operational costs
will be constant annually.
i. Wadi Es-Sammin
The first year of the project will be devoted to the irrigation infrastructure construction. Iin
the second year the field crops will be cultivated which makes the cost to increase until
year 10. Table 4.7
Table 4-7: Operational Costs for 2-Ha Farm with 25 Heads of livestock in
Wadi Es-Sammin
Total
Pumping Crop production Operational
Year costs O&M costs Livestock Cost costs
1
2 439 439 4140 8574 13152
3 439 439 3054 8574 12066
4 439 439 3181 8574 12194
5 439 439 4339 8574 13352
6 1057 1139 3559 8574 13190
7 1057 1139 3643 8574 13274
8 1057 1139 3541 8574 13173
9 1958 1139 3054 8574 13586
10 1958 1139 3666 8574 14198
11 1958 1773 3666 8574 14198
12 1958 1773 3666 8574 14198
13 1958 1773 3666 8574 14198
14 2909 1773 3666 8574 15148
15 2909 1773 3666 8574 15148
16 2909 2406 3666 8574 15148
17 2909 2406 3666 8574 15148
18 2909 2406 3666 8574 15148
19 2909 2406 3666 8574 15148
20 2909 2406 3666 8574 15148
b. Five Hectares Farm
The total operational costs in the second year will be US$ 12521which includes the costs
of livestock, almonds, and field crops production. In the 10th year the intercropping will
stop, and only fruit trees will be served in addition to livestock. Table4.8.
Wadi Es-Sammin
Pumping Crop production costs in Livestock Total Operational
Year costs O&M Wadi Assamen Cost costs
1
2 1097 1097 4140 7285 12521
3 1097 1097 3054 7719 11870
4 1097 1097 3181 8108 12386
5 1097 1097 4339 8100 13536
6 2643 2848 3559 8037 14239
7 2643 2848 3643 8018 14305
8 2643 2848 3541 8022 14207
9 4895 2848 3054 8026 15975
10 4895 2848 3666 8027 16588
11 4895 4432 3666 8026 16587
12 4895 4432 3666 8026 16587
13 4895 4432 3666 8026 16587
14 7271 4432 3666 8026 18963
15 7271 4432 3666 8026 18963
16 7271 6016 3666 8026 18963
17 7271 6016 3666 8026 18963
18 7271 6016 3666 8026 18963
19 7271 6016 3666 8026 18963
20 7271 6016 3666 8026 18963
c. Fifty Hectares Farm
The total operational costs in the second year will be US$ 26096 which includes the costs
of livestock, almonds, and field crops production. In the 10th year the intercropping will stop,
and only fruit trees will be served in addition to livestock. Table 4.9.
Wadi Es-Sammin
Crop production Total
Pumping costs in Wadi Es- Livestock Operational
Year costs O&M Sammin Cost costs
1
2 10966 10966 4140 10991 26096
3 10966 10966 3054 12801 26820
4 10966 10966 3181 13886 28033
5 10966 10966 4339 13861 29166
6 26431 28477 3559 13672 43662
7 26431 28477 3643 13616 43690
8 26431 28477 3541 13629 43601
9 48951 28477 3054 13640 65644
10 48951 28477 3666 13642 66258
11 48951 44319 3666 13641 66257
12 48951 44319 3666 13640 66257
13 48951 44319 3666 13640 66257
14 72713 44319 3666 13640 90019
15 72713 44319 3666 13640 90019
16 72713 60161 3666 13640 90019
17 72713 60161 3666 13640 90019
18 72713 60161 3666 13640 90019
19 72713 60161 3666 13640 90019
20 72713 60161 3666 13640 90019
ii. Al-Fureijat
The first phase of the project will be implemented in year 4 by constructing the irrigation
system for 196.4 hectare. The second phase will start in year 6 to irrigate 119.7 hectares
and the third phase will start in year 14 to irrigate 111 hectare.
The total operational cost in the first year is composed of field crops and livestock
production, it is about US$ 16058. In year 6 the operational costs were US$ 36190 and it
continued to increase until year 14, and then it freezes after that US$ 63960 til the end of
the project life. Table 4.10.
The same trend is found in the other farm sizes 5-ha and 50-ha but with different values.
(Table 4.11 and 4.12)
Table 4-10: Total Operational Costs for the 2-ha Farm with 25 Heads of Livestock
Total
Pumping Crop production costs Livestock Operational
costs O&M in Al-Fureijat Cost costs
1
2
3
4
5 7484 8574 16058
6 619 700 7385 8800 16803
7 619 700 7285 8936 16839
8 619 700 13453 8933 23004
9 1519 700 25761 8909 36190
10 1519 700 28469 8902 38891
11 1519 1334 34378 8904 44801
12 1519 1334 40686 8905 51110
13 1519 1334 47794 8905 58219
14 2470 1334 52585 8905 63960
15 2470 1334 52585 8905 63960
16 2470 1968 52585 8905 63960
17 2470 1968 52585 8905 63960
18 2470 1968 52585 8905 63960
19 2470 1968 52585 8905 63960
20 2470 1968 52585 8905 63960
Pumping Crop production costs in Livestock Operationa
Year costs O&M Al-Fureijat Cost l costs
1
2
3
4
5 7484 7285 14769
6 1547 1751 7385 7719 16650
7 1547 1751 7285 8108 16939
8 1547 1751 13453 8100 23100
9 3799 1751 25761 8037 37597
10 3799 1751 28469 8018 40286
11 3799 3335 34378 8022 46198
12 3799 3335 40686 8026 52510
13 3799 3335 47794 8027 59619
14 6175 3335 52585 8026 66786
15 6175 3335 52585 8026 66786
16 6175 4919 52585 8026 66786
17 6175 4919 52585 8026 66786
18 6175 4919 52585 8026 66786
19 6175 4919 52585 8026 66786
20 6175 4919 52585 8026 66786
Pumping Crop production costs Livestock Operational
Year costs O&M in Al-Fureijat Cost costs
1
2
3
4 2566 10991
5 15465 17511 2540 12801 30806
6 15465 17511 2513 13886 31864
7 15465 17511 5231 13861 34557
8 37985 17511 17833 13672 69491
9 37985 17511 20835 13616 72436
10 37985 33353 27037 13629 78651
11 37985 33353 33639 13640 85264
12 37985 33353 41041 13642 92668
13 61748 33353 49062 13641 124450
14 61748 33353 49062 13640 124449
15 61748 49195 49062 13640 124449
16 61748 49195 49062 13640 124449
17 61748 49195 49062 13640 124449
18 61748 49195 49062 13640 124449
19 61748 49195 49062 13640 124449
The net returns to rainfed barley is US$ 461 /Ha and the net return to rainfed almonds is
US$ 3390/Ha. As mentioned above these are included as costs in the project.
4.3 Returns
i. Wadi Es-Sammin
The cropping pattern in Wadi Es-Samminis almonds intercropped with alfalfa, maize and
barley, in addition to livestock. The returns are shown in tables 4.13-4.15
Table 4-13: Total Returns for the 2-ha Farm in Wadi Es-Sammin
Returns
from
Almonds Returns Returns Livestock
Year &alfalfa from Maize from Barley return Total Returns
1 2320 2320
2 8726 13600 16350 2241 40917
3 8266 13600 16350 2216 40433
4 7807 13600 16350 2221 39978
5 23348 13600 16350 2225 55523
6 36429 13600 16350 2226 68606
7 35970 13600 16350 2226 68146
8 35511 13600 16350 2226 67687
9 35052 13600 16350 2226 67227
10 30000 13600 16350 2226 62176
11 30000 13600 16350 2226 62176
12 30000 13600 16350 2226 62176
13 30000 13600 16350 2226 62176
14 30000 13600 16350 2226 62176
15 30000 13600 16350 2226 62176
16 30000 13600 16350 2226 62176
17 30000 13600 16350 2226 62176
18 30000 13600 16350 2226 62176
19 30000 13600 16350 2226 62176
20 30000 13600 16350 2226 62176
Returns from
Almonds Returns Returns from Livestock
year &alfalfa from Maize Barley return Total Returns
1 9653 9653
2 21814 34000 40875 9653 106342
3 20666 34000 40875 9653 105194
4 19518 34000 40875 9653 104046
5 58370 34000 40875 9653 142898
6 91073 34000 40875 9653 175602
7 89925 34000 40875 9653 174454
8 88777 34000 40875 9653 173305
9 87629 34000 40875 9653 172157
10 75000 34000 40875 9653 159528
11 75000 34000 40875 9653 159528
12 75000 34000 40875 9653 159528
13 75000 34000 40875 9653 159528
14 75000 34000 40875 9653 159528
15 75000 34000 40875 9653 159528
16 75000 34000 40875 9653 159528
17 75000 34000 40875 9653 159528
18 75000 34000 40875 9653 159528
19 75000 34000 40875 9653 159528
20 75000 34000 40875 9653 159528
Yea Returns from Returns from Returns from Livestock Total
r Almomds &alfalfa Maize Barley return Returns
1 12740 12740
2 218140 340000 408750 13029 979919
3 206659 340000 408750 12518 967927
4 195178 340000 408750 12526 956454
5 583697 340000 408750 12601 1345047
6 910735 340000 408750 12623 1672108
7 899254 340000 408750 12619 1660622
8 887773 340000 408750 12614 1649137
9 876292 340000 408750 12613 1637655
10 750000 340000 408750 12614 1511364
11 750000 340000 408750 12614 1511364
12 750000 340000 408750 12614 1511364
13 750000 340000 408750 12614 1511364
14 750000 340000 408750 12614 1511364
15 750000 340000 408750 12614 1511364
16 750000 340000 408750 12614 1511364
17 750000 340000 408750 12614 1511364
18 750000 340000 408750 12614 1511364
19 750000 340000 408750 12614 1511364
20 750000 340000 408750 12614 1511364
ii. Al-Fureijat
Since the Frujeiat project will be implemented in three phases, the implementation of phase
1 will start in the fourth year, the second in the sixth year and the third will start in year 14.
Thus, the returns for the three types of farms will start in year 5. Tables 4.16-4.18.
The cropping patterns in Alfureijat palm dates intercropped with alfalfa, and with barley,
barley an maiz, in addition to livestock.
Table 4-16: Total Returns for the 2-ha Farm in Al-Fureijat
Palm dates Palm dates
intercropped intercropped
Total with alfalfa with barley Barley Maize Livestock
Year Returns Alfureijat Alfureijat Alfureijat AlFureijat return
1
2
3
4
5 16150 2490 2490 9810 1360 2320
6 15888 2359 2359 9810 1360 2763
7 15626 2228 2228 9810 1360 2717
8 27945 8388 8388 9810 1360 2700
9 52497 20664 20664 9810 1360 2702
10 57849 23339 23339 9810 1360 2705
11 69600 29215 29215 9810 1360 2706
12 82152 35491 35491 9810 1360 2705
13 96303 42567 42567 9810 1360 2705
14 105170 47000 47000 9810 1360 2705
15 105170 47000 47000 9810 1360 2705
16 105170 47000 47000 9810 1360 2705
17 105170 47000 47000 9810 1360 2705
18 105170 47000 47000 9810 1360 2705
19 105170 47000 47000 9810 1360 2705
20 105170 47000 47000 9810 1360 2705

Palm dates
intercropped Palm dates
with alfalfa intercropped with Barley Maiz Livestock Total
Year Alfuraijat barley Alfuraijat Alfuraijat AlFuraijat return Returns
1
2
3
4
5 6225 6225 24525 3400 9653 50029
6 5898 5898 24525 3400 10452 50172
7 5570 5570 24525 3400 10293 49358
8 20969 20969 24525 3400 10272 80135
9 51659 51659 24525 3400 10288 141531
10 58348 58348 24525 3400 10297 154918
11 73038 73038 24525 3400 10297 184297
12 88727 88727 24525 3400 10295 215675
13 106416 106416 24525 3400 10295 251053
14 117500 117500 24525 3400 10295 273220
15 117500 117500 24525 3400 10295 273220
16 117500 117500 24525 3400 10295 273220
17 117500 117500 24525 3400 10295 273220
18 117500 117500 24525 3400 10295 273220
19 117500 117500 24525 3400 10295 273220
20 117500 117500 24525 3400 10295 273220

Palm dates Palm dates Total
Yea intercropped with intercropped with Barley Maiz Livestock Return
r alfalfa Alfureijat barley Alfureijat Alfureijat AlFureijat return s
1
2
3
4
5 32721 -15410 49050 34000 12740 113101
6 32721 -14599 49050 34000 13029 114201
7 32721 -13788 49050 34000 12518 114501
8 32721 -51906 49050 34000 12526 76391
9 32721 271338 49050 34000 12601 399709
10 32721 354582 49050 34000 12623 482976
11 32721 517826 49050 34000 12619 646216
12 32721 691070 49050 34000 12614 819455
101269
13 32721 884314 49050 34000 12613 9
130338
14 32721 1175000 49050 34000 12614 5
130338
15 32721 1175000 49050 34000 12614 5
130338
16 32721 1175000 49050 34000 12614 5
130338
17 32721 1175000 49050 34000 12614 5
130338
18 32721 1175000 49050 34000 12614 5
130338
19 32721 1175000 49050 34000 12614 5
130338
20 32721 1175000 49050 34000 12614 5
Summary Tables:
Following are the detailed summary tables (4.19-4.23) of costs and returns for the six farm
sizes in the two regions:
Table 4-19: Al-Fureijat farm Size 2 HA, Livestock 25
Item NPV
Total Returns 382208
Palm dates intercropped with alfalfa Alfuraijat 149490
Palm dates intercropped with barley Alfuraijat 154819
Barley Alfuraijat 68415
Maize AlFuraijat 9485
Livestock return 18572
Total costs 218021
Investment Costs 53774
maintenance per pond 1415
Drip/Sprinkler Irrigation intercropping/Fraijat 2857
Livestock 31309
Without the Project reurns 6889
Operational costs 157357
Pumping costs 9937
O&M 7538
Crop production costs in Al-Furaijat 86819
Livestock Cost 61764
Table 4-20: Wadi Es-Sammin Farm Size =5 HA, Livestock= 50 heads

Returns from Almonds &alfalfa 439586
Returns from Maize 250436
Returns from Barley 301076
Total Costs 233474
Drip/Sprinkler Irrigation intercropping/Assamen 6250
Drip for barley/maize/Assamen 15625
Pumping costs 23865
O&M 20053
Crop production costs in Wadi Assamen 26645
Without project Returns 126607
Table 4-21: Al-Fureijat Farm size = 50 HA, Livestock 70 heads

Item NPV
Palm dates intercropped with alfalfa Alfuraijat 228196
Palm dates intercropped with barley Alfuraijat 3031391
Barley Alfuraijat 342074
maize AlFuraijat 237116
Total Costs 1594908
Drip/Sprinkler Irrigation intercropping/Fraijat 71429
Livestock 46611
Pumping costs 248421
O&M 188445
Crop production costs in Al-Furaijat 61346
Without the Project Returns 172232
Table 4-22: Wadi Es-Sammin, Farm Size 2 Ha, Livestock = 25 heads

Item NPV
Total Costs 228650
Livestock 29011
Pumping costs 9546
O&M 8021
Without the Project Returns 50643
Table 4-23: Wadi Es-Sammin, Farm Size 5Ha, Livestock = 50 heads

