PROTECTING GROUNDWATER - EcoPeace Middle...

CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION

IN THE MEDITERRANEAN

EcoPeaceMiddle East

PROTECTING GROUNDWATER

October 2014

PROTECTING GROUNDWATER

October 2014

Supported by:

This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The contents of this document are the sole responsibility of EcoPeace Middle East and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union.

EcoPeaceMiddle East

2 | PROTEC TING GROUNDWATER

‘Protecting Ground Water’ team:Dr. Youval Arbel, Project Director

Ms. Suha Al-Najjar and Mr. Baha Afaneh, Jordanian Coordinators.

Mr. Malek Abu Al-Failat, Palestinian Coordinator.

Dr. Ido Aviani, Israeli Coordinator

Mr. José Luis Alcón López, Malaga Coordinator

Ms. Samiramis Kutlo, Palestinian Government Relation Coordinator

Ms. María Teresa Jiménez Navarro, Environment Department in Malaga County Council

Ms. María José Ávila Amat, Environment Department in Malaga County Council

Ms. Marisa Morea Rodriguez – GIS expert in Malaga County Council

Ms. Mira Edelstein, Communication Officer

Ms. Chava Haber, EcoPeace Financial Manager

Note of GratitudeThis project has been led by EcoPeace Middle East, in partnership with the Malaga County Coun-cil and the Water and Environment Development Organization (WEDO) of the Palestinian Au-thority. The project was funded by The European Commission’s ENPI CBC MED Program (Europe-an Neighborhood and Partnership Instrument, Cross Border Cooperation in the Mediterranean).

Many thanks to all officials, consultants and trainers, who contributed from their knowledge and experience to the project; among them we would like to specifically acknowledge those who have proved great professionalism and tolerance to the complex and intense political environ-ment that we have all experienced:

From Jordan:

To all government authorities including Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Jordan Valley Au-thority;

Dr. Samer Talozi; Professor in Water Recourses Engineering; Jordan University of Science and Technology;

Eng. Hani Hijazi, Senior Hydro-geologist and Eng. Refaat Al Ahmed, Environmental Consultant at Green Sahara Water & Environment Studies & Consulting Company

Mr. Esmat Karadsheh; Head of Regional office; Aseza / ENPI-CBCMED

From Israel:Dr. Yeshayahu Bar-or, Menachem Zalutski, Alon Zask, Milka Carmel, Karlos Piechotka, Ety Natan, Amir Erez and Arye Pistiner from the Ministry of Environment;

Sara Elhanany, Guy Reshef and Hezi Bilik and from Israel Water Authority;

Ariel Cohen and Hillel Glazman from Nature Parks Authority;

Dr. Lior Asaf, Ecolog Engineering LTD; and

Joon Zilberman, Guiding Service of the Israeli Ministry of Agriculture.

PROTEC TING GROUNDWATER | 3

From Palestine:Dr. Shaddad Attilli Former minister of Water Authority, and President Advisor for Water Affairs.

Dr. Mohamed Hmeidi, Former General Director of Palesitinian Quality Authority

Muath Abu-Sadah, Hydro- Engineering Consultancy; and to Eng. Adel Yasin, Dr. Amer Kanan, Dr. Rashed Al-Sa’ed Mr. Younis Eisa Rjoub and Ghassan Naem Al-Shakhshir

From Spain:José Antonio Zuazo Osinaga and Alberto Jiménez Madrid, from CRN S.A Consultores;

Francisco Zurita Escobar from Provincial Consortium for Solid Waste Management of the Prov-ince Malaga ;

José Luis Ríos Aragüez from Provincial Consortium for Integrated Water Management of the Province of Malaga

PGW team deeply thanks also to Gidon Bromberg, Nader Khatib and Munqeth Mehyar, EcoPeace Directors, Carlos María Conde O’Donnel, Deputy Delegate of the Presidency of Malaga County Council; Marina Bravo Casero, Deputy of Environment and Sustainability and Sonia Gallo San-chez, Head of Section of European Resources in Malaga County Council; and to all the office staff and the Community Coordinators of ‘Good Water Neighbors’; Their good will and help along the way made (and will make) this project output real on the ground beyond the plans on papers.

Many thanks also to the interns who helped us to develop and produce the project in different stages – Dr. Yael Kiro, Ms. Adi Tovi, Ms. Lena Siedentop, Ms. Lina Tamimi, Ms. Sierra Ramirez, Dani-ella Aboody, Scalet Pesch, Antonella Ballarini and Kriszta Va’lyi.

Many thanks to the conference and study tours translators Shadia Sbeit, Alon Romled and Walid Majadla.

Last, but not least, we want to thank all the mayors and the staff of the municipalities who took an active participatory role in PGW. Your cooperation along the way in the tense and complex political atmosphere we live in is indeed remarkable and appreciated. The “ball is now in your court” - to implement and strengthen the capabilities, the knowledge and the connections you have gained.


Contents

Abbreviations and Professional Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

I. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Protecting Groundwater Project Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7State of Groundwater in the four Project Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

II. Vulnerability Assessment and Quantification of Hazards risk Methodologies . . . . . . . . . 12

Vulnerability Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12DRASTIC Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12COP Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13COST Action 620: Adding the K factor to the COP Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13PI Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Determination of the P factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Determination of the I factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Hazard assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Risks Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

III. Summaries of Groundwater Hazard Audit Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Common challenges across the Mediterranean: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Jordan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Industrial Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Urban Hazards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Agricultural Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Recommendations for Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Spain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Palestine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Domestic/Municipal hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Industrial hazards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Recommendations and steps for improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

IV. Hazard Reduction and Prevention Guidelines and Implementation Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Steps of Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Jordan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Palestine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Malaga, Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

V. The Municipalities’ Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Training courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381. Introduction to GIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382. Location-Specific Water Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403. Hazard Reduction and Prevention Guidelines: Management and Implementation . . 404. Practical Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Study Tours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Public Events, MoU Signing Ceremonies and International Conferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48


Abbreviations and Professional Terms

Aeration (oxidation) ponds – Aerobic bodies of water usually 1–2 meters in depth that receive effluent from sedimentation tanks or other forms of primary treatment. Dominated by algae. (link to Wikipedia);

Aquifer - Extractable groundwater body. Water-bearing rock from which groundwater can be extracted using water wells. (Wikipedia article)

Catchment area – an extent or an area of land where surface water from rain, melting snow, or ice converges to a single point at a lower elevation (Wikipedia article)

Cesspit – a pit, conservancy tank, or covered cistern which can be used to dispose of urine and feces and more generally of all sewage and refuse. (Wikipedia article)

Constructed Wetland – an artificial wetland created as a new or restored habitat, in this case for treatment of anthropogenic discharge such as wastewater or partially treated sewage or storm-water runoff. (Wikipedia article)

EcoPeace Middle East, formerly EcoPeace / Friends of the Earth Middle East (FoEME), is an ex-ceptional organization that brings together Jordanian, Palestinian, and Israeli environmentalists to protect their shared environmental heritage. It has offices in Amman, Bethlehem, and Tel-Aviv.

EU – European Union.

Geographic Information System (GIS) – An information system to record, store, manipulate, analyze, manage, and present spatial and/or geographical data. (Wikipedia article)

Hazard Audit Report - The product of the systematic and critical assessment of hazards in the municipality area.

Karst - A landscape formed from the dissolution of soluble rocks such as limestone, dolomite, and gypsum. It is characterized by underground drainage systems with sinkholes, dolines, and caves. Karst formations have high rates of permeability, resulting in reduced opportunity for groundwater contaminants to be filtered. Groundwater in karst areas is just as easily polluted as surface streams. (Wikipedia article).

Log Frame Analysis (LFA) - The strategic action plans for groundwater protection were pre-pared by using the logical frame approach, which is an analytical process and set of tools used to support project planning and management. (Wikipedia article)

Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) - a bilateral or multilateral agreement between two or more parties. It expresses a convergence of will between the parties, indicating an intended common line of action.)

Non-governmental organization (NGO) – an organization that is neither a part of a govern-ment nor a conventional for-profit business. (Wikipedia article)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_aeration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquifer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drainage_basin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesspit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructed_wetland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographic_information_system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karst

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_framework_approach

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-governmental_organization


Protecting Groundwater (PGW) project – A project for protecting groundwater in the Medi-terranean Basin which was established in 2011 by EcoPeace and the province of Malaga, Spain. The project is funded by the European Commission’s ENPI (European Neighborhood and Part-nership Instrument). The project aims to promote sustainable management of water resources and alleviate pollution of groundwater in the Mediterranean Basin.

Recharge area - the surface area which contributes to the replenishment of a specific aquifer/ groundwater body. (The area from which rain, snow and irrigation water will infiltrate to an aqui-fer).

Risk Assessment Map – visualizes the risk of groundwater contamination dependent upon the hazard characteristics and the nature of the pathway to the groundwater. It is the overlay of vul-nerability and hazard maps (see Chapter II).

Sanitary wastewater – Domestic wastewater.

Septic tank - A key component of the septic system, a small-scale sewage treatment system, which is common in areas with no connection to public sewage system (pipes and WWTP). It generally consists of a tank connected to an inlet wastewater pipe at one end and a septic drain field at the other; or the effluents in the septic are pumped or drained through pipes to the clos-est WWTP. The term “septic” refers to the anaerobic bacterial environment that develops in the tank, which decomposes or mineralizes the waste discharged into the tank. (Wikipedia article)

Source protection - Protection of water sources.

SPNI – Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel.

Terms of Reference (ToR): a document which describes the purpose and structure of a project.

Sustainable agriculture – farming using principles of ecology, the study of relationships be-tween organisms and their environment. It has been defined as an integrated system of plant and animal production practices having a site-specific application that will last over the long term. (Wikipedia article)

Wadi – Channel or canyon of a seasonal stream (term used in Arabic and Hebrew). (Wikipedia article)

WEDO - Water and Environment Development Organization; Palestinian NGO.

Wellhead - Location of a pumping well.

Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) – an industrial structure designed to remove biological or chemical waste products from water, thereby permitting the treated water to be used for other purposes. (Wikipedia article)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septic_tank

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_agriculture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wastewater_treatment_plant/


I. Introduction

Protecting Groundwater Project OverviewGroundwater is the world’s most important source of freshwater, constituting 97% of the Earth’s freshwater reserves. However, in the Mediterranean Region, groundwater quality along the Med-iterranean Basin severely suffers from human-induced pollution, endangering aquifers and the many communities dependent upon the trans-boundary water source. The pollution stems from a number of sources, including industrial agriculture discharges, solid waste, insufficient sewage fa-cilities, and untreated wastewater. The fundamental problem is the lack of awareness and capacity to combat groundwater pollution. In order to ensure this resource for current inhabitants as well as future generations, it is imperative to empower the municipal governments to take the necessary, proactive measures to protect and improve their groundwater conditions.

EcoPeace’s “Protecting Groundwater Project” aimed to promote sustainable management of wa-ter resources and to alleviate pollution of groundwater in the Mediterranean Basin. The project concentrated on four regions: Israel, Palestinian Authority, Jordan and Malaga, Spain. A total of 30 municipalities from these four regions were selected to participate in the pilot project. While each of the four regions has its own specific environmental challenges related to groundwater pollution and sustainable management, there are also a number of shared challenges as well.

Objectives:c Promote sustainable water resources management in the Mediterranean Basin and alleviate

groundwater pollution.

c Provide local authorities of Mediterranean municipalities with the technical and administrative skills to alleviate sources of groundwater pollution in their jurisdiction.

c Enhance cooperation and build a cross border network of municipal staff along the Mediter-ranean Basin who can share knowledge and experiences on the protection and management of natural groundwater sources.

c Promote municipalities’ commitment to improve their environmental practices and performance.

Activities:c Joint training programs and courses for local authorities, staff and volunteers were held on the

following subjects:

- Using GIS (Geographical Information Systems)

- Hazard Reduction and Prevention by local enforcement of environmental laws and by following state-of-the-art planning practices

- Geohydrology and groundwater sensitivity.

