Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:46, 4 March 2015

Palestine Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Water B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Water, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Water supply-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WaterWikipedia:WikiProject WaterTemplate:WikiProject WaterWater B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

First review

After a first reading I would suggest the following improvements to the article to bring it to a B-class rating for the WikiProject water supply and sanitation:

Substance and structure

• So far the section on external cooperation is incomplete. Given the importance of donors for the sector, it would be very useful to complete it at least partially. The web sites of the agencies mentioned should have a lot of information in this respect.
  • Added some information on World Bank and GTZ activities. USAID is still missing.
    • Just added a short paragraph on USAID. --Kerres (Talk) 15:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Right now the section on history and recent developments is simply a chronological listing of three key documents with a description of the content of the documents. It may be useful to rewrite the section so that it includes key events in the sector, some of which are mentioned later in the article. These include the creation of PWA; the creation and (non-) functioning of the Joint Water Committee; the signing, implementation and expiry of management contracts for Gaza and the Southern West Bank; the creation of the Coastal Municipal Water Utility in the Gaza Strip; and the damage and reconstruction of water and sanitation infrastructure after various rounds of conflicts, to name just a few. Writing such a section will not be easy. But, if well done, it would significantly improve the article.
  • Added basic information and a short paragraph on the creation of the PWA.
• I would suggest to limit the section on responsibilities in the sector on what the situation is at this moment, and keep the history in one place in the history section.
  • The section now only deals with the current situation.
• Most of the content of the current section on history could be moved to a new section on the legal and policy framework.
  • Moved the information on key documents to a new sub section within the "responsibility" section. I also shortened the text on the Water Law No. 3 and included some information of it in the "policy and regulation" and "service provision" sections. --Kerres (Talk) 12:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• In a new history section, I would suggest to add the duration of the management contracts in Gaza (since 1996, I believe) and Bethlehem (since 1999, I believe), which have both expired. Information is available in the Implementation Completion Reports for both projects: website:http://web.worldbank.org/external/projects/main?pagePK=64283627&piPK=73230&theSitePK=40941&menuPK=228424&Projectid=P051564

http://web.worldbank.org/external/projects/main?pagePK=64283627&piPK=73230&theSitePK=40941&menuPK=228424&Projectid=P040505

• • Included
• Please name the three utilities in the West Bank. You may want to include more information on them, esp. on JWU in Ramallah, which was (is?) considered to be one of the best utilities in MENA:

http://www.jwu.org/newweb/index.php

• • I restructured the whole section and included more information. Unfortunately the situation concerning sanitation is not as clear as for water supply.
• I am not sure how accurate the following statement is: “95% of the trans-boundary groundwater resources originating in the West Bank are being used and over-exploited by Israel and its settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, leaving 5% of increasingly saline water resources to the Palestinians” The UN source quoted does not provide a reference or specific numbers to back up the statement. I would suggest to check the numbers, and if the numbers do not add up – as I would expect – take that statement out and rather keep the following statement in the article: “Currently, more than 85% of the Palestinian water from the West Bank aquifers is taken by Israel, accounting for 25% of Israel's water needs.”
  • I removed the statement because I was not able to access the corresponding UN document. In addition the document was from the year 1992 and might not give accurate information for 2009.

Form and style

• When quoting larger documents it would be very useful to add page numbers, e.g. in the publication by the Heinrich-Boell-Foundation (HBF), so that readers can find the actual reference.
• Wherever primary sources are available, it is preferable to quote the primary sources instead of a secondary source. The heavily quoted HBF publication is an example. This secondary source relies on primary sources, but unfortunately includes very few references, so that it is impossible to find out which primary source a specific piece of information is derived from.
• It would be useful to include hyperlinks to key documents such as the NWP, the Water Resources Management Strategy and the Water Law, if these documents are available on-line.
• While I edited the article to some extent for style and grammar, it may be useful if a native English speaker edited the entire article concerning these aspects.

