Evaluation of Groundwater Quality for Irrigation in Gaza Strip - Palestine Dr. Akram H. Al Hallaq Assistant Professor in Geography Department, Al Aqsa University - Gaza
Head of Geography Department E-mail:
[email protected] Gaza – Palestine, Al Aqsa university, P.O. Box 4051 Annals of the Arts and Social Sciences, University of Kuwait, Monograph 279, Vol. 28, Kuwait
Evaluation of Groundwater Quality for Irrigation in Gaza Strip - Palestine
تقييم نوعية المياه الجوفية لغرض الري في قطاع غزة -فلسطين ملخص تهد هذهددلدذاس الددتذيسددصذتيةددةمذاددالةتذاس ةددقدذاسغزةةددتذة د ذ ددق ذ د ذ
يددتذ
اس الددتلذسضد رذاسد اذفددا ذاس تد ذ2003/2002م.ذزاعت د هذهددلدذاس الددتذع ددصذ 240ذعة تذ ةقدذغ عهذ نذآبق ذاس اذ،ذزل دهذية ةقيةدقعذعدنذ
ةد ذ ايد ذاس ةدقدذةد ذ
ز ا ذاس اعدددت.ذلةددد ذ ةلدددهذ دددةمذ غدددتذاستزادددة ذاسيه بددد ذ،ذز دددةمذاسيقتةز دددقهذ اسيقسلةزمذ،ذاس ض ةلةزمذ،ذاساز ةزمذزاسبزتقلةزمل.ذزللبهذبعرذاس ل اهذ نذ بد ذ اسبقل ذستعةةنذ اء تذاس ةقدذسض رذاس اذ ث ذ لبتذاساز ةزمذاس لاب.ذززةيقعذس زلجذ زة يزيسذز زلجذ اي ذاس
اعتذاأل ةيةتذاسبةدق ةةنذ،ذاد هذادالةتذ ةدقدذاسد ا.ذ
زبقلتث قءذ لقةظتذاسش ق ذذأظه هذاسبةق قهذاست ذتمذاسلاز ذع ةهقذ نذهدلدذاس الدتذ أنذ ةقدذاس اذاس لتف تذة ذ ق ذ
ذلاهذ زعةتذلةيت .ذ
ز بيقعذس زلجذزة يزيسذ،ذةي ذتبةنذأنذ قذة ة ذعنذ%50ذ نذيغ قس ذعة قهذ ةقدذ اآل بق ذة ذ ق ذ
ذا هذع صذأ هقذ ة ذاقسلتذس اذ،ذة ذلةنذاد هذ%29.6ذ
نذيغ قس ذاسعة قهذع صذأ هقذغة ذيسصذ يبزست.ذزتبةنذ نذهلدذاس التذأنذ%13.3ذزذ %4.2ذ نذاسعة قهذا هذع صذأ هقذ شيزكذة ذاالةتهقذس اذيسصذ ة ذاقسلتذ،ذ ز يبزستذس اذيسصذ شيزكذة ذاالةتهقذع صذاستزاس .ذ زةتضددمذ ددنذ ددةمذ غددتذاستزاددة ذاسيه ب د ذز ع د دهذا اددق
ذاساددز ةزمذة د ذ
فت هذاس لقةظقهذ،ذزبقلتف امذ زلجذ اي ذاس اعتذاأل ةيةدتذ،ذأنذأ بةدتذعة دقهذ ةقدذاآلبق ذتيعذة ذاس يتةنذذC4-S4ذزذC4-S3ذلة ذتشيانذ دقذ لدبت ذ%22.5ذزذ
2
%14.2ذ نذيغ قس ذاسعة دقهذ،ذزتعتبد ذعة دقهذاس يدتذC4-S4ذ ةد ذادقسلتذس د اذ،ذ بة قذدتع ذة ذاسعق ذعة قهذاس يتذC4-S3ذاقسلتذس ا.ذي قذأنذأيث ذ نذ%15ذ نذ يغ قس ذاسعة قهذةيدعذفدق جذلد ز ذ دزلجذ ايد ذاس اعدتذاأل ةيةدتذزسدمذتظهد ذع ةد ذ زبقستقس ذتع ذبشي ذعقمذ ة ذاقسلتذس ا.ذهلاذزةيعذ لزذ%26ذ نذيغ دقس ذاسعة دقهذ ةددد ذ دددق ذ ددد ذةددد ذاس يدددتذC3-S1ذ استددد ذتتبدددعذس غ زعدددتذاس ةدددقدذعقسةدددتذاس زلدددتذ زاس ف ضتذةةهقذ لبتذاساز ةزمذاست ذة ينذأنذتلتف مذس اذةد ذيد ذاست بدقهذتي ةبدقعذ اسغةددد ذاساددد هذ،ذ ةددد ذا هدددقذدذتيدددزنذغةددد ذسددد اذاس لقادددة ذاسللقلدددتذسع اددد ذ اساز ةزم.ذعة قهذ ة تذز عهذة ذاس يقه%1.7 C2-S1لذ،ذزذ)%0.4( C2-S2 و ، )%8.3( C3-S2و C3-S3ذ %1.7لذ،ذزذC4-S1ذ %3.3لذ،ذزذC4- S2ذ %6.3ل.ذ ذ ز تةغتذس تزلعذاسل ةعذةد ذاس اعدتذاس زةدتذ،ذأادبمذالدتف امذاس ةدقدذاس قسلدتذةد ذ ق ذ
ذ ه يقع.ذ نذ قلةتذثق ةتذتع ذاس ةدقدذاس قسلدتذةد ذاسي دق ذ شدي تذ يةلدتذ ظد اعذ
ستأثة هقذاسل ب ذع صذ لقلتذزي تقغةتذ لقاة ذع .ذ ذ زةعق ذ ق ذ
ذ نذا ف قرذة ذي تقغةتذاس لقاة ذفقاتعذت دكذاستد ذدذتتل د ذ
األ احذيقسل ضةقهذزأشغق ذاس قيهتذاألف ى.ذ ذ
3
Abstract Gaza Strip is entirely dependent on groundwater resources. This study aims at evaluating the suitability of groundwater in Gaza Strip (The study area) for irrigation during the period 2002/2003. This paper discusses water quality considerations for irrigation and determines some chemical characteristics of waters used for irrigation in Gaza Strip. The study depends on 240 water samples collected from irrigation wells, and analyzed chemically by the Water Department in the Ministry of Agriculture where the values of electrical conductivity (EC) and cations (Ca, Mg, Na, and K) were measured. Some parameters were calculated by the researcher to determine the suitability of water for irrigation such as Soluble Sodium Percentage (SSP), and Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR). The suitability of irrigation water is classified according to Wilcox diagram and the diagram of U.S. Department of Agriculture. Excluding the Northern Governorate, the data obtained from the study shows that irrigation water used in Gaza Strip is of a bad quality. According to the classification of Wilcox, more than 50% (including the samples which fall beyond the limits of Wilcox classification) of the total wells water samples in Gaza Strip is considered unsuitable for
4
irrigation, while 29.6% of it is classified as good to permissible. As it is shown in this paper, 13.3% and 4.2% of the wells water samples are classified as doubtful to unsuitable and permissible to doubtful respectively. From the values of EC and SAR for the water samples obtained from the different governorates and using the U.S. salinity diagram, it is clear that the majority of the water samples fall in the C4-S4 and C4-S3 classes. They form 22.5% and 14.2% of the total samples respectively. C4-S4 class is considered unsuitable for irrigation. C4-S3 class is not ordinarily suitable for irrigation. Also more than 15% of the total samples fall beyond the limits of the US salinity diagrams and do not appear on them, and are not generally suitable for irrigation. About 26% of the total samples in Gaza Strip fall in the C3-S1 class. This class belongs to low sodium and high salinity water group which can be used for irrigation on almost all soils with good drainage but not good for sodium sensitive crops. A few samples were in the C2-S1 (1.7%), C2-S2 (0.4%), C3-S2 (8.3%), C3-S3 (1.7%), C4S1 (3.3%), and C4-S2 (6.3%). Due to the rapid expansion of irrigated agriculture, excrescent use of the salinity water in Gaza Strip is becoming more vital.
5
However, water salinity is a major problem due to its negative influence on the area and yields of many crops. Gaza Strip suffers from a reduction of crop yields, especially those crops that are not tolerant to salt as citrus trees and other fruit trees. Keywords: Gaza Strip, water quality, irrigation, cations, electrical conductivity, sodium adsorption ratio
6
1. Introduction: Both the rain-fed and irrigated agriculture are considered to be one of the basic foundations of the Palestinian economy. Gaza strip (study area) economy relies heavily on agriculture which represents approximately one third of the Gross National Product (GNP) [1]. The agricultural sector in Gaza strip contributes to 9% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
[2]
. The Irrigated
agriculture contributes to about 35% of the total agricultural income [3]. It is now generally recognized that the quality of groundwater is as important as its quantity. Nearly all groundwater contains dissolved salts that are derived from the location and past movement of the water. Most salinity problems in agriculture results directly from the salts carried in the irrigation water. As water evaporates, the dissolved salts remain resulting in a solution with a higher concentration of salt. The same process occurs in soils. Salts as well as other dissolved substances begin
7
to accumulate as water evaporates from the surface and as crops withdraw water. Not all water is suitable for irrigation use. Just as some water is not suitable for human beings, in the same way; all types of water are not suitable for plant life. The suitability of water for irrigation is determined not only by the total amount of salt present in it, but also by the kind of salt. Salts in water or soil reduce water availability to the crop to such an extent that yield is affected [4]. In General, most of Gaza Strip governorates suffer from bad quality of groundwater
[5]
. The main sources of salinity
are: sea water intrusion due to over-pumping from the aquifer, return flows from irrigation water, deep saline water intrusion from deeper saline strata [6], and lateral flow from the east. 2. Objectives This paper discusses water quality considerations for irrigation and determines some chemical characteristics of waters
8
used for irrigation in Gaza Strip. It evaluates suitability of waters for irrigation needs. 3. Description of the Study Area 3.1 Geography Gaza Strip (study area) is a narrow strip of land encompassing an area of 360 km2. Its length along the coast is 45km and width ranges from 6 to 12 Km It is divided geographically into five governorates from north to south: Northern governorate, Gaza, Middle, Khanyounis and Rafah (Figure 1). The population count was at 1299403 inhabitants in 2002, while the fertility rate is estimated at 3.5% and average member per family is at 6.9% (7). After Israeli occupation to Gaza Strip in 1967, many Israeli settlements have been constructed on the Palestinians lands and these form about 16% of the whole area of the Gaza Strip. Sand dunes are dominant along the shoreline with elevations up to 40 m above mean sea level, while a brown clay (mix with) loamy soil extends at east Gaza city and at north-eastern of Gaza Strip.
