Gaza Water Crisis Has Caused Irreversible Damage, World Bank Warns In interview with Haaretz (an Israeli daily), Bank's local specialist war...

3 Comments

1. IMPORTING WATER INTO THE MIDDLE EAST FOR SECURING PEACE

   Many ideas circulate for solving the current water crisis in the Middle East and many projects are under consideration: Red-Dead pipeline with associated desalination plants, a desalination plant in Gaza, etc. All these have their rationale and may be necessary but they are far from sufficient as they are limited to manage and spread the existing water stress. Indeed, they could contribute to somehow pacify the difficult local context but they would not contribute to generate the social and economic development required to actually ensure a much needed peace. Especially in the face of two adverse forces that will aggravate substantially this hydric stress in the near future and thus strongly impede the desired development: population growth that will increase the water demand and global warming that will decrease the water offer.

   The only efficient solution would be to substantially increase the water resources available in the region through massive imports of external water.

   A MOU was signed about ten years ago among Turkey and Israel for a water transfer. Our company Via Marina had worked intensely on this project with some of the interested parties: Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Israel and Turkey. Could this old project be somehow resuscitated?

   The envisioned project could go as follows:

   Seyhan and Çeyhan rivers in Turkey could be considered for the water intake. It would seem possible to capture several dozens of cubic meters per second in those two rivers.

   As our proprietary system SubmaRiver® for the transportation in large quantities and over long distance by an underwater flexible pipe envisions taking only a fraction of the residual flow at the mouth of a river (i.e. after all upstream users are satisfied but leaving the environmental flow required for the well-being of the fauna and flora of the mouth of the river), not only this would not represent any sort of impediment for Turkey but also Turkey could cash in a small royalty by cubic meter which would nevertheless represent several dozens of million Euros as supplementary fiscal income.

   Depending on whether the project were conceived to serve at the same time Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Gaza or only Israel and Gaza, the subsea route of the pipeline could go on the continental shelf in the territorial waters of all those countries or else outside their territorial waters (but in their Exclusive Economic Zone) at an important depth. In both cases, Jordan and the West Bank would be served through Israel.

   Delivery points along the route would have to be determined, every 100 or 200km with the aim to serve the three potential demands: urban, industrial and more importantly agriculture (the largest volumes and the best tool to foster development).

   Regarding more particularly Israel, the West Bank and Jordan,

   A shore approach in the vicinity of Haifa could be considered for an onward route toward the Sea of Galilee or Lake Tiberias;

   The onshore route would have to be optimized in order to limit elevation (200-300m) and distance (50-60km) ;

   In any case, this route would generate power as the lake is below the sea level.

   Delivering fresh water upstream the Jordan River would allow returning to the situation prior to the massive catchments currently implemented by Israel.

   It would contribute to combating the problems faced by the Dead Sea downstream.

   An equitable split of a more abundant water could be easily achieved.

2. Water needs to be imported into the catchment from the Litani River in Lebanon then Israel has the infrastructure to deliver it to Gaza:

   https://felixschrodinger.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/save-the-dead-sea/