Miscellaneous

• To my knowledge, municipal per capita water use is much higher in the Gaza Strip than in the West Bank. It would be useful to include figures on this, if available.
  • Included figures for the year 2005
• The article states how many wastewater treatment plants exist in the West Bank. It would be useful to add the number for Gaza.
  • Named the treatment plants in the West Bank and added the number for Gaza. Could not find the names for Gaza.
• Some background on the “current” (?) amendment of the Water Law could be included.
  • Sorry, I did not find any information on that.--Kerres (Talk) 20:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• “lack of sewerage in the West Bank and Gaza led to a high amount of untreated wastewater which is discharged”. This sentence is unclear. If there is no sewer network, wastewater is not being discharged, but typically infiltrates to the ground through septic tanks or latrines. Septic tanks can also discharge small quantities of partially treated wastewater to the environment, if they are designed to do so. Untreated discharge of high amounts of wastewater occurs if there is a sewer network without wastewater treatment.
  • Changed the sentence. The untreated wastewater has nothing to do with the sewerage system.
• “total cost of water projects from 1996 to 2002 amounted to about US$ 500 million, out of which the total implemented cost is 150 million.” It is not clear if the $500m are only plans, and only $150m have actually been invested. Please clarify.
  • Changend sentence to "...out of which 150 million were already spent in completed projects"
• There is no hyperlink to the EMWIS country report on Palestine. Could it be added?
  • Added
• If it is not too much of an effort, please add the dates when each of the listed on-line sources has been accessed.--Mschiffler (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Updated all references

Thanks for all the useful comments and suggestions! I will include them in the article within the next days and weeks! Kerres (Talk) 18:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I saw that you already starting incorporating some of the suggested changes. Looking forward to reading the other changes.--Mschiffler (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that I made quite some changes in June, but did not mention them here on the discussion page. In addition, you worked on the part on external cooperation. In order to know what is left to be done, I wrote short answers to the "solved issues". --Kerres (Talk) 20:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for all your help on this. I am confident that we can resolve the remaining issues over the next few months.--Mschiffler (talk) 06:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree. --Kerres (Talk) 15:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

More suggestions

How about adding information from these UN article about the situation in Gaza in (an) appropriate place(s) in the article? http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=31927 http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=596&ArticleID=6303&l=en&t=long --Mschiffler (talk) 06:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

complaints are prominent, facts are hard to find

compare the wikipedia article with this one about Gaza aquifier problems http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1211 . The IVP article contains basic facts about where Gaza gets water, how much it gets, and how it all works. By contrast, wikipedia article is just a big leftist rant about percentage shortages and suffering of the oppressed. While some facts are mentioned, they are given no prominence and instead serve purely to adorn the overall fact-free complaining propaganda POV. 84.109.173.206 (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The article could indeed benefit from being rewritten to include even more facts, of which there are plenty in the article in my view, and to ensure that there is no POV or bias. For example, the lead section could be rewritten. In order to help others to improve the article, could you please tell us where exactly where you see propaganda that should be removed? Are any of the percentage figures on water shortages incorrect? If yes, please state it specifically and, if possible, provide alternative figures and sources.--Mschiffler (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Important Source

This source provides important demographics regarding the water supply in Gaza: http://books.google.com/books?id=7rgHmpppZ-wC&pg=PA109&dq=Wadi+Gaza+water&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ObOmUI1ojPT2BKeTgcAH&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Wadi%20Gaza%20water&f=false

Twillisjr (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Marriage in the Palestinian territories which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Dubious claims

"The first restrictions on the development of wells in the West Bank, which at that time was under Jordanian administration have been introduced by Israel in 1949." - this does not mane much sense. If Jordan was in control, how could Israel place restrictions?. Perhaps it is a translation error, from the original German article, which is not nowhere to be found. Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 07:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You are right, the claim seems odd. I looked for the original source, which is a paper by a Palestinian author published in English for a German foundation, and updated the link in the source. You will find the claim on page 138 of the paper, where no other source is provided for the claim. It remains unclear how Israel influenced the development of wells in areas that were not under its control while Israel and Jordan were still in a state of war after the 1949 armistice. I suggest that someone puts a bit of effort in researching the issue before deciding whether to keep or to remove the claim.--Mschiffler (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Current seawater desalination in Gaza?

To Wickey-nl: On what basis do you write that deesalinated seawater is a "main resource of water" for the Gaza strip? This statement is not supported by any source. There are many sources that show that, if there is any seawater desalination at all in Gaza today, its share is very small. For example, this Reuters article of June 2013 says that there are 19 neighborhood brackish water (not seawater) desalination plants in the Gaza Strip and only one seawater desalination plant. Together the 20 plants are said to supply 20 percent of the municipal water supply of the Gaza strip. According to a UNICEF article there are 18 brackish water desalination plants. No seawater desalination plant is mentioned. According to that source, the 18 plants supply 95,000 people with water, corresponding to about 6 percent of the population. An older PWA source says that two small desalination plants were planned to be built in stages around the year 2000. It remains unclear if they were built and, if yes, at what capacity.--Mschiffler (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply. In your edit, you neither added a source, nor referred to the talkpage.

At least all drinking water must come from either desalination or from import. No source about the share of seawater, but Reuters suggests small. From PCBS, we know how much groundwater is pumped and used. All additional water cannot be groundwater. No source for total water use, especially non-domestic and non-agriculture.