9
Three wadis are crossing Gaza Strip: Beit Hanoun, Gaza, Salga areas forming the hydrological feature of the area, and usually water flows in these wadis in winter. The Gaza Wadi is the biggest one; it runs in the central part of the Gaza Strip and discharges into the Mediterranean Sea. Israel has retained and changed the course of the three Wadis and they became dry Wadis [8]. The geography of the region is not favorable in regard to water situation. There are no permanent surface freshwater sources and the region is not infiltrated by any lakes, springs or rivers. 3.2 Climate Gaza strip has a semi-arid Mediterranean climate, with mean temperature varying from 13oC in January, to 26oC in August. Rainfall is the main source of almost all water in Gaza Strip. According to the available climatic data (1980-2004), the average rainfall ranges from 440 millimeters per year (mm/y) in the northern Governorate to 234 mm/y in Rafah Governorate in the
10
south. The peak of rainfall is taking place during December and January. The rainy days range from 45 to 50 days. The average annual volume of rainfall is about 135 million cubic meters (MCM) per year. Of this, about 35% infiltrates and replenishes the aquifer system (effective recharge). The remainder is lost by evaporation and runoff. 3.3 Groundwater The primary source of water is groundwater, namely Gaza section of the coastal aquifer. The coastal aquifer of the Gaza Strip extends over the entire length of the 45 km Strip from the north to the south over its total width, but varies significantly in depth and occurrence. The total thickness of the Gaza coastal aquifer ranges from 80-100 m in the east to 120-160 m by the shore
[9]
. The coastal aquifer of the Gaza Strip consists of the
Pleistocene age Kurkar Group and recent (Holocene age) sand dunes. The Kurkar Group consists of marine and Aeolian calcareous sandstone (kurkar), reddish silty sandstone (Hamra),
11
silts, clays, unconsolidated sands, and conglomerates
[10]
. In the
eastern part, the aquifer is homogeneous. Towards the west and near the coast, it is partially divided by intervening clay layers into four separate subaquifers A, B1, B2 and C. The uppermost subaquifer "A" is unconfined, whereas subaquifers "B1", "B2" and "C" become increasingly confined towards the sea (Figure 2). Within Gaza, the coastal aquifer overlies the Saqiye Group, which is considered to be largely impermeable [11]. Based on a Palestinian Water Authority report 2000, the coastal aquifer holds approximately 5x109 MCM of ground water of different quality. However, only 10% of this is fresh water, with chloride content of less than 250 Mg/L. Of this volume about 45% was under Israeli control before the pullout
[12]
. This
means that approximately 70% of the aquifer is brackish or saline and the rest 30% is fresh water. [13] The renewable amount of groundwater is about 91 MCM by year 2000 from which 40 MCM comes from direct infiltration of rainfall. The remaining
12
amount (51 MCM) comes from irrigation return flow, leakage from non-sewered areas and brackish trans-boundary flow that crosses the eastern side of the Gaza Strip. The total amount of groundwater abstraction for domestic and agriculture was 153 MCM by the year 2000 (62 MCM/year and 91 MCM/year respectively). Total recharge was at 91 MCM and the total deficit in the water budget of 62 MCM by the year 2000.
[14]
The
negative result in water balance of Gaza resulted into a continuous decline in the groundwater levels. Figures (3) and (4) show interpreted groundwater contour maps for 1971 and 2000. It is clear that the regional water levels in 2000 have been lowered from that of 1971. Water levels around Gaza City and Rafah are more than 2 meters below sea level as a function of high total abstraction. As mentioned above, total abstraction from aquifer was 153 MCM per year by the year 2000. The average decline in the groundwater level was 5.1 centimeters per year (cm/y), but this average varies geographically from governorate
13
to another. In Rafah and Khanyounis governorates in the south, for example, that average has reached to 17 cm/y and 4.7 cm/y respectively, and about 2.4 cm/y in the northern governorate [15]. Due to over abstraction, there has been a continuous drop in the groundwater levels in the last twenty years all over the Gaza Strip. This has been reflected in the increase of groundwater salinity. Salinity represented in chloride concentration also increased dramatically to above 1000 Mg/L due to the high groundwater abstraction rates. The average of chloride (CL) content is 280 Mg/L in the northern governorate and over 850 Mg/L in the southern part especially in Khanyounis governorate. The groundwater in Gaza Strip has shown total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations ranging from 300–6000 mg/l (Figure 5). Salinity originates from both seawater intrusion and deep saline groundwater (upconing)*. *
Upconing: A term indicates to the vertically upward movement of water underneath a pumping well. Upconing depends on aquifer properties, contrast in density between saline and freshwater, and well pumping rate.
14
Using large amounts of fertilizers and pesticides in agricultural activities and lack of sewage networks were both increasing the concentration of nitrate ions in groundwater. Nitrates have reached above 250 Mg/L in some areas reflected in an aggravated deterioration of water quality. Gaza Strip has many environmental problems and some of them complicate efforts to promote economic and social development. The primary issue is water quality and quantity. Besides eroding the availability of potable water, salinity levels have had a disastrous effect upon agriculture. Citrus yields have suffered tremendously because of the crop’s intolerance for high levels of salt
[16]
. This is especially important because citrus is
Gaza’s major agricultural commodity. Increasing salinity levels have caused a decrease in the amount of water extracted for irrigation purposes, thus lowering total cultivated acreage. Certain areas are only able to tolerate 11.5% of the nitrates present
[17]
. In Al- Qarara village in Khanyounis governorate for
15
example, more than 50% of the wells are unsuitable for agriculture and livestock [18]. 3.4 Agricultural water demand Agricultural water demand for food requirements is the heavy user in the Gaza Strip. There are 4118 agricultural wells in the Gaza Strip
[19]
; of them about 50% are illegal, pumping
approximately 91 MCM /year for agricultural use in year 2000. The irrigated land in the Gaza Strip is the main user of water, which accounts to 60% of the total consumption which currently reaches to more than 150 MCM. According to Palestinian Water Authority data, the agricultural water demand is projected to decrease from 91 MCM/year to 80 MCM/year by the year 2020, provided that change will occur on the rain-fed agricultural land area in the Gaza Strip. This result is due to the growth in land use of urban areas, which is expanding on account of agricultural land. The farmers in this case have to change their crop pattern
16
based on the available water. Intensive agriculture is also required due to lack of land [20]. 4. Data and Methodology Data of this study draws upon results of water samples collected and analyzed by Ministry of Agriculture from wells used for irrigation at 240 locations in Gaza Strip governorates during 2002/2003 (Table 1) and (Figure 1). All cations concentrations were given in milligram unit per liter (mg/l) and converted to milliequivalent unit per liter (meq/l) by the researcher. Table (1) Distribution of water samples in Gaza Strip governorates. Governorate
Number of collected samples
Northern
83
Gaza
38
Middle
57
Khanyounis
50
Rafah
12
Total
240
Source: by the researcher.
17
To assess whether or not the study area has an irrigation salinity problem and to determine the suitability of water for irrigation, the irrigation water must be analyzed for a number of parameters. These are: a- Soluble sodium percentage, (SSP): Using water with high sodium ratio may cause the concentration of sodium in soil and exchange other ions in the soil particles with sodium. These processes will affect negatively the growth of the plants
[21]
.
Water under this parameter test can be calculated using the equation: [22] SSP = (Soluble Na Concentration / Total Cations Concentration) * 100
b- Electrical conductivity (EC): Electrical conductivity (EC) is the most convenient way of measuring water salinity [23]. EC is a measure of ionic concentrations of water, and in this respect is related to TDS. The electrical conductivity (EC) is a measure of the salt content of the irrigation water. Salts of Calcium (Ca), Magnesium (Mg), and Sodium (Na) and Potassium (K) present in
18
the irrigation water are harmful to plants. However, harmful effects of salts on soils causing changes in soil structure, permeability and aeration, indirectly affect the plant growth and it depends upon the concentration of salts left in the soil. c- Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR): Permeability and aeration (waterlogging) problems can occur when the irrigation water has Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) and salinity high enough to cause a large increase in the sodium status of the soil. Irrigation water containing large amounts of sodium is of special concern due to sodium’s effects on the soil and poses a sodium hazard. Sodium hazard is usually expressed in terms of SAR or the sodium adsorption ratio
[24]
. SAR, as shown in the following
equation, defines the relationship between sodium, calcium and magnesium [25].
19
The irrigation water quality ratings are summarized in table (2) according to EC, TDS and SAR. Table (2) A Guide groups of Irrigation Water Based on EC and SAR Values EC (µS/cm) < 250 250 – 750 750 – 2250
Water Class (Salinity Hazard) C1
(Low)
C2 (Medium) C3
(High)
> 2250
C4 (Very high)
SAR (meq/l)
Water Class (Sodium Hazard)
< 10 10 – 18
S1
18 – 26
S3
> 26
(Low)
S2 (Medium) (High)
S4 (Very high)
Use in Irrigation Can be used for almost all crops and for almost all kinds of soil. Can be used if a moderate amount of leaching occurs; normal salt tolerant plants can be grown without much salinity control. Can be used in soil with restricted drainage. Special precaution and measures are to be under taken for salinity control. Generally not suitable for irrigation.
Use in Irrigation Can be used for irrigation on all soils and almost all crops except those which are highly sensitive to sodium. It may be used on coarse texture or organic soil with good permeabilities but in fine textured soil. May cause harmful effects on almost all the soils and it requires good drainage, high leaching, Gypsum addition. Generally not suitable for irrigation.
