Irrigation Adaptation to Changing Water Supply

Haddad, M., (2005). Irrigation Adaptation to Changing
Water Supply: Palestine as a Case Study. Paper accepted
for the ASCE and World Water and Environmental
Congress and listed in Conference Proceeding Paper, Part
of: EWRI 2005, Anchorage, AK, May 15-19, 2005.

Irrigation Adaptation to Changing Water Supply: Palestine as a Case Study
Marwan Haddad1
Abstract:
Israel's decided in April 2002 to establish unilaterally a permanent barrier diverting from
internationally acknowledged armistice lines between the Occupied Palestinian Territory
(OPT) in the West Bank and Israel. Identifying and considering the impact and
vulnerabilities of wall construction on Palestinian farmers was done through field
questionnaire. The Palestinian farmers found to be able of and already resist abandoning
their farming land and adapt to newly imposed conditions evolved from wall
construction. Several adaptive and mitigation measures were practiced since the start of
wall construction of which (1) increasing water availability by increasing irrigation water
storage capacity and home water storage capacity by building home rain fed cisterns (2)
Increasing searching for and documenting data and information about land and water
resources, its ownership, use, and distribution and (3) increasing media involvement in
informing and educating public on the negative impacts of the wall and its illegality.
Introduction
Israel's decided to establish a permanent barrier between the West Bank and Israel in
April 2002. There is strong consensus in the international community that the
construction of the separation wall in the West Bank by Israel violated international law
including the Geneva Conventions, created the artificial division of one nation, violated
human rights and undermined the livelihood of many Palestinian people.
The construction of the wall subjected Palestinians to several water vulnerabilities,
including irrigation infrastructure devastation, impeded access and mobility to water and
irrigation land resources, increased land aridity, and detrimental effects on community
socio-economic and migration.
Among the most sectors likely to be negatively affected by the separation wall
construction is agriculture. Palestinian villagers are especially sensitive to these impacts
and consequences as they relies heavily on income from farming. More than 100,000
trees have been uprooted. More than 36,000 meters of irrigation networks have been
destroyed. Delays associated with travel through the limited gates of the wall have had
undermined the daily routines, productivity and efficiency of Palestinian farmers,
delaying and altering their agricultural operations. During the first construction phase of
the wall, about 42% of the West Bank's agricultural sector was affected. The lands
blocked contain 80% of the West Bank's water wells in operation and provides 53% of its
1
Professor of Environmental Engineering, An-Najah National University, Nablus,
Palestine, Tel. +972-9 2381115 ext. 4473, haddadm@email.com

water-sector employment. Currently, a minimum of 50 productive water wells and 15
villages are being trapped in the buffer zone and west of the wall.
Despite the fact that the expansion and annexation wall is not yet completed and it is too
early to observe many of the social implications of it, and the fact that some of the effects
will take time to become manifest as migration, the households will first have to learn
how it is to live with the new situation caused by the wall, and then find coping
mechanisms (PCBS 2004).
The Study Area
a. Location : Palestine as presented in this paper consists of the West Bank and the Gaza
Strip. The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are those parts of Historic Palestine which were
occupied by the Israeli army during the 1967 war between Israel and Egypt, Syria, and
Jordan. The land area of the West Bank is estimated at 5572 km2
extending for about 155
km in length and about 60 km in width. The Gaza Strip, with an area of 367 km2
extending for approximately 41 kilometers in length and approximately 7 to 9 kilometers
in width (see Figure 1, and Abdel Salam 1990). Because the separation wall is being built
in the West Bank the study and discussions will be confined to the West Bank.
Figure 1. General location Map