I will make an edit. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting this. However, it seems to me that a basic distinction is still missing from the article: the distinction between domestic water and drinking water. Typically, only a small share of domestic water is used for drinking. The bulk of the 106 million cubic meters per year of domestic water use in Gaza is brackish groundwater that is not desalinated and that is distributed through the piped water network. Desalinated brackish water from the plants operated by UNICEF is provided through free public taps from where residents have to collect it. Out of the 13 plants, three have the capacity to treat 50 cubic metres per hour, and 10 have the capacity to treat 50 cubic metres per day, according to UNICEF. If all these plants ran without interruption day and night for an entire year, they would supply only 1.5 million cubic meters per year, or about 1.4% of domestic water supply in the Gaza strip. The six or seven other neighborhood plants are most likely of similar size and also do not provide piped domestic water. You may want to add this in order to provide a more accurate and complete description of the water situation in Gaza.

I am not sure if I understand your comments about the water balance. The main source for domestic water use in Gaza is groundwater. This is well known among anyone familiar with the situation there. The total amount in the PCBS data simply is the sum of domestic and agricultural use. The PCBS table seems clear to me, but perhaps you see it from a different perspective. If I am missing something, please explain.--Mschiffler (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I want to add sourced facts. Of course more water is used for washing than for drinking, but what is more important? Give a source for the amount of domestic water not used for drinking.

The 189.0 MCM in the PCBS source above are the same as in this table, which suggests that all groundwater is used for either domestic or agricultural use. Thus all industrial water should come from elsewhere, unless it is hidden in the domestic water use, or not included. --Wickey-nl (talk) 08:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I have provided sourced facts above. Did you look at them?--Mschiffler (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did. In my first edits, I did not notice that most desalination regarded groundwater. Hence the header change to Water desalination. Further, industrial, schools and health uses are apparently included in domestic water use. --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for making the changes and for adding the UNICEF source. I suggest to clarify in the article that desalination brackish water is not distributed through the piped water system, but needs to be picked up at the plants. I would also move the information on brackish water desalination to the section "Groundwater", since the source is groundwater. The desalination section could then be called again "Seawater desalination". This would clearly separate the two water sources - groundwater and seawater - in the structure of the article.--Mschiffler (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but that would obscure the important fact that most desalinated water is groundwater at the moment. Important enough to give it an own section, still about water resources. Better move it to below the rainwater, which is really a separate source. --Wickey-nl (talk) 06:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not convinced. Groundwater used as drinking water is often treated in different ways, e.g. to remove iron, fluoride, or - in this case - salt. It is never considered a separate source of water. Surface water is also treated in many different ways, but it is never categorized into different sources depending on how it is treated. The fact that a (small) share of groundwater in the Gaza strip is desalinated is important. It should in no way be obscured. However, this should be highlighted in the section on groundwater, because the type of treatment is different from the source of water and the structure of this section is by water sources.--Mschiffler (talk) 08:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Splitting is not that easy. There is too little information about the ratio groundwater-seawater and also about the distribution of seawater. Where do the industrial plants get their water from? What about the tanker water of the 80% of water the people must buy? Is the home desalination only from groundwater? How much is bottled water?

Let us make it a main section below Water use and have a small sub-section Desalinated seawater which can be expanded later. In the near future, there will surely be enough material for a separate article Water desalination in Palestine. --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Seawater desalination in the Gaza strip is of marginal importance as of today, including as a source of water provided by tankers and of bottled water. Brackish water desalination is much less energy-intensive and cheaper than seawater desalination, so for the currently operating relatively small plants there is no incentive to use seawater as a source for desalination as long as the aquifer does not run dry. Its pure economics. Now you rightly point out that the small share of seawater desalination has to be documented through published sources. I have tried to do this to you through the calculations earlier on in this talk page based on reputed published sources. Did you look at it? Household-level desalination uses tap water, which is brackish groundwater. It is so obvious that I am surprised one could think otherwise. You should be able to verify that easily from published sources, if you are interested in getting a deeper understanding of the topic you are writing about.--Mschiffler (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

While your calculations are own research, they are based only on the plants mentioned in a few newspaper articles. The 2009 World Bank paper spoke of 100 industrial desalination plants that have additional value added for preserving groundwater because of use of seawater. Now, I am not so naive to think that there are large industries in Gaza, Israel will prevent that, but there are still no figures. Not a major issue, but relevant for the article.