Source: 1- Abdul-Jaber, Q. H. and Marei, A., "The Suitability of Groundwater for Irrigation in Certain Areas of the West Bank", Water and Environment, A six-Monthly Journal, (Palestinian Hydrology group, Jerusalem, 1998), p. 4-12. 2- Wishahi, S. K. and Khalid A. M., "Hydrochemistry of the Jordan Valley Aquifers", Water and Environment, A six-Monthly Journal, (Palestinian Hydrology group, Jerusalem, 1999), pp.12-21. 3- Wilcox, L. V., Classification and Use of Irrigation Waters, US Department of Agriculture Circ. 969, (USA, Washington, D. C., 1955), pp. 19. 4-
Wilcox, L. V., (1948), The Quality of Water for Irrigation Use, (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bull. 962, Washington, D.C, 1948), p. 23.
5- Richard's, L. A. (ed), Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali Soils, Agric. Handbook 60, (US Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C, 1954), pp. 20-40.
20
All samples were analyzed for ionic concentration, electrical conductivity (EC) and total dissolved solids (TDS). The suitability of irrigation water is classified according to Wilcox diagram
[26]
. This diagram is used to determine the suitability of
groundwater for irrigation depending on the relation between the total cations concentration in meq/l and soluble sodium percentage (SSP or %Na). The available groundwater quality data analyzed and presented in U.S. salinity diagram
[27]
, or the U.S. Department of
Agriculture diagram. The diagram is a simple scatter plot of Sodium Hazard (SAR) on the Y-axis vs. Salinity Hazard on the X-axis. The Conductivity is plotted by default in a log scale. This diagram is used to classify groundwater for irrigation purposes depending on the EC and sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) [28]. (See table 2)
21
5. Results and discussion 5.1 Agriculture and Irrigation Agriculture is still the most important economic sector. In 2002/2003, the agricultural land covers approximately 165000 dunums or about 46% of total area of Gaza Strip (360 km2). The agricultural land per capita is only 132 m2. Nearly 116000 dunums or about 70% of the agricultural land is being irrigated [29]
. The area cultivated by fruit trees were the great portion of
these agriculture lands and comprised 45% of the total irrigated lands (Figure 6). While the vegetables and field crops constituted about 39% and 16% of the total irrigated lands respectively
[30]
.
The main agricultural production in Gaza Strip is citrus, olives, grapes and vegetables. Citrus fruit has diminished from 63% of the agricultural output value in 1970 to about 6.5% in 2003. Many citrus orchards are strongly neglected and no longer irrigated due to the deterioration of water quality. This means
1 dunum = 1000 square meters.
22
that the area of citrus lands has decreased and subsequently the production has declined as we will see later. 5.2 Suitability of Groundwater for Irrigation in Gaza Strip: Water which originates from groundwater wells is used for irrigation in different governorates of Gaza Strip. The agricultural lands which depend on irrigation water are distributed in all governorates. To evaluate the suitability of groundwater in the governorates of Gaza Strip for irrigation needs, the values of SSP, EC and SAR were determined for a number of water samples collected from wells in the region. 5.2.1 The Northern Governorate This governorate is located in north of Gaza Strip. It covers about 17% (60.6 km2) of Gaza Strip total area. However, 31.9% (19329 dunums) is agricultural land. The irrigated land engages an area which amounts to 91.6% (17710 dunums) of total agricultural lands. Water samples from the wells (83 samples) used for irrigation were collected and analyzed by Ministry of
23
Agriculture in 2002/2003 (Appendix 1). The suitability of the water for irrigation in all governorates was checked by measuring EC and TDS, calculating the SAR and SSP; comparing the results with the classification of water for irrigation and plotting them on Wilcox diagram. According to Wilcox classification, the groundwater of the Northern governorate can be classified as Excellent to Permissible. As it is shown Table (3) and Figure (7), about 80% Table (3) Classification of Water Quality for Irrigation in the North Governorate Water Class Excellent to Good Good to Permissible Permissible to Doubtful Doubtful to Unsuitable Unsuitable* Total
Frequency 3 63 3 10 4 83
% 3.6 76.0 3.6 12.0 4.8 100
Source: Computed by the researcher. * Two samples don't appear on the diagram, in Fig (7), because they fall beyond the limits of it.
of the wells water in the Northern governorate is classified as Excellent to Permissible for irrigation and about 3.6% of it is classified as Permissible to Doubtful. It is clear also that 12% of
24
the wells water is classified as Doubtful to Unsuitable, and 4.8% of it is classified as Unsuitable. Subsequently, water on most of the wells in this governorate is considered suitable for irrigation from the Wilcox classification point of view. According to U.S. salinity diagram, Figure (8), water samples falling under C2-S1 were taken as good quality and under C3-S1 as moderate quality. C3-S2 type water can be used for salt tolerant crops [31]. It is significant to note that the majority of the samples fall in the C3-S1 class (71.1% of total samples in the Northern governorate). This class belongs to low sodium and high salinity water group which can be used for irrigation on almost all soils with good drainage but not good for sodium sensitive crops. This water cannot be used on soil with restricted drainage, so special management is required for salinity control and plants with good salt tolerance should be selected
[32]
. A few
samples were in C2-S1 (3.6%), C4-S1 (2.4%), and C4-S3 (1.2%) classes. The class C2-S1 is low sodium and medium salinity
25
water and can be used for irrigation on almost all soils with little danger of the development of sodium problem and suitable for all crops if a moderate amount of leaching occurs
[33]
. Water of the
group C4-S1 is not suitable under ordinary conditions but, because of the low sodium content, may be used on coarse textured and organic soils. The class C4-S3 belongs to high sodium and very high salinity type and produces sodium problem in most soils and not suitable for irrigation under ordinary conditions. 10.8% of total samples were classified into C3-S2 and the same ratio into C4-S2. The first belongs to medium sodium and high salinity water group and may present a moderate sodium problem in fine textured soils (Clay). This water can be used on coarse textured (Sandy) or organic soils that penetrate water well. The second class is considered as a medium sodium and very high salinity water. It may present a moderate sodium problem in fine textured soils unless there is gypsum in
26
the soil. It is not ordinarily suitable for irrigation but under special circumstances can be used on sandy or organic soils. 5.2.2 Gaza Governorate Gaza governorate is located to the south of the northern governorate. It covers about 20% (72.4 km2) of Gaza Strip total area. About 36% (26149 dunums) of the total governorate area is used for agriculture. The area of irrigated land covers 77% (20144 dunums) of total agricultural lands. Water samples from the wells (38 samples) used for irrigation were collected and analyzed by Ministry of Agriculture. (Appendix 2) According to the classification of Wilcox, Table (4) and Figure (9) the water of 18.4% of the wells in Gaza governorate is considered to be Good to Permissible, and about 24% of them is classified as Doubtful to Unsuitable for irrigation, while about 58% of these wells is classified as Unsuitable for irrigation (17 samples fall beyond the limits of the diagram and don't appear on Figure (9), and generally they are not suitable for irrigation).
27
Table (4) Classification of Water Quality for Irrigation in Gaza Governorate Water Class Excellent to Good Good to Permissible Permissible to Doubtful Doubtful to Unsuitable Unsuitable* Total
Frequency -7 -9 22 38
% -18.4 -23.7 57.9 100
Source: Computed by the researcher. * 17 samples don't appear on the diagram, in Fig (9), because they fall beyond the limits of it.
Most of Gaza wells belong to the category C4-S3, (34.2% of total samples in Gaza governorate) that is very high salinity hazard and high sodium hazard, Figure (10). Water of this category produced sodium problem in most soils and is not suitable for irrigation under ordinary conditions, and may occasionally be used under very special circumstances. Soils must be permeable and adequate drainage, and good leaching should be ensured. Very salt tolerant crops, like tomatoes, sugar beets, tall wheatgrass and clover, should be selected. More than 18% of total samples were classified into C4-S4. Water of this type is not generally suitable for irrigation because it has very high salinity
28
and very high sodium hazard. Six samples (15.8%) fall in the C4S2 class and considered a medium sodium and very high salinity water. It may present a moderate sodium problem in fine textured soils unless there is gypsum in the soil. It is not ordinarily suitable for irrigation but under special circumstances (such as presence of permeable soils, adequate drainage and good leaching) can be used on sandy or organic soils. A few samples were in C3-S1 (7.9%), and C3-S2 (10.5%). Water of C3-S1 can be used for irrigation on almost all soils with good drainage but not good for sodium sensitive crops. Even with adequate drainage, special management for salinity control may be required and plants with good salt tolerance should be selected. The class C3-S2 belongs to medium sodium and high salinity water group and may present a moderate sodium problem in fine textured soils (Clay). This water can be used on coarse textured like sandy soils or organic soils that penetrate water well. This water can be used on coarse textured (Sandy) or
29
organic soils that penetrate water well. Five samples (13.2%) fall outside of the diagram, in Figure (10), and are generally not suitable for irrigation. 5.2.3 The Middle Governorate This governorate occupies the middle part of Gaza Strip land. It is the smallest governorate in the study area. It is bounded by the Gaza governorates to the north and Khanyounis governorates to the south. It covers 15.6% (56.4 km2) of total area of Gaza Strip, and the 43.6% (24581 dunums) of the governorate represents agricultural land. Ratio of the irrigated land reaches to 66.6% (16376 dunums) of total agricultural lands. The analysis results of 57 water samples in the governorate (Appendix 3) indicate that 93% of total wells are considered Unsuitable for irrigation according to Wilcox diagram, (43 samples fall beyond the limits of the diagram, Figure (11), and don't appear on it, and generally are not suitable for irrigation).
30
Only 7% of them are classified as Doubtful to Unsuitable for irrigation. Table (5) and Figure (11) Table (5) Classification of Water Quality for Irrigation in the Middle Governorate Water Class Excellent to Good Good to Permissible Permissible to Doubtful Doubtful to Unsuitable Unsuitable* Total
Frequency ---4 53 57
% ---7.0 93 100
Source: Computed by the researcher. * 43 samples don't appear on the diagram, in Fig (11), because they fall beyond the limits of it.