Item NPV
Total Costs 233474
Pumping costs 23865
O&M 20053
Without project Returns 126607
Table 4-24: Wadi Es-Sammin, Farm Size 50 Ha, Livestock = 70 heads
Item NPV
Livestock return
Total Costs 2656451
Investment Costs 826805.8
Livestock 46611
Pumping costs 238646
O&M 200530
Without the Project returns 1266071
4.4 Results and Discussions
The following tables show that all the three types of farms in Wadi Es-Samminand Al-
Fureijat are feasible, since the net present values at 12% discount rate are positive, the B/C
ratios are more than 1 and the internal rate are relatively high.
Moreover, the Sensitivity analysis was conducted for all the farm sizes in the two locations
by increasing the costs by 10%, 20% and 30%, and by decreasing the revenues by 10%,
20% and 30%. In Wadi Es-Sammin, the IRR are still higher than the value of the discount
rate (i.e. 12) in all cases.
Table 4-25: Results and Sensitivity Analyses for the 2-ha farm in Wadi Es-Sammin
Basic Scenario Indicator Value
NPV @12% 145497
B/C@ 12% 1.70
IRR (%) 34
Sensitivity Analysis IRR%
Increasing Costs by 10% 30%
Decreasing Returns by 10% 29%
NPV @12% 524828
B/C@ 12% 3.79
IRR% 52
NPV @12% 7798758
B/C@ 12% 4.15
IRR% 114
Table 4-28: Results and Sensitivity Analyses for the 2-ha farm in Alfurejat
NPV @12% 108447
B/C@ 12% 2.84
IRR% 38
Basic Scenario NPV @12% 431527
B/C@ 12% 5.44
IRR% 55
NPV @12% 1715242
B/C@ 12% 6.46
IRR% 36
Conclusion
Since the three sizes in the two locations were feasible, we recommend strongly
implementing the project.
5. PALESTINIAN EXPERIENCE IN WW, TREATMENT AND REUSE
5.1. General
The situation of the sewerage system is extremely critical. About 73% of the
households in the West Bank have cesspit sanitation and almost 3% are left without
any sanitation system. In sparsely populated Palestinian poor rural and semi-urban
communities, which form about 60% of the total population in the West Bank, few small
sewage treatment plants were installed. Approximately, 70% of households in the
urban cities are connected to the sewerage system. In some urban and all semi-urban
areas as well as all rural communities, collection systems are rarely used and
wastewater is discharged into percolating pits or septic tanks. The septic tanks
emptied by vacuum trucks and are disposed of either in the treatment plant or just in
the wads. Wastewater projects used to be ignored during the Israeli an occupation, but
nowadays with presence of the Palestinian authority, huge attention have been paid to this
sector since feasibility studies and design of treatment plant as will as swage network is
being in process for most of cities and village, as example, the years 2011and 2012
witness the implementation of the study and design of waste water treatment plants for
several cites such as Nablus, Tulkarem Jericho, Ramallah and ,Sarra ,Azmot, Beit
dajan, Anza,Altaybeh,Sair, Tayaseer towns and others. While in the past,design of
treatment plant were done for several cities such as : Birzeit,Salfeet,Jenin,Alram, and
Alzbeidat, jefna, DoraALqareh,Abudeis towns and others.
Securing the permit from the Israeli government is the main obstacle of implementing
these treatment plants in addition to allocating the necessary fund to build treatment plant.
5.2. Wastewater Treatment Plants
Eight wastewater treatment plants exist in the Palestinian Territories, five in the West
Bank and three in Gaza Strip. Actually only the recently constructed extended aeration
wastewater treatment plant in Al-Bireh (Funded by the German Government through
both KFW and GTZ) achieves good efficiency (table 5.1). The quality of the treated
effluent of the remaining treatment plants is low. Due to the poor design, overloading
and improper operation and maintenance of the treatment plants, only low purification
efficiency could be achieved. In all existing treatment plants, effluents are discharged
into wadis (West Bank) and sand dunes (Gaza strip) and infiltrate into sub-soil.
Table 5-1: Basic Data of the Existing Wastewater Treatment Plants in the Palestinian
Territory by Location
Type of treatment
Plant Location Year of Construction
pound
West Bank
Jenin 1970 Aerated Lagoon
Tulkarem 1970, modified in 2011 Stabilization pund
Ramallah 1970, modified in 2004 Stabilization pund
Al-Bireh 2000 Extended Aeration
Feasibility study in
Hebron
process
Gaza Strip
Aerated lagoon,
Beit Lahia 1997 Facultative,
Polishing
Anaerobic pond,
Gaza 1997, 1999 expanded
aerated lagoon
5.2.1. Al-Bireh WWTP
Al Bireh WWTP is located in Wadi Al-Ein (East of Al-Bireh city) over 2.2 ha including a
reserve area for later extension. The plant started operation in 2000, with a total capital
cost of 6.745 million US Dollars. The original design of the plant consists of high rate
activated sludge tanks followed by trickling filters and an anaerobic sludge digestion plant
for sludge treatment. Due to financial investment and operation constrains, the alternative
of extended aeration process was chosen. The treatment system is an extended aeration
with mechanical solids handling, simultaneous aerobic sludge stabilization and sludge
drying by belt filter press. Wastewater reuse studies has been done but due to lack of
fund, the reuse project didn’t proceed even the treatment plant is functioning well
Figure 5-1: General View of Al-Bireh Wastewater Treatment Plant
5.2.2. Gaza WWTP
The Gaza WWTP was originally constructed in 1977 as a two-pond treatment system. In
1986, it was expanded to treat 12,000 m3/d with the construction of two additional ponds. A
project in 1994 rehabilitated the plant without capacity increase. In 1999, with USAID
funding, the plant was expanded to a capacity of 32,000 m3/d and consisted of anaerobic
ponds, an aerated pond, biotopes, an effluent polishing pond, disinfection, effluent pump
station/force main and drying beds. Current flow to the plant is about 42,000 m3/d from Gaza
City and parts of Jabalia.
The quantity of the sludge, which is considered as a major residue of the treatment
plant, is about 450,000 ton/year. No treatment or mechanical dewatering are applied
to the sludge. It is only the effect of the heat of the sun that produce a 70 % dried
sludge which is collected and transferred to the central Gaza solid waste dumping site. In the
meantime, the existing service area of the Gaza WWTP is experiencing
relatively rapid growth and there was a need for further treatment of wastewater flow
until the new Middle Area Regional Treatment Plant comes on line. The Palestinian
Water Authority (PWA) under the CAMP project was intended to expand the capacity
of the existing plant from its present capacity of 32,000 m3/d to a project flow of
60,000 m3/d by year 2007. PWA decided to terminate the expansion of the treatment plant
and to start the construction of the Middle Area Regional Treatment Plant with the donation
from KFW.
5.2.3. Wastewater Treatment Systems in Rural Areas
The demography of Palestine is characterized by many isolated villages that are hard to
connect to main large scale treatment plants. Hence, small scale treatment plants were
adopted as an accepted technology for such purpose by the Palestinian Water Authority
(PWA) and the Palestinian Ministry of Agriculture (MoA).
Birzeit University, Abu Dees, PHG and PARC implemented small scale and onsite
wastewater treatment systems of different types and sizes in the range between 5- and
6000 population equivalent. The systems are listed in
Table 5-2: Wastewater treatment systems in institutional and rural Palestine

Site Treatment No. of units Treatment Size (PE)
System objectives
Rural wastewater treatment plants
Aba ST+TF+SF 38
Reuse/treated 500
Gray WW
Aba school ST+TF+SF 1
Reuse/treated 20
Gray WW
Beit Doggo AN+TF+SF+pp 1
Reuse/treated 200
Gray WW
Jericho ST+UF gravel 1
Reuse/treated 30
filter+SF Gray WW
Talita Komi WSP+SF 1
Reuse/treated 1000
mixed WW
Turmus Ayya ST+TF+pp 1
Reuse/treated 50
school mixed WW
Al-Samu’ school ST+TF+SF+PP 1
Reuse/treated 50
mixed WW
Institutional wastewater treatment plants
Birzeit University Contact 1

Reuse/treated 6,000
Stabilization mixed WW
Al-Quds Activated sludge 1
Reuse/treated 350
University mixed WW
Intercontinental Sequencing 1
Reuse/treated 200
Hotel-Jericho Batch Reactor mixed WW
ST=two compartment septic tank; AN=Anaerobic Pond; TF=Trickling Filter; SF=Sand Filter; PP=Polishing
Ponds; UF=Upflow; WW=Wastewater; WSP=Waste Stabilization Ponds (Source: Source, EMWater, 2006 )
The available results revealed that the elimination rates for COD, BOD, TKN and total
suspended solids (TSS) were 90 - 95 %, 90 - 95 %, 20 - 79% and 90 - 99%, respectively.
Most reported failures in the systems were due to pumps malfunction and blockage through
fouling.
The technologies applied in all these treatment systems approved to be stable. No