b. Population : Palestinian population projections reveal that mid year population in 2003
totaled 3,634,495 persons, of whom 2,304,825 in the West Bank and 1,329,670 in Gaza Strip
(PCBS, 2003). According to the official list of local authorities adopted by the Palestinian
Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS, 2003) and the ministry of local governments, there are
686 localities in Palestine. The localities are distributed by type as 54 urban, 603 rural, and
29 refugee camps. These localities distributed by type of authority as 107 municipalities, 11
local councils, 374 village council or project committee, and 29 director of refugee camp
(additional 76 rural localities are either not inhibited or joined to larger locality).
c. Available Water resources : The estimated average annual ground water recharge in
Palestine is 698 to 708 mcm/yr (648 mcm/yr in the West Bank and 50 - 60 mcm/yr in the
Gaza Strip). The only surface water source in the West Bank is the Jordan river and its
tributaries. In the Johnston plan, the Palestinian share in the Jordan River of 257 mcm/yr
was considered as part of the Jordanian share of 774 mcm/yr as the West Bank was under
the Jordanian rule. Since 1967 war and until present, Palestinians were prohibited by the
Israeli army from using the Jordan river water and their lands and farms located along the
western side of the river were confiscated and the area was declared as a restricted
military security zone (Haddad 1993).
d. The Wall: As reported by ICJ (2004), the Wall is not just a barrier. It consists of a
whole regime, composed of a complex physical structure as well as practical,
administrative and other measures. It is being constructed almost entirely in the
Palestinian Occupied Territory - OPT, including in and around East Jerusalem, in
departure from the Green Line (See Figure 2). It encircles entire Palestinian communities,
including Qalqiliya, a city of 41,000 inhabitants, in walled, Bantustan-like enclaves (see
Figure 3). The total length of the Wall once completed is estimated to be 788 kilometers.
The Wall will be constructed in several phases. The majority of the Wall complex,
consisting of multiple components, varies in width between 30 and 100 meters and up to
8 meters in height (ICJ, 2004).
Construction of the first phase of the wall running some 186 kilometers was mostly
completed in late July 2003. A second phase of the Wall was approved by the Israeli
Cabinet on 1 October 2003. Three sections of that phase, including concrete wall
extensions in and around East Jerusalem, are also completed. In March 2003, the Israeli
Prime Minister also announced plans for the construction of a wall running along the
Jordan Valley in the eastern part of the OPT.
In October 2003, a series of Israeli military orders established a "Closed Zone" of several
kilometers between the Green Line and the Wall and introduced an onerous permit
system for Palestinian residents living in and workers accessing this area. Many have
been denied permits and most permits are granted for only limited periods of time. Gates
along the Wall are closed most of the time, or open only for short fifteen-minute periods
and at the discretion of Israeli soldiers.

Figure 2. Completed and/or Planned Separation Wall in
the West Bank
Figure 3. Separation Wall in Qalqilia- West Bank

If all 788 km of the Wall are completed, more than 43.5 percent, or 2,541 square km, of
the West Bank will be located outside the Wall including approximately 336 square km
over a length of approximately 145 km in and around East Jerusalem. This will leave
56.5 percent of the West Bank as enclosed Palestinian areas. Of this figure, 2 percent of
the West Bank will be inside walled enclaves or double-walled areas.
The number of Palestinians who will be located outside of the Wall or who will have lost
land to the other side of the Wall will be 865,000, or 37.5 percent of the Palestinian
population of the West Bank. This amounts to de facto annexation by Israel, coupled with
the forced displacement of the occupied population.
f. Legal Consequences Of The Wall : The International Court of Justice of the United
Nation (ICJ) was asked by the UN General Assembly (December, 2003) about the legal
consequences arising from the construction of the separation wall being built by Israel,
the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East
Jerusalem, as described in the report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules and
principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and
relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions?.
The ICJ advising opinion on the legal question submitted was: The Wall is not just a
barrier; it is a regime, a regime of isolation, de facto annexation, discrimination and the
denial of rights which does not accord with its avowed purpose of securing Israel. Israel's
construction and maintenance of the Wall regime in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
("OPT") violates its obligations under both international humanitarian law and
international human rights law applicable to its conduct in the OPT. The Wall gravely
infringes the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. Israel is obliged to
continuously perform a number of international obligations which it is currently
breaching. Israel must cease forthwith all its wrongful acts arising from the construction,
operation and/or planning of the Wall. In conformity with its obligation of restoring the
status quo ante, Israel must dismantle forthwith all parts of the Wall built within the OPT.
Israel must indemnify the injured for all their material and personal losses. Other States
are under obligation (i) to cooperate, with each other and with the responsible
international bodies, with a view to putting an end to Israel's violations of international
law, (ii) not to recognize the wrongful situations caused by Israel's violations, and (iii)
not to give aid or assistance to maintain such situations
Research Approach
To determine the impacts of the separation wall construction on Palestinian farmers and
agriculture a field survey in the form of a detailed questionnaire was conducted in
October 2004. The field survey conducted across the West Bank. The questionnaire
structure consists of biographic section and impacts section. The impact section consists
of forty seven questions distributed in eight groups:

1. Environmental impacts of wall construction (6 questions),
2. Wall impacts on irrigation water infrastructure (5 questions),
3. Wall impacts on access and mobility of farmers to resources (5 questions),
4. Economic impacts of wall construction on farmers (6 questions),
5. Wall construction impacts on farmers wellbeing (5 questions),
6. Wall construction impacts on farming processes (10 questions),
7. Wall construction impacts on farming land (4 questions),
8. Institutional reactions to wall construction (6 questions),
The response to questions was scaled according to Likert scale of responses (Likert,
1932). Five categories or intensities of responses were set: Strongly Agree, Agree, Not
Determined, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree. Five hundreds copies of the questionnaire
were distributed all over the area of the West Bank. About 81% of the distributed
questionnaires were returned completed. Completed questionnaires were sorted in tables.
Data were entered to the computer as Excel files. Statistical analysis was conducted using
SAS System for Windows (SAS, 2001).
Results And Discussion
For concise discussion, the average responses and standard deviation will be presented in
the impacts tables for each question or statement. Average responses greater than 4.0
(>80%) were considered very high, 3.5 to 4.0 (70 – 80 %) as high, 3.0 to 3.50 (60 – 70%)
as moderate, 2.50 to 3.00 (50 – 60%) as poor, and less than 2.50 (<50%) as very poor.
a. Sample Characteristics:
The respondents were mostly young married males (80.7% males) with 60.3% less than
forty four years in age. The respondents were highly educated: one half of respondents
were having a first or higher college degree while the other half were mostly with high
school degrees. The respondent type and sector of work was highly diversified with about
47% were farmers or faming labor. The rest were working as employees in various
sectors (39%) or having their private business (15%). The sample was 49% living in
towns and 51% in villages. About 84% of the respondents were lining in the area between
the green line and the separation wall.
b. Vulnerabilities and Impacts:
1. Environmental Impacts of Wall Construction (Table 1): Responses on the
environmental impacts on Palestinian farmers due to wall construction revealed that the
most important and highly negative influence was the deterioration of public services
provided including water supply, sanitation, solid waste collection, and transport and
communication.

Less influence was observed but to two important aspects: the higher availability of and
interest in the data related to land ownership and distribution, and to media involvement
in clarifying the impacts of the wall.
2. Wall Construction Impacts on Irrigation Water Infrastructure (Table 2): Responses
emphasized two highly important issues: the damage caused by the wall construction to
irrigation water infrastructure and farmers increasing interest in increasing irrigation
water storage capacity to overcome negatives caused by the wall construction.
Table 1. Environmental Impacts of Wall Construction
No. Question/Statement Average
Response
Standard
Deviation
Impacts
Level
1 Wall construction will prevent the intrusion of pigs
and similar harmful animals to Palestinians farms
2.49 1.21 Very Poor
2 Data on land ownership, distribution, and use in the
areas on both sides of the wall are more available
and documented
3.41 1.07 Moderate
3 Local media were very active in helping farmers and
residents facing the negative impacts of the wall
3.45 1.09 Moderate
4 Seasonal wild animals movement in the areas
behind the wall was negatively affected after wall
construction
3.51 1.19 High
5 Considerable Wild animals migration from the areas
behind the wall was noticed after wall construction
3.85 1.01 High
6 Services provided to public and/or its development
(water supply, sanitation, electricity, transport and
communications) were negatively affected in areas
behind the wall
4.13 0.69 Very High
Table 2. Wall Construction Impacts on Irrigation Water Infrastructure
Response
Standard
Deviation
Impacts
Level
1 Irrigation water infrastructure was damaged and/or
negatively affected in the area of the wall.
4.02 0.92 Very High
2 Construction of rain fed cisterns increased in the
areas behind the wall
3.96 0.99 High
3 Irrigation water withdrawal was reduced
substantially after wall construction
3.87 0.97 High
4 Increasing pumping hours is very difficult in the area
of the wall due to time limitations (on both sides of
the wall)
3.80 1.06 High
5 Irrigation water storage is becoming more essential
to farmers after wall construction
4.24 0.71 Very High
Interest of villagers in increasing water storage at home level through building rain fed
cisterns was received high response.