According to U.S. salinity diagram, Figure (12), the water in this governorate is considered to be of class C4 (very high salinity hazard). It has been found that about one third of the samples (20 samples) fall in C4-S4 class, and 17 samples or 29.8% of the total samples in this governorate fall beyond the limits of the diagram, in Figure (12), and don't appear on it. This means that water of this type belongs to very high salinity hazard and very high sodium hazard, and is not suitable for irrigation. About 26% of the total samples in the middle governorate belong
31
to the category C4-S3), that is very high salinity hazard and high sodium hazard. Water of this category may cause harmful effects on almost all the soils and requires good drainage, high leaching and gypsum addition. Few samples (8.8%) were in C4-S2 class, and the water of this class is not suitable for irrigation from the EC point view and it may be used from the SAR point view in coarse texture or organic soil with good permeabilities but not in fine textured soil. 5.2.4 Khanyounis Governorate Khanyounis governorate is located about 5 km south of Dair Al Balah city, in the southern part of Gaza Strip. It is bounded by the Middle governorate from the north and by Rafah governorate from the south. Khanyounis governorate has a total area of 110.4 km (30.6% of total Gaza Strip Area) with four major distinguished land use classes. These are Palestinian built up area, Israeli settlements, sand dunes and cultivated lands. The agricultural land occupies 54.7% (60413 dunums) of the
32
governorate total area and the irrigated land forms about 56% (33808 dunums) of the total agricultural lands. The result of the 50 water samples (Appendix 4) testing shows that 86% of them are considered Unsuitable for irrigation according to Wilcox diagram. (42 samples fall beyond the limits of the diagram, in Figure (13), and don't appear on it and they are not generally suitable for irrigation). Only 2% of the water samples are classified as Permissible to Doubtful. It is clear also that 12% of the wells water is classified as Doubtful to Unsuitable. Table (6) and Figure (13)
Table (6) Classification of Water Quality for Irrigation in Khanyounis Governorate Water Class Excellent to Good Good to Permissible Permissible to Doubtful Doubtful to Unsuitable Unsuitable* Total
Frequency --1 6 43 50
% --2.0 12.0 86.0 100
Source: Computed by the researcher. * 42 samples don't appear on the diagram, in Fig (13), because they fall beyond the limits of it.
33
Figure (14) shows a presentation of water samples on the U.S. salinity diagram, with the following five classes of irrigation water shown: 1. C3-S2 class, 6% of the total samples in the governorate belongs to the medium sodium hazard and high salinity hazard. The water in this class can be used in soil with restricted drainage, and special precautions and measures are to be undertaken for salinity control. It may be used in coarse texture or organic soil with good permeablities, but not in fine textured soil. 2. C3-S3 class, 8% of the total samples in the governorate belongs to the high salinity and high sodium hazard. According to the SAR, this water may cause harmful effects to the soils and it requires good drainage, high leaching, and needs adding gypsum to the water or the soil to reduce the SAR value.
34
3. C4-S2 class, 2% of the total samples belongs to the medium sodium and very high salinity hazard. It may present a moderate sodium problem in fine textured soils unless there is gypsum in the soil. Water of this type is not ordinary suitable for irrigation but under special circumstances can be used on sandy or organic soils. 4. C4-S3 class, 8% of the total samples in the governorate belongs to the high sodium hazard and very high salinity hazard. Water of this class produced sodium problem in most soils and is not suitable for irrigation under ordinary conditions. This water may be occasionally used under very special circumstances. Soils must be permeable and adequate drainage and good leaching should be ensured. Also very salt tolerant crops should be selected. 5. C4-S4 class, 48% of the total samples belongs to the very high sodium and very high salinity hazard. Generally, water of this class is unsuitable for irrigation. It is significant to
35
note, that 28% of samples fall beyond the limits of the diagram, in Figure (14), and they are unsuitable for irrigation. 5.2.5 Rafah Governorate The total area of Rafah Governorate is 60.7 km2 which makes it the third largest territory in Gaza Strip. However, 56.7% (34431 dunums) is agricultural land; the irrigated land engages an area that amounts to 80.7% (27781 dunums) of the total agricultural lands. The analyzing result of 12 water samples in the governorate (Appendix 5) indicates that 50% of total wells are considered Permissible to Doubtful for irrigation according to Wilcox diagram. It is clear also that 25% of the wells water is classified as Doubtful to Unsuitable, and 16.7% of them are classified as Unsuitable. (One sample falls beyond the limits of the diagram, in Figure (15), and doesn't appear on it, and is not generally suitable for irrigation). Only 8.3 % of wells water is classified as Good to Permissible for irrigation. Table (7) and Figure (16) One
36
third of Rafah wells belong to the class C3-S2. Three samples (12% of total samples) fall in the C4-S4 class and are considered Table (7) Classification of Water Quality for Irrigation in Rafah Governorate Water Class Excellent to Good Good to Permissible Permissible to Doubtful Doubtful to Unsuitable Unsuitable* Total
Frequency -1 6 3 2 12
% -8.3 50.0 25.0 16.7 100
Source: Computed by the researcher. * One sample doesn't appear on the diagram, in Fig (15), because they fall beyond the limits of it.
very sodium and very high salinity water. Water of this type is not generally suitable for irrigation. One of the water samples (8.3%) falls in the C2-S1, C3-S1 C4-S2 and C2-S2 classes (Figure 16). The suitability of using the first three kinds of water for irrigation is mentioned above. The class C2-S2 belongs to medium salinity and medium sodium water. The water quality of this class can be used if a moderate amount of leaching occurs; normal salt tolerant plants can be grown without much salinity control. It may be used on coarse texture or organic soil with
37
good permeabilities but not in fine textured soil. One sample doesn't appear on the diagram, in Fig (16), because they fall beyond the limits of it. 6. Influence of Salinity on the Irrigated Agriculture Due to the rapid expansion of Irrigated agriculture, excrescent use of saline water in Gaza Strip is becoming more vital. However, water salinity is a major problem due to its negative influence on the area and yields of many crops. Farmers in the Gaza Strip suffer from a reduction in their crops productivity, especially those crops that are not tolerant to salt as citrus and other fruit trees. As a result, Gaza's groundwater is often unsuitable for irrigation, as it can damage the soil and lower crop yields. Salinity is the greatest concern and most groundwater in Gaza Strip is suitable only for use on highly salt-tolerant crops and highly permeable soil. Yet citrus is a significant agricultural crop and, in addition to being water intensive, citrus cannot tolerate high salinity [34]. Farmers are already observing declining
38
of crop yields and declining quality in many areas due to the use of high salinity irrigation water. Fresh water scarcity has affected citrus production. The area under citrus cultivation in most Gaza governorates contracted steadily from 40744 dunums in 1998/1999 to 19071 dunums in 2002/2003. The area which is cultivated by citrus trees was the great portion of the fruit trees lands reaching 70.2% in 1998/1999. In 2002/2003 citrus area constituted 36.8% of the total fruit trees lands and about 11% of the total agriculture lands in the Gaza Strip. Production also appears to have declined twice at the same period (Table 8) and Figure (18). In the mid of the 1990s, citrus production accounted for only 25% of the value of agriculture output, down from 63% in the early of 1970s. In 2003 this ratio has been declined to 6.3%. This drop in production has affected other sectors of Gaza's economy. Many orchards lie abandoned because water salinity is too high for the crop.
39
1998/1999
1999/2000
2000/2001
2001/2002
2002/2003
Governorates Area
Yield
Prod.
Area
Yield
Prod.
Area
Yield
Prod.
Area
Yield
Prod.
Area
Yield
Prod.
Northern
17521
2.65
46351
11848
2.55
30204
14201
2.00
28478
13105
1.99
26105
7289
2.65
19324
Gaza
11000
2.37
26099
11950
2.34
27963
8272
2.10
17336
8147
2.09
16994
7382
2.18
16127
Middle
8782
2.47
21725
5917
2.38
14055
5068
2.12
10722
4887
2.11
10311
3122
2.50
7814
Khanyounis
1134
2.12
2414
955
2.42
2311
625
2.26
1414
568
2.17
1232
334
1.50
502
Rafah
2307
2.51
5784
1401
2.24
3141
1428
2.03
2905
1152
2.84
3274
944
1.66
1568
Total
40744
2.51
102373
32071
2.42
77674
29594
2.06
60855
27859
2.05
57016
19071
2.38
45335
Area: Dunums, Yield: Ton/Dunum, Production (Prod.): Tons
Table (8) Area, Yield and Production of Citrus in Gaza Strip Governorates Source: 1) Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, Agricultural Statistics 1998/1999, (Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, Ramallah, Palestine, November, 1999), pp 45-46. 2) Ministry of Agriculture, Value of Agricultural Production in Gaza Governorate for Seasons 1999-2002, (in Arabic), (Gaza, 2002), pp. 10-31. 3) Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, Agricultural Statistics 2002/2003, (Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, Ramallah, Palestine, October, 2004), pp. 70-74.
40
Although the area under fruit trees cultivation (Excluding citrus) was increased from 17328 dunums in 1998/1999 to 32727 dunums in 2002/2003, the production of fruit trees was decreased from 21680 tons to 12175 tons at the same time. Yield per dunum appears to have declined in all Gaza governorates (Table 9). 1998/1999
2002/2003
Governorates Area
Yield
Production
Area
Yield
Production
Northern
1568
1.12
1762
1075
0.57
612
Gaza
1621
0.72
1163
8442
0.44
3733
Middle
5384
1.20
6444
6225
0.39
2397
Khanyounis
7896
1.41
11158
12608
0.32
4086
Rafah
859
1.34
1153
4377
0.31
1347
Total
17328
1.25
21680
32727
0.37
12175
Area: Dunums, Yield: Ton/Dunum, Production: Tons
Table (9) Area, Yield and Production of Fruit trees in Gaza Strip Governorates Source: 1) Palestinian (Palestinian 45-46. 2) Palestinian (Palestinian 70-74.
Central Bureau of Statistics, Agricultural Statistics 1998/1999, Central Bureau of Statistics, Ramallah, Palestine, November, 1999), pp Central Bureau of Statistics, Agricultural Statistics 2002/2003, Central Bureau of Statistics, Ramallah, Palestine, October, 2004), pp.