possibility of turbid effluent due to suspended solids and no odor complaints have
been recorded (Mubarak, 2004). For the waste stabilization ponds, complaints were
raised because of the bad smell and mosquitoes. These problems were solved by
covering all ponds and spraying insecticides in the neighborhood (Theodory, 2000).
Despite the available literature on the performance of treatment systems in rural Palestine,
thorough evaluation and analysis of the performance of these systems and their
appropriateness for rural areas are lacking.
5.3. Treated Wastewater Reuse for Irrigation
There is no any significant wastewater reuse project in Palestine except those small projects in
GAZA while in west bank there is no any specific project even there is a functioning treatment
plant such as albireh which is functioning in every good efficiency, but there is no reuse project
even it was planned to have reuse project but this couldn’t be due to 1- obstruction of the Israeli
government and lack of funding. But two pilot reuse project was implemented in albeireh one
before construction the treatment plant since the municipality s with funding from kfw starts of
treatment of 8 cubic meter flow and a pliot project of wastewater reuse under supervision of the
ministry of agriculture in 1994-95 and Ramallah agri. Implemented and three crops planted and
irrigated by treated wastewater -, these are- wheat-onion for seed production and artichoke. The
second pilot project was implemented by usaid which will be discussed later on.
Regarding Palestinian experts in reuse of treated wastewater , there are enough experts in this
fields whom hold msc and PhD in this field ,it should be mentioned that there three universities in
west bank-(ALNajah university in Nablus, Birzeit university in Birzeit and ALQuds university in
Jerusalem(Abudeis) offers msc in environmental engineering –wastewater and agriculture where
wastewater reuse is one of the main components of these programs, recently , the Australian
government in cooperation of PWA funds 20 graduated students to secure msc in wastewater and
reuse from these universities for irrigation.
5.4. Experience with Reuse Schemes and Lessons
The Palestinian experience in the reuse of reclaimed wastewater is young and fairly poor. The re-
use hasn’t been taken into consideration when designing most of the treatment plants in WBGS
and most of the efforts have directed toward minimizing the impacts of wastewater on health,
environment, and ground water. The following paragraphs summarize the attempts to reuses the
reclaimed wastewater in Palestine United Nation Development Program (UNDP) – Gaza the first
attempt was done in Gaza on 1986 where the UNDP funded a project to expand and up-grade the
treatment plant in Gaza (PWA, 1998). The Project constructed two additional ponds to the existing
two and an effluent reuse scheme for irrigation was constructed. The scheme consisted of a
booster pump feeding a 5000 m3 reservoir. The reclaimed wastewater was to be distributed to the
farmlands and 15 farmers were provided with pipes to their lands. The project also reserved an
area of 4 ha to act as infiltration basin for surplus reclaimed water. The project failed from the
beginning and the UNDP related failure to the municipality was unable to operate the scheme for
reasons of lack of funds and lack of trained staff
b. The idea of reuse was not readily accepted by the farmers who had no incentive to use
reclaimed wastewater when they could have fresh water from private wells at lower costs than the
reclaimed wastewater
c. The location of the treatment plant, surrounded as it was by private lands, which prevented the
improvement of effluent quality
d. The effluent quality did not meet the standard required for reuse
United Nation Development Program (UNDP) – Jabalia
The second project was in Jabalia funded by the UNDP and operated by the Jabilia village
council. The project failed for similar reasons as Gaza City, but with additional aspect that the
farmers refused the idea out of fear that Israeli Civil Administration would strengthen its control
over the water resources and thus disallow future use of private wells once(the farmers has
accepted wastewater reuse (PWA, 1998).
Swedish Project in Beat Hanon
This project was funded by Swedish Government and it was planned to reuse the reclaimed
waste water from Gaza Plant to irrigate 50 to 70 ha of trees. The Israeli occupation force has
uprooted all trees in the location.
European Hospital in Khan Younis
In a project funded by the European commission, a small scale wastewater treatment plant was
installed in new European Hospital in Khan Younis in 2001. This plant is generating 150 - 200 m3
day in summer and 300 m3/ day in/ winter. The effluent from the plant is irrigating (sprinkler) 9 ha
of olive, and other trees. The main partners involved are. (MoA and PWA).
Birzeit University
Birzeit University (BZU) is a leading University in the application of reclaimed wastewater reuse
for irrigation. The effluent from an activated sludge plant is used for landscape irrigation (drip) and
for toilet flushing. The system is working properly and is a model for institutions and new
communities that are willing to make a commitment, for the eventual reuse of the reclaimed
wastewater (PWA 1998). Hoever, the impact on groundwater has to be assessed and .(the water
has to be disinfected to ensure the absence of pathogens (IWS, 2006) BZU also envisaged the
importance of reuse via previous and on-going projects within the framework of a Dutch funded
program carried by the IWS. Also, a PhD research on reuse of reclaimed wastewater for
agricultural purposes, in the Middle East and North Africa region based on an in-depth study in
Jordan and Tunisia is on its final stage (IWS.(2006))
Al-Bireh Biosolids Composting and Reuse of Reclaimed Wastewater (USAID and CH2MHILL)
within the framework of the USAID project for the Hebron Wastewater Treatment Plant; a
demonstration reuse project has been conducted in 2004 at the site of Al-Bireh wastewater
treatment plant. Reuse of both biosolids and reclaimed ,wastewater has been practiced in
partnership with the PWA, the Al-Bireh Municipality, the CH2M Hill team in WB (IWS 2006), and
MoA. The main activity of the demonstration project was the composting of biosolids generated at
the Al-Bireh Plant in a windrow system and subsequent reuse in agriculture. The main objective of
the project was to generate compost (3 months) that complied with the strictest standards under
Israeli and United State Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regulations for unrestricted
land application of the composted sludge. It was reported that. (The composted biosolids obtained
the required low level of pathogens and heavy metals (IWS, 2006).
The main activity of the demonstration project was the construction and management of a 6
dunum reclaimed water drip irrigation system at the site of the Al-Bireh Wastewater Treatment
Plant. The irrigation system operated according to the Israeli and USEPA regulations for reclaimed
water use. The high quality reclaimed water was used to irrigate a range of common Palestinian
crops: orchard and ornamental trees, grape stocks, processed vegetable and flowers and
ornamental shrubs. Very high quality reclaimed water was used to irrigate a 600 m2 greenhouse
with cultivation of /cooked vegetables (not for commercial purposes) and commercial nursery
crops (Nursery producing 23,000 seedlings. The greenhouse was operated under a public private
partnership with a Palestinian nursery
Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committees (PARC)
The work of PARC in this field was started in 1997 and as a result of this more than 400
household treatment plants and 6 collective treatments plant receiving 0.5 to 20 m3/d of gray
wastewater have been constructed with removal efficiency of 76 - 88% (PARC, 2005). The
household gray wastewater treatment plants consisted of septic tank followed by upflow gravel
filter. The collective gray wastewater treatments plants consisted of anaerobic pond, gravel filter,
sand filter and the polishing pond. Each system connected approximately 20 houses with about
180 inhabitants. The plants.(are characterized with cheap cost, simple and low cost for operation
and maintenance (PARC, 2005) The reclaimed gray wastewater from a properly operating system
is being used safely for irrigating any products in home gardens and trees (PARC, 2005). The
implementation of this practices across appropriate areas of the WB will notonly reduce the
amount of total wastewater contaminating the sensitive aquifers in WB, but by reusing wastewater,
it will also help in address the diminishing fresh water availability per capita in the region. The
system could also help
P arc is currently working in construction two treatment plants and reuse under food security
project ,one in Beit dajan in anblus and the other in ANZA in tulkarem area, the design is
completed in October 2012.
Palestinian Hydrology Group (PHG)
PHG has started an initiative since 1997, to improve the sanitation services at the rural areas in
the WBGS. Among
“the activities of this initiative, a project entitled “Decentralized Rural and Small Community
Sanitation and Reuse (implemented at the town of Bani Zaid North of Ramallah aimed to improve
the sanitation (collection and treatment services for 25 household and reuse the effluent in
agriculture (PHG, 2008) Other projects targeting some villages such as Nuba and Kharas –
Hebron are being implemented right now and –reclaimed effluent is under investigation to check
its suitability for reuse. Furthermore, two other projects at Artas Bethlehem and Deir Samit–Hebron
have been implemented. The project in Artas has completed a small diameter wastewater
collection system as well as main conveyance line up to the proposed location of the treatment
plant. The project will be completed upon the construction of the plant (PHG, 2008)
PHG has implemented two pilot projects for reclaimed wastewater reuse in Gaza. The first one
was small scale and used to irrigate olive trees by subsurface irrigation system. The quality of the
effluent, the growth of the trees, and the quality of the product was monitored. The second project
has been implemented in cooperation with MoA and PWA inGaza where fodder crops were
irrigated by effluents from main wastewater treatment plant at Beit Lahia area north of.Gaza.
Palestinian Hydrology Group’s (PHG) experience in GWWT, PHG’s history with GWWT began in
2000; PHG focused on this subject and used a septic tank up flow gravel filter followed by an
aerobic filter system (Figure 1) that was installed in households and schools. PHG implemented
these projects aiming to create new sources of water to be used for irrigation in home gardens in
addition to making valuable improvements to .existing sanitation systems in households and
schools, which are threatening fresh water sources and public health Grey wastewater forms
about 80% of the total water used at household level. At least 60% of grey wastewater can be,
recovered, treated and reused. More than 150,000 liters of fresh drinking water are be annually
saved per household through implementing grey waste water treatment and reuse systems in 159
households and schools implemented by .PHG. Large amounts of water are efficiently managed,
treated and reused in irrigating home gardens.
PHG implemented a number of GWWT projects in different places in Palestine, which all had the
main goal of introducing a new source of water for the irrigation of home gardens safely and
preserving a safe environment. PHG is still implementing small waste water treatment plants and
reuse in order to serve one or group of families
Gaza Strip
In the years 2004 and 2005 PHG’s branch in Gaza implemented a project that included the
construction of 14 grey water treatment units and the reuse of the treated grey water for
agricultural purposes in Abbasan Al Kabeera and Abbasan Al Sagheera and Bani Suhaila in Khan
Younis Governorate in order to benefit from the treated grey water by reusing it for growing plants
and for it to pose as a model for other rural areas that are not served by sewage networks but rely
on .cesspits for disposing their wastSouthern part of the West Bank Funded by ECHO and in
cooperation with GVC association, in the year 2005 PHG’s branch in Hebron implemented a
project that included the construction of 10 grey water treatment units and the reuse of the treated
grey water for agricultural purposes in schools in Hebron Governorate. In 2006 and through the
Polish Humanitarian Organization (PHO) PHG’s branch in Hebron also implemented a project that
included the construction of 3 grey water treatment units and the reuse of the.treated grey water
for agricultural purposes in schools in Bethlehem Governorate.
Northern part of the West Bank:
In 2002, PHG’s branch in Nablus implemented a project that included the construction of a
centralized grey water treatment plant and the reuse of the treated grey water for agricultural
purposes in the village of Ijnisinya which has population of600 residents. This project served more
than 70 families, and had the main goal of reducing pollution resulting from leaking wastewater
cesspits to the main and only source of water which is the spring that supplies the community with
drinking, water. In addition to that, Nablus Branch implemented in 2002, 60 grey water treatment
units in Seir, Meselyia, Al-JdayidahTayaseer and Rabah, and 57 units in Sanour/Jenin District,
where 117 families have benefited from that. Moreover, 14 units for grey water were in 14 schools;
Aqqaba, Jenin, Kafr Thulth, Awarta, Jamal Abdel Naser (Nablus City), Sabastyia, Tallouza.and Al-
Badhan
Ramallah Governorate:
In the years 2002 and 2006 PHG’s branch in Ramallah implemented a project that included the
construction of 12 grey water treatment units and the reuse of the treated grey water for
agricultural purposes in Bil’in, Ras Karkar, Deir Ibzea and .Kharbatha Al Mousbah communi
PHG is currently working in construction two treatment plants to server two villages on to serve
Sarra in Nablus area, the design has been completed in October 2012
Applied Research institute in Jerusalem (ARIJ)
ARIJ experts have created the first local small waste water treatment pilot model in three sites
(ARIJ, 2008). The small-scale activated sludge filtration system for wastewater treatment was
installed in the institute in order to test its performance so as to be applied in such areas. During
this testing period ARIJ found that this technology has sets of advantages related to quality,
operation and maintenance costs. This technology has proved its capability and functionality as
well as its sustainability for the local climate and conditions. The constructed small wastewater
treatment plant based on the ‘up flow sludge blanket filtration system. Wastewater treatment in
this system is based on biological process using single heterogeneous activated sludge kept in
suspension. The treatment includes nitrification and denitrification processes. This treatment
system consists of mechanical and biological treatment processes, the mechanical process starts
with the screening of the incoming wastewater, later on the biological process take places by the
use of activated sludge technology; the final stage of the biological process consists of the
separation of the treated wastewater from the activated sludge with the help of a recirculation
sludge line. The biologically treated wastewater will be mechanically. (Screened to get red of the
suspended solids and to be used in drip irrigation system (ARIJ, 2008)
Recently in 2008, ARIJ has completed the constructing of a small-scale wastewater treatment
plant that serves approximately (1,300 persons in the Nahhaline village in Bethlehem Governorate
(ARIJ, 2008). ARIJ has started a new project entitled “Introducing Small Scale Activated Sludge
Filtration System for Wastewater During this project from 2006-2009, Arij constructed over than 50
small scale treatment plant to serve one or group of houses in the south area and the treated
wastewater is used to irrigated the garden of the houses, ARIJ is still running a project of
implementing small treatment plants especially in the south of west bank
Water and Environmental Development Organization (WEDO)
The Water and Environmental Development Organization (WEDO) is an active Palestinian NGO
in the sector of wastewater treatment and reuse since the day of its establishment (1997). The
activities in the field were the training of 50 Palestinian professionals on the design of wastewater
collection and treatment systems focusing on low cost ,technologies and testing new techniques
of duckweed system ( animal feed for chicken) for more than two years ,constructing of wetland
systems as an appropriate low cost wastewater treatment technology in rural areas constructing
graywater systems for wastewater collection and reuse in schools and public utilities, and
demonstrating the reuse of effluent generated from septic tanks and the feasibility of reuse through
subsurface irrigation systems 10. French Project – reuse of reclaimed wastewater in Gaza Strip.
In the framework of the French regional project « Water Strategies and Water Savings in the
Middle-East », a project started in December 2003 in Gaza, in order to set up the conditions for
Reusing reclaimed wastewater in agriculture in the Gaza Strip.
In addition to that there are several NGOS (international and local) that works in the reuse projects
for rural people, such as: Pwweng, ANERA, Agricultural workers union and son
5.5. Recent Reuse Pilot Projects
Pilot projects were conducted to demonstrate the different aspects of reclaimed water
used in irrigation by developing a set of different effluent polishing and irrigation
techniques on crops of agricultural importance. The primary goals of the projects
were
 To build the initial institutional relationships
 Raise the profile of wastewater reuse and compost use
 To develop the first stage of on-the-ground experience and capacity in the
field of wastewater reuse
Due to the effective operation and good quality of the treated effluent and type of the produced
sludge, Al-Bireh WWTP has been chosen to demonstrate the reclaimed water for reuse and to
check the potential agricultural value of the bio-solids.
Al-Bireh Pilot project
Two pilots projects were implemented at albireh, the first one was in 1994 implemented by
Ramallaha A griculture Cooperatives and funded by anera were at that time plants were planted:
Onion for seed production, Artichohe, wheat, the following table shows the results
Table 5-3: Results of El Bireh Wastewater Treatment Pilot Plant Using Treated
Wastewater.
Production of wheat (amber variety), all

Treatment
the plants, kg/dunum
Irrigation with treated wastewater with
2520
Fertilizer
Irrigation with treated wastewater
20036
without Fertilizer
1600
Without irrigation, with fertilizer
Without irrigation, without fertilizer 572
The second pilot project was implemented by chemhill,whereA total of 60 orchard trees (25
different species), 15 date palms, 500 flowers and shrubs, 300 m2 of grape stocks (4 different
species) and a 600 m2 greenhouse were planted. Four automatic irrigation head controls were
installed, including fertilizer injection points, pressure controls and filtration devices.
A nursery for the annual cultivation of 80,000 seedlings of indigenous trees and cooked
vegetables was installed (Figure 4). The nursery irrigation system consisted of micro-drippers with
a low discharge of 0.2 l/h. The eggplants were trellised to ensure a safe distance of 50 cm from the
drip lines.
Gaza Pilot farm (demonstration project)
A demonstration pilot project (irrigation of fruit trees with the Gaza WWTP was implemented by the
Palestinian Hydrology Group, in cooperation with Palestinian Ministry of Agriculture and the
Palestinian Water Authority. The project is financed by French government. The project aims to:
 Demonstrate the value of wastewater for agricultural production.

 Study the possible impacts of using such water on soil, animals and the
users.
 Issue recommendations to use treated wastewater in localized irrigation
and control of contamination, to support future programs for developing
the use of wastewater in agriculture.
The project enhances the use of treated wastewater to irrigate rural areas on a large scale. Note
that about 25 dunumus (planted with citrus trees) as shown in Figure, 3 and 4 are irrigated with
treated wastewater from the Gaza WWTP by using drip irrigation. The treated wastewater passes
through a sand filter before pumping to the irrigation system.
- Specific activities of the project:
• Demonstration to the farmers and to the population that adapted agricultural reuse of treated
wastewater is acceptable and interesting:
1. Good production
2. No health hazards
3. Good economical results
Figure 5-2: Citrus trees irrigated with treated wastewater from

Gaza WWTP
A French program called “Strategy of Agricultural Water Management in the Middle

East”, is a good demonstration example for the Palestinian practice of treated wastewater
reuse in agricultural production. Two areas were chosen for the implementation of this
project in the Palestinian Territories which began at the beginning of 2003: Gaza Strip
and Al Bathan Al Farad valley in the West Bank. The program is coordinated by a
Steering Committee (MoA, PWA, French Consulate, MREA) chaired by a MoA
Representative in Ramallah and each pilot project is managed by a technical committee (MoA,
PWA, PHG, French Consulate, and MREA). EQA participated as a regulator, and evaluates the
progress of the project and its environmental impacts during the site visits and inspections.
Moreover, EQA contributes in reviewing the technical reports of the project prepared by the French
Consultant MREA.
The project has selected two areas in the Gaza Strip:
1. Beit Lahia area where the treated wastewater coming from the Beit Lahia WWTP was
available in unlimited quantities and new experimental irrigated areas could be
developed in large empty sandy dunes areas available around the village.
2. CAMP (Coastal Aquifer Management Programme) area where treated wastewater from
the Gaza city WWTP could be used to irrigate existing citrus farms
Following is the national experience in reuse projects:
 Birzeit University (BZU) Reuse of Reclaimed Wastewater.
BZU is a leading University in the application of wastewater treatment and reuse for
irrigation. Birzeit University treatment plant is serving 6000 population equivalents and is
adopting a contact stabilization system. The treatment efficiency is high and the quality
of effluent is appropriate for irrigation of crops that can be eaten cooked (restricted
irrigation) (Al-Saed and Zimmo, 2003). Irrigation of tree plantations is the practice
option at Birzeit since 1980 but the impact on groundwater has to be assessed and the
water has to be disinfected to ensure the absence of pathogens. BZU also envisaged the
importance of reuse via previous and on-going projects within the framework of Dutch
funded projects. Also, PhD research on appropriate technologies for wastewater treatment
and reuse for agricultural purposes has been conducted (Zimmo, 2003).
 Al-Bireh Biosolids Composting and Reuse of Reclaimed Wastewater
Within the framework of the USAID project for the Hebron Wastewater Treatment Plant,
a demonstration reuse project has been conducted at the site of Al-Bireh wastewater treatment
plant. Reuse of both biosolids and treated wastewater is being practiced in partnership with the
Palestinian Water Authority, the Municipality of Al-Bireh and the CH2M Hill West Bank Water
Resources Programme, and funded by the USAID. It was intended as a demonstration project for
the Palestinian institutions who will be involved in the future in wastewater treatment and residuals
management projects.
The objectives of the composting demonstration project are to demonstrate the role of
reuse and the potential agricultural value of biosolids, to demonstrate a sustainable
alternative for landfilling of biosolids and to demonstrate the management of a biosolids
composting system. The objectives of the reuse of reclaimed water demonstration project
are to demonstrate the important role of reclaimed water use for agriculture, to
demonstrate a range of crops and irrigation equipment suitable for reclaimed water use
and to demonstrate appropriate management and monitoring procedures
The main activity of the demonstration project is the construction and management of a 6
dunum reclaimed water drip irrigation system at the site of the AI-Bireh Wastewater
Country Study Palestine Treatment Plant (WWTP). The irrigation system operates according to the
Israeli and USEPA regulations for reclaimed water use. The high quality reclaimed water of the
WWTP is used to irrigate a range of common Palestinian crops: orchard and ornamental trees,
grape stocks, processed vegetable and flowers and ornamental shrubs. Very high quality
reclaimed water is used to irrigate a 600 m2 greenhouse with cultivation of cooked vegetables (not
for commercial purposes) and
Commercial nursery crops (nursery producing 23,000 seedlings/year). The greenhouse is
operated under a public private partnership with a Palestinian nursery.
• Al-Quds University, Abu-Dies
Al-Quds University treatment plant is serving 350 population equivalents and adopting an activated
sludge system. The effluent characteristics were shown to increase both the
salinity level and microbial activity in soil during the reuse for irrigation purposes. To
eliminate this possibility and to maintain a sustainable reuse of treated wastewater, a
small pilot plant for tertiary treatment was recently interfaced to the activated sludge
plant. This plant is based on ultra-filtration followed by reverse osmosis technology.
The reuse of the secondary treated effluent for irrigation of different cultivars of chickpea was
previously studied (Haddad et al. 2005). The performance of the membrane plant yielded high
quality effluent which can be used for non-restricted and sustainable application for agricultural
production (Khamis et al. 2006). However, the impact of the water qualities on plant growth
parameters as well as soil chemical and biological analysis has not been evaluated.
Constraints of wastewater reuse projects
Despite the fact that the legal and institutional frameworks for the sustainable management
of treated wastewater have been articulated in the Palestinian development plans and have been
focused on in the policies and strategies of the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) and the Palestinian
Water Authority (PWA), the enforcement of such issues are still lacking. Eventually, the re-use of
treated wastewater in agricultural production in Palestine is still on the pilot scale and the
Palestinians lack the proper experience in using this resource in a safe and sound way.
Generally, wastewater reuse projects associated with many obstacles in the West Bank, which are
mainly political, financial, social, institutional and technical ones.
• The perception of the public opinions towards wastewater reuse is still suspicious.
• Technical capacities in the reuse projects are not formulated well to build on
larger reuse projects.
• Intermittent reuse projects, size, limited budget and time of the reuse projects are
negatively affecting the sustainability and the value of reuse projects.
• Weakness of networking system and information exchange.
• Reuse idea is still tied to the political issues concerned to the Palestinian water
rights especially the are of reuse is located in area C and this area is fully controlled by the
Israeli government
• Lack of cooperation between the Palestinian and Israeli sides.
• Non-availability of sewer networks and proper wastewater treatment systems and

