Inter-municipal cooperation for wastewater treatment

关于污水处理的城市间合作—来自以色列的案例研究

Inter-municipal cooperation for wastewater

treatment:Case studies from Israel

Sharon Hophmayer-Tokich, Nurit Kliot

Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Haifa University, Mount

Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel

Received 10 April 2006; received in revised form 15 November 2006; accepted 10

December 2006

Available online 1 March 2007

Abstract

Since the beginning of the 1990s, local authorities in Israel have been engaged in promoting advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) projects throughout the country, resulting in the ―wastewater treatment revolution‖ of the 1990s. These achievements are extremely important in the water-scarce country, as untreated or partially treated wastewater has become a major source of pollution of Israel’s fresh-water resources, and reuse of high-quality effluents can expand the national water potential. Many of these projects are regional schemes based on a central WWTP, serving a few neighboring municipalities. This paper presents two case studies of such regional cooperation: the ―Karmiel Region Union of Towns for Sewage Treatment‖ and the ―Treatment and Reuse of Wastewater in the area of the Hadera Stream, Ltd.‖ corporation. The findings suggest that regional cooperation can be an efficient tool in promoting advanced wastewater treatment, and has several advantages: an efficient use of limited resources (financial and land); balancing disparities between municipalities (size, socio-economic features, consciousness and ability of local leaders); and reducing spillover effects. However, some problems were reported in both cases and should be addressed.

Keyword: Regional cooperation,Inter-municipal cooperation,Wastewater treatment, Israel

1. Introduction

In the state of Israel the local authorities: cities, local councils (small towns) and regional councils (federation of rural settlements) are legally responsible for the collection, treatment and sanitary disposal of wastewater generated within their

关于污水处理的城市间合作—来自以色列的案例研究

boundaries (Gabbay, 2002). This paper focuses on wastewater treatment within urban settlements, as 92% of the inhabitants reside in towns and cities (in 2003). Whereas most of the population (96%) has received adequate sewerage facilities for many years, wastewater treatment was very much neglected. Until the end of the 1980s the vast majority of urban settlements settled for the easiest and, unfortunately, the most polluting solution. Wastewater was collected and removed from population centers to the outskirts of the settlement, where it was either discharged untreated into the environment or treated in minimal-extensive wastewater treatment facilities (The State Comptroller, 1991). This was a convenient short-term arrangement for the local residents but of course disastrous in the long run.

Extensive facilities are low-tech, low-cost ponds, such as oxidation, stabilization and facultative pods, in which natural processes of dissolution occur during lengthy exposure to the sun and atmospheric conditions (Arviv, 1999). These minimal solutions were usually of a local nature, established and utilized by a single municipality, and as a result of insufficient maintenance and eventually overload conditions they produced very low-quality effluents.

The 1990s, however, were characterized by the initiation of many advanced intensive Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTP) by local authorities (Gabbay, 2002). Intensive technologies are high-tech advanced treatment processes, based on the principle of operating on a reduced surface area and intensifying the natural processes of dissolution by technological means (Arviv, 1999). This was mainly the result of a change in the Central Government’s policy and growing environmental public awareness and pressure. As opposed to the local extensive solutions of the previous decades, many of these intensive projects were regional schemes based on a central WWTP, which serves few neighboring municipalities. This paper presents and discusses two case studies of such regional cooperation.

2. Background and context

Israel is burdened by a serious shortage of fresh water that will grow worse in the coming decades due to population and economic growth. With limited water potential on one hand (_300 CM per capita per annum) (Gabbay, 1992) and ever growing water demand on the other, there is constant pressure on the water sources—as all feasible

关于污水处理的城市间合作—来自以色列的案例研究

resources are exploited, thus creating an urgent need to protect them (Gabbay, 2002). Thus, treating wastewater is obligatory for two main reasons: (a) Untreated or partially treated wastewater creates health and environmental hazards, mainly pollution of fresh water resources, particularly riverbeds. This is the case especially in regions which suffer from water shortage, as water resources are exploited to the maximum capacity and even beyond, resulting in smaller water bodies and short retention times, generally accompanied by deterioration of water quality by pollution (Friedler, 2001). Indeed, in Israel, untreated or partially treated wastewater became a major source of pollution of fresh water resources (Gabbay, 1994).

(b) The growing demand for water in the domestic sector will mainly affect the agricultural sector, as it will be countered mainly by reducing water supply for irrigation. The demand for water in agriculture can be supplied by the reuse of treated wastewater, releasing some of the pressure on the potable water resources (Friedler, 2001). Therefore, in Israel treating wastewater is not only a sanitary necessity, but also an additional way to increase water potential.