41
Vegetables crops are more salt tolerant, so they are more productive. Vegetables have increased from 50.7% of the total agricultural value in 1998/1999 to 81% in 2002/2003 due to the diffusion of greenhouses. 7. Conclusion Gaza Strip is entirely dependent on groundwater resources for irrigation. In 2002/2003, the agricultural land covers about 46% of the total area of Gaza Strip. Nearly, 70% of the agricultural land is being irrigated. The quality of groundwater is as important as its quantity. To conclude, Gaza Strip suffers from bad water quality. Results of this study can be summarized as follows: Groundwater is used for irrigation in all governorates of Gaza Strip. According to the classification of Wilcox, about 52% (including the samples which fall beyond the limits of Wilcox classification) of the wells water samples in Gaza
42
Strip is considered unsuitable for irrigation, while 1.2% and 29.6% of these wells are classified as excellent to good and good to permissible respectively. These wells (3 wells) of excellent to good classification are mainly found in the northern governorate. As it is shown in Figure (17), 13.3% and 4.2% of the wells water are classified as doubtful to unsuitable and permissible to doubtful respectively. From the values of EC and SAR for the water samples obtained from the different governorates and using the U.S. salinity diagram, the irrigation water quality rating can be summarized as follows: 1- The majority of the water samples fall in the C4-S4 and C4-S3. They form 22.5% and 14.2% of the total samples respectively. The class C4-S4 is considered unsuitable for irrigation, and the class C4-S3 is not ordinarily suitable for irrigation
43
2- More than 15% of the total samples fall beyond the limits of the US salinity diagrams and do not appear on them, and are not generally suitable for irrigation. 3- About 26% of the total samples in Gaza Strip fall in the C3-S1 class. Water of this class can be used for irrigation on almost all soil with good drainage but not good for sodium sensitive crops. 4- A few samples were in the C2-S1 (1.7%), C2-S2 (0.4%), S3-S2 (8.3%), C3-S3 (1.7%), C4-S1 (3.3%), and C4-S2 (6.3%). 5- Water in the northern governorate is better suited for irrigation than water in the middle and southern governorates because: a) The levels of TDS are generally low in this governorate with an average 1026 mg/l, while the middle and southern governorates have an average TDS ranging between more than 1400 mg/l to about 2700 mg/l, b) The northern governorate receives high rainfall
44
rate ranging between 400-430 mm, which has a positive effect on the quality of the groundwater of the governorate's aquifer.
Due to the rapid expansion of Irrigated agriculture, excrescent use of the salinity water in Gaza Strip is becoming more vital. However, water salinity is a major problem due to its negative influencer on the area and yields of many crops.
Gaza Strip suffers from a reduction of crops productivity, especially those crops that are not tolerant to salt as citrus trees and other fruit trees.
45
Figure (1) Location map of Gaza Strip with studied irrigation wells Source: by the researcher.
46
47
Figure (3) Groundwater Table Elevation Contour (1971) Source: Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) and Coastal Aquifer Management Program (CAMP), Integrated Aquifer Management Plan (Task-3), Volume 1, (Gaza, PWA & CAMP, May 2000), p. 78.
48
Figure (4) Groundwater Table Elevation Contour (2000) Source: After Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) and Coastal Aquifer Management Program (CAMP), Integrated Aquifer Management Plan (Task-3), Volume 1, (Gaza, PWA & CAMP, May 2000), p. 79.
49
Figure (5) TDS Concentration in Gaza Strip (2002/2003) Source: by the researcher.
50
Figure (6) Agricultural Lands in Gaza Strip Source: Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation, (1997), The Technique Atlas: Gaza Governorates, Part 1, Gaza, Palestine.
51
Fig (7) Suitability of Groundwater for Irrigation in the Northern Governorate – Wilcox diagram Two unsuitable samples don't appear on the diagram because they fall beyond the limits of it. Source: by the researcher.
52
Fig. (8) Classification of Groundwater for Irrigation in the Northern Governorate - US salinity diagram Source: by the researcher
53
Fig (9) Suitability of Groundwater for Irrigation in Gaza Governorate – Wilcox diagram 17 unsuitable samples don't appear on the diagram because they fall beyond the limits of it. Source: by the researcher.
54
Fig. (10) Classification of Groundwater for Irrigation in Gaza Governorate. 5 unsuitable samples don't appear on the diagram because they fall beyond the limits of it. Source: by the researcher.
55
Fig (11) Suitability of Groundwater for Irrigation in the Middle Governorate – Wilcox diagram 43 unsuitable samples don't appear on the diagram because they fall beyond the limits of it. Source: by the researcher
56
Fig. (12) Classification of Groundwater for Irrigation in the Middle Governorate. 17 unsuitable samples don't appear on the diagram because they fall beyond the limits of it. Source: by the researcher
57
Fig (13) Suitability of Groundwater for Irrigation in Khanyounis Governorate – Wilcox diagram 42 unsuitable samples don't appear on the diagram because they fall beyond the limits of it. Source: by the researcher.
58
Fig. (14) Classification of Groundwater for Irrigation in Khanyounis Governorate. 14 unsuitable samples don't appear on the diagram because they fall beyond the limits of it. Source: by the researcher.
59
Fig (15) Suitability of Groundwater for Irrigation in Rafah Governorate – Wilcox diagram
1 unsuitable sample doesn't appear on the diagram because it falls beyond the limits of it. Source: by the researcher.
60
Fig. (16) Classification of Groundwater for Irrigation in Rafah Governorate. 1 unsuitable sample doesn't appear on the diagram because it falls beyond the limits of it. Source: by the researcher.
61
60 50
%
40 30 20 10 0 Excellent Good
Good Permissible
Permissible Doubtful
Doubtful Unsuitable
Unsuitable
Classes
Figure (17) Suitability of Groundwater for Irrigation in Gaza strip according to the Wilcox classification Source: by the researcher.
62
20000
Dunums
15000
10000
5000
0 1998/1999
1999/2000
2000/2001
2001/2002
2002/2003
Years Northern
Gaza
Middle
Khanyounis
Rafah
Figure (18) Changes of the Area under Citrus Cultivation 1998/1999 – 2002/2003 Source: by the researcher
63
Appendix (1) Different water quality parameters of wells in the Northern governorate Na+ (meq/l)
Mg+2 (meq/l)
Ca+2 (meq/l)
K (meq/l)
E.C. um/cm
TDS (mg/l)
SAR
% of Sodium
A/106
1.41
4.86
2.04
0.06
751.0
480.6
0.76
16.86
A/107
1.55
4.94
3.46
0.13
924.0
591.4
0.76
15.40
A/112
1.41
2.46
6.12
0.04
1047.0
670.1
0.68
14.05
A/131
0.94
1.42
2.47
0.03
441.0
282.2
0.68
19.40
A/17
0.97
3.18
3.66
0.05
938.0
600.3
0.52
12.34
A/21
1.55
5.50
4.06
0.04
1120.0
716.8
0.71
13.93
A/25
4.15
3.23
5.27
1.22
1330.0
851.2
2.01
29.92
A/27
1.13
2.93
2.65
0.10
617.0
394.9
0.68
16.62
A/28
2.33
2.84
4.70
0.15
975.0
624.0
1.20
23.24
A/31
1.85
2.47
4.65
0.14
905.0
579.2
0.98
20.31
A/36
1.85
4.52
5.97
0.05
1195.0
764.8
0.81
14.94
A/47
2.66
3.65
5.33
0.15
1340.0
857.6
1.26
22.56
A/53
1.41
2.84
4.02
0.96
1011.0
647.0
0.76
15.28
A/58
1.70
5.31
3.16
0.06
948.0
606.7
0.83
16.62
A/64
1.41
2.16
5.03
0.03
835.0
534.4
0.74
16.34
A/7
6.10
5.72
5.92
0.06
1703.0
1089.9
2.53
34.25
A/86
4.55
3.74
9.15
0.08
1840.0
1177.6
1.79
25.98
A/92
3.56
3.83
10.75
0.07
1854.0
1186.6
1.32
19.56
B/11
4.63
3.20
4.37
0.10
1043.0
667.5
2.38
37.64
B/12
3.52
3.27
2.55
0.06
1064.0
681.0
2.06
37.45
B/15
7.08
3.55
4.13
0.06
1330.0
851.2
3.61
47.77
B/16
2.50
3.28
3.93
0.05
997.0
638.1
1.32
25.61
B/4
6.65
5.63
6.40
0.08
1820.0
1164.8
2.71
35.45
B/5
6.23
4.76
6.48
0.07
1630.0
1043.2
2.63
35.52
C/1
5.82
4.19
3.12
0.05
1377.0
881.3
3.04
44.16
C/113
2.49
2.42
4.89
0.04
952.0
609.3
1.30
25.29
C/125
6.23
2.88
2.92
0.06
1169.0
748.2
3.66
51.53
C/12A
7.06
4.59
4.36
0.08
1580.0
1011.2
3.34
43.87
C/12B
7.98
5.22
4.89
0.06
1790.0
1145.6
3.55
43.94
C/12C
7.56
4.23
4.09
0.07
1570.0
1004.8
3.71
47.41
C/14
3.37
6.79
5.77
0.06
1510.0
966.4
1.35
21.09
C/15A
7.82
4.58
3.65
0.07
1530.0
979.2
3.86
48.52
C/15B
6.33
4.99
2.69
0.07
1380.0
883.2
3.23
44.99
C/16A
7.77
2.44
5.07
0.07
1524.0
975.4
4.01
50.62
C/21
8.44
4.27
3.96
0.07
1730.0
1107.2
4.16
50.42
Well No.
