Experts slam decision to scrap €438 million storm water project
Scaled down plans to only build culverts don’t address need for an alternative supply of water to reduce groundwater extraction
James Debono
Consultants who worked on a strategic environmental impact assessment (SEA) have slammed the government’s decision to abandon a costly €438 million project to capture storm water by building an underground tunnel system.
The consultants claim that the scaled down plans, which now focus exclusively on flood relief through the construction of culverts, fail to address the need for an alternative supply of water,
which could reduce groundwater extraction.
According to a draft strategic impact assessment issued for public consultation, the construction of a tunnel network linking the Birkirkara-Msida watershed with Burmarrad, Marsa and Marsaskala will provide enough water to cater for the needs of 65% of Maltese agriculture, by harvesting between 5.5 and 8 million cubic metres every year.
But in the absence of the tunnel network, only 0.32 million cubic metres of water can be stored for re-use. The construction of a tunnel network will come at the prohibitive cost of €438 million. Since the project is eligible for EU funds, the Maltese government will only have to fork out 15% of this sum. But choosing this option would mean that a significant part of Malta’s EU funding budget would be consumed by this mega project.
The €438 million sum does not include the considerable cost of treating and polishing the stored water from contamination before it is available for re-use.
Instead, the government is opting for a system of culverts to ensure that floodwater is disposed quickly towards the sea.
The government’s preferred option will cost €41 million but will only recover a fraction of the water collected by a tunnel network.
According to the constants conducting the SEA: “the revised Storm Water Master Plan (SWMP) does not put forward an adequate plan for an effective infrastructure which conserves the groundwater aquifers whilst solving the problems associated with flood relief.”
The authors of the report insist that storm water should be stored to provide an alternative to groundwater extraction which has reached unsustainable proportions. Groundwater in Malta is recharged by the percolation of rainwater through Malta’s limestone and sits either above a natural clay barrier or floats just above the sea.
Since there is a shortage of storm water storage facilities, mainly limited to private small-scale reservoirs, a good portion of this water runs back to the sea.
In its latest version the SWMP has moved way from proposing the creation of underground tunnels to capture water for re-use and instead proposes the creation of a system of culverts to ensure that flood water is disposed quickly towards the sea.
By adopting this solution Malta will be losing an opportunity to “provide a new source of fresh water which would enhance the possibility of replenishing the natural aquifers.”
This solution is seen as inadequate in view of the challenge posed by climate change, which will exacerbate Malta’s water problems.
As over-extraction continues unabated, the report warns, the intrusion of seawater in the sea level aquifer is making it unsuitable for drinking and agricultural purposes.
The report notes that Malta is the only country in Europe which is extracting water quicker than it is being replenished, and warns that Malta risks losing its major renewable freshwater reservoir which could potentially store up to 1.5 m3 of water.
Neither does the revised SWMP seriously address flooding problems, which would increase due to the higher incidence of extreme weather conditions associated with climate change.
“The revised SWMP fails to achieve adequate level of flood relief in the short and medium term as tangible results of the plan will not be expected to be realised before 20 years after the SWMP is implemented.”
The authors of the SEA insist that in order to comply with local needs and EU directives, the government should adopt a “major intervention option” which needs an “overhaul” of the present infrastructure.
They also call for the strict enforcement of the law necessitating the construction of cisterns for all buildings to reduce the present runoff of water.
Government’s U-turn The tunnel project – one of the pet projects proposed by former resources Minister Ninu Zammit – has been ditched by the government following studies on its financial feasibility.
Speaking to MaltaToday in February Carmelo Mifsud Borg, who is responsible for the National Flood Relief project, explained that a cost-benefit analysis showed the tunnel option was not economically feasible. The main problem with reusing storm water is that as soon it drains into the road, it becomes contaminated. “Once the water ends up in the road, nobody knows what it contains. It could get mixed with sewage, oils and other dangerous materials. To be reused it has to be re-polished.”
And to capture and store storm water, a costly infrastructural investment is required. “Economically, it does not make sense to let this water drain in the roads and then spend a lot of money to capture, store it and polish it to make it good for consumption and than to deliver it.”
He claimed that according to estimates, desalinated water is even cheaper, because floodwater harvesting would cost seven times as much.
Instead the government will embark on flood relief initiatives in nine localities and focus its efforts on re-using treated sewage from Malta’s three sewage treatment plants which at present is also ending in to the sea.
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
Search:
MALTATODAY
BUSINESSTODAY
Download MaltaToday Sunday issue front page in pdf file format