reuse facilities is eliminating big jumps in the reuse practices.
• Weak health monitoring systems.
•Integrated vision: no integrated vision has been developed for the reuse issues; this includes the
political side, institutional, potential and locations of wastewater reuse, awareness, marketing and
tariff, ECT...
• Ownership and cooperation of stakeholders
•Lack of enforcement of standards for agriculture reuse and lack of accumulated experience with
reuse
•Experience with cropping pattern for cultivation using reclaimed wastewater, corresponding with
the different management scenarios are lacking
•Economic analysis was not performed to evaluate the feasibility of reuse and cropping patterns
• Coordination with other institutional stakeholders responsible for water reuse,

such as the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), the Environmental Quality Authority
(EQA), the. Ministry of Health (MoH) and the Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) is limited.
 Vetoing development of Palestine’s wastewater sector.
This is the major obstacles:
Of the 30 Palestinian wastewater treatment plants (WWTP’s) submitted to the JWC since 1995,
only 4 have received Israeli approval. Even with JWC approval, their construction has been
repeatedly delayed. Nor did they all receive ICA approval. Today, only one Palestinian
wastewater treatment plant is functioning in the West Bank, treating less than 3% of all sewage
produced. Systematically blocking the development of Palestine’s wastewater and sanitation
sector, Israel has exploited the resultant lack of Palestinian wastewater treatment plants by
unilaterally imposing new wastewater arrangements that are patently unfair.
For example, since 1996 Israel has unilaterally deducted over $US42 million from Palestinian tax
revenues (with no prior notification and no accounting of details) for the construction and
maintenance of wastewater treatment plants in Israel built to treat and reuse Palestinian
wastewater for the exclusive use of Israel’s agricultural sector. Palestinians receive no
compensation for this lost resource. Today, Israel treats approximately 21% (15MCM) of sewage
produced in the West Bank, which flows across the 1967 Green Line. It automatically deducts all
costs associated with its treatment from tax monies owed to the Palestinian Authority (PA).
In addition, illegal Israeli settlements continue to be a major source of pollution in the West Bank.
In 2009, almost 40% of all sewerage produced in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem,
originated from Israeli settlements, many of which dump raw sewage directly into the surrounding
environment, Today, illegal Israeli settlements dump approximately 35MCM of untreated sewage
each year into the surrounding environment, destroying Palestinian agricultural lands, polluting
local water supplies and endangering the health of entire communities.
Obtaining funding for reuse projects in small villages has also been a problem due to the
regulations of the donors. They require that a treatment plant be available for funding of
WW reuse. Since most villages do not have a treatment plant, then funding for a
wastewater network will not be given. The treatment planet and wastewater network must
also be within the budget, so a low cost system would be the only choice for design. A
low cost system (such as lagoons) requires a high retention time, meaning very large
lagoons are needed and large areas of lands would be required. Since a low cost system
does not meet standards and large areas of land are not available, funding is not given to
these small communities.
From the donors’ perspective, they must be shown a genuine interest in the reuse project before
they provide funding for any type of reuse scheme. Occasionally, this is not the case, and funds
are denied.
6. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGMENT
6.1. Institutional Set Up and Organizations Involved
There are a considerable number of Ministries and Organizations involved in the reuse of
treated wastewater for agricultural use. A set of standards has been produced to provide
the basis for the treated wastewater standards for various crops. These standards are
comprehensive and imply that a high standard quality control of the effluent will be
essential in the management of effluent irrigation. The MoA will be the primary ministry
involved but the PWA, the MoH and the WWTP operator will all have a significant input.
In addition, due to the fragmented nature of farming in the area, Water User Associations
will be necessary in order to co-ordinate the efficient use of the effluent and to facilitate
the implementation of an appropriate irrigation structure.
The specific involvement of different actors is as follows:
 The Ministry of Agriculture has the primary responsibility to license and to monitor
the use of effluent for irrigation. Quality standards for reuse to be imposed. The MoA
will also have the primary role in setting up irrigation systems and coordinating
groups of farmers.
 The Palestinian Water Authority has wide ranging power to influence the design,
operation, monitoring and control of WWTPs. It should establish appropriate
departments to ensure compliance with the licensed performance of the WWTP.
 The Ministry of Health will have over-riding power to monitor irrigation programmes to
ensure that the health of the community is safeguarded. Close liaison with the
farming community will be necessary to ensure any produce irrigated with effluent is
safe for human consumption.
 Hebron Municipality, the anticipated WWTP operator has the primary responsibility
to ensure that the effluent quality meets the strict quality standards required and to
take corrective action if problems arise.
 The ministry of labor and cooperatives, since registration of the wua is within the
frame work of ministry of labor and cooperative
 Ministry of/Planning and finance economic and financial appraisal of projects; and
cost/benefit analysis, financing, criteria for subsidizing, etc. Building
6.2. WATER USERS ASSOCIATION (WUA)

Currently no Water User Association (WUA) existing in the project area. While, farmer’s
cooperative is existing for livestock and agricultural in general, however their activities are
abandoned. This situation indicates the weak motivation of farmers to exploit the
advantages of organized agricultural performance. In general, the set-up of Water User
Associations is in the responsibility of the Ministry of labor and cooperatives in
cooperation with MoA. Both ministries need to frame the legal, administrative and
institutional conditions for the WUA(s) in question. Another focus should refer to the
possible incentives in order to guarantee the long-term sustainability of the WUA. An
approach needs to be designed to facilitate sustainable WUAs, and not simply build
and/or upgrade physical infrastructure. Transparency and accountability, responsibilities
for scheme management and continuing support to farmers such as providing training in
the field are the driving key factors for the successful implementation of WUAs.
Consequently, under the Palestinian Authority (PA) programme potential WUAs might be
supported by providing professional training, but earlier initiatives of the MoA is required.
To run a wastewater re-use programmed commercially, it is necessary to form WUAs with
sufficient financial resources to design, operate and fund a large irrigation system which
typically contains pumping station(s), conveyor system, pipes, irrigation nozzles or
sprinklers and reservoirs.
Wastewater Users Associations (WUAs) will form a consortium to purchase, distribute and
monitor the effluent. In this case, the design and financing of the necessary infrastructure
is a key issue to be resolved before irrigation can commence.
Specific tasks to be performed by WUA are as follows:
1. Allocation of effluent among competing users.
2. Maintenance of quality standards and system reliability.
3. Investment in supporting resources, especially managerial and technical staff,
required to administer each component of an effluent use scheme.
4. Monitoring the farmers to insure that they will plant the recommended crops.
5. Act as connector between the famers and other concerned institutions such
municipalities. Ministry of agriculture, PWA, markets and others.
In order to build water users association, seven farmers are needed to founders of the
water users association, to be the board of directors, in order to sign the application forms
that will be submitted to the ministry of labor and cooperative for registration. Keep this in
mind; a survey was carried out among 59 farmers in the project area to ensure the
readiness of the farmers to join the WUA and to found it. The results are summarized in
Table 6.1:
Table 6-6-1: Willingness to Join and Found WUA

Yes No No answer
Join WUA 92% 5% 3%
Willing to be founder of WUA 85% 6% 9%
Apparently, the results show that most of the farmers are looking to join the WUA and being
a founder of it.
Annex (4) present farmers name and their clusters number that ready to be founder of
WUA.
In order to successfully implement a wastewater re-use programme for agricultural purpose

a considerable range of issues must be addressed.
Estimated Capital cost:
1. Rent an office of 150 meter sq. rent for one year

2. Equipment the office with computers,
3. Two computers, of 1200$per on- 2400$
4. Printer of 500$
5. Tables and chairs of 2700$
6. Telefones and connection as will as for email connections-1000$
7. Kitchen staff – 1000$
8. Car-4wheal drive car- including insurance and licensing for one year- 35000$
9. Stationary
10. Mobile no 2- of 200$each—400$
11. Lcd for power point and arranging the hall for training-$5000
12. Network for the computer and telephone and email$1000
13. Accounting program-$20000
14. Small laboratory for PH-EC and other -3000$
15. Other cost: $5000
Total cost =58000$
Estimated Running cost:
The project will pay this cost for one time only the wua will able to cover these costs from
treated wastewater bills
– Salaray of the staff

– Manger-agricultural engineer-12month x 1500$=18000$
– Irrigation engineer 1200$per month-1200x12=14400$
– Secretary 600$per month 12x600=7200$
– Accounting 1200$per month 12x 1200=7200$
– Waiter at the office 500$per month 12x500=6000$
Subtotal=52800$
– Car diesel, maintenance-insurance per year=5000$

– Office rent $300 -12x300=3600$
– Office water –electricity-communication bills—etc 2500$
– Cheimicals for laboratory---- $500
– Sationary for one year $3000
– Leaflets and brochures 1500$
– rent of small office to be located either in ALthahrya or in Yatta-main office in yatta
the small branch in al Thahray or reverse-600$per month including water and All
other services 600x12=7200$
– onduct several training courses for farmers in different fields such as irrigation
systems operation, dealing and handling with treated wastewater and capacity
building of the WUA such as effective management-accounting, project
management and others.
– Other indirect cost- 3000$
Total=79100$
6.3. Agricultural Sector Financing
Background
In Palestine, the NGOs play vital and important role than merely serving an intent group.
Since 1967 when Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip began, the
Palestinians had managed to establish hundreds of NGOs to provide a wide range of
basic services in health, education, culture, social welfare, agriculture, trade and human
rights. These NGOs had survived and even flourished despite the numerous occupation
induced advertises and the absence of a home state.
Historically, the Palestinian NGOs played different and controversial roles that were
compatible with the economic, social and political situations in which the Palestinian
society went through. The beginning was with Ottoman's control over the country, the
British and Israeli occupation, and during the presence of Jordanian mandate in the West
Bank and the Egyptian in The Gaza Strip in1967. Upon the establishment of the
Palestinian National Authority (PNA) in 1994, a new stage emerged that led to new
concepts and roles of the Palestinian NGOs .The Palestinian NGOs had to change
their strategies and redefine and relocate their role in the Palestinian society by
serving those sectors and communities not reached by PNA ministries.
According to a report issued by the Ministry of Planning in the end of 2003; the
international aid disbursements to the occupied Palestinian territories skyrocketed, totaling
about US $7.5 billion over the period of 1994-2004, an average of US$250 per capita
annually. The share of the productive sectors in total assistance did not exceed 11% of
total commitments, and that dropped to 9% of total disbursement of the foreign aid
(Ministry of planning report, 2003). With the dramatically increasing level of hardship and
unemployment rates amongst the Palestinians as a direct result of Israeli aggression,
attention has been directed to the urgent need of providing humanitarian assistance. In
the same time, large attention has been made to employment generation and job creation
projects which were another area where NGOs have played an effective and growing role.
Despite this attention towards job creation; the Palestinian economy is still suffering from
the high rates of unemployment that increased dramatically to become 47% in 2007
according to UNRWA report.
Based on data collected by the actors in the agricultural sector, the total agricultural sector
budget between 2000 and September 2006 was US $138 million, of which 84.8% were
grants and 15.2% were loans. Foreign Government Organizations contributed 64.6% of
the receiving fund followed by multilateral agencies with 33.38%.
The MoA has been the main recipient of donor funding for agricultural projects, receiving
55% of funds (it is worthy to mention that the MoA has traditionally received a very small
share of the
PNA budget depending on foreign aid based on fund raising by projects).International and
foreign organizations have become more active in Palestine since the year 2000.
Funds are distributed mainly to projects concerning land use (31%), followed by
infrastructure (24%), then production and irrigation projects (12%). Some important
sectors are being neglected in funding, such as: livestock, machinery and equipment,
building, research, and planning. In addition, even if there are punctual activities regarding
rural finance and private sector support, these are the least supported sectors.
There are several international and national institutions (governmental and

nongovernmental institutions.) that work in Palestine and funding agricultural projects
either granted or by providing loans. These organizations offers loans of simple interest
rate for implementing individual agricultural projects as well as offers program as grant for
land reclamation, construction of cisterns as example. In addition to these organizations,
the local banks offer also loans for farmers and residents.
In recent years, microfinance activities expanded significantly in terms of number of credit
programs, scope, outreach, coverage and focus. Commercial banks and more focused
NGOs are now engaged in lending activities with a commercial approach and businesslike
manner.Annex (5) presents the names of some of these organizations and lending
institutions (even some of these organizations offer grants for small farmers) in addition to,
a description of its work and the activities of some Palestinian NJOs.
6.4. Funding for Individual Farmers

Farmer’s survey was carried out to collect necessary information regarding the funding for
their agricultural projects. The survey was among 24 farmers from the project area. The
survey covered the following points:
1. If the farmers know institutions that offer loans or gift.
2. Farmer’s readiness to take loans with zero or simple interest.
3. If the farmers receive grants or loans for their project.
The survey results are summarized in the following table:

Table 6-2: financing access questionnaire
Question Yes Know
1. Do you know institutions that offer loans or gifts? 54% 46%
2. Do you know these institutions? 50% 50%
3. Are you ready to take loans of zero interest? 97.5% 2.5%
4. Are you ready to take loans of simple interest? 17% 83%
5. Did you receive grants for your project? 12.5% 87.5%
6. Did you receive loans for your project? 21% 79%
It should be mentioned that these people are located in a remote area and this is one of
the main reasons that they didn’t know about the donor institutions as well as these
people are located in a villages.
Regarding the objection of taking loans of simple interest, is due to religious issue since it
is forbidden to take loans with interest by Islam.In addition to that they didn’t receive loans
or grants is because their area is rain fed area where green houses and irrigation projects
can’t be implemented as in the Jordan Valley and in the northern part of West Bank where
most of the loans are given to implement green houses and to install irrigation
networks.Next is some description of the work and activities of some of the Palestinian
NGOS .
 Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committees
Activities
PARC'S main objectives of integrated development for Palestinian society have been
achieved through their different departments. These include:
1. Rural Women Development Department: the department implemented its activities

and projects in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with 34 women agronomists and
social workers.
2. Extension and Land Development Department: The program of Extension and Land
Development, through its three sections (Animal Production, Plant production, and
Land Development), focused on consolidating the contribution of rural families to
food security and the reclamation and utility of lands as well as alleviation of the
use of chemicals in agriculture.
3. Environment, Irrigation and Technology Transfer Department.
4. Training and Support Activities Department: The department executed a number of
activities through its different units. These include: The training unit, the
Consultancy unit, information and publication unit, and ISO 9002 system.
5. Institutional Building and grassroots relations Department.
This organization did implement hundred s of irrigation projects for farmers such as
main irrigation pipes-irrigation water tanks.
 Palestinian Hydrology Group (PHG)
PHG main objectives center on the following:
1. Upgrading the socio-economic situation of marginalized and poor communities.
2. Empowering local communities, and lobbying governments to guarantee
community participation in projects and justice in service.
3. Helping to build the infrastructure of water and irrigation and environmental
services,
4. Supporting the role of women in society.
5. This NGO did implement several small and individual irrigation and wastewater
reuse schemes in Palestine
 The Center for Agricultural Services
Activities
TCAS successfully completed many projects through their major units:
1.Services projects Unit: Since the foundation of the center, this unit has focused on
supporting the Palestinians through different service projects. These projects include:
land reclamation and new agricultural roads, drinking water unit, springs and
agricultural cisterns, animal vaccination, and agricultural material distribution.
2.Agricultural Extension Unit: The unit conducted a few projects, which include:
demonstration stations, training program, and the awarding of scholarships, awards,
and study visits.
3.Women Development Unit: Under the WDU, the following programs have been
undertaken: service projects, training programs, an income generating project, a
credit program, and social activities.
 Union of Agricultural Work Center (UAWC)
Activities
The Union of Agricultural Work Committees for the promotion of sustainable

development of issues related to agriculture and environment have achieved its goals
from programs and projects that have been conducted by its different units:
1. Training and Extension Units: The activities of the training and extension units
include: arranging field visits to different areas in the West Bank and the Gaza strip,
distributing agricultural pamphlets in many areas, holding seminars and workshops
on different subjects related to agriculture, preparing broadcast programs that discuss
a wide range of agricultural and rural development aspects, training of agricultural
engineers, and establishing a training center and an agricultural laboratory in the
Gaza Strip.
2. Women's unit. The activities of this unit included: implementing courses in preserving
nutritional foods and public relations, organizing seminars related to rural women's
awareness and distributing pamphlets about Brucellosis and diseases that affect
chickens in the summer, including methods of treatment.
3. Land development program: The work plan in this project includes reclamation's
leveling, planting various types of seedlings, digging water cisterns and building
retaining walls.
4. Food for Work program
5. Developing and exporting extra virgin olive oil.
6. Building five nurseries in Khan Younis, Beit Lahya, Beit Hanoon, Tulkarem and Al-
Jalima-Jenin.
7. Placing refrigerator units in Khan Younis and Beit Hanoon.
8. Building green houses and planting in Khan Younis, Beit Lahya and Beit Hanoon.
9. Implementing nine salt-water treatment filters in Gaza.
 Applied Research Institute of Jerusalem
Activities
1. Environmental Protection of the Shared Israeli-Palestinian West Bank / Mountain

Aquifer.
2. Palestinian System for Environmental Resource Management (PSERM): PSERM is a
micro-computer based system designed for making projections of water demand and
consumption by the agricultural sector for each crop and region in the West Bank.
3. Promoting Land Use Assessment and Management in Palestine.
4. Impact of urbanization on land use and local communities in the West Bank.
5. Testing the performance of a small scale activated sludge filtration system for
wastewater treatment in the West Bank.
6. Promoting irrigation management systems for the optimization of land and water
resources in Palestinian irrigated agriculture.
7. Monitoring Israeli colonizing activities in the West Bank and Gaza.
8. Trans-boundary Air Quality Effects from Urbanization.
9. Land use in rain-fed areas, implications on poverty and marginality.
This organization grant a great number of farmers a grants in order to construct small green
houses including irrigation networks.
 Arab Studies Society: Land Research Center (LRC)
Activities
1. Documenting, following-up and defending more than 200 lands, roads and
settlement cases.
2. Publishing a number of statistical based reports and studies on Israeli settlement
activities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
3. Preparing a study on Palestinian olive oil production in terms of quantity and
quality, and exploring the possibilities of marketing abroad.
4. Participating in many local and international conferences and seminars and
presenting working papers prepared and presented by the centers' staff.
5. The Agricultural Development Project which involves: implementing a number of
agricultural family projects, implementing two land reclamation projects,
implementing two small livestock projects, implementing a number of agricultural
training projects, and implementing a project on the "Inventory of the Soil resources
of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
6. Monitoring Israeli colonizing activities in the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza.
 MA'AN Development Center
Activities
1. Organizing training programs in food processing and quality control techniques.

2. Sponsoring a conference on "Israeli measures against Palestinian workers from the
Occupied Territories in Israel and the impact on the Palestinian economy".
3. Establishing two permacultural centers: MARDA in the West Bank and Khuza'a in
the Gaza Strip.
4. Initiating five agricultural development projects for 20 marginalized farmers
5. Holding four training workshops on poultry rising.
6. Implementing a vocational program for women in house maintenance skills,
including carpentry, plumbing, interior decoration, electrical wiring and installation,
and small household equipment maintenance.
7. Implementing a training program in food processing quality control.
8. Conducting a study day in Gaza entitled "Financial, Tax and Legal Measures
against Inflation."
9. Conducting a training course for rural women on permaculture techniques.
10. Running a Child to a Child pilot project, in cooperation with the Khuza'a
Permaculture Center. Children were trained in community activities and participated
in discussions on socio-related topics.
11. Implementing the project "Empowering Palestinian Rural Women."
12. Conducting a study on artificial corals.
7. CAPACITY BUILDING
To tackle the range of institutional levels involved and to allocate responsibilities in both
treatment and reuse stages, several actions are needed, including:
I. A well-defined policy and strategy for the comprehensive management and reuse of
treated wastewater is a precondition to success.
II. Many different stakeholders are involved, so roles and responsibilities (who does
what) need to be clearly defined, along with mechanism to ensure the active co-
ordination of the various institutions.
III. Inadequate legislation often hinders the effective reuse of treated wastewater.
IV. Integrated legal arrangements can be of great value, along with provisions for active
enforcement of all laws and regulations, without exception.
V. A comprehensive plan of action for reusing treated wastewater, with clearly
assigned roles, needs to be complemented by periodic reviews and follow-up.
Adequate funding is essential.
VI. Capacity building is required to analyze staff needs and provide suitable training.
VII. More participatory approaches are needed, including raising the awareness of the
general public (whose cultural and religious perceptions sometimes regard
treated wastewater as impure). Irrigators also need to be involved in the planning
and utilization of this resource.
VIII. More co-ordination is needed between donors and national institutions involved
in wastewater reuse.
Target Groups
Selecting the right target group/groups will be decisive for the success of any PA
programmed. The following target groups are proposed to be addressed:
 farmers in the project area,
 Farmers downstream in Yatta. Dora, and al-thahrya towns
 wastewater treatment plants operation personnel,
 community service and religious institutions
 Consumers
General
Successful wastewater reuse projects are designed to reflect specific local conditions, such
as water demand, urban growth, climate, socio-economic characteristics, and cultural
preference, as well as institutional and policy frameworks. To do so effectively require a
capacity this is still limited in many developing countries. Capacity building can improve the
quality of decision-making and managerial performance in the planning and implementation
of programmes, and encompasses the following five elements
1. Human resources: Strengthenin people’s technical and managerial

ability to evaluate limitations of current practice, potential benefits and
requirements of wastewater reuseg, and fostering their capability to
implement new programmes
2. Policy and regulatory framework：Helping to align or create policy and
legal frameworks to facilitate wastewater reuse programmes, while
ensuring protection of human health and the environment
3. Institutions：Supporting national, regional, and local institutions and
their enhancement, so that they can determine ways to improve
effectiveness in regulating and managing water reuse programmes;
4. Financing：Expanding a range of financing services and opportunities
that is available for wastewater reuse initiatives, and improving the
capability of utilities and potential EST users to understand and
access such services;
5. Participation：Encouraging civil society to participate in the decision-
making process as well as actual implementation of wastewater reuse
programmes, and to deliver a message to the widest possible audience.
These five elements are described in more detail below with examples of
real initiatives around the world.
7.1. Capacity Building: Human Resource Development
 Building technical and managerial capacity for operating water and wastewater reuse
programmes is a critical necessity, due to the variable qualities of source water for
wastewater reuse and the complexity of processes Well-trained personnel, including
engineers, accountants ,mangers ,scientists and technicians, are necessary for
successful water and wastewater recycling projects. In some organizations, resource
constraints may force staff with limited training to assume supervisory and
management positions, posing a challenge to implementing effective programmes.
Such problems may be addressed through:
 Carrying out internal human resource development by training courses and on-the-job
training;
 Developing human capabilities through hiring and retention of qualified personnel.
7.2. Capacity Building: Policy and Legal Framework Development

Water reuse projects must include regulatory development and implementation to ensure the
protection of human health and the environment.
7.3. Capacity Building: Institutional Development and Organizational Management

Studies on managing water supply and sanitation services in developing communities have
shown that ensuring the credibility of a responsible agency within its target community, and
developing a client-oriented organizational structure are two success factors.In order to
undertake wastewater reclamation projects, it is necessary to examine relevant existing
institutions and strengthen them, or to create new ones and assign adequate mandates and
responsibilities.
7.4. Capacity Building: Financing

It is costly to build and maintain wastewater treatment plants, and install water distribution
lines for reuse. Expanding a range of financial services and opportunities is a key component
for promoting water and wastewater recycling. In countries where water and wastewater
recycling programmes are implemented within a comprehensive water resource
development, policy makers may have flexibility in accessing financing. In other cases,
technical assistance programmes may provide separate funding for water reuse. Locally
controlled funds or small-scale financing mechanisms (i.e. microcredit schemes) may also be
established to facilitate financing.
Here , great financing or credit intuition s should b e available since there is no irrigation
system and all farmers needed to purchase irrigation infrastructure systems such as pumps,
filters, irrigation pipes and laterals.
7.5. Capacity Building: Raising Public Awareness and Participation
This is the major needs for farmers:
Raising the awareness of the public about water shortages-safe use of treated wastewater-
crop handling –planting, health protection measures and encouraging their participation in
remedial action is crucial in the implementation of wastewater reuse. The issue is of
particular importance for water reuse for indirect and direct potable use, including
groundwater recharge, as many initiatives have been delayed due to public resistance and
legal action. To raise the awareness of stakeholders and ensure that their voices are heard,
the decision-making process needs to be participatory, with clearly outlined roles and
responsibilities. Proactive public outreach initiatives, such as publications, public
announcements, and site visits, are some of the main means to secure wider public
acceptance and support. This will be discussed in detail.
8. HEALTH MONITORINGN PLAN
Four groups of people can be identified as being at potential risk from the agricultural
use of wastewater. These are:
* Agricultural field workers and their families;

* Crop handlers;
* Consumers (of crops, meat and milk);
* Those living near the affected fields
Agricultural field workers are at high potential risk, especially of parasitic infections.
Exposure to hookworm infection can be reduced, and even eliminated, by the
continuous in – field use of appropriate footwear, but persuading workers to adopt this
precaution may be difficult.
A rigorous health education programmed is needed .A similar approach may be taken
with crop – handlers; the risk to them is somewhat less than that to field workers, but it
can be reduced by meticulous personal hygiene and the wearing of gloves.
Immunization is not feasible against helminthes infections or against most diarrheal
diseases.
However, for highly exposed groups, immunization against typhoid and administration of
immunoglobulin to protect against hepatitis A may be worth considering.
Additional protection may be provided by the availability of adequate medical facilities to
treat diarrhoeal disease, and by regular chemotherapy. This might include
chemotherapeutic ontrol of intense nematode infections in children and control of
anaemia.
Chemotherapy must be reapplied at regular intervals to be effective.
The frequency required to keep worm burdens at a low level (for example, as low as in
the rest of the population) depends on the intensity of transmission, but will not normally
be less than once a year. The drugs involved normally cost about US $ .50 for each
complete treatment.
One to three doses are required, depending on which drug is used.
Chemotherapy and immunization cannot normally by consider as an adequate strategy
to protect farm workers and their families who are exposed to raw wastewater or
excrete.
However, where such workers are organized within structured situations such as
government or company farms, these could be beneficial as palliative measures,
pending improvement in the quality of the wastes used.
Risks to consumers can be reduced by the thorough cooking of vegetables and meat,
by boiling milk, and by maintaining high standards of personal and kitchen hygiene.
Food hygiene should be included in health education campaigns, although the efficacy
of such campaigns may often be quite low in poorly educated societies or outside
institutional settings.
Any risk of tapeworm transmission can be controlled by meat inspection provided that
animals are slaughtered only in recognized abattoirs where all carcasses are inspected
and all infected carcasses are rejected.
8.1. Strategy to Protect Human Health and Environment
Human health and environment could be protected through four groups of measures:
 Wastewater treatment level
 Restriction of the crops grown
 Irrigation methods and
 Control human exposure to the waste, and hygiene.
Full treatment prevents excreted pathogens from reaching the field. However, the
farmers in most of the cases have to cope with wastewater of a certain quality. Because
of this, for the farmers crop restriction, irrigation system and human exposure control
which act later in the pathway, are more important. A combination of agro-technical
measures to be selected, depending on the local socio-cultural, institutional and
economic conditions may provide health protection.
8.2. Crop Selection for Health Protection

Here in Palestine and according to the local standard, vegetables are not allowed to be
irrigated by treated wastewater in order to minimize health risk, which is considered the
main issue for minimizing health risks.
Usually and according to WHO here are 3 groups of crops to be considered for health
protection as follow:
Category (A) Protection needed only for field workers according to WHO:
 Crops not for human consumption (cotton, sisal)
 Crops normally processed by heat or drying before human consumption (grains,
oilseeds, sugar beet)
 Vegetables and fruits grown exclusively for canning or other processing that
effectively destroys pathogens
 Fodder crops sun-dried and harvested before consumption by animals
 Landscape irrigation in fenced areas without public access (nurseries, forests, and
greenbelts).
Category (B) Further measures may be needed:

 Pasturelands, green fodder crops
 Crops for human consumption that do not come into direct contact with wastewater,
on condition that none must be picked off the ground and that spray irrigation must
not be used (tree crops, vineyards, etc.)
 Crops for human consumption normally eaten only after cooking (potatoes, eggplant,
beetroots)
 Crops for human consumption, the peel of which is not eaten (melons, watermelons,
citrus, bananas, nuts, groundnuts)
 Any crop if sprinkler irrigation is used.
Category (C) Treatment to WHO “unrestricted” guidelines is essential:

 Any crops often eaten uncooked and grown in close contact with wastewater effluent
(fresh vegetables such as lettuce or carrots, or spray-irrigated fruit) ,this type of reuse
is not allowed here in Palestine by law
 Landscape irrigation with public access (parks, lawns, golf courses)
Control of human exposure to the wastes and hygiene .Controlling the risk of public
health from waterborne diseases when treated sewage wastewater is used for irrigation
is of high importance. In this respect, the groups of persons running such a risk and the
ways such groups are exposed to the risk should be identified and examined. The
following groups may be recognized
Farm workers: The probability for them of wetting their hands, clothes, or other
parts of their body from leaks or otherwise is certainly the highest risk of exposure.
Therefore, farmers should be aware about the risk and handle wastewater with
care.
Workers handling or packing polluted crops. If proper care was not taken at the treatment
stage and proper irrigation practice were not followed by the farmers, pathogens may be
present on the crops at such concentrations, as to pollute the hands, or clothes of such
workers.
Farmers: provide information through interactive learning methods on health risks

associated with wastewater use, information and technical assistance on proper crop
selection in relation to wastewater quality, irrigation techniques, protective clothing
(boots), personal hygiene, washing crops before marketing, group organization for on
field sanitation and washing facilities; preventing damage to soils and ground water.
Farmers should take the following precautions:
- it is highly recommended to prefer drip irrigation over others

- All farmers should have a standard Polio-diphtheria-tetanus vaccination.
- All farmers should wear boots and gloves, they shouldn’t work barefoot.
- They should not touch their face or smoke, drink or eat during and after working
with treated wastewater until they wash their hands and face with soap and
water.
- All exposed wounds, however small, should be cleaned and covered with a
sterile dressing.
- Farmers should contact their doctor in any case of change in their health such
as persistent stomach symptoms of worm infection, a flu-like fever, chest
problem and regular checkup.
• Consumers: This group is actually the general public, comprising children, elderly
people and others of low resistance to pathogens, being the most sensitive group.
Farmers should feel responsible for this group and manage wastewater in such a way
to avoid crop contamination. Crops polluted with pathogens, particularly those
consumed raw, allow the chance for consumers to be infected by pathogens, if not
properly washed and cleaned. Risks to consumers can be reduced by thorough
cooking and by high standards of hygiene. Local residents should be kept fully informed
about the location of all fields where wastewater is used. In this way, they may avoid
entering them and also prevent their children from doing so. Programs should be
conducted to inform them on proper washing; cooking or blanching of vegetables; and
sufficient cooking time for fish raised with wastewater; necessity of paying for treatment
of household wastewater as they are the generators.
Protection of consumers can be avoided by:
- Selecting the most appropriate crop to be irrigated by TWW.