- Safe reuse of treated water

- Guidelines for ecological agricultural practices.


c Teams of municipal staff from the 30 participating municipalities came together for joint study tours and workshops to present relevant environmental problems in each location, and dis-cussed activities for alleviation of mutual environmental hazards

c Promoted and launched joint awareness campaigns on common challenges regarding ground-water pollution across the Mediterranean Basin.

c Use GIS to map and monitor groundwater sensitivity, including pollution levels, hazards and risks as instruments to support decision makers.

Results:c Interactive GIS maps of hazards and pollution

c Spatial hydrological model calculating the expected risk to groundwater from different hazards in watersheds

c Hazard Reduction and Prevention Guidelines

c Trained municipal workers

c Cooperative Mediterranean Network of skilled municipal workers

c 30 Municipal Hazard Audit Reports

c 30 Implementation Plans

c Increase in public awareness and capacity for improvement

Final Beneficiaries:c Local populations from the 30 participating municipalities (1,480,000 residents)

c All other residents in Israel, Jordan, Palestinian Authority and Spain who consume water from the same water sources

State of Groundwater in the four Project Areas:In the cases of Israel and Palestine, their challenges overlap because of their shared trans-bound-ary freshwater source, the Mount Aquifer, which lies beneath the West Bank and Israel. For Pal-estinians in the West Bank, the only reliable source of water comes from the Mount Aquifer. It is the best and most important source of freshwater for both Palestinians and Israelis, but it is the only source of water for Palestinian communities. However, this invaluable groundwater source is exploited; Israel takes 80% of that freshwater source, and leaves the Palestinians of the West Bank the remaining 20%. Moreover, the Mount Aquifer is also a carbonate aquifer, meaning it is vulnerable to pollution hazards, and suffers from untreated wastewater discharges. Therefore, Palestinian communities of the West Bank do not have equitable access to freshwater, and the water that they do have is polluted.

In the case of Jordan, communities in the Jordan Valley completely lack sewage treatment facili-ties. The municipalities are among the poorest in the country and have very limited resources to develop and maintain basic services for local communities. Additionally, contamination from cesspits, unregulated gasoline dumping, untreated domestic and industrial sewage, and other

http://foeme.org/www/?module=projects&record_id=227


sources seep into the groundwater. This contaminated water subsequent-ly flows into and pollutes the Jordan River and the Dead Sea. This cesspit pollution is occurring in communities in Palestine and Israel, as well.

Across the Mediterranean Basin in Malaga, Spain, the main source of aquifer pollution stems from indus-trial agriculture and animal farming. Huge discharges of fertilizers, pesti-cides, and livestock generate waste that leaks nitrates, sulfates and toxic organic matter into the municipal wa-ter supply.

The study area of the project is the region of Antequera, in the northern province of Malaga. Antequera has an abundance of underground mountain aquifers, primarily limestone (karst) and carbonate aquifers, which have high vulnerability to pollution. The surrounding flat areas are used for agricultural land and are made up of detritus aquifers. These participating munici-palities face great risks because they are exclusively dependent on groundwater, and have, on some occasions, experienced groundwater quality problems that impact human drinking water. Moreover, although the region is rich in underground water aquifers, it frequently experiences severe droughts, which negatively impacts the groundwater levels and quality. Thus, this pre-cious water source is at risk of pollution, and therefore must be managed and protected in order to ensure its sustainability.

Picture 1: Protecting Ground Water conference in Malaga County, October 2013

http://foeme.org/uploads/Presentation_Study_Area_PGW_en.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antequera


HaifaNazareth

Bethlehem

Beir Sheva

Gaza

Amman

Muqata/Kishon RiverWadi Hadera

Wadi Abu NarWadi Alexander

Yarkon River Wadi Kane

Tel aviv

Wadi Beer Sheva

Yarmuch River

Wadi Harod Wadi Ziglab

Wadi FaraWadi Zarka

Wadi Auja

Wadi Qelt

Wadi Nar/Kidron

Jord

an R

iver

Sea

of

Galil

ee

Communities that participated in Protecting Ground Water

Jordan

Palestine

Nablus

Legend

Wadi Zomar

Wadi Heb

ronWadi Azza

Jordan Valley

Beit Shan

Gilboa

Baka Gharbia-Jat

Menashe

Emek Hefer

Muaz Bin Jabal

Khaled ben Waleed

Tabkat Fahal

Sharhabil bin Hassnah

Jalameh, Jenin

Baka Sharkia

Fasayel

Jericho

Auja

Deir Alla

South Shouna

JerusalemMate Yehuda

Bet ShemashWadi Fukin

Yatta

South GhourTamar

Israel

Mountain Aquifer – Recharge Zone

Coastal Aquifer

Jordan River – Dead Sea Basin

Lake

Stream/River

Israeli Communities

Palestinian Communities

Jordanian Communities

Dea

d Se

a

Figure 1: Israeli, Palestinian and Jordanian Municipalities, which participated in PGW Project, on the map of major aquifers and watersheds.


Figure 2: Map of the participating municipalities in Malaga Province (a) and map of groundwater basins in the region (b)


II. Vulnerability Assessment and Quanti-fication of Hazards Risk Methodologies

Vulnerability Assessment:Groundwater vulnerability, or the probability of contamination, as well as the increase in pol-lution sources, poses extreme risks to both the environment and the communities, which de-pend on this important drinking water source. Karst aquifers (groundwater in soluble rocks) are among the most important resources of drinking water supply for populations worldwide, but at the same time they are the most vulnerable to contamination. There are a number of methods that have been developed to identify and assess vulnerability and risks for groundwater pollu-tion in general and specifically for karst aquifers.

Groundwater risk assessment via aquifer vulnerability maps is supported by Geographic In-formation System (GIS). We use the GIS interface to ‘weigh’ and rank risks for pollution in the groundwater aquifer system, and its dispersion in the water body. The methodology for vulner-ability mapping that we employ is rooted in the European COST Action 620 framework. This methodology includes the ‘COP method’, which is an integrated method, particularly focused on intrinsic vulnerability of carbonate (karst) aquifers, as well as the complimentary ‘PI Method,’ a broader, non-prescriptive method that can be applied to all types of aquifers, but also provides special tools for karst aquifers. In addition, for the municipalities with a larger area, we draw on the traditional methodology of DRASTIC, since the COP and PI methods need very detailed in-formation on the geology and hydrology, which weren’t available for most locations, and it was impossible to explore them with the PGW project resources.

For further illustrations and explanations in Spanish watch this presentation.

DRASTIC MethodDRASTIC, developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, is an overlay and index methodology that systematically evaluates the potential for groundwater pollution using hydrogeological parameters and provides general and relative grade of groundwater vulnerabil-ity. This method does not require extensive, site-specific pollution data; rather, it is a GIS-based method that operates by gathering and combining maps of the geological and hydrogeological conditions that affect the contaminants’ journey from the surface to the groundwater source. The parameters that DRASTIC considers are: Depth of groundwater (D), net Recharge (R), Aqui-fer media (A), Soil media (S), Topography (T), Impact of the vadose (unsaturated) zone (I), and hydraulical Conductivity (C). These parameters are then rated and weighted according to their relative importance to potential contamination; an index value is assigned to those parameters, resulting in a spatially oriented vulnerability index (Shirazi et al., 2012).

The DRASTIC method is based on the following six key assumptions: contamination occurs at the ground surface; the contamination enters the aquifer when rain falls on the surface and percolates into the saturated zone; contamination and water travel together and at the same

http://foeme.org/uploads/Vulnerability_map_risk_assessment_Antequera.pdf


rate; the method is applied to an area not larger than 100 acres; the aquifer is unconfined; the dominant pollutants are not pesticides (Asaf et al., 2012).

In the PGW project we used the DRASTIC to map the vulnerability of groundwater in the larger area of the Regional Councils in Israel, in Malaga County (CRN, 2013) and in the entire Jordan valley in Jordan (Talozi and Hijazi, 2013). For further illustrations, explanations and results of the DRASTIC in Israel watch this English presentation or the full report (in Hebrew), or this Spanish presentation for the ground water vulnerability mapping in Malaga county.

COP MethodIn evaluating the vulnerability of groundwater, the COP method uses the parameters of: overlay-ing layers above the water table (O factor), the concentration of flow (C factor) and precipitation over the aquifer (P factor). The COP method multiplies these factors together to build the index, seen in the following equation:

COP Index= C x O x P

The C and P factors are used to modify the degree of protection provided by the overlying layers, which include all anthropogenic hazards (the O factor). While the O and P factors can be applied to any aquifer, the C factor considers the unique characteristics of the carbonate (karst) aquifer. Thus, the COP method with the COST Action 620 framework provides detailed guidelines, tables and formulae for groundwater vulnerability mapping and risk assessment and provides a practi-cal and useful tool for decision makers to implement groundwater protection plans (Vías et al., 2006).

COST Action 620: Adding the K factor to the COP MethodThis Pan-European framework was developed and implemented from 1997-2003 by the Euro-pean COST Action 620 (Cooperation in Science and Technology) project. They developed more integrated, comprehensive groundwater vulnerability and risk assessment to Karst aquifers. The COP method was extended to include the Karst network development in the saturated zone (K factor), in order to integrate more karst characteristics. In turn, karst groundwater protection can be incorporated into land and water resource management. The COST-620 framework is a useful and practical model because it is applicable to karst aquifers in various climatic zones in Europe and the Mediterranean. In this method, there are four factors to assess intrinsic vulnerability and the risk to groundwater source: Overlying layers (O), Concentration of flow (C), Precipita-tion regime (P) and Karst network development (K) (Zwahlen, 2003). Furthermore, the expanded COP assessment also considers the groundwater flow path, which includes travel time (t factor), connection and contribution to the source (r factor), and active conduit or fissured network (n factor). By incorporating this information into the GIS model, ground water source vulnerability and risk maps are obtained which can be used as a foundation for other similar cases. (Vías et al., 2008).

Additionally, the COST-620 framework is based on the origin-pathway-target model (Figure 1), which applies to both groundwater research and water source protection. ‘Origin’ is the loca-tion where the contaminant is released, ‘target’ is the water source, and the ‘pathway’ includes everything between the origin and the target. The ‘1st pathway’ is the passage through the over-lying, unsaturated “protective” layers, while the ‘2nd pathway’ is the passage through the aquifer

http://foeme.org/uploads/13871179361~%5E$%5E~ECOLOG_Model_Description.pdf

http://foeme.org/uploads/14163061790~%5E$%5E~Hydro_audit%20report_phase%203_Malaga.pdf

http://foeme.org/uploads/PGW_Jordan_Audit_Report.pdf

http://foeme.org/uploads/DRASTIC_Menashe.pdf





saturated zone. For the water re-source protection, the pathway is mainly vertical passage within the “protective” cover, and for source protection it also includes horizontal flow within the aqui-fer. This flow of contamination is displayed in Figure 1.

Figure 3: Origin-pathway-target conceptual model of the COST Action 620 (Source: Adapted from COST Action 620 final report, Zwahlen, 2003).

In the PGW project this method was used in the Palestinian Authority and in Malaga County as it enabled more detailed mapping of the communities with smaller area. In Israel and Jordan we used the DRASTIC method to map the intrinsic vulnerability of groundwater, and incorporated it to the COST-620 framework of groundwater risk assessment.

PI MethodCOST Action 620 proposes the use of the PI method, a GIS-based approach to mapping intrinsic groundwater vulnerability. Protective cover (P) and Infiltration conditions (I), or PI, is a broader, non-prescriptive method of vulnerability mapping that can be applied to all types of aquifers, but also provides special tools for karst aquifers (Goldscheider, 2005). This study operates under the PI method for four main reasons: First, there are intermediate conditions between purely fractured and extremely karst carbonate aquifers; Second, there are transitional forms between granular and karst aquifers; Third, there are several types of aquifers in one area; Finally, land-use planners and regional decision makers are more likely to apply methods that are relevant to all types of aquifers.

