219
Jordan and the Palestinian Authority have already begun to apply similar
measures and will (sooner or later) catch up with Israel’s policy. The only exception is Jordan’s ability to implement (ii) via desalination, as Jordan’s main population centre (Amman) is some 1,000 m above sea level and 300 km away from
its only sea access (the Gulf of Aqaba); thus, desalinating in Aqaba and conveying to Amman can be prohibitively expensive. However, there exist other, more
economical ways to increase the supply of drinking water in Jordan in tandem
with its population growth (see Tsur 2014 ).
Observing the population projections (Fig. 14.2 ), we see that by 2050 the region’s
population will exceed 30 million. Under Assumptions (ii)–(iv) , this population size
will be capable of producing more than 2,000 × 10
6 m
3
/year of recycled water. The
bulk of the recycled water will be allocated for irrigation (as farmers switch from
the more expensive natural water to the cheaper recycled water), but some of the
recycled will be allocated for environmental restoration, including lower Jordan
River restoration and Dead Sea reclamation. This requires conveyance of recycled
water from the treatment plants to the upper end of the lower Jordan River (near
Naharayim–Bakura) as well as compensating farmers for reallocating the water
away from irrigation.
Mekonen ( 2013 ) calculated the cost of conveying recycled water from the
Jerusalem–Ramallah area to Naharayim–Bakura, while using the elevation difference (of about 1000 m) to generate electricity. Mekonen ( 2013 , Table 16) calculated
the conveyance cost at USD 0.19/m
3 and the hydroelectricity profi t at USD 0.12/m
3 .
The required compensation to farmers (under which farmers are indifferent between
receiving the recycled water or the compensation) was estimated at USD 0.26/m
3 .
The net cost of using the recycled water for (partial) restoration of the lower Jordan
River and the Dead Sea (conveyance minus hydroelectricity profi t plus compensation to irrigators) is therefore USD 0.33/m
3 . As was noted above, the associated
benefi t (based on WTP to restore the lower Jordan River) was estimated by Becker
et al. ( 2014 ) between USD 0.23/m
3 and USD 0.87/m
3
. The cost of using recycled
water for lower Jordan River and Dead Sea restoration (USD 0.33/m
3 as estimated
by Mekonen ( 2013 ) falls at the lower half of the benefi t range. Based on these preliminary calculations, we conclude that in 3 to 4 decades, allocating 400 × 10
6 m
3 /
year of recycled water for partial restoration of the lower Jordan River and the Dead
Sea is likely to pass a cost-benefi t test.
Stopping the Dead Sea decline requires increasing its infl ow by 700–800 × 10
6 m
3
/
year (TAHAL and GSI 2011 ), implying that an additional infl ow of 300–400 × 10
6 m
3
/
year (in addition to the 400 × 10
6 m
3
/year of recycled water) is needed. This additional
infl ow can come from a mini Red Sea–Dead Sea Project that will desalinate
300 × 10
6 m
3
/year at Aqaba (100 × 10
6 m
3
/year) and near the Dead Sea (200 × 10
6 m
3
/
year) and will convey the 367 × 10
6 m
3
/year brine discharge (1 m
3 of seawater generates
0.45 m
3 of desalinated water and 0.55 m
3 of brine) to the Dead Sea.
10 The combination
10 This mini Red Sea–Dead Sea Project was suggested by the study of alternatives team under CA1
(see Allan et al 2014 ) as a contribution to a comprehensive solution for Jordan’s severe water
14 Reclaiming the Dead Sea: Alternatives for Action
Jordan and the Palestinian Authority have already begun to apply similar
measures and will (sooner or later) catch up with Israel’s policy. The only exception is Jordan’s ability to implement (ii) via desalination, as Jordan’s main population centre (Amman) is some 1,000 m above sea level and 300 km away from
its only sea access (the Gulf of Aqaba); thus, desalinating in Aqaba and conveying to Amman can be prohibitively expensive. However, there exist other, more
economical ways to increase the supply of drinking water in Jordan in tandem
with its population growth (see Tsur 2014 ).
Observing the population projections (Fig. 14.2 ), we see that by 2050 the region’s
population will exceed 30 million. Under Assumptions (ii)–(iv) , this population size
will be capable of producing more than 2,000 × 10
6 m
3
/year of recycled water. The
bulk of the recycled water will be allocated for irrigation (as farmers switch from
the more expensive natural water to the cheaper recycled water), but some of the
recycled will be allocated for environmental restoration, including lower Jordan
River restoration and Dead Sea reclamation. This requires conveyance of recycled
water from the treatment plants to the upper end of the lower Jordan River (near
Naharayim–Bakura) as well as compensating farmers for reallocating the water
away from irrigation.
Mekonen ( 2013 ) calculated the cost of conveying recycled water from the
Jerusalem–Ramallah area to Naharayim–Bakura, while using the elevation difference (of about 1000 m) to generate electricity. Mekonen ( 2013 , Table 16) calculated
the conveyance cost at USD 0.19/m
3 and the hydroelectricity profi t at USD 0.12/m
3 .
The required compensation to farmers (under which farmers are indifferent between
receiving the recycled water or the compensation) was estimated at USD 0.26/m
3 .
The net cost of using the recycled water for (partial) restoration of the lower Jordan
River and the Dead Sea (conveyance minus hydroelectricity profi t plus compensation to irrigators) is therefore USD 0.33/m
3 . As was noted above, the associated
benefi t (based on WTP to restore the lower Jordan River) was estimated by Becker
et al. ( 2014 ) between USD 0.23/m
3 and USD 0.87/m
3
. The cost of using recycled
water for lower Jordan River and Dead Sea restoration (USD 0.33/m
3 as estimated
by Mekonen ( 2013 ) falls at the lower half of the benefi t range. Based on these preliminary calculations, we conclude that in 3 to 4 decades, allocating 400 × 10
6 m
3 /
year of recycled water for partial restoration of the lower Jordan River and the Dead
Sea is likely to pass a cost-benefi t test.
Stopping the Dead Sea decline requires increasing its infl ow by 700–800 × 10
6 m
3
/
year (TAHAL and GSI 2011 ), implying that an additional infl ow of 300–400 × 10
6 m
3
/
year (in addition to the 400 × 10
6 m
3
/year of recycled water) is needed. This additional
infl ow can come from a mini Red Sea–Dead Sea Project that will desalinate
300 × 10
6 m
3
/year at Aqaba (100 × 10
6 m
3
/year) and near the Dead Sea (200 × 10
6 m
3
/
year) and will convey the 367 × 10
6 m
3
/year brine discharge (1 m
3 of seawater generates
0.45 m
3 of desalinated water and 0.55 m
3 of brine) to the Dead Sea.
10 The combination
10 This mini Red Sea–Dead Sea Project was suggested by the study of alternatives team under CA1
(see Allan et al 2014 ) as a contribution to a comprehensive solution for Jordan’s severe water
14 Reclaiming the Dead Sea: Alternatives for Action