- Using drip irrigation and plastic mulch
- Pesticides should not be diluted or mixed with wastewater
- Avoiding contact between crops and wastewater after harvesting.
- Processing of crops.
- A strict state monitoring system for crops irrigated with wastewater
Other general measures such as:
- The irrigation system should be checked regularly for spraying or broken emitters
and pipes leaks
- Produce that has fallen on the ground or the black mulch should not be marked.
- Produce hanging on the ground should not be marketed
- Irrigation should be stopped two weeks before harvesting if possible
The surrounding residence:
I n order to protect them and minimize their health risks, signs should be available to all
of them in order to inform them of the presence of wastewater, in addition to they should
be informed about the project, site, and impact, as will as their children. this can be done
by campaigns in schools, mosques ,markets and health clinic. Fencing around the reuse
projects is a useful tool to minimize the health risks of the people surrounding the reuse
area and the treatment plant, usually safe distance such as 100 meter should be from
the reuse project and the nearby residence. in addition to that animals shouldn’t be
allowed to graze from these fields or drink for this water
The table below summarizes the health monitoring plan
Table 8--81- Safety and Occupational Health monitoring program
Monitoring
Responsible Caretaker Activity Frequency
hebron Doctors,Hospitals, Monitor the occurrence of wastewater related All the time
Municipality Health Authorities diseases : ascariasis , trichuriasis , typhoid ,
Fever , cholera, ancylostomiasis (hookworm)
And tapeworm
Infrastructure (1) Monitor the connection of industrial (1) All the

time
Authority activities to the sewage network.
(2) Issue permits for connection and charge
Fines for illegal connection.
Drinking Water (1) Monitor the abstraction wells in Wadi (1) 2 times a
year.
Authority and Matwi on : 1. E. Coli April, (after
the
Certified Laboratory 2. Nematode/helminth eggs
rains)+October
3. Nitrate (after the
irrigation)
(2) Monitor the 100 meters distance between (2) 2 times a
ayear the irrigated area and the abstraction wells.
During irrigation:
May+August.
(3) Monitor the required distances between
The drinking water conveyance system and the (3) All the time
Wastewater conveyance system.
Treatment Certified Laboratory Monitor the treatment plant effluent on:

Plant man- (1) BOD5 and E. Coli (1) Every
Month
agement
(2) Nematode/heminth eggs (2) April+
October
Water Users Water Users Asso- (1) Monitor if the irrigated crops are allowed (1) All the
time.
Association citation to be irrigated with wastewater .
(2) Monitor the visibility and state of warning (2) All the time
Signs at the irrigated area.
(3) Monitor the distance of 300 meter between (3) All the
time
The irrigated area and houses .
(4) Monitor the occurrence of main pipe (4) All the
time
System leakages .
(5) Monitor the state of drinking water (5) All the
time
Fountains in the irrigated area .
Certified (6) Monitor contamination of different kinds (6) All the

time
Laboratory of crops
Farmers Farmers (1) Only cultivate the allowed crops, do not (1) All the
time.
Pick fallen fruits.
(2) Monitor access of the public to the (2) All the
time.
Irrigated area .
(3) Monitor splashing of crops by wastewater (3) All the
time.
(4) Monitor leackages of the system and (4) All the
time.
Irrigation water run-off
(5) Monitor the occurrence of wastewater (5) All the
time.
Related diseases with family or workers
9. PUBLIC AWAIRNES PROGRAM
In general, the acceptance of farmers to use treated wastewater is closely linked to the
water quality provided and the resulting benefits and costs. Under rain-fed conditions, the
additional water supply is not only suited to increase cropping intensities and farm incomes,
it also allows – due to its regular supply – the cultivation of perennial crops such as fodder
and certain tree crops such as almonds.
Following the various discussions held with farmers and other target groups, it can be
expected that the current acceptance rate can be raised substantially by implementing
adequate information campaigns explaining in detail the related benefits and risks and
providing adequate training to ensure the safe use of effluent in irrigated agriculture.
This could be achieved by farmers' education and training measures, the dissemination of
adequate extension messages and by providing other support services to farmers. In the
canon of measures to increase the awareness of the selected target groups special
attention is required to provide farmers with practical experience in irrigation agriculture, but
also the formation of Water User Associations. Here the proposed irrigation pilot project at
Hebron WWTP is an essential tool. Therefore, its implementation in parallel with
agricultural extension services is proposed.
9.1. Farmers’ Attitude towards the Use of Effluent

The future introduction of effluent represents a major challenge which meets substantial
reservation amongst the farmers, even when having announced a positive attitude during
the farmer and socio-economic surveys. The major lessons learnt from the surveys and
discussions with farmers are:
 The majority of farmers do not have sufficient information about the risks and
benefits of effluent and its safe use.
 Opinions and concerns expressed about the potential use are more based on
individual perceptions than on detailed knowledge of the advantages and risks
involved.
 There is substantial mistrust towards the performance of public sector institutions
involved in treating wastewater adequately (WWTPs) and monitoring its quality in
an efficient and transparent manner.
 The dominating concern of all farmers is, however, related to the quality of the
produce irrigated with treated wastewater and its related marketability.
 Religious and social reservations are indicated by many farmers, but rank much
lower than anticipated economic disadvantages (crop restrictions, drop in land
rent).
Community service and religious institutions: Another target group to be considered in the
PA programme is the community service entities such as village councils, schools and
religious institutions. Also due to the absence of Water User Associations opinion leaders
like politicians and lead farmers are part of the community influential persons. Influential
politicians or farmers are often leading the village councils. In case that influential farmers
get the right information regarding the proper usage of the treated effluents for safe
irrigation practices, it will be much easier to transmit the messages to other farmers.
Religious institutions are the mosques and religious service societies. The subjects will be
focused towards the religious fatwa “permission” to use effluent for irrigation purposes.
Mosques imam (leader) need to be addressed in a proper way through the PA campaign to
transmit right, simple messages to them.
Table 9-1: Main subjects and target groups for awareness campaigns
Target Group Subjects
Farmers i. Treated effluents are reliable, economically attractive
environmentally sustainable and safe.
ii. Health protection.
iii. Benefits of effluent in irrigated agriculture.
iv. Appropriate irrigation methods for effluent.
v. Selection of appropriate crops (under restricted irrigation).
WWTP Operators
Personnel
Directors i. Treated effluents are reliable, economically attractive,
environmentally sustainable and safe.
ii. Stakeholders’ responsibilities, needs and tasks.
iii. Crop water demand planning tool
iv. Palestinian Standards need to be considered with regard to
treated effluents and possible usage (limitations at farm level).
v Water quality requirements of end users in irrigated
agriculture.
Engineers / i. Palestinian Standards need to be considered with regard to
Administrators treated effluents and possible usage (limitations at farm level).
ii. Crop water demand planning tool
iii. Water quality requirements of end users in irrigated
agriculture.
Operators / i. Palestinian Standards need to be considered with regard to
technicians treated effluents and possible usage (limitations at farm level).
and mechanics ii. Water quality requirements of end users in irrigated
agriculture.
iii. Work safety measures.
Community i. Treated effluents are reliable, economically attractive,
Service Societies environmentally sustainable and safe.
and Religious ii. Health protection.
Associations
iii. Religious acceptance of the use of treated effluents for
irrigation purposes.
Consumers i. Safety of products.
ii. Public health measures.
iii. International acceptance of the concept of using effluent for
restricted irrigation.
9.2. Demonstrationof Pilot Ruese Project Concept
9.2.1. Pilot Project at Hebron project

The reuse of effluent in a wider scale needs a proper preparation. In this context, a pilot
project is a useful tool. Consequently, following a professional approach of intensive
future effluent reuse, at Hebron WWTP the chance should be considered to develop a
pilot project with regional and national importance. Hereto, the Consultant is proposing a
combined facility consisting of:
 a training center in a region that is easily acess tofarmers for theoretical training
and education, and
 a demonstration field of 20-30donum since it is very difficult to find a plot of
bigger area
The Concept
Facing the importance and potentials of future effluent reuse the facility shall be a
cooperation including ,hebron ,Yatta Municipalities, the Ministry of Agriculture,, a national
university active in this field such as the agricultural faculty of hebron university, and an
local NGO .
Besides its professional knowledge, the University may support the development of
curricula and training material, but also could send (temporary) staff for training directly.
The concept is based on the assumption that throughout the year 32 farmers (8 farmers
x 2 months x 4 training sessions) can intensively be trained. The overall training period
was limited to be 8 months per year excluding periods of high agricultural activities such
as harvesting or sowing. During periods without regular training activities may be used
for short-term measures, conferences or workshops.
It is proposed that the responsibility for the operation of the training center should be
shared by two stakeholders. Due to the responsibility as WWTP operator and the
proposed location at the WWTP area the Hebron Municipality should also be responsible
for the operational organisation of the facility. While, considering the professional
background the MoA should be in charge for all training activities and the overall
coordination amongst the involved partners.
The Training Center

For the pilot project implementation both in terms of the physical implementation
(irrigations systems, buildings, and training equipment) and the administrative
organization of the training center the following equipment is required:
 Physical infrastructure such as a suitable building, workshop and guest house to
be constructed at the WWTP site or nearby.
 Training equipment (furniture, computer, software incl. FAO CropWat package,
library, etc.)
 A set of different irrigation systems and technologies for demonstration and daily
exercises and practice.
 A laboratory allowing a certain level of water and soil quality analysis. Here the
possibility of cooperating with the WWTP laboratory has to be considered.
Physical infrastructure
a) Training center, 25 x 10 m (250 m²), providing:
 Conference / training room
 2 offices, laboratory, kitchen, sanitary rooms, service room (for changing
clothes during field trials).
b) Workshop, 8 x 6 m (48 m²), providing:
 room for practical demonstration of irrigation equipment, and
 Storage room (for trial/demonstration equipment).
c) Guest house, 8 x 6 m (48 m²), providing:
 accommodation for8 persons,
 Sanitary rooms, kitchen.
The Demonstration Fields

The demonstration fields are outlined to serve two objectives. First, it shall allow for
proper field testing under real conditions and (if possible) allowing the demonstration of
different irrigation technologies. For this purpose an area of 20-30 donum is considered
suitable being located bordering to the WWTP site.
The second focus is dedicated to form future acceptable structures for water allocation,
means the establishment of water user associations.
Cost Estimate
Based on the above proposed concept the cost estimatefor the implementation of
irrigation pilot projectis presented hereafter. The costs presented here include a full cost
calculation referring to investments in the physical infrastructure (buildings), personnel
requirements, all types of equipment and the operational costs.
Farhers wil have continous visists to the training center in order to see the agricultural
practices as will as to attend contious training theoritacally and practically, aswill as to
meet experts and have the chance to ask any question . here the cost is calaculated for
12 months while the land will be rented for 24 months , where wua will able to cover the
running cost from collected water fees
Total total costs for the training center implementation and its operation are estimated
at649.313Euro as indicated in the following table.
Table 9-2: Estimated investment and operation costs for the training center at Hebron
WWTP
Unit
Item Unit Quantity Total
cost
Physical structures
- Training center (25 m x 10 m) usd 80.000 1 80.000
- Workshop (8 m x 6 m) usd 15000 1 15.000
Equipment (training center) usd
- training center furniture usd 10.000 1 10.000
- audio-visiual equipment usd 10.000 1 10.000
- training center equipment (computer) usd 5000. 1 5000
- office furniture usd 5.000 1 5.000
- office equipment (computer, phone/fax,
usd 5.000 1 5.000
copier etc.)
- 1 pick up car no. 15.000 1 15.000
- kitchen furniture / equipment Usd 5.000 1 5.000
- agricultural equipment (incl. tractor) 40000 1 40.000
Equipment (laboratory)
- furniture Usd 10.000 1 20.000
- analyse & measurement technology Usd 30.000 1 30.000
- computer / printer Usd 400 2 800
Sub-total investment costs 248.800
Training center operation costs

Land rent
- land rent for 24 months months 300 24 7200
Cost of personnel
- Facility manager months 1.500 12 18.000
- Trainer months 1.500 12 18.000
- Secretary and service personnel months 1000 12 12.000
Operational costs
- training center operation months 1.000 12 12.000
- laboratory operation (chemicals,
months 300 12 3.600
consumables)
- vehicle running costs (car / tractor) months 500 12 6.000
- workshop / meetings event 150 8 1.200
Transportation to farmers whomwill
Usd 8000 1 8000
attend the training
Sub-total operation costs 85200
Sub-total ivvestment & operation