The PI methodology is illustrated in Figure 4. The P factor describes the infiltration through the protective cover of the layers between the ground surface and the groundwater table. The pro-tective layers range from soil, subsoil, non-karst rock and unsaturated karst rock. The I factor describes the infiltration conditions, particularly the degree to which the protective cover is by-passed as a result of lateral surface and subsurface flow in the catchments of sink holes and sink-ing streams. A cross section distribution of both the P and I factors is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 4: Illustration of the PI method. The “protective cover” is divided into: Soil (1), Subsoil (the lithosol, 2), Non-karstic rock (3) and Unsatu-rated karstic rock (4); (Source: Adapted from COST Action 620 final report, Zwahlen, 2003).


𝑃𝑃𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 = [𝑇𝑇 +∑(𝑆𝑆𝑖𝑖 × 𝑀𝑀𝑖𝑖)𝑚𝑚

𝑖𝑖=1+∑(𝐿𝐿𝑗𝑗 × 𝐹𝐹𝑗𝑗 ×𝑀𝑀𝑗𝑗)

𝑛𝑛

𝑗𝑗=1] × 𝑅𝑅 + 𝐴𝐴

Therefore, the PI vulnerability map is the final overlaid output of the P map and I map. It dem-onstrates the level of vulnerability in relation to both the aquifer’s natural protection (to direct/diffuse infiltration) and the risk of bypass infiltration. The map classifies the area into five vulner-ability levels: Extreme, High, Moderate, Low and Very Low based on the value of π (Table 1). It shows the spatial distribution of the protection factor π, which is obtained by multiplying the P and I factors: π = P x I

Where:c P Factor: the effectiveness of the protective covers above the groundwater table.

c I Factor: reduction of the protection cover by the bypassing flow.

Color Vulnerability Map (Vulner-ability of GW)

P-Map (Protection Cover) I-Map (Degree of Bypassing)

Description π-Factor Description P-Factor Description I-FactorExtreme 0-1 Very low 1 Very high 0.0 – 0.2High >1-2 Low 2 High 0.4Moderate >2-3 Moderate 3 Moderate 0.6Low >3-4 High 4 Low 0.8Very low >4-5 Very high 5 Very low 1.0

Table 1: Vulnerability levels the final grading level according to the PI Method

Determination of the P factorThe P factor is a function of soil field capacity, subsoil type and thickness, lithology, fracturing, recharge and artesian condition of the aquifer. The P factor indicates the effectiveness of the pro-tective cover; it is calculated based on a modified version of COST Action 620 method (Zwahlen, 2003)

COST Action 620 has developed a clear, step-by-step method to determine the P factor. A nu-merical value is assigned to each top-soil based on the field capacity measurement of the top 1 meter of the soil. The subsoil type value is assigned based on grain size distribution. The score for bedrock is given depending on the type of rock and fracture development. An additional recharge score is based on the recharge conditions. The scores for the subsoil and the bed-rock are multiplied by the respective thickness in meters (factor M). Finally, the score for the total effectiveness of the protective cover PTS is calculated according to the following formula:

Where:T: Topsoil Factor

S: subsoil factor

M: Unsaturated thickness (summation used when unsaturated formation is more than one formation)

L: Lithology factor

F: Fracturing factor

R: Recharge factor

A: Artesian pressure factor


Determination of the I factorInfiltration conditions (I factor) describe the degree to which the protective cover is bypassed as a result of lateral, surface and subsurface concentration of flow, especially within the catch-ment area of a sinking stream. The ‘I factor’ expresses the estimated direct infiltration relative to surface and lateral subsurface flow.

The ‘I factor’ is determined by soil properties, slope and vegetation. The dominant flow is deter-mined based on the saturated hydraulic conductivities of soils and the thickness of soil layer. There are approximately six dominant flow types identified for ‘I factor’ determination: Saturated surface flow (Type A), Very fast subsurface storm flow (Type B), Fast subsurface storm flow (Type C), Infiltration and subsequent percolation (Type D), Hortonian surface flow rarely occurring only during extreme storm rainfall (Type E) and Hortonian surface flow frequently occurring also during low intensity precipitation (Type F). However, when there is insufficient data of the soil parameters, COST Action 620 recommends only using surface flow, subsurface flow and infiltra-tion conditions from geological and soil type conditions. .

The primary ‘I factor’ is then determined by the dominant flow type, slope of the area, vegetation and land use types. Surface catchment areas of sinking streams disappear into a sink hole and buffer zones of 10 m and 100 m on both sides of the designated sinking streams. The ‘I factor’ map shows the degree to which the protective cover is bypassed by lateral flow, surface and subsurface.

The PI (factor π) vulnerability map shows the spatial distribution of the intrinsic vulnerability or the natural protection of the upper (the unsaturated) part of the aquifer. According to COST Action 620’s classifications of vulnerability using the PI method, the π factor ranges between 0 and 5. The high values represent a high degree of natural protection and low vulnerability, and the low values represent lowest degree of natural protection and high vulnerability. The areas on each of the P, I, and PI maps are assigned to one of five classes, and symbolized by five colors: from red for extreme to blue for very low (see Table 1).

Hazard assessmentAccording to COST Action 620, hazard is defined as a potential source of contamination resulting from human activities taking place mainly at the land surface. Groundwater pollution hazards could be natural or anthropogenic (human-induced). Examples of hazards include: saltwater intrusion as result of aquifer over-yield, natural leaching from natural deposits. Anthropogenic groundwater contamination hazards can be related to waste disposal such as: leakages from sewage disposal systems, land disposal of solid waste, malfunctioning of municipal wastewater treatment facilities and inappropriate spreading of sludge. Hazards that are not directly related to waste disposal could be: contaminated runoff from roads or industrial sites, accidents, min-ing and excavation and different agricultural activities, such as over-fertilizations and leaches of herbicides and pesticides.

A hazard assessment considers the potential degree of harmfulness for each type of hazard. It is determined by the toxicity and the quantity of harmful substances, which may be released as a result of a contamination event. Hazards can be point-like, linear or areal in dimension. The


difference between these types of hazards is a matter of mapping scale. The COST 620 frame-work also proposes the inventory of various hazards that are considered relevant to groundwa-ter through reasonable categories and subdivisions within them (link). Then mapping, evalua-tion and assessment of the hazards in an economically feasible and practical manner (Zwahlen, 2003). This criterion can provide the opportunity to locate the different hazards on maps, and thus allow for the hazard information to be integrated with other spatially distributed data, such as the hydrogeological properties of the underlying rock sequence.

The Hazard Index (HI), which describes the degree of the harmfulness of the substances, is cal-culated by the following equation:

HI = H x Qn x Rf

Where:

Hazard Index (HI): the possible range of the hazard index is from 0 to 120 scores. For the sub-sequent interpretation of the hazard index values, a subdivision of six classes is recommended, according to the method as seen in Table 2.

Hazard Index Hazard Index Class Hazard Level Color0 - 24 1 No or very low Blue> 24 – 48 2 Low Green> 48 – 72 3 Moderate Yellow> 72 – 96 4 High Orange> 96 - 120 5 Very high Red

Table 2: Hazard Index and Hazard Index Classes

Hazard to groundwater (H): COST Action 620 has developed criteria for weighting different hazards based on the toxicity of relevant substances associated with each type and category of hazards, as well as their properties regarding solubility and mobility. They determine the weight-ing coefficient or the “harmfulness of a hazard to groundwater (H)”. H value ranges from 10 (low-est hazard) to 100 (highest hazard; link).

Hazard ranking (Qn): The hazardous substances involved within each individual category can vary. Therefore the differences in harmfulness within each hazard category are primarily due to the variable quantity (Qn) of harmful substances, which can be released and further seep into the underground. Therefore, a ranking value between 0.8 and 1.2 is recommended in order to maintain a fair balance with the average weighting values. Depending on the amount of the hazards 0.8 is for low, 1.0 for medium and 1.2 for high hazards, in PGW hazards assessment meth-odology we modified the grading of this factor to 1-10 scale (link).

Reduction factor (Rf): Aside from the type and amount of hazards, a reduction factor (Rf ) is also developed, to include the impact of measures, which were introduced to prevent leakage of pol-lution to the ground. The reduction factor ranges from 1 to 0. In a situation where the value is set to zero, there is no risk of leakage to the groundwater, while a factor of 1 means that there are no measures or reasons known to reduce the likelihood of leakage to the groundwater (in PGW we reset this factor to grades between 0.2 and 2(link).

http://foeme.org/uploads/Hazards_Weight_Table.pdf





Risks AssessmentsThe pollution risk can be predicted by preparing a Risk Assessment Map, which is created by overlying the Vulnerability (π) and Hazard Index maps (multiplying the two sub-final factors in each location). The output described the risk of groundwater contamination dependent upon the hazard characteristics and the nature of the pathway to the groundwater. The risk assess-ment grading takes into account the classes of the vulnerability and hazard indices, as seen in Table 3.

π- factor HI 1/HI π *(1/HI) Risk Class Risk Level Color4-5 0-24 > 0.042 > 0.167 1 No or very low Blue3-4 24-48 0.042-0.021 0.167-0.063 2 Low Green2-3 48-72 0.021-0.014 0.063-0.028 3 Moderate Yellow1-2 72-96 0.014-0.010 0.028-0.010 4 High Orange0-1 96-120 < 0.010 < 0.010 5 Very high Red

Table 3: Classification of the risk for contamination of ground water source by integrating the classes of the vulnerability and the hazard maps to one incorporated risk scaling

For further illustrations and explanations in Spanish watch this presentation.

Example of groundwater vulnerability, hazards and risk mapping in the Jordan Valley; Dr. Samer Talozi, 2013



III. Summaries of Groundwater Hazard Audit Reports

Common challenges across the Mediterranean: The contamination of groundwater, which is a principal source of drinking water, is a serious health and environmental problem in many areas of the world. The quality of groundwater in the four project areas of Israel, Palestine, Jordan and Spain, is increasingly under threat due to human-induced pollution. Although the 30 participating municipalities all experience different challenges and hazards to their precious resource, there are nevertheless a number of overlap-ping issues that impact all four regions.

The common sources of pollution hazards threatening groundwater in the four regions stem from industrial, agricultural and urban activities. Most, if not all of the participating municipali-ties, are in rural areas and comprised of farming communities. The widespread agricultural prac-tices include using fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation with treated wastewater1, as well as produc-ing large amounts of livestock waste. These pollutants, most of which are toxic, then seep into the water streams and aquifers and contaminate the groundwater. Another common threat in these Mediterranean Basin agricultural municipalities is waste from olive mills. Although this waste is organic, it is nonetheless toxic, and when it reaches its way into the aquifers it severely impacts the water quality. Additionally, even within these rural municipalities, there is a great deal of industrial and urban waste as well. The bulk of the industrial and urban contamination is rooted in insufficient sewage infrastructure, the mismanagement of untreated wastewater and excessive solid waste.

Overall, on a small scale, many municipalities have had a number of successes in reducing and preventing groundwater pollution. Some successes include advancements in national authori-ties and institutions, (such as the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Inspection and the Ministry of Agriculture) in their efforts to bring change and better regulations that ensure groundwater safety. However, there is still great room for improvement and progress in enforc-ing and abiding by environmental laws and standards, and in creating managerial positions in the local municipal governments to guarantee the reduction and prevention of groundwater pollution. Additionally, it is imperative to invest in proper infrastructure, namely a proper sew-age network and better Waste Water Facilities (WWT) in order to prevent further pollution.

1 Irrigation with treated wastewater is a safe practice if the sewage is sufficiently treated according to the public health recommendations and regulations. The regulation should be specified to the different crops and according to the vul-nerability of the closest water resource (including groundwater).