High response was observed to increasing limitations on available time for irrigation
water pumping and to the potential volumes pumped or withdrawn under the new
conditions.
3. Impacts on access and mobility of farmers to resources (Table3): All issues and guest
ions raised and related to access and mobility of farmers to their land and water
resources received very high response. The highest impact was observed on the long time
needed by farmers to move their agricultural product from farms to markets. The poorest
response was given to the availability of agricultural rough road that can be used by
farmers to reach their farms (as a by-pass to the wall).
Table 3. Impacts on Access and Mobility of Farmers to Resources
Response
Standard
Deviation
Impacts
Level
1 Many irrigation ground water wells were lost (being
inaccessible) because of wall construction
4.34 0.88 Very High
2 The inability to reach farming lands behind the wall
have resulted in negative impacts on soil quality
4.16 0.97 Very High
3 Time needed to move agricultural products from
areas on both sides of the wall become very long
4.42 0.68 Very High
4 Waiting at the gates set by the Israeli army to pass
from one side of the wall to other resulted in spoilage
of agricultural products
4.40 0.82 Very High
5 There are rough agricultural roads to be used to reach
land areas separated behind the wall
2.12 1.20 Very Poor
4. Economic Impacts of Wall Construction on Farmers (Table 4): Responses to the
questions/statements related to the economic impacts on farmers due to separation wall
construction revealed that the highest impacts were on and from : decreasing rates of job
opportunities in farming, increasing cost of agricultural production, and decreasing
income from farming.
High impact was observed on the increasing pumping cost and the monopolies exercised
by bulk distributors or buyers on farmers (giving them less for their products). The only
moderate response in this group of impacts was received for the dramatic increase in
agricultural products prices.
5. Wall Construction Impacts on Farmers Wellbeing (Table 5): Very important response
rated with very high impact was observed in responses related to potential future
decrease in Palestinian food security as a result of separation wall construction.
All other impacts related to impacts on farmers wellbeing were rated high including
water consumption, water quality, living conditions and the change and return of farmers
to traditional industry and handicrafts.

Table 4. Economic Impacts of Wall Construction on Farmers
Response
Standard
Deviation
Impacts
Level
1 Pumping cost became much higher after wall
construction
3.81 1.10 High
2 Prices of agricultural products increased dramatically
in areas behind the wall
3.28 1.14 Moderate
3 Costs of agricultural production become higher after
the construction of the wall
4.38 0.80 Very High
4 Farming employment opportunities are becoming
increasingly less with time since the construction of
the wall
4.48 0.66 Very High
5 Monopolies by bulk buyers on farmers were
increased after wall construction
3.96 0.86 High
6 Income (farming in general and per farmer) after
wall construction was reduced
4.10 0.92 Very High
Table 5. Wall Construction Impacts on Farmers Wellbeing
Response
Standard
Deviation
Impacts
Level
1 Water consumption rates were reduced in the areas
behind the wall
3.70 1.04 High
2 Water quality in the areas behinds the wall
deteriorated after the wall construction
3.77 1.04 High
3 Palestinian food security will decrease dramatically
with time due to wall construction
4.37 0.77 Very High
4 Living conditions in the land next to the wall are
becoming very difficult and limited
4.00 0.96 High
5 Wall construction forced farmers and residence of
areas behind the wall to turn to old handicrafts and
traditional industries
3.63 1.05 High
6. Wall Construction Impacts on Farming Processes (Table 6): The farming process and
agricultural production were rated to receive the highest negative impact as a result of the
wall construction. Very high impacts were received for high limitation in getting
agricultural equipment and/or machinery, high reduction in the size of available pasture
fields, high difficulties in irrigation scheduling, and the forced change in crops selection.
Less extent impacts but still high were given by respondents to decreasing agricultural
production, high limitations imposed on livestock movement and availability, and the
forced change in cropping patterns. An expected very poor response was observed for
the option of Palestinian farmers abandoning or leaving their land and farms as a
response to construction of the separation wall.
7. Wall Construction Impacts on Farming Land (Table 7): High negative impacts were
revealed from respondents concerning future land and farming development in the areas
affected by the wall construction and expected soil quality deterioration.

However, respondents moderately rated the statement that landowners are the most
affected from wall construction. High negative impact was observed also for the size of
land confiscated and future availability of farm land due to wall construction.
Table 6. Wall Construction Impacts on Farming Processes
Response
Standard
Deviation
Impacts
Level
1 Agricultural production decreased dramatically after
wall construction
3.97 1.16 High
2 Getting and/or renting mechanized equipments and
agricultural machines become very limited for areas
behind the wall
4.19 0.97 Very High
3 Abandoning farming is a good solution or option
for farmers located behind the wall
1.94 1.15 Very Poor
4 livestock movement from one side of the wall to the
other is become impossible
3.84 0.74 High
5 Pasture fields (grazing land) were reduced
dramatically after wall construction
4.30 0.65 Very High
6 In areas behind the wall, livestock availability and
raising is becoming very limited
3.90 0.92 High
7 Interest in and/or dry farming has increased after
wall construction
3.90 0.94 High
8 Irrigation scheduling is becoming much more
difficult after wall construction
4.28 0.76 Very High
9 Wall construction have resulted in a change in the
cropping patterns in areas on both sides of the wall
3.97 1.07 High
10 Wall construction have resulted in a change in the
crops selected in areas on both sides of the wall
4.05 0.99 Very High
Table 7. Wall Construction Impacts on Farming Land
Response
Standard
Deviation
Impacts
Level
1 Reduction in farming due to wall construction
resulted in soil deterioration
4.14 0.93 Very High
2 Land development in the areas behind the wall
become very limited if any after wall construction
4.12 1.08 Very High
3 Land owners are the most affected group by wall
construction
3.37 1.44 Moderate
4 Considerable agricultural lands were confiscated
from Palestinians and/or lost or fully controlled by
the Israeli army as a result of wall construction
3.94 1.22 High
8. Institutional Reactions to Wall Construction (Table 8): The institutional reaction to
the separation wall construction and to helping local farmers and residents affected from
wall construction either being from governmental or non-governmental, local, Israeli, or
international organization or groups was rated low by respondents. This dissatisfaction