64
C/24
8.34
3.83
2.65
0.06
1460.0
934.4
4.63
56.04
C/25
11.39
2.93
6.09
0.06
1210.0
774.4
5.36
55.64
C/33
9.87
3.79
3.09
0.06
1640.0
1049.6
5.32
58.72
C/3A
5.41
3.01
3.25
0.05
1223.0
782.7
3.06
46.16
C/47A
14.66
9.18
3.67
0.09
2720.0
1740.8
5.78
53.12
C/48
5.82
5.92
4.50
0.08
1711.0
1095.0
2.55
35.66
C/49
7.77
5.25
4.14
0.06
1680.0
1075.2
3.59
45.12
C/51
9.87
7.14
3.10
0.09
1980.0
1267.2
4.36
48.86
C/52
12.98
9.27
3.45
0.10
2490.0
1593.6
5.15
50.31
C/56A
9.98
2.26
6.49
0.06
1706.0
1091.8
4.77
53.11
C/61
6.65
0.02
4.27
0.06
1141.0
730.2
4.54
60.45
C/77
7.08
6.24
4.04
0.10
1660.0
1062.4
3.13
40.57
C/78
9.38
7.42
2.34
0.13
1940.0
1241.6
4.25
48.67
C/79
12.98
2.41
8.67
0.09
2350.0
1504.0
5.51
53.75
C/9
4.63
7.11
5.16
0.08
2360.0
1510.4
1.87
27.27
C/91
7.77
5.65
5.29
0.08
1717.0
1098.9
3.32
41.35
C/92
7.77
5.14
4.79
0.83
1774.0
1135.4
3.49
41.93
D/30
2.16
1.68
2.97
0.21
645.0
412.8
1.42
30.84
D/34
2.16
5.76
1.80
0.05
867.0
554.9
1.11
22.14
D/43
3.95
3.56
5.61
0.13
1299.0
831.4
1.84
29.79
D/58
1.78
2.01
4.17
0.03
776.0
496.6
1.01
22.28
D/9
2.33
2.59
4.97
0.15
952.0
609.3
1.20
23.19
E/102
9.26
5.19
7.98
0.32
2940.0
1881.6
3.61
40.70
E/114A
15.05
6.12
8.55
0.17
2870.0
1836.8
5.56
50.35
E/115
31.66
6.53
8.76
0.12
3310.0
2118.4
11.45
67.26
E/12
3.56
7.33
6.35
0.11
1674.0
1071.4
1.36
20.54
E/158
10.59
3.59
14.69
1.66
2980.0
1907.2
3.50
34.69
E/24A
3.73
8.45
3.33
0.10
1476.0
944.6
1.54
23.89
E/26
8.50
7.06
2.93
0.32
1658.0
1061.1
3.80
45.19
E/32
2.66
4.70
2.66
0.05
922.0
590.1
1.39
26.41
E/35
6.23
5.69
6.08
0.06
1999.0
1279.4
2.57
34.50
E/45
1.85
4.16
2.97
0.15
818.0
523.5
0.98
20.28
E/63
17.81
7.25
19.25
0.04
4360.0
2790.4
4.89
40.16
E/67
10.87
4.69
13.85
0.16
3200.0
2048.0
3.57
36.76
E/75
9.72
7.46
17.60
0.26
3560.0
2278.4
2.75
27.74
E/78
6.81
2.25
7.70
0.12
1622.0
1038.1
3.06
40.36
E/88
2.49
1.82
5.98
0.13
1182.0
756.5
1.26
23.90
Q/10
17.03
3.57
2.36
0.08
1628.0
1041.9
9.89
73.91
Q/2
11.63
15.04
2.48
0.51
3030.0
1939.2
3.93
39.21
Q/20
12.44
2.83
2.65
0.08
1710.0
1094.4
7.52
69.16
65
Q/31
5.87
5.30
2.44
0.10
1360.0
870.4
2.98
42.79
Q/4
4.36
4.01
4.32
0.08
1976.0
1264.6
2.14
34.14
Q/41
8.08
4.89
3.05
0.12
1600.0
1024.0
4.06
50.07
Q/48
12.11
3.66
1.71
0.09
1720.0
1100.8
7.39
68.93
Q/8
7.31
3.23
2.40
0.06
1230.0
787.2
4.35
56.18
R/13
9.38
2.12
1.59
0.22
1920.0
1228.8
6.89
70.47
R/3
7.56
5.66
3.85
0.12
1686.0
1079.0
3.47
43.98
R/8A
5.00
6.53
2.74
0.11
1585.0
1014.4
2.32
34.77
Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Central Lab. for Water & Soil, Laboratory Report – Water, Unpublished data, (Ministry of Agriculture, Gaza – Palestine, 2003), p. 1-2
Appendix (2) Different water quality parameters of wells in Gaza governorate Na+ (meq/l)
Mg+2 (meq/l)
Ca+2 (meq/l)
K (meq/l)
E.C. um/cm
TDS (mg/l)
SAR
% of Sodium
E/29
12.75
2.55
10.24
0.32
2600.0
1664.0
5.04
49.30
F/109
45.79
8.87
6.20
0.13
4870.0
3116.8
16.68
75.08
F/111
32.86
8.67
6.62
0.13
4180.0
2675.2
11.88
68.05
F/114
28.19
5.79
6.35
0.12
3620.0
2316.8
11.44
69.71
F/121
31.66
8.43
8.28
0.10
4210.0
2694.4
10.95
65.33
F/124
51.48
12.74
8.02
0.13
5870.0
3756.8
15.98
71.14
F/143
35.30
16.83
9.85
0.19
6380.0
4083.2
9.66
56.78
F/156
62.14
8.28
7.21
0.11
4040.0
2585.6
22.33
79.93
F/182
19.55
6.42
2.28
0.10
2650.0
1696.0
9.37
68.96
F/35
27.97
9.08
4.50
0.19
3960.0
2534.4
10.73
67.01
F/43
43.06
10.01
3.29
0.15
5530.0
3539.2
16.70
76.20
F/62
36.55
8.75
7.25
0.17
5030.0
3219.2
12.92
69.32
F/68A
31.66
13.38
5.56
0.11
4740.0
3033.6
10.29
62.43
F/68B F/88
28.73 13.31
7.70 5.50
5.78 3.72
0.17 0.35
3950.0 3310.0
2528.0 2118.4
11.07 6.20
67.79 58.17
F/96 G/24 B
45.79 15.24
2.98 3.08
1.52 4.42
0.08 0.08
3980.0 1727.0
2547.2 1105.3
30.53 7.87
90.91 66.78
R/112
24.89
10.23
5.21
0.11
4430.0
2835.2
8.96
61.54
R/133
8.88
4.51
1.54
0.06
1390.0
889.6
5.11
59.23
R/141
16.87
11.96
3.20
0.15
3060.0
1958.4
6.13
52.42
R/16A
24.30
3.68
2.81
0.08
2620.0
1676.8
13.49
78.72
R/170
20.73
4.35
4.71
2.30
2660.0
1702.4
9.74
64.60
R/185
15.95
6.70
5.37
0.58
2380.0
1523.2
6.49
55.77
R/210
20.73
5.82
2.34
0.07
2740.0
1753.6
10.26
71.58
Well No.
66
R/216
24.30
1.81
0.83
0.06
2750.0
1760.0
21.17
90.00
R/249
9.44
7.22
2.86
0.09
2020.0
1292.8
4.20
48.13
R/259 R/25A
4.76 21.74
3.50 5.51
3.64 2.58
0.05 0.24
1097.0 2840.0
702.1 1817.6
2.52 10.81
39.83 72.30
R/30
14.17
4.58
2.12
0.08
2440.0
1561.6
7.74
67.64
R/42
21.53
2.68
1.37
0.07
2610.0
1670.4
15.14
83.95
R/46
36.55
3.33
1.26
0.09
4090.0
2617.6
24.13
88.65
R/52
27.07
2.08
1.20
0.08
3270.0
2092.8
21.14
88.96
R/54
9.38
2.42
5.31
0.15
2130.0
1363.2
4.77
54.35
R/60
7.77
3.60
1.73
0.25
1852.0
1185.3
4.76
58.20
R/87 R/94
7.53 8.50
3.70 3.92
4.18 3.68
0.07 0.14
1463.0 3000.0
936.3 1920.0
3.79 4.36
48.64 52.34
S/7
47.19
10.98
5.36
0.13
5090.0
3257.6
16.51
74.11
S/9
28.19
6.13
4.95
0.13
4110.0
2630.4
11.98
71.55
Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Central Lab. for Water & Soil, Laboratory Report – Water, Unpublished data, (Ministry of Agriculture, Gaza – Palestine, 2003), p. 3-4
Appendix (3) Different water quality parameters of wells in the Middle governorate Na+ (meq/l)
Mg+2 (meq/l)
Ca+2 (meq/l)
K (meq/l)
E.C. um/cm
TDS (mg/l)
SAR
% of Sodium
F/10
26.61
8.35
5.35
0.19
4210.0
2694.4
10.17
65.70
F/21
15.05
5.46
6.96
0.19
2870.0
1836.8
6.04
54.41
F/30A
37.81
10.75
9.53
0.20
5880.0
3763.2
11.87
64.87
F/30B
37.81
10.09
6.83
0.20
5370.0
3436.8
13.00
68.83
F/34
39.10
6.42
9.31
0.12
5340.0
3417.6
13.94
71.15
F/7
43.06
9.83
5.83
0.19
4300.0
2752.0
15.39
73.09
G/10
62.14
7.84
6.28
0.20
3830.0
2451.2
23.39
81.27
G/13
15.05
15.24
3.28
0.13
4740.0
3033.6
4.95
44.66
G/18
35.30
11.19
8.29
0.19
5170.0
3308.8
11.31
64.22
G/2
54.44
9.84
8.53
0.25
3910.0
2502.4
17.96
74.51
G/21
27.07
7.56
3.51
0.20
3450.0
2208.0
11.51
70.61
G/26
35.30
10.26
8.35
0.19
7970.0
5100.8
11.57
65.25
G/4A
25.97
9.52
7.33
0.15
3960.0
2534.4
8.95
60.45
H/11
20.73
7.39
4.38
0.10
2920.0
1868.8
8.55
63.59
H/14
102.96
4.70
5.58
0.15
3410.0
2182.4
45.41
90.80
H/16
40.40
9.82
6.53
0.16
4650.0
2976.0
14.13
70.99
H/19
37.81
8.18
6.54
0.17
4250.0
2720.0
13.94
71.74
H/2
23.82
5.13
3.77
0.12
3000.0
1920.0
11.29
72.54
H/25A
23.82
7.97
5.24
0.14
3120.0
1996.8
9.27
64.08
Well No.