334000
costs
Physical contingencies (20%) 66800
Total costs 400800
Annexes
Annex 1
Questionnaire
Questionnaire
General Questions ‫اسئلة عامة‬
Name: :‫االسم‬
:‫رقم الهاتف‬
:‫العمر‬
Phone No:
: ‫عدد افراد االسرة‬
Age :
No of family members :
Address : ‫عنوان السكن‬
Level of Education ‫المستوى التعليمي‬
Specify : ‫ دكتوراة‬،‫ ماجستير‬،‫ بكالوريوس‬،‫ دبلوم‬، ‫ ثانوي‬, ‫ اعدادي‬, ‫ ابتدائي‬, ‫أمي‬.
Land no: ‫رقم القطعة ورقم الحوض‬
Cluster no : ‫رقم القطعة على الخارطة‬
Are you farmer? ‫هل انت مزارع ؟‬
‫هل تسكن في المزرعة ؟‬
Do you live in the farm ?
If no : where do you live ? how far ‫ اين تسكن وكم البعد وما هي وسيلة الوصول للمزرعة وكم‬: ‫اذا كان الجواب ال‬
?how do you get to the farm ?how ‫يكلف الوصول للمزرعة والعودة ؟‬
does transportation cost ?
Do you have a car ? ‫هل لديك سيارة او وسيلة نقل ؟‬
What type is your farm, rain fed or ‫؟‬ ‫مروية‬ ‫زراعة‬ ‫ام‬ ‫هل انت مزارع زراعة بعلية‬
irrigated farm ?
‫هل تربي أي نوع من الماشية ؟‬
Do you raise livestock?
‫هل تعمل في زراعة االرض جزئيا ام كليا ؟‬
Do you work in your land as a part
or full time? ‫متى تعمل في االرض ؟‬
When do you work in your land? ‫ما هو دخلك الشهري من الزراعة ؟‬
What is your monthly income from
agriculture ? ‫هل لديك عمل اخر ؟‬
‫ماذا تعمل ؟‬
Do you have another career?
What do you work? ‫ما هو دخلك الشهري من غير الزراعة ؟‬
What is your Income from
nonagricultural work ? ‫هل تقبل بالتحول للعمل بشكل كامل في االرض عند ريها بالمياه المعالجة؟‬
Do accept to shift to full time work ‫هل يساعدك في المزرعة احد من افراد االسرة ؟‬
in your land when irrigated with
/‫ يساعدك في المزرعة‬/ ‫هل يمكن ان يقوم احد افراد االسرة باالعمال الزراعية‬
treated waste water ? ‫عند التحول للري ؟‬
Do any of your family members
help you in farming?
‫هل تحتاج الستئجار عامل زراعي في حالة التحول للري الدائم ؟‬
Is it possible that a member of
your family can help you / can
work with you in the farm when
irrigated ? ‫هل تمتلك معدات زراعية؟ ماهي ؟‬
Do you need to hire an agricultural
Worker when you shift to irrigated ‫او مضخة ؟‬/ ‫هل لديك نظام ري‬
agriculture? ‫هل هناك طريق سيارات الى المزرعة؟‬
‫هل هناك كهرباء في المزرعة او مصدر اخر للطاقة؟‬
Do you own any agricultural tools
or machines ? please mention
them .
Do you own irrigation system /or
pump ?
Is your farm accessible by car?
Is there electricity or other energy
source at the farm ?
AGRICULUTURE- ‫زراعة‬
Do you have experience in irrigated ‫هل لديك خبرة في الزراعة المروية؟‬
agriculture?
Years of Agriculture Experience ‫سنوات الخبرة الزراعية‬
Have you been trained on farming issues ‫هل تلقيت تدريبا زراعيا سابقا ؟على ماذا تدربت ؟‬
?please mention .
Are you in contact with extension staff in ‫هل انت على اتصال بمؤسسات االرشاد الزراعي في‬
your area? ‫منطقتك ؟‬
Can you access extension staff in your ‫هل تستطيع الوصول لإلرشاد الزراعي في منطقتك ؟‬
area?
Do you need agricultural training? ‫هل تعتقد انك بحاجة الى تدريب زراعي ؟‬
What type of training you need ? ‫ما هو نوع التدريب الذي ترغب به؟‬
Where do you get agricultural materials ‫من اين تشتري المواد الزراعية والمدخالت الزراعية‬
i.e. seeds ,fertilizers ,chemical etc. ? ‫اسمدة كيماويات وغيرها ؟ رجاء حدد اسم‬/ ‫من بذور‬
‫المورد ومنطقته ؟‬
Area of the suitable agricultural ‫مساحة الحيازة الزراعية الصالحة للزراعة بالدونم‬
land
Land Type-Own-Rent-common ‫ نوعية الحيازة‬.

holding
‫هل تقوم انت بزراعتها ؟‬ )‫مشاع (ارث‬.‫ ج‬rented ‫مستأجر‬.‫ب‬ owned ‫ملك‬.‫أ‬
Do you cultivate the land Common
? property
‫اذا لم تكن انت من يقوم بزراعتها‬
‫فمن يقوم بزراعتها وما هو رقم‬
‫تلفونه؟‬
If no Who cultivate it ?
What is his phone no ?
‫مكان السكن‬ ‫رقم التلفون‬ ‫اسم المالك‬ ‫اذا كانت االرض غير‬
Address Telephone no. Owner name ‫مملوكة؟‬
rent period ‫مدة التاجير‬ If not owned
Area of the suitable agricultural land ‫مساحة الحيازة الزراعية الصالحة للزراعة بالدونم‬
Would you irrigate your holding even ‫ دونمات هل ستقوم بري‬5 ‫اذا كانت االرض اقل من‬
if its size is less than 5 dunums ? ‫حيازتك بالرغم من صغر مساحتها ؟‬
Would you Work in it full time or partial
‫هل ستتفرغ لذلك ام سيكون ذلك بنظام العمل الجزئي ؟‬
time ?
Do accept to rent your land if it is less
‫ دونمات هل تقبل بتأجيرها‬5 ‫اذا كانت االرض اقل من‬
than 5 donums to your neighbors to
‫آلخرين لزيادة المساحة لديهم لتمكنهم من ريها ؟‬
enable them to irrigate a larger area ? ‫ما هي االجرة للدونم سنويا ؟‬
What is the rent rate ?
Land Topography ‫طبيعة ميالن االرض‬
‫ميالن شديد‬. ‫د‬ ‫ميالن متوسط‬. ‫ج‬ ‫ميالن خفيف‬.‫ب‬ ‫ ارض سهلة‬.‫أ‬
Does your farm needs reclamation to ‫هل تحتاج االرض لالستصالح للتمكن من ريها بالمياه‬
be irrigated with TWW? ‫المعالجة؟‬
‫ما هو نوع االستصالح ؟‬
What type of reclamation does it need?
)Crop Type and Planting season ( ‫النباتات المزروعة‬

‫امال جدول ميزانية لكل محصول في نهاية االستبيان‬
Please fill crop budget table for each crop at the end of the questionnaire
‫ربيعي‬ ‫شتوي‬ ‫خريف‬ ‫صيف‬ ‫المساحة‬ ‫النبات‬
Spring winter Autumn Summer area Crop
‫ما هو العائد الصافي لكل دونم؟‬
What is the return for the cultivated crops per donum‫؟‬
‫سعر الكيلو للبيع‬ )‫(االنتاج كغم‬ ‫المحصول‬
Sell price per kg Production kg crop
Type of agriculture-irrigated or rained: ‫طريقة الزراعة‬
Irrigation Rainfed agriculture ‫ري‬.‫ب‬ ‫بعال‬.‫ا‬

If irrigated ,what is ‫اذا كانت ري‬
the source of
‫ما هو مصدر المياه‬
water?
Total Irrigation ‫الكلية‬ ‫المياه‬ ‫كمية‬

water quantity ‫المستهلكة‬
Cost per cubic ‫سعر المتر المكعب‬

meter NIS
Live stock
Do you raise livestock? ‫ما هي نوع الحيوانات التي تربيها وعددها ؟‬
please indicate the quantity ? ‫ما هو الدخل السنوي من تربية الحيوانات ؟‬
what is the annual is the annual income
from livestock raising ?
What is the land % of the livestock ? ‫ما هي نسبة االراضي المستعملة لتربية الثروة الحيوانية‬
How much of the land is used for ‫ما هي نسبة االراضي المزروعة للرعي أو اعالف‬
cultivating fodder crops ? ‫للمواشي‬
SOCIAL BASIC DATA- ‫امور اجتماعية‬
Do you know that treated wastewater ‫هل تعرف ان مياه المجاري المعالجة والحماءة يمكن‬
and sludge can be used in agriculture ‫استعمالها للزراعة وهي تستعمل بشكل عام في معظم‬
and it is used widely in the world ‫الدول‬
Yes No ‫ال‬.‫ب‬ ‫نعم‬.‫ا‬
‫هل تعتبر المياه العادمة المعالجة من حيث االستعمال‬
‫ مياه ملوثة يجب التخلص منها بوسائل أخرى‬.‫ب‬ ‫ مصدر أضافي لمياه الري‬.‫أ‬
)‫ استعماالت أخرى (أذكرها‬.‫ مصدر مياه غير تقليدي يمكن استعماله عدة مرات د‬.‫ج‬
‫للصناعة ثم لتوليد الطاقة الكهربائية ثم لتربية األسماك ثم‬
‫الزراعة‬
Do you accept to irrigate using Treated ‫هل ترغب باستعمال المياه العادمة المعالجة لري أرضك‬.
WW ? ‫؟‬
If yes, what are the crops you prefer to ‫ ما هي المحاصيل التي ترغب‬،‫اذا كان جوابك نعم‬
cultivate, given that it's not allowed to . ‫بزراعتها؟ علما بأنه ال يسمح بري الخضار‬
cultivate vegetables? ‫هل لديك خبرة او رغبة في انشاء مشتل في مزرعتك ؟‬
Do you have experience in nursery ‫هل لديك خبرة او ترغب بانتاج البذور في مزرعتك ؟‬
production ,are you willing to establish
a nursery at your farm ?
Do you have experience in seed
production ,is it possible that you
produce seeds at your farm ?
Do you accept to be among ‫هل ترغب بأن تكون من اوائل من يروون باستخدام المياه المعالجة ؟‬
the first farmers to use TWW for irrigation ?
Are you a member of any Agriculture ‫هل انت عضو في جمعيات او اتحادات زراعية‬
cooperative/ association ?
Yes : mention: No? ‫ال‬.‫ب‬ )‫نعم (حدد اسمائها‬.‫أ‬
Would you like to join a TWW user ‫هل ترغب باالنضمام لجمعية اعادة استخدام المياه المعالجة ؟‬
association?
Would you like to be one of the founders of ‫هل ترغب بأن تكون احد مؤسسي هذه الجمعية ؟‬
the TWW user association ?
‫‪- Fertilizers‬االسمدة‬
‫?‪Do you use fertilizers‬‬ ‫هل تستخدم االسمدة؟‬
‫ب‪.‬ال‬ ‫ا‪.‬نعم‬
‫? ‪Type of fertilizers and application method‬‬ ‫نوع االسمدة وكيفية اضافتها‬
‫ب‪.‬سماد أخضر ج‪.‬اسمدة كيماوية‬ ‫أ‪.‬مخلفات حيوانية ( زبل بلدي)‬

‫‪Chemical Green‬‬ ‫‪Manure‬‬
‫‪manure‬‬
‫‪Do you accept of using another source of‬‬ ‫هل توافق على إضافة مصادر عضوية للتربة مثل‬
‫‪organic matter such as sludge -as‬‬ ‫الحماءة بعد ان يتم وضع مواصفة تسمح بذلك ؟‬
‫‪fertilizer, after a specification is enforced‬‬
‫‪allowing the reuse of sludge as soil‬‬
‫? ‪amendment‬‬
‫‪yes‬‬ ‫? ‪No, why‬‬ ‫ب‪ .‬ال (يرجى ذكر‬ ‫أ‪.‬نعم‬
‫األسباب)‬
‫‪If the above answer is yes please answer‬‬ ‫اذا كان الجواب نعم نرجو اإلجابة على االعتبارات‬
‫‪the followings yes/ no questions‬‬ ‫التالية بنعم أو ال‬
‫ا_ استعمال المخلفات الصلبة لمحطات التنقية مباشرة بدون اي معالجة‬
‫ب_ استعمال المخلفات الصلبة لمحطات التنقية بعد معالجتها بطرق تضمن سالمة استعمالها على األنسان والتربة‬
‫والنبات‬
‫ج_ الخروج بمواصفة قياسية للمخلفات الصلبة من حيث استعمالها‪ ,‬طمرها وطرق معالجتها‬
‫د_ مراقبة التربة التي تستعمل فيها المخلفات الصلبة‬
‫ه_ مراقبة النباتات التي تسمد بالمخلفات الصلبة‬
‫‪After all the answers do you now have‬‬ ‫بعد اجابتك على هذه االستبانة هل تكونت لديك فكرة‬
‫‪idea about use of treated waste water‬‬ ‫عن اعادة استعمال المياه العادمة المعالجة في الري‬
‫‪for irrigation and what do you want to‬‬ ‫والمزارعة وماذا ترغب في ان تعرف عن مياه المجاري‬
‫‪know about reusing treated ww for‬‬ ‫والتدريب الالزم ؟‬
‫? ‪irrigation and training need‬‬
‫ب‪ .‬ال‬ ‫أ‪ .‬نعم‬
‫‪Type of the idea-positive-negative-if it is‬‬ ‫نوع الفكرة وإذا سلبيا ماذا هو اهتمامك‬
‫‪negative what is your concern‬‬
‫د‪.‬ايجابية جدا‬ ‫ج‪.‬سلبية جدا‬ ‫ب‪.‬ايجابية‬ ‫ا‪.‬سلبية‬
‫‪Do you believe that the production of‬‬ ‫هل تعتقد ان انتاجية المزرعة سترتفع بسبب استعمال‬
‫‪the farm has the potential to‬‬ ‫‪be‬‬ ‫المياه العادمة المعالجة في الري؟‬
‫)‪J.V,. of Witteveen+Bos Consulting engineers & Consulting Engineering Service (Sajdi & Partners‬‬ ‫‪113‬‬
‫‪Deliverable 1.C., draft final 01, dated July 3, 2013‬‬
increased by using treated wastewater
‫ال‬.‫ب‬ ‫نعم‬.‫أ‬
Do you believe that farm production ‫هل تعتقد ان االنتاج الزراعي سيزيد عند استخدام الحمأة‬
will be increased by using sludge?
‫ال‬.‫ب‬ ‫نعم‬.‫ا‬
Are you willing to buy treated W.W for ‫هل انت مستعد لشراء المياه العادمة معالجة وسليمة‬
irrigation ‫لالستعمال مستقبال لري مزرعتك؟‬
‫ال‬.‫ب‬ ‫نعم‬.‫ا‬
‫لتسهيل ادارة الري يمكن تجميع عدد من المزارعين في منطقة معينة بحيث تخصص مضخة واحده لهؤالء‬
)‫ مزارع‬15 - 10( ‫المزارعين‬
Do you accept to join neighbor farmers unit ‫هل انت مستعد لالنضمام الى وحدة مزارعين لالستفادة من‬
running the same pump? ‫مضخة واحدة ؟‬
No Yes ‫ ال‬- ‫ب‬ ‫ نعم‬-‫أ‬
Do you accept the exist of the water line ‫هل انت مستعد ألن يمر خط المياه (األنابيب) في أرضك لري‬
(pipe) in your land to irrigate ‫االراضي المجاورة ؟‬
neighboring lands?
Do you accept to share your neighbors ‫هل انت مستعد لتشارك جيرانك بمضخة واحدة بحيث‬
with one pump so that the management ‫تكون ادارتها وتكاليف ضخها مشتركة ؟‬
and the cost of pumping is in common?
Do you have a pond at your ‫هل يوجد لديك بركة لتخزين المياه في ارضك؟‬
farm?
‫ال‬ .‫أ‬ ‫نعم – كم سعتها ؟‬ .‫أ‬
‫هل تستطيع انشاء بركة لتخزين المياه في ارضك لتسهيل الري بالمياه المعالجة ؟‬
Are you able and willing to build a storage facility to make use of the treated
wastewater
Do you accept to pay the cost of the ‫هل انت مستعد لالشتراك في ثمن المضخة واألنابيب التي‬
pump and pipes used by your area ‫يستخدمها مجموعة من المزارعين وأنت من ضمنهم؟‬
group of farmers ?
How Much would You Pay For cubic ‫كم انت مستعد لدفع ثمن مياه المتر المكعب من مياه المجاري‬
meter of the Treated W.W,given that the ‫المعالجة علما بأنه ال يسمح بري الخضار ويسمح فقط بري‬
vegetables are not allowed to be irrigated ‫االشجار واألعالف؟‬
?
Crop : ‫المحصول‬
Irrigated / rain fed / ‫مروي‬