Figure 6: Current state of Nitrate concentration in Emek Hefer a central agricultural and populated valley in Israel

JordanAlthough the overall identified hazard levels in the Jordan Valley are moderate to low, it is cru-cial to take notice of the extreme vulnerability of groundwater pollution on a municipal level. There is limited fresh and clean water availability throughout all of Jordan, and especially in the participating municipalities, due to increasing pollution levels due to industrial, agricultural and urban activities. This is an urgent problem that must be addressed at the local level because the Jordan Valley is a rural area with many small towns and villages, so change must happen on a smaller, municipal scale.

Industrial Hazards:Although the East Jordan River Valley is predominantly a subsistent agricultural area, there are a number of large-scale industries that contribute to groundwater pollution. The main sources of industrial hazards in this region stem from: automotive service shops, tiles and marble plants, gasoline stations, animal slaughter shops, and solid waste stations.

Within automotive shops, there is both solid and liquid waste. There is also solid waste, which is either transported as solid waste (50%) or sold to recycling companies (50%). The liquid waste is divided into oils and water. The oils are collected from the shops, but the contaminated water flows into the streets or nearby Wadis, or is collected in cesspits with earth floors and concrete walls.

There are 12 tile and marble plants in the region, and they too generate both solid and liquid waste. The solid waste from these plants is twofold: cement paper bags and dried limes (locally


known as Kamakh). Cement paper bags are either burned or transferred as solid waste, and Kamakh is collected and transferred to an undisclosed final destination. However, some plants have indicated that this portion ends up flowing into side Wadis. The liquid waste is a mix of wa-ter and lime. This liquid waste is collected in cesspits or ponds to allow water to evaporate and/or percolate into groundwater.

The total number of gasoline stations surveyed in the study is 13. Only a few of them reported solid waste consisting of empty plastic bottles, which are transferred as solid waste. The liquid waste reported consists of different types of gasoline that spill on the surface of the station during operation. No protection measures exist for this portion of liquid waste. Most of it runs off during rain events into the streets and eventually into side Wadis. No information has been collected so far about the age, number and design of ground storage tanks. However, all these stations are licensed through the appropriate authorities and there is no reason to believe that there are differences in the standards followed in the design and installation of tanks.

29 animal slaughter shops, were monitored in this study. The municipalities’ staff viewed their waste as a major pollution source. All of these shops, with the exception of the two large-scale operations, are small-scale privately owned shops. Solid waste generated from these facilities is transferred to the solid waste station (90%), or sold to be re-used or burned (10%). Liquid waste consists mainly of water and blood, and for the most part is collected in cesspits and later on transferred to various destinations.

Urban Hazards:Residential solid waste is collected by municipalities and transferred to two landfills in the Jor-dan Valley. A landfill is an establishment that receives, transfers, presses, and stores underground solid waste. The first landfill is in the municipality of Muath Bin Jabal, and the second is in the municipality of Deir Alla. Both are very large and receive significant loads of solid waste daily. Almost 75% of the waste received is transferred out of the area to the main solid waste station in the governorate of Irbid. What remains is potentially hazardous to groundwater since no pro-tection measures are taken to prevent percolation. Data on any potential inadequate residential solid waste disposal is not available nor is information about the potential collection of waste by municipalities.

Wastewater, or sewage, in the Jordan Valley is collected in cesspits. The frequency of pumping-out of these cesspits also varies from one household to another. According to the conducted surveys, this frequency ranges from a few times per year to one time every several years.

The design of these cesspits varies, but three main types can be identified in Jordan. First, there are cesspits with concrete walls and base, which are fully concrete lined cesspits and are emp-tied frequently and sewage is transferred out of the valley to the nearest wastewater treatment plant. Households and communities use this method, and present a low risk to groundwater. Second, there are concrete walls and earth base cesspits, and while this type of cesspit is favored because it requires less pumping out of the sewage, it poses a high risk to groundwater. The third type is no cesspit, which is when households close to a running water source or valleys directly connect its grey-water, or in some cases all of their wastewater, to natural conduits; this poses the highest risk to groundwater quality.


Agricultural HazardsThe risk of groundwater pollution stemming from unsustainable agricultural practices is very high. This contamination is rooted in the heavy use of fertilizers, pesticides and other toxic agro-chemicals. The most prominent agricultural hazard comes from the salinization of water2 and the increase in the use of agrochemicals. Unfortunately, the municipalities have very little involve-ment in the supervision and monitoring of the agricultural sector in the Jordan Valley. Rather, the Ministry of Agriculture is primarily in charge, but lacks the necessary regulation to prevent such hazards from occurring.

IsraelIn the past decade, Israel has seen a number of successes in its efforts to reduce groundwater hazards and pollution. The leading authorities at the forefront of groundwater pollution preven-tion have been the Ministry for Environmental Protection and the Israeli Water Authority, as well as the Ministry of Agriculture. In partnership with the affected communities, they have worked to advance policies and establish adequate infrastructure. One example of this success is the Is-raeli Dairy Farm Reform, in which the State and farmers co-funded environmental infrastructure that prevents pollution that comes from Israeli dairy farms. Within a period of ten years, more than 95% of the dairy farms enacted this reform, and a major source of groundwater pollution was alleviated.

In addition to pollution prevention, there has also been progress in advancing sewage and sani-tary wastewater treatment in Israel. In most of the country, sanitary wastewater is systematically treated and then reused in agriculture. However, in some areas, including municipalities that participated in the Protecting Groundwater Project, sewage is still a substantial polluting agent, and proper infrastructure has not yet been implemented.

Relevant authorities have also been working toward reducing industrial waste. Most industries have pre-treatment facilities and discharge effluents that go into the public sewage system at acceptable pollution loads. Also, industry wastewater is continuously monitored before enter-ing the public system, and in the case of an unacceptable pollution load, the relevant industry is fined by the relevant water treatment cooperation. Additionally, export-oriented Israeli indus-tries have a growing need for international certification (ISO etc.). These certifications subject the industries to strict environmental compliance, and therefore further alleviate the hazard.

Recommendations for Improvement: Despite the number of successes, there is still great need for improvement in protecting ground-water quality in Israel. In order to illustrate the challenges and ways in which to improve, it is best to identify the prevailing hazards in various project communities:

Crop farming: Most of the project municipalities are located in rural areas and have large agri-cultural sectors with substantial financial, cultural and environmental impacts. However, due to the fact that the Dairy Farm Reform dramatically reduced pollution from dairy farms, the envi-

2 Salination of aquifers could arise from excessive exploitation that draws salty water, which is attached to the aquifer. Another source of salts would be the irrigation with treated effluents and/or fresh water, but with higher salts content than in the rainwater. Since irrigation takes place on hot and dry days, the high evaporation rate further increases the salts concentrations, which further leaches to groundwater.


ronmental impact of vegetative agriculture receives almost no attention by the state and local authorities. Over-fertilization - excessive use of pesticides and soil erosion present high pollution risks to streams and groundwater. Additionally, end solutions for different animal waste, for ex-ample composting facilities following the Dairy Farm Reform, are still insufficient in protecting groundwater, as our study explored.

Sewage collection and treatment: Although Israel has advanced knowledge and technology regarding sanitary wastewater treatment, some areas (especially rural areas) still do not have proper infrastructure for efficient wastewater collection and treatment. Some of these areas are in relatively hydrological sensitive areas of the mountain aquifer, for example about 20 of the vil-lages in the Mateh Yehuda municipality. In other rural areas, sewage and polluted effluents are disposed directly to the streams. For instance, the Harod Stream and the Lower Jordan River in the Gilboa and Jordan Valley Regional Councils suffer from sewage and fishpond effluents.

Solid waste and environmental law enforcement: Illegal dumping of solid waste presents a major environmental problem in Israel. Disposal of solid waste through regulated dumping sites is expensive, and therefore there is substantial temptation for illegal dumping. Due to the fact that the Ministry of Environmental Protection Inspection unit has a mere 20 inspectors for the entire country, environmental enforcement is simply inadequate and weak. Even though Israeli law enables municipalities to enforce criminal environmental laws, for various reasons, most local authorities are reluctant to take criminal legal actions against environmental lawbreakers. Thus, in many areas, solid waste presents a major scenic and environmental hazard.

Despite substantial progress in environment regulation and infrastructure in the last decade, there is room for improvement. Pollution sources from sanitary, industrial and agricultural wastes in these areas present immediate threats to groundwater. There are a number of ‘hot spots’ stemming from specific geographic areas and pollution sources that have environmental consequences and impact groundwater. The geographic areas include sensitive locations above the recharge zones of mountain and coastal aquifers. Poorly regulated pollutants also present environmental hot spots. These pollutants include olive mill waste, agro-chemicals, and other industries. Overall, environmental enforcement is weak and must be addressed at both national and local authority levels.

Spain (link to the full Audit report in Spanish)

The study area of the project is the region of Antequera, in the northern province of Malaga. Antequera has an abundance of underground mountain aquifers, primarily limestone (karst) and carbonate aquifers, which have high vulnerability to pollution. The surrounding flat areas are used for agricultural land and are made up of detritus aquifers. These participating munici-palities face great risks because they are exclusively dependent on groundwater, and have, on some occasions, experienced groundwater quality problems that impact human drinking water. Moreover, although the region is rich in underground water aquifers, it frequently experiences severe droughts, which negatively impacts the groundwater levels and quality. Thus, this pre-cious water source is at risk of pollution, and therefore must be managed and protected in order to ensure its sustainability.

In Malaga, local municipalities manage the water supply for their perspective populations. At

http://foeme.org/uploads/Malaga_Summary_Hydrogeological_Consult_Phase1.pdf


a higher level, the River Body is the public administration responsible for water management, both surface and groundwater, of a river a basin (watershed). The River Body depends on the Autonomous Community of Andalucía, which is the regional government, when the river basin body is entirely within their territory, and also depends on the national government when the river basin exceeds the territorial scope of the autonomous region.

In the region of Antequera, their water bodies are divided: part of the water belongs to the Gua-dalquivir River Basin, which is dependent upon the Ministry of the Environment at the National government level, and another section is part of the Andalusian Mediterranean Basin, which is dependent upon the autonomous community of Andalusia. The aquifers of Antequera are considered part of the River Body. In both cases, the River Basin Management Plans have been approved, and they are to be carried out in conjunction with the local Hazard Prevention and Reduction Implementation Plans, which were produced in the PGW project.

Most prominent hazard sources:

c Agricultural activities: pesticides, fertilizers, irrigation practices, increased concentration of ni-trates, phosphates, heavy metals, organic matter, suspended solids

c Livestock production: various livestock (mainly pig) production waste, pollution from nitrogen compounds, heavy metals, chemicals and pharmaceuticals.

c Urban activity: untreated wastewater sewage, uncontrolled dumping of solid waste, cemeter-ies, camping. Urban pollution is associated with high contents of nutrients (N and P), organic matter and microbiologic contamination. The leaching generated by the municipal solid waste is characterized by a high salt content (Na +, NH4

+, Cl-) and heavy metals (Fe and Mn).

c “Natural origin”: salinization of precious aquifers from excessive exploitation draws salty water deposits linked to existing Triassic gypsum in this region.

The effects that these potential groundwater pollution sources have on each municipalities’ ur-ban water supply are very high. According to surveys conducted on the quality of the water supply, in all but one of the selected municipalities, high rates of nitrates, stemming from agri-cultural pollution, was found in their groundwater. In addition to nitrate, other hazards were de-tected: in the municipality of Alamadea, sulfates were detected as a result of ground water over yield by intensive pumping; in Almargen high rates of iron were found stemming from livestock pollution; in Antequra there was isolated bacterial pollution found; and in Archidona, the color of the water suggested unsanitary water.

Currently, despite the decline in the amount of untreated wastewater discharged directly into the public channels, and the many urban and industrial wastewater treatment facilities, there is still a lot to be done. In Antequera, reusing treated wastewater is not a widespread practise, it only occurs in some municipalities through agricultural irrigation practices.

In terms of the municipal solid waste in Malaga, the situation is controlled. There is a center for the treatment of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in the heart of the region, which aims to recycle


urban solid waste as much as possible and to bury the rest in a sanitary manner. The Antequera aquifers are of worse quality than other mountainous carbonate aquifers in the region, and it is fundamental to ensure high quality of these water supplies and keep them safe from harming human-induced activity.