67
H/29
35.30
9.90
6.74
0.17
4360.0
2790.4
12.24
67.74
H/4
23.82
5.29
3.24
0.12
3240.0
2073.6
11.53
73.36
H/40
26.61
10.12
6.44
0.19
4330.0
2771.2
9.25
61.37
H/43
33.75
10.38
6.47
0.21
4970.0
3180.8
11.63
66.42
H/5
35.30
5.15
3.78
0.15
3680.0
2355.2
16.70
79.53
H/50
28.34
11.77
13.44
1.73
5330.0
3411.2
7.98
51.27
H/59
30.11
12.68
8.18
0.61
5320.0
3404.8
9.32
58.38
H/61
30.11
11.98
8.90
0.19
5210.0
3334.4
9.32
58.83
H/69
20.73
11.83
5.68
0.13
3390.0
2169.6
7.01
54.04
J/10
60.56
3.56
2.26
0.11
2970.0
1900.8
35.50
91.08
J/103
46.53
20.36
14.87
0.18
7180.0
4595.2
11.09
56.79
J/115
48.60
14.40
10.24
0.13
4470.0
2860.8
13.85
66.24
J/116
35.30
7.59
3.84
0.12
4200.0
2688.0
14.77
75.35
J/14
22.77
5.42
3.46
0.10
3230.0
2067.2
10.81
71.72
J/17
19.74
3.38
7.86
0.11
3340.0
2137.6
8.33
63.49
J/24
22.77
7.48
4.40
0.20
3860.0
2470.4
9.34
65.34
J/32
100.07
9.92
7.37
0.50
5070.0
3244.8
34.03
84.91
J/53
43.29
16.54
10.04
0.18
6720.0
4300.8
11.87
61.80
J/56
37.03
12.08
8.05
0.31
5650.0
3616.0
11.67
64.43
J/57
43.29
17.14
10.07
0.33
6390.0
4089.6
11.74
61.12
J/59
45.79
8.82
7.17
0.29
3380.0
2163.2
16.19
73.77
J/70
40.12
15.67
6.34
0.20
6300.0
4032.0
12.09
64.37
K/3
25.97
2.85
1.68
0.07
2930.0
1875.2
17.26
84.95
S/15
34.07
6.97
5.13
0.22
3930.0
2515.2
13.85
73.43
S/21
34.07
6.37
4.88
0.17
4360.0
2790.4
14.37
74.90
S/28
31.07
5.32
5.30
0.10
3220.0
2060.8
13.48
74.35
S/32
31.66
5.93
5.51
0.15
3980.0
2547.2
13.24
73.20
S/37
27.07
6.32
4.47
0.28
3470.0
2220.8
11.65
70.98
S/40
15.05
4.20
3.60
0.12
2710.0
1734.4
7.62
65.52
S/44
25.02
4.46
4.04
0.09
3670.0
2348.8
12.14
74.44
S/47
21.74
8.74
6.26
0.14
3680.0
2355.2
7.94
58.95
S/50
21.74
3.92
2.89
0.10
2920.0
1868.8
11.78
75.88
S/62
34.07
7.57
5.60
0.19
4390.0
2809.6
13.28
71.83
S/13
34.07
12.05
9.39
0.43
5290.0
3385.6
10.41
60.90
T/1
32.86
5.95
4.72
0.15
4230.0
2707.2
14.23
75.23
T/2
31.66
4.84
4.85
0.13
4520.0
2892.8
14.38
76.33
T/37
27.07
4.19
3.17
0.12
3650.0
2336.0
14.11
78.35
T/47
17.81
4.19
2.77
0.10
2840.0
1817.6
9.55
71.61
Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Central Lab. for Water & Soil, Laboratory Report – Water, Unpublished data, (Ministry of Agriculture, Gaza – Palestine, 2003), p. 5-6
68
Appendix (4) Different water quality parameters of wells in Khanyounis governorate Na+ (meq/l)
Mg+2 (meq/l)
Ca+2 (meq/l)
K (meq/l)
E.C. um/cm
TDS (mg/l)
SAR
% of Sodium
L/106
23.83
7.83
7.24
0.09
3390.0
2169.6
8.68
61.12
L/12
63.73
5.60
4.65
0.19
5790.0
3705.6
28.15
85.92
L/127
22.77
8.24
7.37
0.13
3330.0
2131.2
8.15
59.13
L/133
40.40
3.01
1.64
0.09
3300.0
2112.0
26.52
89.52
L/136
47.19
4.19
3.38
0.14
4110.0
2630.4
24.25
85.95
L/139
10.82
2.35
3.32
0.09
1330.0
851.2
6.43
65.26
L/141
36.55
3.09
1.95
0.07
3420.0
2188.8
23.02
87.73
L/172
15.05
2.34
2.35
0.10
1480.0
947.2
9.83
75.86
L/173
28.19
5.82
1.27
0.18
3650.0
2336.0
14.97
79.50
L/18
31.87
3.98
2.85
0.08
3490.0
2233.6
17.24
82.16
L/1A
45.79
12.96
7.21
0.15
5220.0
3340.8
14.42
69.26
L/24
32.67
3.16
1.64
0.11
3340.0
2137.6
21.10
86.95
L/26
50.03
7.35
4.75
0.13
4860.0
3110.4
20.34
80.36
L/30
37.81
7.19
4.57
0.13
4160.0
2662.4
15.59
76.08
L/39
55.94
2.76
2.42
0.15
4770.0
3052.8
34.76
91.30
L/4
31.87
7.75
6.10
0.12
4130.0
2643.2
12.11
69.53
L/45
20.73
7.03
7.23
0.09
2250.0
1440.0
7.76
59.09
L/48
25.97
5.08
3.35
0.16
2940.0
1881.6
12.65
75.14
L/53
20.73
4.03
3.43
0.10
2140.0
1369.6
10.73
73.28
L/6
26.47
7.64
4.93
0.12
3550.0
2272.0
10.56
67.60
L/68
29.33
2.80
3.89
0.10
2920.0
1868.8
16.04
81.20
L/69
19.74
1.46
2.46
0.06
2030.0
1299.2
14.10
83.22
L/71
13.31
0.23
1.18
0.04
1041.0
666.2
15.85
90.18
L/8
41.72
5.96
3.58
0.14
4180.0
2675.2
19.10
81.17
L/9
44.42
8.28
4.39
0.24
4570.0
2924.8
17.65
77.48
M/1
34.07
4.16
2.77
0.16
4734.0
3029.8
18.30
82.77
M/10
43.49
2.40
1.50
0.11
3700.0
2368.0
31.14
91.56
M/3
41.72
1.82
1.13
0.08
3530.0
2259.2
34.35
93.23
M/4
83.44
4.94
3.65
0.23
9380.0
6003.2
40.26
90.44
M/7
40.12
3.35
2.42
0.19
4920.0
3148.8
23.62
87.07
M/8
54.14
1.66
0.91
0.13
3880.0
2483.2
47.76
95.25
M/9
60.97
2.12
1.94
0.13
4510.0
2886.4
42.79
93.57
N/10
114.92
7.83
5.62
0.64
8280.0
5299.2
44.31
89.08
Well No.
69
N/12
88.50
4.86
3.34
0.24
6320.0
4044.8
43.71
91.29
N/16
86.12
3.79
4.33
0.23
6150.0
3936.0
42.74
91.16
N/17
41.72
2.83
2.83
0.18
3960.0
2534.4
24.80
87.72
N/19
44.42
1.94
2.73
0.18
3770.0
2412.8
29.07
90.16
N/2
65.71
2.88
2.03
0.15
4240.0
2713.6
41.94
92.85
N/24
50.03
3.29
3.31
0.19
4380.0
2803.2
27.54
88.05
N/7
45.79
2.74
3.53
0.17
4070.0
2604.8
25.86
87.67
O/1
80.80
4.70
3.81
0.17
5990.0
3833.6
39.17
90.30
O/3
102.96
7.16
6.02
0.37
7740.0
4953.6
40.11
88.37
P/50
19.74
2.92
2.36
0.10
1306.0
835.8
12.15
78.58
T/14
47.64
5.82
4.19
0.12
4390.0
2809.6
21.29
82.46
T/15
43.49
8.15
5.73
0.14
4480.0
2867.2
16.51
75.62
T/20
35.62
4.49
2.89
0.11
3590.0
2297.6
18.54
82.63
T/22
37.03
3.30
2.03
0.11
4510.0
2886.4
22.68
87.19
T/25
8.50
7.50
5.69
0.14
4050.0
2592.0
3.31
38.94
T/26
46.53
2.03
2.70
0.17
4930.0
3155.2
30.26
90.47
T/34
105.90
11.51
8.67
0.12
4600.0
2944.0
33.34
83.91
Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Central Lab. for Water & Soil, Laboratory Report – Water, Unpublished data, (Ministry of Agriculture, Gaza – Palestine, 2003), p. 6-7
Appendix (5) Different water quality parameters of wells in Rafah governorate Na+ (meq/l)
Mg+2 (meq/l)
Ca+2 (meq/l)
K (meq/l)
E.C. um/cm
TDS (mg/l)
SAR
% of Sodium
L/63
26.61
1.72
1.07
0.08
3050.0
1952.0
22.53
90.26
L/65
24.89
2.04
1.60
0.08
3040.0
1945.6
18.45
87.00
P/10
40.30
6.10
3.40
0.16
5520.0
3392.5
18.49
80.66
P/124
23.10
2.76
2.53
0.16
3039.0
1885.0
14.20
80.91
P/138
5.22
0.99
1.20
0.06
1021.0
633.0
4.99
69.88
P/139
7.58
1.59
1.10
0.08
467.0
785.9
6.54
73.24
P/144
8.26
0.79
0.69
0.07
1144.0
710.0
9.60
84.20
P/145
10.00
1.24
1.18
0.06
1500.0
929.0
9.09
80.13
P/15
11.74
2.33
2.27
0.36
2038.0
1236.0
7.74
70.30
P/153
4.57
0.30
0.49
0.05
663.0
413.0
7.27
84.47
P/78
10.28
5.60
3.68
0.41
3843.0
2562.2
4.77
51.48
P/79
23.81
5.95
4.69
0.14
1140.0
670.4
10.32
68.83
Well No.
Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Central Lab. for Water & Soil, Laboratory Report – Water, Unpublished data, (Ministry of Agriculture, Gaza – Palestine, 2003), p. 8.