While we can expect that households use tapwater to desalinate, it is not so obvious that they mainly use brackish groundwater, because they may use much tanking water of yet unknown origin. Presumtively also brackish groundwater, but yet not known. --Wickey-nl (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

What is the basis for your claim that industrial desalination plants use seawater? They use groundwater. And for household desalination, what water source other than brackish groundwater could there be? There is none. As of 2007 there was only one seawater desalination plant in the Gaza Strip, located in Deir al Balah. I will add this information to the article including the source. I am also trying to find out if other plants have been built since then, and whether there are any seawater desalination plants by industries.--Mschiffler (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Annex 11 of the World Bank paper speaks about private desalination plants (industrial and domestic in parallel) and says: Additionally, as desalination units use seawater (not brackish water), they do not tap the aquifer ... Today, approximately 100 industrial desalination plants are still operational,. However, it is written a little bit chaotic.

I have no access to the Austrian source, but there is a huge difference between a desalination plant and one desalination plant. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe the report must have referred to new seawater desalination plants that do not tap the aquifer. The Austrian report is a comprehensive analysis of water issues in West Bank and Gaza with some 600 pages. It says there is only one operational seawater desalination plant and it does not mention any industrial desalination plants. Actually it does not mention industrial water use at all, probably because it is subsumed under municipal water use. The industrial desalination plants are probably small and rely either on brackish tap water or directly on brackish groundwater. But I do not know that for sure. There does not seem to be a published source that clarifies the matter. I will try to find out from someone in Gaza familiar with the situation and will get back to you. We can then decide if this information should be included or not, since I will not be able to confirm it with a written source.--Mschiffler (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I am careful with absolute statements like unique, the only, the first, etc. I also often prefere to mention nothing instead of speculations or vague plans that may be carried out in the future, or not. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Unattributed claims

Contentious claims that come from advocacy groups need to be attributed. That's pretty basic editing policy. Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 05:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Besides the human rights group in question it also claimed by numerous other groups. The inclusion of that source is attribution enough.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

And if you don't like this source go find one for the same information that you do like. There are literally many availible.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Which other groups make this claim? Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

After looking at the edits done recently to the article please allow me to attempt a recap of what the issue is so that others can follow this debate more easily: The claim made is that the West Bank is fragmented. The source of the claim is the Israeli NGO B'Tselem. The source has been included before in the footnote. The change that triggered this debate is the attribution of the source in the article itself, beyond it being referenced in the footnote. In response to the question by Kipa Aduma, Esq. I looked up the Misplaced Pages article on the West Bank and found a statement by the World Bank that also says that the West Bank is fragemented at https://en.wikipedia.org/West_Bank#cite_ref-131. The fragmentation of the West Bank through Israeli checkpoints is, in my humble opinion, a well-known fact and I am not aware that any serious source disputes this assertion. Before moving on with this discussion, I would like to kindly ask those who have contributed so far to respond to what I have written above, so that as a next step we can hopefully resolve this issue.--Mschiffler (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

No, the claim is that 'Due to the fragmentation of the West Bank, water cannot be moved from water-rich areas to Palestinian communities with water shortage'. Which group, other than B'tselem, makes the claim that the fragmentation prevents moving water? Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

There's issue with the specific languaged used. That should be addressed. It can be moved. You could stick the water in a container for instance. However the point trying to made and the more accurate statement is that due to fragmentation water movement is inhibited, hindered, or obstructed from water rich areas to areas of shortage.

And yes there are plenty of sources. All you have to do is put effort in. Minimal effort. For instance, from the UN Human Rights Council: UNHRC.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it is an issue with the language used, which can be solved by simple attribution. Alternatively, if you want to change it to something like 'water movement is inhibited', based on the UNHRC source, I think that would be ok. Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Prof. Haim Gvirtzman

Prof. Haim Gvirtzman is a for this (water) field. I was a bout to come back to it and extract some more material from it. The fact he publiced it through a think tank doesn't discount his expertise. Ashtul (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Umh, yes, it does matter. If he'd run it thru a blog we wouldn't include it either; And we wouldn't treat any source as reliable for statements of fact (nor opinion unless very, very notable) if it would say something like "...dirty little secret about the Israelis:...". Can you see the problem here? I think it's obvious.TMCk (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Gvirtzman is RS, I should think, but one should perhaps use attribution, and watch WP:Undue, because Gvirtzman is not only a water specialist but a consultant for both the US defense department and his own government, with a POV to press home. It is, however, as TMCk notes, a polemical screed, systematically ignoring all of the geopolitical issues behind the scenes (like the fact that, as Gvirtzman once admitted, the 'little secret' of Israel's West Bank settlement policy was to secure control of the water resources for Israel.(I am not following you here, Ashtul. See my sandbox. I have long collected data on the water issue).Nishidani (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Start-Class Palestine-related articles
• Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• B-Class Water articles
• High-importance Water articles