It is crucial to update a detailed inventory of sources of groundwater pollution in the target municipalities. This project aimed to diagnose the quality of groundwater in relation to human activities and land uses developed in their areas of influence. The first objective was to define the vulnerability and risk of pollution of aquifers in each municipality, followed by consultants and responsible officers taking the necessary and possible measures and actions to mitigate and/or avoid the hazard.

Palestine:Palestinian communities face critical issues regarding their water resources. In particular, the lack of sewage network throughout the region leads to huge discharges of wastewater from agricultural, municipal and industrial sectors, posing dangerous threats to groundwater. The six Palestinian municipalities participating in the project are Al Jamaleh, Baqa Al Sharqiya, Fasayel, Al Auja, Wadi Fukin and Yatta. Although each community may experience different specific haz-ards, they all undergo groundwater contamination resulting from agricultural, domestic and in-dustrial sources.

Agriculture is one of the most common sources of livelihood across the six project communi-ties. In the communities of Al Auja, Al Jamalah, and Baqa Al Sharqiya, the majority of the land is dedicated to farming. Agriculture and livestock practices, however, are highly limited due to the fact that there is a finite water supply. The agricultural practices are not limited to rain-fed crops such as olive trees, so they must use irrigation in the many greenhouses. On a number of farms, manure tainted with various chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides is used, which is a potential pollutant to groundwater. In addition to the agriculture, waste from livestock (mainly sheep and chicken farms) contributes to groundwater contamination as well.

Domestic/Municipal hazards: Domestic or municipal hazards include residential waste water systems, municipal waste, fu-els, roads and many other related wastes. Such uncontrolled waste is as source of groundwater pollution. The municipalities, however, do not have proper wastewater collection systems, and therefore wastewater is most likely collected in cesspits, which directly contaminate ground-water. The bulk of groundwater pollution in the community of Fasayel, for example, stems from insufficient municipal wastewater systems.

Industrial hazards:Pollution from industrial activities is relatively minor in all six project communities. Industrial activity in most municipalities is limited to iron and steel works, quarries, stone cuttings and very light industrial activities.


Recommendations and steps for improvement:Municipalities and village councils’ staff and officials are key actors for implementing adapted strategies to reduce groundwater pollution; this can be achieved by improving municipal water services and environmental performance in their jurisdictions. However, raising awareness and promoting municipal staff to improve their technical and administrative skills to reduce envi-ronmental risks is a major challenge. Nevertheless, it is critical to reduce the risk of agricultural, domestic and industrial waste.

There are a number of suggestions on how to achieve this. First, in the agricultural sector, it is necessary to limit and control the quantities of fertilizers and pesticides used. The municipalities must implement solid waste disposal point sources to identify pollutants. Second, each mu-nicipality ought to conduct a regular monitoring service for all domestic wells, perhaps on a monthly basis, in order to ensure that contaminants do not reach the aquifers. Third, establish-ing a main isolated dumping site, in addition to cleaning the existing solid waste dumping sites, is imperative in each municipality in order to reduce the risk of groundwater pollution. Fourth, reducing the runoff generated from the farms can be accomplished by establishing wooded buf-fers, storm water wetlands and terraces to prevent the polluted water from contaminating the streams, and through that by-pass routs risking the aquifers as well.

Pollution to Harod Stream

Sewage Flows from Beitar Ilit to Nahalin

Illegal dumpsite in Auja

Green houses and Fields crops over use of fertilizers and Herbicides can be Potential Hazards to Groundwater


IV. Hazard Reduction and Prevention Guidelines and Implementation Plans

Overview:Along with the Audit Reports, Hazard Reduction and Prevention (HRP) Guidelines were also in-stituted to provide a systematic approach for municipal staff to follow. The aim of the HRP Guide-lines is for the municipalities to better understand and ensure the sustainability of groundwater resources. From the HRP Guidelines, a strategic and detailed Master Implementation Plan (link) has been developed for each project region as a recommended plan of action for each munici-pality.

The objective of the Implementation Plan is to establish a municipal system and institutional interface that will monitor, map and manage the treatment of environmental hazards that en-danger groundwater and water sources. Both the HRP Guidelines and Implementation Plans will be integrated into each of the municipalities and local Councils’ actions.

For those municipalities with existing protocols, these recommendations can be utilized as an-other system of support to guarantee that all groundwater protection issues are covered. For the municipalities that experience an overwhelming amount of groundwater pollution and do not yet have an established system, these guidelines will provide the methodology and tools to help them solve the issues of their groundwater contamination. Finally, this master plan will act as a case study in aiding the development of future local, national and regional protection plans for groundwater.

Steps of ActionThe municipal master plans are rooted in eight foundational action steps:

1. Obtaining profound understanding and up-to-date knowledge of the health risks as well as the social, economic, and environmental importance of preventing groundwater pollution. This was accomplished by conducing two types of surveys:

a. Professional GIS mapping survey based on type of hazards, severity level and the hydro-logical sensitivity.

b. Institutional and legal surveys (national and local) that ‘mapped’ all of the relevant local, regional, provincial and national level units and institutions3 involved in environmental protection, as well as the cross-relations and interconnection (hierarchy) between all of the units.

3 Mainly the governmental agencies, but also included relevant scientific and community institutions such as NGOs and if possible all the major private contractors working for the governmental agency.



2. Attaining advanced monitoring skills for groundwater pollution hazards within the municipal staff, which was accomplished by:

a. Categorizing the types of hazard based on the COST 620 hazard classification methodol-ogy. Establishing computerized tools for prioritizing groundwater hazards based on their category, relative severity, existing protection measures and the relevant hydrological sensitivity of the hazards’ locations. This step included the GIS-based Hydrological Model (see section II, Vulnerability Assessment )

b. Training the relevant municipal staff and local volunteers to improve their knowledge and skills to identify the relative severity and magnitude of ground water hazards, inte-grating GPS and GIS tools to ensure that exact locations that were addressed.

c. Nominating a senior officer in the municipality to be a “Local Chief Inspector,” who is re-sponsible for professional proof of reported hazards and coordinating hazards treatment with other staff and other authorities

d. Establishing internet-based reporting and a coordination system between the “Local Chief Inspector” and 1) the informers and 2) the national and/or provincial government agencies

4. Implementing the municipal frameworks for addressing groundwater pollution hazards and minimizing their risks by:

a. Establishing ‘Red–Alerts’ and ‘Red-Lines’4 protocols to handle different contamination events and to prevent hazards, e.g. wellhead protection plans5.

b. Establishing hazards management protocols (or adopting the existing National or EU en-vironmental safety protocols). Hazards Management protocols include monitoring, in-spections and enforcement schemes and the required equipment

c. Nominating a senior officer as the HRP Manager6, who is responsible for launching and maintaining the HRP Guidelines and conducting a periodical performance report that is to be submitted to the Mayor and to the national or province Ministries (environment and/or water agencies) .

5. Establishing a sustainable municipal framework, which provides long-term alleviation of ground-water pollution, including authorized7 plans to:

a. Purify all polluted wells and springs, or at least prevent the polluted groundwater from traveling and seeping into other parts of the aquifer

b. Establish sewage collection systems; cesspits are unacceptable.

c. Establish sewage treatment plants with tertiary treatment facilities

d. Examine the risks of pharmaceutical pollution, and advance the prevention solutions

e. Increase the use of treated or reused sewage, instead of releasing it to the nearby streams or Wadis

4 or adopting established protocols from the national or EU environmental and water directives e.g. wellhead radius pro-tection plans.

5 land-use planning measures and various environmental protection measures to prevent contamination6 Could be the ‹chief inspector› nominated in step 2d or preferably a different and senior to the chief inspector7 Local/regional plan authorized by the national or province government agencies



f. Remove illegal solid waste dump sites and improve the under-regulated dump site to modern recycling centers with minimal sanitary burial, when recycling is impossible.

g. Identify the best affordable solution for the olive mill and meat industry wastes, as well as other agro-industrial wastes, and build and/or adopt the fiscal plans to implement it

h. Identify all necessary pre-treatment facilities and procedures for industrial wastewater treatment, and build and/or adopt the fiscal plans for implement it

i. Minimize the threats to groundwater from agricultural practices including over-fertiliza-tion, the use of herbicides and pesticides, and animal farming.

j. Cooperatively share all of the plans with the relevant national or province government agencies

k. Integrate GIS into municipal development planning and ensure that groundwater pro-tection is prioritized.

6. Establishing productive cooperation between neighboring municipalities (including cross-na-tional) with the goal to prevent groundwater hazards.

7. Information Sharing: The Implementation Plans encourage transparency. Share environmental information with the public to increase education and awareness; a few suggested practices:

a. Inform the public by providing short periodical reports of pollutions threats, such as:

i. On-going mitigation plansii. Successes in minimized hazards risksiii. Hazard preventions and plans and/or solutions to future threats.

b. Present the information in a visual way using interactive maps as tools.

c. Encourage citizens to inform the authorities on new or unreported hazards.

d. Provide a call number (Red-Line/ e-mail) to the public, and encourage people to use it when it necessary.

8. Secure sustainable financing of the HRP Guidelines

Steps 1 – 4 were completed during the first two years of the PGW project in all of the communi-ties, manifested in the form of audits reports, training sessions, study tours, and launching the PGW-GIS interfaces. However, aspects of these actions have to be revisited or renewed every few weeks or months depending on the measure.

Steps 5 – 8 emphasize the second phase of the HRP Implementation Plans, which focus on the municipal procedures and protocols. These long-term plans include adopting or creating the Environmental Management Protocols and better environmental planning procedures for all types of development, including urban, industrial, agriculture and tourism, in each of the mu-nicipalities.

Overall, these eight action steps have taken effect in each the four project regions. Although each municipality and region experiences different hazards, risks and levels of government and community engagement, they are nevertheless all in the process of carrying out the HRP Guide-






lines and Implementation Plans. Keeping in mind the foundational steps, the report will now provide a more detailed account of what each project region has included in their particular Implementation Plans:

IsraelIn the past decade, Israel has seen a number of successes in its efforts to reduce groundwater hazards and pollution. In the early stages of the project, each of the local authorities imple-mented a system for identification and mapping of environmental hazards using a dedicated GIS interface. Functionaries and volunteers were trained to characterize environmental hazards and operate the GIS mapping scheme. The objective of the Implementation Plan is to establish a municipal system and institutional interface that will monitor, map and manage the treatment of environmental hazards that endanger groundwater and water sources.

Plan ComponentsThe strategic plan for addressing potential groundwater and water source contamination haz-ards consists of two main components. First, the strategic plan procedures determine the work processes and qualification of various functionaries. Second, the plan aims to train volunteers who are involved with the local authority system. In order to ensure uniformity and consistency in the quality of reports, relevant functionaries have been provided with tools, such as ‘Hazards Severity Calculators’ and ‘Hazards Report Cards’; Such tools serve as information upon which the hazards risk database are constructed.

In addition to a consistent database, we have created a file containing all relevant laws and regu-lations that apply to contamination of groundwater and water sources. All information regarding the regulatory bodies involved in treatment of contaminated groundwater and water sources, including contact details, can be found in the document titled “Administrative and Institutional Mapping.”