70
Endnotes [1] Jamal Y. Al-Dadah, Agricultural Water Management and Conservation: Methods in Gaza Governorates, (Palestinian Water Authority, Gaza 1999), pp. 2-5 [2] Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The world Factbook 2004, (CIA Online factbook, United States of America, 2004), Internet source: www.odci.gov. /cia/publications /factbook /print/gz.html [3] H. Awartani, and S. Joudeh, Irrigated Agriculture in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Rural Research Center, Technical Publication, (An-Najah National University, Nablus, 1991) Series No. 23, pp.10-15 [4] R. S. Ayers and D.W. Westcot, Water Quality for Irrigation, (Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, Rome, 1994), pp. 5-10 [5] Palestinian Water Authority and Ministry of Agriculture, "Water Recourses in Gaza Governorates", Biannual Periodical, (Water Authority in cooperation with Ministry of Agriculture, Gaza, March 1997) No. 0, pp. 1-4. [6] Walid Sabbah and Jad Issac, Towards a Palestinian Water Policy, a paper presented to the seminar on option and strategies for freshwater development and utilization in selected area countries, organized by the Center for Environment and Development for Arab Region and Europe (CEDARE), (Amman, Jordan 26-28 June 1995), p. 5. [7] Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS), Population in the Palestinian Territory, 1997-2025. (Ramallah, Palestine, 1999), p. 14. [8] Environmental Planning Directorate (EPD) and Ministry of Planning and International cooperation (MOPIC), Gaza
71
Environmental Profile, Part I, Inventory of Resources, (Gaza, The Benevolent Society Printing Press, 1994), pp. 1320. [9] Sara Roy, The Gaza Strip: The Political Economy of Dedevelopment. (Institute for Palestine Studies, Washington, D.C. 1995), p. 162. [10] Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) and Coastal Aquifer Management Program (CAMP), Integrated Aquifer Management Plan (Task-3), Volume 1, (Gaza, PWA & CAMP, May 2000), p. 4. [11] Environmental Planning Directorate (EPD) and Ministry of Planning and International cooperation (MOPIC), Op Cit, p. 17. [12] Akram H. Al Hallaq, " The Israeli Policies in Depleting Gaza Strip Fresh Groundwater", The Journal of Human Sciences, (Bahrain, University of Bahrain, 2004), (Under Printing), pp. 1-26. [13] Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) and Coastal Aquifer Management Program (CAMP), Op Cit, p. 29. [14] Ibid, p. 45. [15] Akram H. Al Hallaq, "Groundwater Resources Depletion in Gaza Strip: Causes and Effects", (In Arabic), Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Geography, College of Women, Ain Shams University, (Egypt, Cairo, 2002), p. 141. [16] Sharif Elmusa, Water Conflict: Economics, Politics, Law and the Palestinian-Israeli Water Resources, (Institute for Palestine Studies, Washington, D.C. 1997), p. 122. [17] Sara Roy, Op. Cite, p. 166.
72
[18] Aisling Byrne, Aisling Water: The Red Line, (Media and Communication Center, Jerusalem, 1994), p. 55. [19] Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, October, 2004, Op Cit, p.50. [20] Ibid, pp. 3-18. [21] Qasem H. Abdul-Jaber and , Amer Marei, "The Suitability of Groundwater for Irrigation in Certain Areas of the West Bank", Water and Environment, A six-Monthly Journal, (Palestinian Hydrology group, Jerusalem, 1998), pp. 4-12. [22] M. J. Islam and others, " Toxicity Assessment of Ground Water in Different Aquifers of Khagrachari in Bangladesh", Asian Journal of Plant Sciences, (Asian Network for Scientific information, 2003), 2, ISSN 1682-3974, pp. 257260. [23] P. R. George, Agricultural Water Quality Criteria Irrigation Aspects, Resource Management Technical, (Depart of Agriculture, Western Australia, 2004), Report No. 30, p. 2. [24] Guy Fipps, Irrigation Water Quality Standards and Salinity Management Strategies, Report Produced by Agricultural Communic-ations, (The Texas A&M University System, Texas, 2003), No. B-1667, p. 5. [25] Australian Capital Territory Government, (1999), Act Wastewater Reuse for Irrigation, Environment Protection Policy, (Australian Capital Territory, Environment Act BDM 99/0415, Canberra, 1999), p. 9. [26] L. V. Wilcox, The Quality of Water for Irrigation Use, (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bull. 962, Washington, D.C, 1948), pp. 20-25.
73
[27] U.S. Salinity Laboratory Staff (USSL), Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkaline Soils, (USDA Hand book, 1954), No. 60, p. 160. [28] Walid Sabbah and Jad Isaac, An Evaluation of Water Resources Management in Ramallah District, (Applied Research Institute, Jerusalem, 1996), p. 11. [29] Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, Agricultural Statistics 2002/2003, (Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, Ramallah, Palestine, October, 2004), p.50. [30] Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, Area Statistics in the Palestinian Territory 2004, (Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, Ramallah, Palestine, December, 2004), p.36. [31] Gurunadha Rao, V. V. S., Dhar, R. L and Subrahmanyam, K., "Assessment of Contaminant Migration in Groundwater From an Industrial Development Area, Medak District, Andhra Pradesh, India", Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, 2001), Vol. 128, pp. 369-389. [32] Applied Research Institute, Environmental Profile for the West Bank, Vol. 7, Jenin District, (Applied Research Institute-Jerusalem, 1996), p. 55. [33] Ibid, p. 55. [34] Adnan Al Yassin, "Influence of Salinity on Citrus", Journal of Central European Agriculture, Vol. 5, No. 4, (2004), pp. 263-271.
74
References [1] Abdul-Jaber, Q. H. and Marei, A., "The Suitability of Groundwater for Irrigation in Certain Areas of the West Bank", Water and Environment, A six-Monthly Journal, (Palestinian Hydrology group, Jerusalem, 1998), pp. 4-12.. [2] Al Hallaq, Akram H., " The Israeli Policies in Depleting Gaza Strip Fresh Groundwater", The Journal of Human Sciences, (Bahrain, University of Bahrain, 2004), (Underpublishing), pp. 1-26. [3] Al Hallaq, Akram H., "Groundwater Resources Depletion in Gaza Strip: Causes and Effects", (In Arabic), Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Geography, College of Women, Ain Shams University, (Egypt, Cairo, 2002). [4] Al Yassin, Adnan, "Influence of Salinity on Citrus", Journal of Central European Agriculture, Vol. 5, No. 4, (2004), pp. 263-271. [5] Al-Dadah, J. Y., Agricultural Water Management and Conservation: Methods in Gaza Governorates, (Palestinian Water Authority, Gaza 1999). [6] Applied Research Institute, Environmental Profile for the West Bank, Vol. 7, Jenin District, (Applied Research Institute-Jerusalem, 1996). [7] Australian Capital Territory Government, (1999), Act Wastewater Reuse for Irrigation, Environment Protection
75
Policy, (Australian Capital Territory, Environment Act BDM 99/0415, Canberra, 1999). [8] Awartani, H. and Joudeh, S., Irrigated Agriculture in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Rural Research Center, Technical Publication, (An-Najah National University, Nablus, 1991) Series No. 23. [9] Ayers, R. S. and Westcot, D.W., Water Quality for Irrigation, (Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, Rome, 1994). [10] Byrne, A., Water: The Red Line, Communication Center, Jerusalem, 1994).
(Media
and
[11] Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The world Factbook 2004, (CIA Online factbook, United States of America, 2004), Internet source: www.odci.gov. /cia/publications /factbook /print/gz.html [12] Elmusa, S., (1997), Water Conflict: Economics, Politics, Law and the Palestinian-Israeli Water Resources, (Institute for Palestine Studies, Washington, D.C. 1997). [13] Environmental Planning Directorate (EPD) and Ministry of Planning and International cooperation (MOPIC), Gaza Environmental Profile, Part I, Inventory of Resources, (Gaza, The Benevolent Society Printing Press, 1994). [14] Fipps, G, Irrigation Water Quality Standards and Salinity Management Strategies, Report Produced by Agricultural Communic-ations, (The Texas A&M University System, Texas, 2003), No. B-1667. [15] George, P. R., Agricultural Water Quality Criteria Irrigation Aspects, Resource Management Technical, (Depart of Agriculture, Western Australia, 2004), Report No. 30.
76
[16] Gurunadha Rao, V. V. S., Dhar, R. L and Subrahmanyam, K., "Assessment of Contaminant Migration in Groundwater From an Industrial Development Area, Medak District, Andhra Pradesh, India", Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, 2001), Vol. 128, pp. 369-389. [17] Islam, M. J., and others, " Toxicity Assessment of Ground Water in Different Aquifers of Khagrachari in Bangladesh", Asian Journal of Plant Sciences, (Asian Network for Scientific information, 2003), 2, ISSN 1682-3974, pp. 257260. [18] Ministry of Agriculture, Value of Agricultural Production in Gaza Governorate for Seasons 1999-2002, (in Arabic), (Gaza, 2002). [19] Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS), Population in the Palestinian Territory, 1997-2025. (Ramallah, Palestine, 1999). [20] Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, Agricultural Statistics 2002/2003, (Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, Ramallah, Palestine, October, 2004). [21] Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, Agricultural Statistics 1998/1999, (Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, Ramallah, Palestine, November, 1999). [22] Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, Area Statistics in the Palestinian Territory 2004, (Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, Ramallah, Palestine, December, 2004). [23] Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) and Coastal Aquifer Management Program (CAMP), Integrated Aquifer Management Plan (Task-3), Volume 1, (Gaza, PWA & CAMP, May 2000).
77
[24] Palestinian Water Authority and Ministry of Agriculture, "Water Recourses in Gaza Governorates", Biannual Periodical, (Water Authority in cooperation with Ministry of Agriculture, Gaza, March 1997) No.0, pp. 1-4. [25] Roy, S., The Gaza Strip: The Political Economy of Dedevelopment. (Institute for Palestine Studies, Washington, D.C. 1995). [26] Sabbah, W. and Isaac, J., An Evaluation of Water Resources Management in Ramallah District, (Applied Research Institute, Jerusalem, 1996). [27] Sabbah, W. and Issac, J., Towards a Palestinian Water Policy, a paper presented to the seminar on option and strategies for freshwater development and utilization in selected area countries, organized by the Center for Environment and Development for Arab Region and Europe (CEDARE), (Amman, Jordan 26-28 June 1995). [28] U.S. Salinity Laboratory Staff (USSL), Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkaline Soils, (USDA Hand book, 1954), No. 60. [29] Wilcox, L. V., (1948), The Quality of Water for Irrigation Use, (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bull. 962, Washington, D.C, 1948).
78