2.1. Regional cooperation for the delivery of public services

One of the Government’s major functions is to collect revenues from the citizens and redistribute them through the provision of public goods and services (Massam, 1975). These responsibilities, which were assigned to the local authorities, have expanded in recent years in some countries, as a result of political and fiscal decentralization reforms (Razin, 1998). However, local authorities differ in their abilities to provide services (Massam, 1975).

As a result, sometimes there is a need for inter-municipal or regional cooperation (in this paper these terms will be used synonymously), i.e. cooperation between two or more local authorities with geographic proximity. The term is usually applied to voluntary, formal, written agreements concerning public service provision and mechanism for joint solution of problems, common to more than one jurisdictional unit (Massam, 1975). Regional cooperation is an efficient tool to address problems that extend beyond municipal boundaries and to ensure the efficiency and high level of the provided service. Its main advantages are: economies of scale, balancing disparities between local authorities and reducing spillover effects.

关于污水处理的城市间合作—来自以色列的案例研究

2.2. Regional cooperation for wastewater treatment

Regional cooperation for wastewater treatment is common in North America, often in the form of ―Special Districts‖. Special Districts are independent local units of Governments that are formed in order to provide services, and generally perform only one single Local Government function. The reasons for their formation are relevant to this discussion. For example, they compensate for inefficient Local Governments; their formation is expedient; and they have financial advantages due to a variety of revenue sources.Special Districts for sanitary services, within which regional WWTPs are operated, are very common in the USA (Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, Muskegon County Wastewater Management System, Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District, and many others), where such government units have a long tradition. Thus, some were formed at the beginning of the twentieth century, for example the drainage districts in Texas and the water districts in California (Burns, 1994). Regional solutions are common also in Canada. For example, in Victoria, the capital of the province of British Colombia, sewage disposal has been assigned to a regional authority (Ellis, 1989).

Nevertheless, disadvantages are also reported and should be noted: difficulty in allocating respective costs to users, greater vulnerability in case of failure, and higher costs of sewerage lines and pumping stations (United Nations, 1984). It is noted that despite clear examples of economies of scale in wastewater infrastructure, these are balanced by the increasing cost of transporting the sewage over long distances (UNEP/ GPA, 2000). Accordingly, some scholars suggest that the regional approach, although the preferred choice of planners and decision-makers cannot always be considered as the preferred alternative. It should be weighed in comparison to other alternatives, such as smaller facilities serving individual towns, or decentralized solutions on different scales, to choose the most feasible on a case-to-case basis.

3. Methodology

Documents’ review and interviews were used to collect data. In each of the case studies documents such as correspondence, protocols and plans were collected and analyzed. Interviews were held with people in the studied local authorities who were involved in the regional WWTP; government officials who were involved in such

关于污水处理的城市间合作—来自以色列的案例研究

projects; private consultants to the local authorities (sewage engineers, economists, lawyers, etc.); personnel in nongovernment public institutions; environmental NGO’s; experts from the academy; and others with relevance to the case studies and the general patterns of wastewater treatment. All these interviews were conducted as part of an effort to present the ―broader picture‖ regarding the characteristics, problems and historical development of WWTP’s.

Data regarding size and socio-economic features of the local authorities (Tables 3 and 4) were obtained from the formal publications of the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) in Israel. The CBS characterizes and ranks all local authorities in Israel according to the socio-economic features of their population. Based on a series of characteristics, the local authorities were clustered into 10 groups: cluster 1 represents the lowest socio-economic level ranking, and cluster 10 represents the highest socioeconomic level ranking. This ranking system is used in this paper to sort out the socio-economic features of the local authorities.

4. Findings

4.1. Wastewater treatment in Israel—from local to regional approach

4.1.1. First stage: the local-minimal approach, 1950s until the end of 1980s

Until the end of the 1980s, except for the metropolitan areas of Haifa and Tel Aviv, most of the urban settlements settled for minimal local wastewater solutions, mainly constructing extensive facilities.

In the first decades of the state，municipalities were looking for the cheapest solutions for sewage treatment and very often the most convenient solution was found in agricultural reuse. The solutions that evolved were always on a small scale, with minimal treatment, short transport distances and little or no intervention from health authorities (Selbst, 1980).

Thus, the ―traditional‖ model that evolved was that of local nature, a ―symbiosis‖ between an urban municipality in a rural setting and its immediate agricultural hinterland, usually a neighboring agricultural settlement. According to that model, the urban municipality established extensive treatment facilities such as oxidation ponds, usually situated in the agricultural area near the consumers and as far as possible from the urban inhabitants. The farmers, on their part, invested in reservoirs and used the