Definitions of positions and authoritiesa. Senior Manager - A senior employee or elected official of the local authority, who is responsible

for supervising and managing the Groundwater and Water Sources Protection System.

b. Environmental Coordinator - A local authority employee, who is responsible for coordinating the “Protecting Ground Water” GIS interface

c. Inspector - A local authority employee who is certified as an inspector and is qualified to provide services within the framework of the system.

d. Volunteer - Any resident who is qualified to work within the framework of the system.

https://drive.google.com/a/foeme.org/?tab=mo#folders/0B7GXEWxQKEKba0xhYktXM1hldGs

https://drive.google.com/a/foeme.org/?tab=mo#folders/0B7GXEWxQKEKba0xhYktXM1hldGs

https://drive.google.com/a/foeme.org/?tab=mo#folders/0B7GXEWxQKEKbYzl1QUpUZDdaMms

http://foeme.org/uploads/13913642601~%5E$%5E~Institutional_Mapping_Israel_Jan_2014.pdf

http://foeme.org/uploads/13913642601~%5E$%5E~Institutional_Mapping_Israel_Jan_2014.pdf


Generic Procedures:Procedures that are suitable for use by all local authorities following the implementation of par-ticular adjustments based on their specific needs. Listed below is the full list of procedures:

a. The “Qualification of Functionaries and Definition of Means for Implementation Plan”.

b. The “Preparation of Work Plans for Identification of Hazards to Groundwater and Water Source”

c. The “Environmental Coordinator and Inspectors / Volunteers Work Procedures”.

d. The “Sharing of Environmental Information with the General Public Procedure”.

Monthly and yearly work plans:The environmental coordinator, senior manager and inspectors will work together to prepare annual and monthly work plans for identification and reduction of groundwater and water source contaminations:

a. The environmental coordinator and senior manager will collect information regarding future plans for development in areas under control of the authority, and other areas that bear impact on it, from the head of the local authority and other regulatory bodies.

b. The environmental coordinator will identify various problems and obstacles; e.g. areas that are sensitive in terms of national security, areas that are treated by higher offices (Regional Environ-mental Units or National Ministries), areas without physical access, etc.; and will take them into account during the preparation of work plans.

c. All work plans (annual and monthly) will be determined by taking into account areas that show higher hydrological sensitivity.

d. All work plans will be determined by taking into account the planned projects that may influence groundwater and water source contamination (e.g. sewage infrastructure, construction works, road works, etc.).

e. Hazards data will be analyzed and prioritized and management schemes will be determined.

f. Management schemes will be adapted to specific local conditions and may include one or more of the following elements: coordination between relevant authorities, environmental enforce-ment schemes and initiation of infrastructure projects.

g. On the basis of the annual plan, local authority inspectors and the coordinator will work together to prepare the monthly work plans. The coordinator will submit all monthly work plans to the lo-cal authority inspectors.

h. Environmental Forum meetings including all members of the project and representatives from all other related authorities (regulatory bodies) and NGOs (e.g. EcoPeace, SPNI) and local resi-dents will be held at the end of each calendar year. In the discussion, the senior manager and environmental coordinator will review all activities of the previous year: compliance with sched-ules, findings, conclusions, and lessons learned, and will present the new work plan for the com-ing year. The forum also includes a discussion for provision of feedback and ideas. In few munici-palities, the forum meets on 2-3 months frequency, then different environmental problems that need better coordination is discussed to find a comprehensive solution.


JordanThe main goal of the Jordanian Strategic Master Plan (link) is the prevention of human-induced groundwater pollution from industrial, agricultural and urban activities. The Implementation Plan must be in compliance with the existing legislative and regulatory environmental require-ments and protocols, and must provide tools for monitoring and preventing groundwater pol-lution and aim to protect the groundwater resource. However, there are no established proto-cols or specialized units dedicated to addressing these pressing issues. Within the participating municipalities, many are unaware of the relationship between human activities and potential hazards to the groundwater resources. In order to institutionalize groundwater protection in the participating municipalities, it is recommended to establish the following:

a. Red-Line and Red-Alert protocols to manage different types of hazards: the criteria for identifica-tion of Red-Line and Red-Alert situations.

b. Hazard Management Protocols, which will monitor, inspect and enforce hazard reduction plans and financial requirements.

c. Establishment of a Hazards Reduction and Prevention (HRP) Manager position/unit in the mu-nicipalities.

For the existing and planned activities that may have a significant negative impact on ground-water, the following criteria are also suggested:

a. Scale/area of the activity

b. Severity/Hazard Index

c. Probability of its occurrence

d. Duration of the activity

e. Location, including the Ground Water vulnerability and the calculated risk.

Values were assigned for each criterion, and the summary values of them could be considered either as Regular, Red Alert or Red Line. The activities that were identified as Red Line and/or Red Alert require more frequent monitoring and strict enforcement of relevant regulations.

HRP Master Plan Components:A generic Master Plan that is applicable to the whole region (the Jordan Valley) has been pre-pared, as well as customized plans for each individual municipality to adopt, identifying the specific issues for each community based on the Audit Report findings.

The strategic action plan has been prepared in the form of the Log Frame Analysis (LFA). The LFA is an analytical process and set of tools used to support project planning and management. It provides a set of interlocking concepts, which are used as part of an iterative process to aid structured and systematic analysis of a project or program idea.

There are two matters that have been taken into consideration while preparing the Master Plan. The first is the inadequate involvement of the relevant Ministries in groundwater protection in the Jordan Valley. Although the Jordanian Government has made a significant effort towards decentralization, most of the governance issues are still highly centralized. Therefore, the in-

http://foeme.org/uploads/14150122901~%5E$%5E~HRP_Master_Plan_Jordan.pdf


volvement of a few Ministries and national authorities are crucial for the implementation of the Action Plan (Water Authority of Jordan, Ministry of Environment , Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Jordan Valley Authority). The second matter is the fact that the current financial situation of the Jordan Valley Municipalities is quite desperate. The funding from the government is limited, and they already have financial obligations in the forms of loans that they can barely meet.

The general outline of the Generic HRP Master Plan is:

1. Prevention of pollution from industrial hazards:

a. Inspection of the industries existing in the area;

b. Creation of the database of the existing industries including the time table for regular inspections and monitoring;

c. Enforcement of existing applicable legislation; in case of the violation of laws and regula-tions, coordinate with the relevant institutions if necessary;

d. Monitor licensing of the new industrial activities;

e. Coordinate with the relevant authorities monitoring during the construction phase;

f. Raise awareness of the owners on the issues of protecting groundwater.

2. Prevention of pollution from agricultural hazards:

a. Create a database of the agricultural irrigated areas and planted crops in the vicinity of the municipalities;

b. Coordinate with the Directorate of the Ministry of Agriculture to provide inspection and monitoring on the use of fertilizers and pesticides;

c. Coordinate with the Water Authority of Jordan to provide monitoring of the water quality in the existing wells;

d. Monitor the drilling of the illegal wells that could lead to intrusion of the saline water into the aquifer and enforce legislation in case of discovering such wells;

e. Monitor licensing and construction of the new wells;

f. Monitor licensing of the newly planned farms;

g. Coordinate with the Jordan Valley Authority on the issue of the quality and quantity of water supplied for irrigation;

h. Raise awareness of the farmers on the issue of groundwater pollution and introduce the alternatives such as Integrated Pest Management

3. Prevention of pollution from urban hazards:

a. Long Term:

1. Provision of the sanitary sewage network and wastewater treatment facilities;

2. Provision of the adequate solid waste disposal facilities.


b. Short Term:

1. Create a database of existing residential and public facilities including the timetable of inspection of the facilities and timetable of the cesspits clearing;

2. Regular inspection of the existing cesspits;

3. Enforcement of relevant regulations in case of violations;

4. Coordination with the relevant institutions such as Directorate of Health on issues of monitoring schools and health care facilities;

5. Monitor timely disposal of the solid waste

6. Monitor adequate proper disposal of the solid waste

4. For further capacity building of the municipalities, training courses were recommended, which include, but are not limited to:

a. GIS Principles and Addressing the Hazards Points

b. Map Contouring and Analyzing Pollution Hazards

c. Writing Hazard EXPOSE - Hazard and Pollutants Description, its’ history pollutant and its control measures

d. Groundwater standards applications

e. Wastewater standards and guidelines

f. Sanitary inspection forms and applications

g. Emergency planning and measures

h. Online environmental data bank

Palestine (link)

The objective of the HRP Guidelines and Implementation Plans are to provide an overarching framework to prevent and systematically counter groundwater contamination. The HRP Guide-lines and Implementation Plans were integrated into each of the municipalities and village councils. Such a framework enables program partners to develop policies and strategies that are tailored to their specific legislative and resource management needs.

This master plan aims to identify specific beneficial uses and values for every major aquifer, and therefore classify groundwater bodies based on importance in relation to their risk of contami-nation. A public planning and monitoring process of hazards and risks is thus required in order to examine the possible options for strategically protecting groundwater and preventing fur-ther contamination.

The main protection strategies can be categorized into three ‘legislative’ groups. First, there are traditional groundwater management measures such as vulnerability maps, aquifer clas-sification systems and wellhead protection plans. Second, there are many land-use planning

http://foeme.org/uploads/14166823671~%5E$%5E~Palestinian_Implementation_Plans_Final.pdf


measures that can help prevent contamination occurring at inappropriate locations. Finally, there are various environmental protection measures that solve modern waste management problems in progressive ways.

These three types of measures all require a secure institutional municipal framework in addition to implementing mitigation measures, such as capacity building programs and infrastructure projects that are supported by community engagement.

This master plan acts as a case study in aiding the development of future local, national and regional protection plans for groundwater. Additionally, the municipal planning processes dem-onstrate to officials, managers, and community members that careful planning can lead to suc-cessful outcomes,

The Report also details the laws, bylaws, regulations, and various parties (including citizens, NGOs, businesspeople, and others) involved in groundwater use and management across Palestine. In the participating Palestinian municipalities, the protection planning processes are still unfolding.

Plan Components:

1. Hiring an HRP Dept. Coordinator: There is one staff member, with a team of volunteers, per com-munity to implement the HRP guidelines. They work in coordination with other relevant depart-ments in the municipalities and external authorities. This department is responsible for analyzing the collected data from selected volunteers on a quarterly basis to produce maps, and recom-mend suitable mitigation measures to implement the guidelines.

2. Volunteers will be anyone between the ages of 18-22 years old that can help the HRP Dept. Co-ordinator to implement the HRP guidelines through collecting hazards data using different tech-nologies (GPS, smartphone, etc.)

3. Steps to be taken by the HRP Department as a basis for the action plan:

i. Review available data on groundwater vulnerability and use in order to assess gaps and determine what further studies are needed.

ii. Identify potential contamination threats to groundwater

iii. Identify and map land use, population and development growth projections.

iv. Use information collected in steps 1, 2 and 3, in conjunction with community engage-ment, to identify community objectives related to groundwater protection. These objec-tives must be contingent upon the groundwater zoning regulations.

v. Identify the local administrative capabilities to develop and implement capacity building programs, infrastructure projects, and future master planning.

vi. Continue communication with all stakeholders about best practices, national and local governmental regulations, and threats to groundwater.

vii. Adopt new appropriate policies and regulations as needed.


Malaga, Spain (link)

The Municipal Implementation Plans aims to identify the existing conditions, risks and threats in underground aquifers in each of the project communities in order to determine the necessary actions that protect and establish regulation to prevent groundwater pollution.

Plan components:

1. Description of the sources of water supply: Definition of the points from the municipality popu-lation’s water supply, the nature of these centers (spring, well, probe, gallery, reservoir…) the flow provided, quality parameters presented, current status, problems or deficiencies thereof. All of this information is presented with illustrations, photographs, charts and maps (link)

2. Identification of the Recharge Areas of these water sources (the aquifers). Mapping the Recharge Area links to the water supply sources, and characterized them by their hydraulic operation and the corresponding geo-hydrologic maps (link).

3. Inventory and characterization of the pressures around the water sources and in the whole mu-nicipality area There is a detailed inventory of pressures (nature, intensity, endangerment…) in a more detailed way in the vicinity of the water sources recharge areas, and in a more general way of the rest of the municipality (link).

4. Vulnerability to contamination of the aquifers in the municipality area and surrounding area: The different degrees of vulnerability for each municipality have been defined and mapped, and in more detail in the main basins of the groundwater in each municipality (link).

5. Risk of contamination of groundwater in the municipality area: The varying degrees of risk have been defined and mapped, describing and motivating in zoning made in each case (link).