‫بعل‬
area :‫المساحة‬
TOTAL
PRICE (NIS)
UNIT QUANTITY (NIS) ‫االجمالي‬
‫الوحدة‬ ‫الكمية‬ ‫سعر الوحدة‬ ‫شيكل‬
MAIN PRODUCT ‫المنتج الرئيسي‬
SUB_PRODUCT ‫المنتج الثانوي‬
TOTAL GROSS OUTPUT ‫المجموع‬
SEED / SEEDLING ‫اشتال‬/ ‫بذور‬
‫ملش‬
MULCH
‫سماد كلي‬
FERTILIZERS - TOTAL
‫زبل‬
- MANURE
‫نيتروجين‬
- NITROGEN
‫فوسفات‬
- PHOSPHATE
‫بوتاس‬
- POTASH
‫حديد‬
- Iron
‫اسمدة مركبة‬
- COMPOUND FERTILIZERS
‫كيماويات مجموع‬
CHEMICALS - TOTAL
‫مبيدات حشرية‬
- PESTICIDES
‫مبيدات اعشاب‬
- HERBICIDES
‫مبيدات فطرية‬
- FUNGICIDES
‫االليات المستاجرة‬
HIRED MACHINERY -
TOTAL
‫اعداد االرض‬
- LAND PREPARATION ‫حراثة‬
- PLANTING (SOWING) ‫ زراعة‬/‫بذر‬
‫تسميد‬
- FERTILIZATION
‫اعمال زراعية‬
- CROP HUSBANDRY
‫حصاد‬
- HARVESTING
‫رش المبيدات‬
Spraying
‫العمالة المستاجرة‬
HIRED LABOUR - TOTAL
‫اعداد االرض‬
- LAND PREPARATION
‫ بذر‬/ ‫زراعة‬
- PLANTING (SOWING)
- CROP HUSBANDRY ‫اعمال زراعية‬
‫حصاد‬
- HARVESTING
‫المياه‬
WATER REQUIREMENTS
‫ضخ‬
Pumping
‫مضخة‬
pump
‫خطوط ناقلة‬
Force mains / main pipes
‫بركة‬
pond
Irrigation System ‫نظام الري‬
Type ‫حدد النوع‬
Area ‫والمساحة‬
cost ‫التكلفة‬
- LAND RENT
‫شكرا لتعاونكم‬
ANNEX 2: FARM BUDGETS
Irrigated Alfalfa 1 HA
UNIT QUANTITY PRICE (US$) TOTAL (US$)
MAIN PRODUCT Ton 350 55 19,250
SUB_PRODUCT KG -
TOTAL GROSS OUTPUT US$ 19,250
SEED / SEEDLING KG/No. 1.6 85 1360
MULCH KG -
FERTILIZERS - TOTAL US$ 823
- MANURE CM 0.00
- NITROGEN KG 0.00
- PHOSPHATE KG -
- POTASH KG -
- Iron KG -
- COMPOUND FERTILIZERS KG -
CHEMICALS - TOTAL US$ 1 52 519
- PESTICIDES Liter 0
- HERBICIDES Liter 0
- FUNGICIDES Liter 0
HIRED MACHINERY - TOTAL Ha 485
- LAND PREPARATION Ha 1 3 31
- PLANTING (SOWING) Ha 5.6 2 116
- FERTILIZATION Ha
- CROP HUSBANDRY Ha 1 10 99
- HARVESTING Ha -
HIRED LABOUR - TOTAL labor day 890
WATER REQUIREMENTS US$ 8995 0.13 11693.5
TOTAL VARIABLE COSTS US$ 14658
GROSS MARGIN US$ 4,592
Irrigated Barley/Ha
PRICE TOTAL
UNIT QUANTITY (US$) (US$)
MAIN PRODUCT KG 5000 0.330 1650
SUB_PRODUCT KG 7500 0.870 6525
TOTAL GROSS OUTPUT US$ 8,175
SEED / SEEDLING KG/No. 17 0.38 64
MULCH KG -
- MANURE CM 0.00
- NITROGEN KG 0.00
- PHOSPHATE KG -
- POTASH KG -
- Iron KG -
- COMPOUND
FERTILIZERS KG -
CHEMICALS - TOTAL US$ 236
- PESTICIDES liter 0
- HERBICIDES liter 0.39 16 61
- FUNGICIDES liter 0
HIRED MACHINERY -
TOTAL Ha
- LAND PREPARATION Ha 0
- PLANTING (SOWING) Ha 0
- FERTILIZATION Ha
- CROP HUSBANDRY Ha 0
- HARVESTING Ha 1 12 125
labor
HIRED LABOUR - TOTAL day
labor
- LAND PREPARATION day 0.67 50 33.5
labor
- PLANTING (SOWING) day -
labor
- CROP HUSBANDRY day 0
labor
THRESHING day 1.5 13 195
- IRRIGATION US$ 870 0.13 1131
Irrigated Maize/HA
PRICE TOTAL
UNIT QUANTITY (US$) (US$)
MAIN PRODUCT KG 17000 0.40 6,800
SUB_PRODUCT KG
TOTAL GROSS OUTPUT US$ 6800
SEED / SEEDLING KG/No. 100 2 212
MULCH KG -
- MANURE CM 0.00
- NITROGEN KG 0.00
- PHOSPHATE KG -
- POTASH KG -
- Iron KG -
- COMPOUND
FERTILIZERS KG -
CHEMICALS - TOTAL NIS 120
- PESTICIDES liter 0
- HERBICIDES liter 0
- FUNGICIDES liter 0
HIRED MACHINERY -
TOTAL Ha 1 47 47
- LAND PREPARATION Ha 0
- PLANTING (SOWING) Ha 0
- FERTILIZATION Ha
- CROP HUSBANDRY Ha 0
- HARVESTING Ha 0
labor
HIRED LABOUR - TOTAL day 1 140 140
labor
- LAND PREPARATION day 0
labor
- PLANTING (SOWING) day -
labor
- CROP HUSBANDRY day 0
labor
- HARVESTING day 100 13 1299
WATER REQUIREMENTS US$ 5043 0.13 655.6
Annex 3: Livestock Questionnaire
Part One: Identification Particulars
1. Farmer Name……………………………………………………………………..
Sex:
- Male Female
Education Status:
Illiterate Elementary/Preparatory grade
Secondary grade Bachelor Highest Grade
-
- Region……………………………………………………………………………
- Family size:………………………………Person.
- Size of Land you own: ……………………..(Dunum)
- by himself
by himself and family members (brothers, sisters, parents, …)
Size of Land rented: ……………………..(Dunum)
Type of holding:
Crop Livestock Both
2.
Number of workers in the farm:
1. Family member…………… 2. Labors……………
Cost of hired labor (NIS/year) ...........................................................................
Part Two: Livestock population
- Number of livestock type:
1. Cattle …………… 2. Sheep …………… 3. Goats ……………
- Number of new born per year:
- Number of new born sold and Price:
- Number of mortality per year:
Part Three: Livestock Cost ( Production and Consumed)

- Cost of purchased Consumed fodder (NIS/year):
1. Barley …………… 2. Alfalfa ………….. 3. Hay ……………
4. Concentrated food …………… 5. Bran ……………
- Cost of vaccination and medicine (NIS/year):
1. Vaccination ……………….. 2. Medicine ………………..
- Amount of revenue milk and dairy produced (NIS/year):
1. Milk …………… 2. Yoghurt …………… 3. Dried yoghurt……………
4. Butter …………... 5. Cheese ……………
Part Four: Water Sources and Usage

- Source of water:
Own well Purchase
The price (NIS/m3) ……………
- Amount of water consumed for livestock (m3/year) ……………
Part Five: Crops
- Size of land (Dunum) cultivated with:
1. Fodder ………. 2. Barley………. 3. Alfalfa ………. 4.others……….
- Amount of production per year (as an avererage for the last 10 years; how many harvest
failures have there been?)
1. Fodder ………. 2. Barley………. 3. Alfalfa ………. 4.others……….
% of production on farm consumed: ……….

Part Six: Willingness to pay
- Are you willing to use treated wastewater for irrigation to produce fodders:
Yes No
If yes how much money per year you can afford to pay for the treated wastewater (NIS):
………
Annex (4) Name of Farmers who are ready to found WUA and their cluster number
Farmer Name Cluster No.

1 Abd Elftah Rashed Al attrash 1,2
2
Issa Mahmoud Hamamdeh 1,2
3 Ra'fet Yossef Abu Arram 1,2
4
Amad Ibrahim Hamed Mosleh 1,2
5 khalil Ibrahim Aljabrene 1,2
6 Mohnad Ahmad mahmoud hamad 1,2
7 Nayef Dahwwod shhadeh abu khshoom 22,22,23,23,15,16
8 Adnan Mohamad Isssa Qeseh 14
9 Talab Odeh Swelim etal 17,18,18,18
10 Jamal Jebrel Almasri 4,4,5,6,9
11 khalil Ibrahim Mustafa el tal 22,23,23,28,29
12 Ibrahim Amer shahdeh 5
13 Omr Issa Mohamed 5
14 zake namorah 5,5
15 Hussein Ismaeal 5,5
16 Mohamad Mousa 5
17 Kamel jawaedaha 5,5
18 Faysel Yosef 5
19 Mohamed namoura 5,5
20 Naser Namoura
21 Emsalam Mustafa
22 Mohamed abdlha namoura
23 Marwan alarjan
24 mohamed Abu sondes
25 Omar akele
26 Mohamed Heribat 5
27 Tayser Abd el fatah nassar doden
28 Ameen Ibrahim Abu sheha
29 Majid Mohamed Jwadeh
30 Raed Mohamed khlaaf
31 Hasan Ahmad Akelele
32 ahmad abd elkader Khlaaf
33 Hussein Rome 5,5,6
34 Naef Shrouhk 23
35 Ibrahim Aweseha 21
36 Mhrez Ali El Full 22,22,23,31,23
37 Ahmad Taleb Eltel 22,22,23
38 Najeh eltel 22,22
39 Issa Ahmad eltel 11,12
40 Fayeq Hewaren 12
41 Nassar Eltel 15,16,17,18,18,18
42 Mahmoud edaeas 5
43 Naser Amro 6,6,6,6,4
44 Omr ad'eas 6,6,5
45 Na'em ade'eas 5
46 Mahmoud al masri 3,3,3,4
47 Isma'eal namoura 5
48 Waleed Almasri 3,3,3
49 Issa ade'eas 5,5
50 Khled Al masri 3,3,3
51 Mahmoud Eltal 16,17,18,18
Annex (5)
List of Organizations and Lending Institutions finance the Agricultural Sector
- Arab Bank
- Bank of Jordan
- Bank of Palestine
- National Bank of Jordan
- Commercial Bank of Palestine
- Palestine for Credit and Development (FATEN)
- Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA)
- Business Women Association (ASALA)
- American Near East Refugee Aid- ANERA
- PARC
- IFAD-Arab Bank Program
- Care International
- UNERWA
- ACAD
- USAID
- Save The Children
- OXFAM
- NOVIB
- Chatholic Relief Services
- Canada Fund
- Qatar Charitablie
- ACTED
- OCHA
- EEC
- Union of Farmers
- Union of Agricultural Work Center (UAWC)
- Land Research Center (LRC)
- Paletinian Hydrology Group (PHG)
- MA’AN Development Center
- Applied Research Institute of Jerusalem (ARIJ)
- Center of Agricultural Services
- Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committees (PARC)

Deliverable 2b 3-7-2013 Hebron Reportsent To Majid For Finalization

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Deliverable 2b 3-7-2013 Hebron Reportsent To Majid For Finalization

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Palestinian Water Authority

Update Feasibility Study for Hebron

Deliverable 2B – Task 7-Conceptual

1. PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT 1

2. REFINED CROP AND FARM MODELS 2

3. THE FINALIZED OUTLINE DESIGN OF THE RECLAIMED WATER REUSE

5. PALESTINIAN EXPERIENCE IN WW, TREATMENT AND REUSE 73

8. HEALTH MONITORINGN PLAN 97

9. PUBLIC AWAIRNES PROGRAM 102

APPENDICES Number of pages.

Table 2-1: The Total Cultivated Area in Hebron Governorate ......................................... 2

Table 2-2: Type of Work in Agriculture ............................................................................. 3

Table 2-3: Agricultural Monthly Income ............................................................................ 4

Table 2-4: Non-Agricultural Income.................................................................................. 4

Table 2-5: Type of Other work .......................................................................................... 5

Table 2-6: Level of Experience in Agriculture .................................................................. 6

Table 2-7: Palestinian TWW Reuse Technical Obligatory Regulations 34/2012 in

Table 2-15: Comparison of Returns and Costs of Irrigated Alfalfa in Sacramento-USA

Table 2-17: Comparison of Returns and Costs of maize ............................................... 18

Table 3-1: Potential Area 1 - Along Wadi Es-Sammin ................................................... 21

Table 3-2: Potential Area 1 – Cost of Pumping Stations ............................................... 22

Table 3-3: Core Area 1 – Cost of Irrigation Pipelines .................................................... 22

Table 3-7: Prioritized Clusters Conveyance and Pumping Costs ................................. 28

Table 3-12: Water Balance for Al-Fureijat Area ............................................................. 33

Table 3-13: Nitrogen Balance for Al-Fureijat Area ......................................................... 34

Table 3-14: Phosphates Balance for Al-Fureijat Area ................................................... 34

Table 3-16: Water Balance for Wadi Es-Sammin Area ................................................. 35

Table 3-17: Nitrogen Balance for Al-Fureijat Area ......................................................... 36

Table 3-18: Phosphates Balance for Wadi Es-Sammin Area ........................................ 36

Table 3-19: Hydraulic Calculation Units ......................................................................... 37

Table 3-22: Cost Estimate for Alternative One .............................................................. 41

Table 3-24: Cost Estimate for Alternative Three ............................................................ 43

Table 3-25: Cost Estimate for Alternative Four .............................................................. 44

Table 3-27: Implementation Phases of the Project ........................................................ 45

Table 3-30: Intercropping Percentages .......................................................................... 46

Table 4-19: Al-Fureijat farm Size 2 HA, Livestock 25 .................................................... 67

Table 4-21: Al-Fureijat Farm size = 50 HA, Livestock 70 heads ................................... 68

Table 6-0-1: Willingness to Join and Found WUA ......................................................... 87

Table 6-2: financing access questionnaire ..................................................................... 90

Figure 3-1: POTENTIAL 1 - Lands along Wadi Es-Sammin .......................................... 24

Figure 3-2: Overview of Al-Furejat three clusters subschemes ..................................... 26

Figure 3-3: Clusters Irrigation Areas .............................................................................. 38

Figure 3-7: Alternative Four; Phazing System ............................................................... 43

Figure 5-1: General View of Al-Bireh Wastewater Treatment Plant .............................. 74

As per the TOR, this document includes a number of items as follows:

 An expanded and refined crop and farm models.

2.1. Current Farming in the Project Area

Table 2-1: The Total Cultivated Area in Hebron Governorate

Grape 31,872 Potato 30

Almond (soft) 1,762 Chick-peas 95

Peach 782 Vetch 510

Quince 136 Local Tobacco 70

Nectarine 6 Dry Cowpea 2

Table 2-3: Agricultural Monthly Income

Table 2-4: Non-Agricultural Income

Table 2-5: Type of Other work

2.3. Refined crop models

2.3.2. The project expected effluent Quality

Maximum limits for Quality of Treated Water

CL 400 400 400 400 276.0 A

SO4 300 300 300 300 63.5 A

Na 200 200 200 200 210.7 D

Ca 300 300 300 300 162.9 A