indicate the respondents higher expectations from those organizations and groups and the
little impact of organizations reaction o farmers daily life.
Table 8. Institutional Reactions to Wall Construction
Response
Standard
Deviation
Impacts
Level
1 Governmental institutions were very active in
helping farmers and residents facing the negative
impacts of the wall
2.57 1.45 Poor
2 Non- Governmental organizations (local and
international) were very active in helping farmers
and residents facing the negative impacts of the wall
3.18 1.03 Moderate
3 Legal bodies and committees (governmental and
non-governmental including UNs) were very active
in helping farmers and residents facing the negative
impacts of the wall
2.35 1.12 Very Poor
4 Local human rights groups were very active in
impacts of the wall
3.04 1.06 Moderate
5 International human rights groups were very active
in helping farmers and residents facing the negative
impacts of the wall
3.36 0.87 Moderate
6 Israeli human rights groups were very active in
impacts of the wall
2.44 0.95 Very Poor
Conclusions
Based on the findings of this study, it was concluded that since the separation wall
constructed by the Israeli army in the West Bank Palestinian farmer living in both sides
of the separation wall:
 Well aware of present and future impacts of separation wall construction.
 Subject to deteriorating public services.
 Subject to deteriorating , damaged, and inaccessible irrigation water infrastructure
 Subject to higher unemployment and decreased income rates
 Able of and already resist abandoning their farming land and adapt to newly
imposed conditions evolved from wall construction, and waiting for support to
build up to convince and pressure Israel to return back to internationally accepted
armistice lines enabling Palestinians to return to normal life.
 Dissatisfied with organizational reaction including governmental and non-
governmental, local and non-local to wall construction and to the help suppose to
be given.
 Uncertain about the amount available and accessible of land and water for future
development in agriculture.
 Uncertain about their future wellbeing, agricultural production, and food security.

Given the range of constraints facing farmers in Palestine and related to the construction
of the separation wall by the Israeli army, the overall capacity for Palestinian farmers to
adapt to wall construction currently is low. However, the following adaptive and
mitigation measures were practiced:
 They responded to increased water availability by increasing irrigation water
storage capacity and home water storage capacity.
 They increased searching for and documenting data and information about land
and water resources, its ownership, use, and distribution.
 They increased media involvement in informing and educating public on the
negative impacts of the construction wall and its illegality.
References
International Court Of Justice - ICJ, (2004). “Legal Consequences Of The Construction
Of A Wall In The Occupied Palestinian Territory: Executive Summary Of
Written Statement”. United Nation Publications, February 23, 2004.
Abdel-Salam, A. (1990) " Water in Palestine", in the Geographic Studies, Palestine
Encyclopedia (Arabic) vol. 1, Part II , Beirut, Lebanon, pp. 114-116.
Haddad, M. (1993) “Disposal Of Wastewater In The Occupied Palestinian Territories”.
Shu'un Tanmawiyyeh, Vol. ill, Nq. 3, September 1993.
Haddad, M. (2004). “Future Water Institutions in Palestine.” Paper Accepted for
Publication in Water Policy Journal.
Likert R (1932). “Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes”. Archives of Psychology
No.140
Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics –PCBS. (2003). “Press Conference about the
Results of Local Community Survey in the Palestinian Territory”. September, 2003,
Ramallah – Palestine.
Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics –PCBS. (2004). “Demographic and Social
Consequences of the Separation Barrier on the West Bank”, Ramallah- Palestine.
Statistical Analysis Systems –SAS. (2001). “The SAS System for Windows Version 8.2,
1999-2001”, by SAS Institute, Cary, NC 27513, USA.
Acknowledgement
The author would like to acknowledge and thank graduate student Mazen Salman for
conducting the field survey.

Irrigation Adaptation to Changing Water Supply

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Irrigation Adaptation to Changing Water Supply

Similar to Irrigation Adaptation to Changing Water Supply (20)

More from Marwan Haddad

More from Marwan Haddad (20)

Irrigation Adaptation to Changing Water Supply