6. Definition of protected areas:

6.1: Protection parameters to each of the water sources (aquifers) for urban supply, defining and mapping the parameter (immediate, next and remote area) zoning.

6.2: All bodies of existing groundwater protection zones and from which supply the munici-palities, defining the zoning of safeguard areas.

7. Regulation of Activities in defined protected areas: restrictions, bans, etc., both for activities and performances.

8. Integration of the protected areas into urban planning: The defined protected areas should form part of the protected zones listed in the municipalities’ general plans for urban planning, and the regulation of activities that apply to them should also be part of the urban development regula-tion plan.

9. Required improvements for the water supply system: The City Council will value the deficiencies and will assess the necessary improvements

10. Actions to undertake regarding pressures that may affect water sources. Rehabilitation of de-graded areas: All necessary measures will be defined so that those pressures currently nega-tively affecting the existing water supply, directly or indirectly, can be reduced or eradicated.



http://foeme.org/uploads/Malaga_Summary_Hydrogeological_Consult_Phase1.pdf

http://www.idemap.es/coremap/Default.aspx?service=GroundWater&sid=KT2FAunJgkg0ArvVrxeKYw

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/uds1abe358dui3z/r__6C8hEBO

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/uds1abe358dui3z/r__6C8hEBO


11. Implementation of good agricultural practices, treatment of A.R.U, M.S.W exploitation of aquifer management: Depending on the casuistry of each municipality, the main guidelines will be set according to the application of fertilizers, plant protection, treatment of purines, livestock waste disposal, discharge of waste water and solid waste disposal.

12. Definition and Implementation of Ordinances and Regulations: Ordinances and regulations con-stitute the municipal regulations whereby the City Council defines the conditions in which it may carry out those activities, which in the case which concerns us, are sources of contamina-tion of water (poured liquids, poured solid, etc.).

13. Processing of municipal administrative actions that involve actions to reduce the risk to water sources: each municipality will perform a general plan to collect the limitations, restrictions and conditions to implement actions involving pressure on the water, and all paperwork, authoriza-tions and documentation that are required for their implementation.

14. Monitoring and inspection: The local authorities will be responsible for monitoring, in compli-ance with the guidelines from the current Plan of Action, the Ordinances and regulations, etc.

15. Financial Plan: The potential sources of financial strategies, grants, programs, and any way to obtain funds were defined.

16. Integration of the action plan in the GIS map of the Protecting Ground Water project: In the GIS application of the project, each municipality must upload and update the different water pres-sures, the risk of pollution maps, the protection perimeters, the protected areas and the regula-tion of activities. This web GIS application will be available to citizens that require this informa-tion.


V. The Municipalities’ Process

Municipal governments in all of the four project regions are responsible for ensuring environ-mental protection in their district. However, many municipal agendas lack the necessary tools and knowledge to promote ‘on the ground’ alleviation of environmental groundwater hazards. The Protecting Groundwater Project aims to increase awareness and capacity within the local authorities in order to promote this demanding issue. Overall, this project’s primary focus is the municipalities: imparting the knowledge, tools and skills to municipal staff, as well as spread-ing awareness to the general public. The municipalities’ process included a number of training courses and study tours, public ceremonies, events, and conferences, and other activities for educating, empowering and uniting the members of the participating municipalities.

In addition to focusing on the local municipalities, the project also aimed to encourage cross-Mediterranean connections amongst the participating municipalities. The unique framework of the project emphasizes the cross border nature of our mutual environmental problems, par-ticularly relating to groundwater, and the need for cross-border cooperation. Therefore, the 30 municipalities did not only focus on their own specific water challenges, but they also had the opportunity to learn directly from the other project regions and strengthen connections with their neighbors of the same environmental heritage. In Oct. 22, 2013 at the first project confer-ence we launched the Mediterranean Network for Ground Water Protection.

Training coursesThroughout each of the four project regions, training courses were offered for municipal staff, technicians, officers, engineers, and local volunteers. The objective of the training courses was to provide the municipalities with the necessary knowledge and tools that will help them to prevent and to reduce the risk of groundwater pollution; and assist in properly integrating Geo-graphic Information Systems (GIS) into their municipal development plans. In all of the project regions, there were a total of four training courses. Although the order and methods in which the courses were taught varied across the municipalities, there were nevertheless four general topics covered in the training courses: introduction to GIS, understanding of location-specific water issues, Hazard Reduction and Prevention Guidelines management and implementation, and practical solutions.

1. Introduction to GISThe first training course, Introduction to GIS, aimed to teach participants the basic functions of GIS software, including mapping, updating and sharing information and spatial plotting of hazard data. All of those fundamental tools are important for advanced spatial environmental management. This training course was taught over a period of 48 hours.

In the Palestinian and Israeli municipalities, the introduction to GIS course focused on Hydroge-ology. Jordanian communities also learned about Hydrogeology, but dedicated an entire train-ing course to the topic.

In Palestine, for example, the courses were held at the Auja Environment Education Center over the course of 11 days in March of 2014. The training included several topics on GIS software for

http://foeme.org/uploads/Declaration_of_PGW_Mayors_Network.pdf


use in groundwater protection, including an introduction to GIS, mapping, coordinating, visu-alization of spatial data, and an introduction to geo-processing. The second part of this training covered topics such as an introduction to Hydrogeology, environmental hazards mapping, and evaluating their risk to groundwater by using both protective and infiltration factors in the sur-veyed areas.

During the GIS training course in Israel, participants learned “hands on” tools for integrating GIS tools into municipal environmental management. For example, they learned to use a Taldor© custom-made GIS module for ongoing mapping, monitoring and managing risks to groundwa-ter. The module is very user-friendly and is accessible anywhere with internet access. By using this module, the municipalities are able to achieve a high level of monitoring and spatial data analysis. The module also enables data inputs from multiple users to a central hierarchical system. The module uses a geo-hydrological sensitivity map for the participating municipalities, which had been created by Ecolog© with the DRASTIC model (see chapter II). The sensitivity map is im-bedded in the GIS module and has been used as an important parameter to assess the risk from each hazard. In the HRP course they also learned to use advanced tools and calculators in order to enable high level and unified characterization and assessment of hazards severity, in respect to ground water pollution risk.

In the Malaga communities, they too learned the basics of GIS software and hydrogeology. However, in their training course the Antequera municipal technician staff specifically learned the GIS software of ArcGIS (of ESRI), which is the most commonly used GIS software throughout the world. Palestinian and Jordanian municipali-ties also learned the ARC-GIS software. The Israeli municipalities, however, learned the Quantum-GIS software, which is open-source GIS software.

Training on GPS-Jordan

GIS training course

Training & Workshops in Dead Sea Conference, Jordan May, 2014


2. Location-Specific Water IssuesBuilding on the basic knowledge of GIS that they learned in the first course, the second training course aimed to teach participants how to operate GIS in more advanced ways as it pertains to particular municipal challenges. This training focused on location with specific water and envi-ronmental issues, which are relevant to the municipalities, and the different ways to confront such challenges. For example, both regions of Palestine and Jordan chose to focus on wastewa-ter treatment in rural areas.

In Palestine in particular, during this training they discussed the implications of rapid industrial-ization and the increase in economic and population growth in urban Palestinian communities. This shift has led to stricter water quality standards and the establishment of centralized waste-water treatment technologies throughout Palestine, which have impacted rural Palestinian com-munities. Despite a huge financial investment, waste water management in small communities and remote rural areas lack a coordinated national strategy that includes efficient building and design capacity, operation and maintenance of current onsite treatment technologies. Recent research studies on the sustainability of decentralized wastewater treatment technologies has revealed the urgent need for tailor-made training programs at all levels, including sanitary en-gineers, technicians and town council members. Current decentralized management options regarding wastewater treatment in Palestinian rural communities include onsite traditional sys-tems, such as cesspits, septic tanks, aeration ponds and poorly designed constructed wetlands. As low-cost options, these technologies have poor treatment efficacy, but strongly influenced the decision makers. Thus, stringent effluent quality standards have recently been issued to pre-serve natural resources, maintain and strengthen hygienic standards, enhance nutrients recov-ery, promote recycle and water reuse, endorse changes in water consumption and apply innova-tive technological alternatives.

3. Hazard Reduction and Prevention Guidelines: Management and Implementation

The third training course topic was about the Hazard Reduction and Prevention Guidelines. It focused on the ways in which to implement and manage practical and detailed hazard allevia-tion plans, and how to best integrate the technical knowledge they were acquiring into specific municipal agendas and regional development plans. This course was also specific to each mu-nicipality’s unique local challenges.

In the Israel HRP course, they learned about environmental inspection and enforcement, ‘green growth’, environment and public health, and advanced hazard monitoring. In Spain, each mu-nicipality developed and presented a draft municipal action plan for the protection of ground-water. They also settled case studies pertaining to urban planning and municipal land use. In Palestine, this training course assisted participants in creating a municipal master plan for groundwater pollution management. In doing so, they identified groundwater hazards that are affecting general health, characterized groundwater hazards as it relates to aquifer risks, and put it into context of the Palestinian Environmental Law and Standards.


4. Practical Solutions The fourth training course focused on practical solutions to reducing and preventing ground-water pollution. This course also took a more hands-on approach, and offered participants the opportunity to conduct fieldwork and carry out hazard alleviation solutions on the ground. The final training course was often accompanied by study tours and site visits.

In Jordan and Palestine, this course focused on the reuse of treated water for irrigation as a fea-sible solution. The participants were first presented with theoretical training, followed by a field visit to the wastewater treatment plants in Jordan, and later on in Israel. This course was con-ducted in June of 2013. It aimed to promote the reuse of treated effluents, and help the trainees to define and classify the best alternative technology for safe irrigation with treated wastewater.

In Spain, during this course the municipalities were each given the ArcGIS License, which is valid for one year. This was to ensure that they would have sufficient time to put in practice the knowl-edge they acquired in the course, and thus be able to implement the different methodologies of identifying and avoiding risks of groundwater contamination into their respective municipalities.

In the Israeli municipalities, the final course was devoted to the interaction between agriculture and the natural environment and Sustainable Agriculture. Most of the participating Israeli mu-nicipalities are rural, peripheral communities with significant agricultural activity. Some agricul-tural practices, such as fertilization, pest control, water consumption and wastes from animal farms are among the leading sources of environmental hazards and groundwater pollution in Israel. Therefore, this course aimed to teach the participants about sustainable agriculture, raise awareness of existing issues and challenges facing their water source, and suggest potential solutions. The issues discussed during this training were: management of agricultural wastes, or-ganic waste disposal, minimizing over-fertilization and hazardous pesticides usage (pest control management), agriculture and tourism, and spatial agricultural management.

Study Tours (link)

A number of study tours were organized for the involved municipalities’ members from each project region to visit each other’s sites. Traveling to the other project regions allowed partici-pants to learn about various specific water hazards and the many alternative ways in which to prevent, reduce and solve such issues. Such cross border field trips and conferences in Malaga County and in the Middle East aimed to portray the various environmental challenges, as well as solutions, of the different countries.

The first study tour took place in Malaga in June of 2012. Various regional and national officials, municipal mayors and engineers had the opportunity to attend. During this first study tour the participants came to un-derstand the ways that the Malaga commu-nities have been tackling the hazards that are polluting their groundwater, as well as the ways in which the municipal govern-ments have been responding.

Malaga Study Tour, June, 2012


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjjZCmZodwc&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjjZCmZodwc&feature=plcp


There was another organized site visit to the Malaga municipalities during the conference in 2014. On this site visit, the participants experienced both the beauty and fragility of the Ante-quera karst reservation and springs, which is one of the most pure and vulnerable ground water sources in Spain. During the conference, the mayors and professional staff learned about the Spanish, as well as overall EU, measures and regulations to protect their sensitive groundwater recharge zones.

A second successful study tour was held in Israel and Palestine in October 2012, which hosted Palestinian, Israeli, Spanish and Jordanian municipality representatives, and various officials from different governmental and local authorities. The aim of this visit was to present the spe-cific and relevant environmental problems in each location, and offer a special opportunity for stakeholders from the different countries to meet and discuss activities for alleviation of mutual environmental hazards (link to the study tour film).

Middle East Study Tour, October 2012

Study tours in Jordan

http://foeme.org/uploads/Sites_Tour_Guide_Palestine_Israel_Oct_2012.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5ZWhl1fpxY


On June 2013 and 2014, EcoPeace orga-nized two Study Tours in Israel for Jorda-nian and Palestinian farmers and munici-pality officials. The main objective was to witness and to learn from the Israeli experience of safe irrigation with treated waste water, with the potential of bring-ing such techniques to Jordan and Pales-tine.

Overall, the participants of the study tours expressed that they came to real-ize the mutual benefits that can come from cooperating with their neighboring communities, learning of the similar chal-lenges that they face, and the many pos-sible solutions. During the study tours, social and professional contacts were es-tablished between peers of neighboring municipalities from different sides of the Mediterranean, coming together over their shared environmental challenges.

Public Events, and International ConferencesIn addition to the training courses and study tours, a number of public events and ceremonies were held throughout the municipalities in order to commemorate the implementation of the PGW project. These events aimed to spread awareness of the project to the general public, as well as to the social and economic stakeholders.

JordanIn the Jordanian municipalities, initiating the project took a bit longer than expected. The proj-ect began with negotiating with the selected municipalities, and explaining the details, out-comes and goals of the project. Due to the fact that the Ministry of Municipalities assigns the mayors to each Jordan Valley municipality, and were not elected by public, the project had to be approved by both the municipalities and the Ministry of Municipalities. Once they both ap-proved, the Ministry of Municipalities sent an official letter to the municipalities urging them to cooperate and execute the project.

Finally, once the municipalities received their council’s approval to partner with EcoPeace and officially execute the project, an official ceremony was held. This ceremony commemorated the signing the Memorandum of Understandings (MoUs), which defined the roles and responsi-bilities of the partners. The ceremony took place in the Sharhabil bin Hassaneh EcoPark in the Jordan Valley on May 13, 2012. Many officials from the Ministry of Municipalities, Jordan Valley Authority, Members of Parliament and other representative from the municipal staff attended the ceremony.

Alameda WWTP, Malaga Study Tour, May 2012

Baqa El Gharbia, October 2012, Study tour




Also in May of 2013, the PGW project held successful public events in the Jordanian 7 Munici-palities. The District Manager, Heads of District Departments, municipality representatives, local security representative, local community representatives, women’s associations’ representatives and EcoPeace’s community coordinators all attended the events. During the events, updates were given about achievements of the project to date, the role of the municipalities, progress in training courses, and the project’s databank and hazards maps. Next steps were also discussed, including preparation of the municipalities’ implementation plan of the “Hazards Reduction and Prevention Guidelines”,. An important comment came from the District Manager who thanked EcoPeace for managing this project, as well as others, citing that they bring prosperity to the communities, and directly benefit the residents. This precisely demonstrated the aim of the en-tire project.

An advocacy Campaign and Film Screening event took place in Amman on April 2014, and included the screening of a documentary film produced about the 7 Jordanian communities participating in the Protecting Ground Water project. The film highlighted the critical water situation in Jordan, including the lack of proper sanitation infrastructure for Jordan Valley com-munities. It also described the measures that the PGW project has undertaken to help commu-nities monitor hazards to their groundwater and the development of concrete implementation plans on how to deal with these challenges. 50 representatives from different government agen-cies, embassies as well as the participating municipalities attended the event. All parties were encouraged to play a more active role in protecting our shared groundwater

PalestineThe Palestinian MoU signing ceremony took place at the Auja Environmental Center on May 9th, 2012. At the ceremony, Palestinian mayors and municipal authorities expressed support for the project and its role in raising professional knowledge and ability to protect groundwater through technical training and support for coordinating between the municipalities.

In addition to the MoU ceremony, EcoPeace helped conduct public events in each community to raise awareness of the importance of protecting groundwater. One such event was for a group of women from Wadi Fukin, who learned how their actions, even on the household level, can con-tribute to the protection of our water resources. They received materials explaining how to best discharge chemical products that are used in the home on a daily basis, how to integrate com-post practices in the home rather than dumping all waste directly into the general garbage bin, and more. We are pleased that the women agreed to make this a high priority in their homes.

In addition, WEDO filmed in the Palestinian communities creating short, informative community films that will further spread awareness. They filmed during six long tours in the participating communities, and interviewed decision makers in different ministries.

IsraelThroughout the Israeli municipalities, a number of awareness-raining and capacity-building ac-tivities were held in the municipalities. Similar to Jordan, Israel held a ceremony for the signing of the MoUs, which was conducted in the EU delegation offices in Tel Aviv on the 18th of April, 2012. The ceremony was hosted by Mr. Andrew Standley, the head of the EU delegation in Israel.






Following the MoUs in Israel, the dissemination of the project activities was primarily carried out in four key ways: the active and user-friendly project website, producing and widely distributing hard copy brochures in English and Hebrew in different counties’ events and nationwide envi-ronmental events, and encouraging various grassroots activities in the different communities.

A Seminar for professionals was held at the Porter School entitled “Water Storage Changes and Groundwater Depletion in the Middle East from the GRACE Satellite Mission. Prof. Famiglietti demonstrated how these tools can be used to document water storage losses and groundwater depletion in the Tigris-Euphrates-Western, Iran region and the Arabian Peninsula. The potential for utilizing these satellite observations in Middle Eastern water management and more specifi-cally the potential to Israel, Jordan and Palestine, was discussed with 25 academics, government officers and private consultants. Prior to his presentation, the “Protecting Ground Water” con-cept, methodologies and first outputs were presented.

In addition, short films were produced for each of the nine participating Israeli communities as another effective tactic to spread awareness. The films emphasize the main local environmental challenges, the work that has been done thus far, and plans for future work. The films have been widely distributed and have helped to raise awareness to both decision makers and the public.

SpainOn the same day as the MoU ceremony in Israel, April 18, 2012, the Malaga Council also had their MoU signing ceremony. Participants from both ceremonies shared the experience together via a video conference call. All of Malaga communities’ mayors as well as the President of Malaga County, Elías Bendodo, attended the ceremony, with the mayors expressing their commitment towards protecting our joint water resources.

In efforts to launch the Mediterranean Network for Groundwater Protection, the first official PGW Conference took place in Malaga, Spain from October 22-23, 2013. The President of Malaga County and other officials from Madrid and the Andalucía governorate welcomed a delegation of officials from the Ministry of Environment and Water Authority and Mayors from Jordan, Israel and Palestine. Participants were introduced to different water and environmental issues from the four partnering countries. Later the participants were divided into focus groups to take part in two different simultaneously held sessions on Financial & Political Challenges and Technical & Regulation Challenges. As previously mentioned, the participants then visited the water springs of Antequera town and the Torcal de Antequera, (Karst Nature Reserve), the highly vulnerable limestone aquifers; This gave participants a chance to get first-hand experience on the ground water issues in Malaga County. The conference was very successful in terms of sharing knowl-edge, as well as in inaugurating the “Mediterranean Network for Groundwater Protection”.

Within the Spanish municipalities, there were a number of public events held, as well. However, the unfortunate turnout at these events demonstrated the lack of citizen involvement and par-ticipation, and general awareness about the problem of aquifer contamination still remains a major unresolved issue.


http://foeme.org/uploads/Declaration_of_PGW_Mayors_Network.pdf


Community event in Baqa el Garbia

MoU signing ceremony in Jordan, Israel Palestine and Malaga, Spain; April, 2012.”


The International Conferences:

On May 27-29, 2014, the Dead Sea played host to the second international conference of Pro-tecting Ground Water. Officials from the water and environment authorities as well as Mayors and other representatives from the 30 participating communities in Spain and the Middle East attended the conference. The conference featured a keynote address by Prof. Lucien Chabason, Senior Advisor at the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI) and the president of the UN Environment Program Mediterranean Action Plan.

The main session was devoted to the presentations of the ‘Hazards Reduction and Prevention Implementations Plans (link). All participating communities, with the help of the “Protecting Groundwater” program, developed parallel implementation plans to reduce and prevent those environmental hazards which contaminate their groundwater. The implementation plans in-clude: establishing proper wastewater treatment systems for domestic sewage and specific pre-treatments for industries effluents; prevention of illegal dump sites; reducing over usage of fer-tilizers and pesticides which infiltrate to the groundwater; rehabilitation of groundwater springs for preservation of their cultural and natural heritage and for ecotourism purposes.

The second day’s sessions were reserved for discussions and workshops amongst the mayors, NGOs, environmental officials, and water authorities in attendance. The sessions included work-shops on groundwater regulations, financing, effluents treatment, sustainable agriculture, and safe reuse in treated waste water.

The Second International Conference of Protecting Ground Water, Jordan Dead Sea Coast, May 2014


http://foeme.org/uploads/Conference_Agenda_with%20_inks_to_presentations_r.pdf


References

Abu-Sadah Muath (Hydro- Engineering Consultancy), 2013. Hazard, Vulnerability and Risk Map-ping in Six Municipalities in the West Bank. Hydro- Engineering Consultancy (HEC), Ramallah, Palestine. https:/www.dropbox.com/sh/1hyt6fxbyd2q67v/zbZ5zAfOpd).

Asaf L. and Lokitas M, (2012). Mapping groundwater vulnerability in selected regions in Israel. Ecolog Eng., Ed. Arbel Y., EcoPeace Middle East, Tel Aviv (in Hebrew).

Goldscheider, N. (2005). Karst groundwater vulnerability mapping: application of a new method in the Swabian Alb, Germany. Hydrogeology Journal, 13(4), 555-564.Shirazi, S. M., H. M. Imran, S. Akib. (2012). GIS-based DRASTIC method for groundwater vulnerability assessment: a review. Journal of Risk Research 15(8):991-1011.

Hijazi Hani & Al Ahmed Refaat (Green Sahara - Water & Environment, Studies and Consulting, GSWE), 2014, Strategic Master Plan, Protecting Ground Water, Ed. Afaneh B. & Al-Najjar S., Eco-Peace Middle East Amman.

Taluzi Samer and Hijazi Hani, 2013. Groundwater Contamination: Hazards, Vulnerability and Risk GIS Mapping for Seven Municipalities in the Jordan Valley. Ed. by Afaneh B. & Arbel Y., Eco-Peace Middle East, Amman.

Vías J. M., B. Andreo, M. J. Perles, F. Carrasco, I. Vadillo, P. Jiménez (2006). Proposed method for groundwater vulnerability mapping in carbonate (karstic) aquifers: the COP method. Hydroge-ology Journal 14(6):912-925.

Vías J., B. Andreo, N. Ravbar, H. Hötzl (2010). Mapping the vulnerability of groundwater to the contamination of four carbonate aquifers in Europe. Journal of Environmental Management 91(7):1500-1510.

Zwahlen F., (ed.). COST Action 620: Vulnerability and risk mapping for the protection of carbon-ate (karst) aquifers. Final report. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Belgium, 2003.

Zuazo Osinaga J. A., & Jiménez Madrid A., 2013, Definition of the Map of ground water Vulner-ability and Contamination risk of in Antequera Region (Malaga). CRN S.A., Consultants.

Zuazo Osinaga J. A., & Jiménez Madrid A., 2014, Municipal Action Plans for reduce and prevent ground water hazards, in the Atequera region (Malaga).CRN S.A Consultores.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1hyt6fxbyd2q67v/zbZ5zAfOpd


http://foeme.org/uploads/14150122901~%5E$%5E~HRP_Master_Plan_Jordan.pdf



http://https://drive.google.com/a/foeme.org/?tab=mo#folders/0B7GXEWxQKEKbMW81MnM5dktmOEk

www.foeme.org

EcoPeaceMiddle East

PROTECTING GROUNDWATER - EcoPeace Middle...

Documents

Transcript of PROTECTING GROUNDWATER - EcoPeace Middle...