The Water Services Corporation inherited a decades-old infrastructure that had looked at Malta as one big village with an underground drainage system, and it did not make sense to embark on a whole new infrastructure when what was there was still efficient up to a point.
Winding up the debate on this year's estimates of the corporation, Finance Minister Tonio Fenech said that although a system of smaller treatment plants all over the country would have been closer to farmers, it would also have meant that farmers would have to bear the brunt of any malfunction.
Mr Fenech said a very valid point by Charles Buhagiar (PL) had been on the location of waste water treatment plants. He said there was also the issue of economies of scale. Several plants around the islands would need lots of maintenance, with important financial implications.
With the benefit of hindsight it was a pity that investment had been made to treat waste water for irrigation rather than for drinking. Now, development in the sector must go step by step. Even if Malta could produce potable water from waste, it would still need the infrastructure to pump that water back for distribution.
Nothing was holding back from using the Gozo experiment to invest in polishers so that already cleaner water could be made better. Anything else would mean a waste of investment.
The WSC was considering this step so long as the current infrastructure could complement the set-up. Since expenses must be made good for, it had to weigh each solution against the cost of operating the existing reverse osmosis system.
On the problems of rain water and its loss, minister Fenech said there had already been an extensive study for better management. Results had shown that the investment for the management and harvesting of storm water would cost €440 million. Was it worth going to such an expense when the water would still need polishing and storage? Neither sewage treatment nor reverse osmosis cost that much.
On unaccounted-for water, the minister said the project of installation of smart meters would not be just probes and software. It would also involve 50 per cent of more than 220,000 meters currently in use. The corporation would be better able to manage distribution. When a meter started acting up the probes would help to detect the malfunction better and faster.
On Mr Buhagiar's comments about drainage tariffs, minister Fenech said the government had decided not to touch water tariffs but preferred €20 a year as a contribution to the infrastructure.
A good balance must be kept on the quality of treated water. It would be good if plants such as in the Gozo experiment could make treated water good for irrigation, but to bring it up to potable standard and allow it to be used for irrigation would be a waste.
No experiments would be made that could endanger the system or public health.
The opposition had pointed out that the government's commitment with the EU on the treatment of sewage had earmarked 2007. It was true that the target would be achieved three years later, but Malta would be the first state in the EU to treat all water before discharging it into the sea. One should not be dismissive of a more ambitious programme giving better quality and cleaner discharge. Waste water should be looked at as a resource, not refuse.
The WSC used to consume 12 to 10 per cent of the national generation of electricity, but through various improved processes its consumption today, including reverse osmosis, was not more than four per cent. Its achievement of reducing emissions by 20,000 tonnes was welcome not only cost-wise but also for the environment. Lower consumption could eventually make for lower utility rates.
Concluding, minister Fenech said he believed the Water Services Corporation was meeting all the challenges with regard to the best use of the country's natural resources in the wider concept of responsibly protecting ground water levels. Without reverse osmosis its extraction of water from the aquifer would have caused accelerated irreparable damage. Now Malta must continue to seek alternative sources of good water including through sewage treatment, even in the interests of a better environment and quality of life at sustainable financial cost.
Opposition spokesman on utilities Marlene Pullicino said that the corporation was responsible for providing an adequate supply of water, with good service, at a just price and in observance of obligations and EU directives. The amalgamation of the drainage sector with the WSC had enabled the corporation to improve its plan to utilise water to the maximum.
Malta was still considered to have difficulties in the sector. Dr Pullicino said that, as stated by Eng. Marco Cremona, lack of long-term planning had resulted in not addressing the realities of this sector. The corporation had not tackled abuse of the aquifer, from which 20 million litres of water a year were drawn.
The WSC was depending more on the production of water through reverse osmosis plants, a process which put more stress on the generation of electricity and resulted in more emissions. Meanwhile, the price of oil kept fluctuating. Dr Pullicino noted that most of the WSC's expenditures had been on oil from Enemalta. If more water was produced through reverse osmosis, it would be more expensive.
She said that one should introduce the culture of using second-class water. Malta could not afford not to sustain agriculture, and farmers should be supplied with water at a reasonable price.
It seemed sewage treatment plants were built with the sole aim of treating sewage, rather than to produce second-class water. Farmers made the most use of this type of water. But for waste water to be treated required several investments and one should consider the impacts on the environment and on the people's health.
In this regard, Gozo was in a better situation than Malta, she said. The Taċ-Ċumnija sewage treatment plant had treated 2,966,297 cubic metres of second-class water.
Dr Pullicino said guidance was needed to entice consumers to start using household water treatment plants. There was a lot to be done, on individual basis, to reduce the generation of electricity.
The storm water project was still in its early stages.
On June 4 the EU had warned Malta for not having presented its Water Management Report, which should have been submitted by the end of last year. Moreover, there should have been eight months for public consultation. She asked why the WSC and Mepa had not presented this report on time.
Loss of water amounted to 3.49 cubic metres per kilometre per day. The key performance indicators showed progress had been achieved, but if there had been more concern, this could have been better. She warned against allowing toxic elements in Maltese waters.
Concluding, Dr Pullicino said that the WSC should concentrate on reducing unaccounted-for water and the aquifer.
Noel Farrugia (PL) felt the importance of water as a resource for all living creatures was being ignored, even if Malta had a hydrology history dating back to the Phoenicians.
The Knights had introduced the first legislation regarding the harvesting of water, including the building of wells. The British had brought over Lord Chadwick, who at the time was building big hydrological projects. The one at Wied il-Qlejgħa ensured a good provision of water.
The damage done to the aquifer was irreversible, and Mr Farrugia called for a debate on a national hydrological plan. This must take into consideration the heavy amount of rain water that was causing soil and rubble-wall erosion.
It was a pity that water resources were discussed only once a year. There should be a House committee which could rope in experts to advise the legislators. He warned of the damage that could be done by replenishing the aquifer with second-class water.
Ċensu Galea (PN) said that when debating the WSC report one must focus on the provision of good-quality water.
For many years the WSC had been responsible to bring water to residences, and it was only in recent years that it had taken over the responsibility of waste water. It was important to note that of the 29 million cubic metres of water produced, 23 million cubic metres of waste water remained, which could potentially be treated for reuse.
The corporation's efforts and investment had led to the provision of an adequate supply of water. Between 2004 and 2009 leakages had been controlled. While they had accounted for 1,020 cubic metres an hour in 2004, these had decreased to 482 cubic metres an hour last year, or 4.5 million cubic metres over a 12-month period. At a cost of Lm1.10 per meter, such a loss meant Lm5 million or €11 million a year.
One of the reasons for lower leakages was the changing of kilometres of water pipes, and Mr Galea renewed his call for the corporation to consider passing water mains on both sides of roads and no longer in the middle, this avoiding damage caused by heavy traffic.
Mr Galea denied farmers stole water, saying that they used it for irrigation to provide the Maltese consumer with agricultural produce. It was only through adequate investment in the irrigation infrastructure in valleys that water drawn out of the water table could be substituted.
When Mr Speaker put the question to the vote, the opposition asked for a division, to be taken at a later date.
It seemed sewage treatment plants were built with the sole aim of treating sewage, rather than to produce second-class water - Marlene Pullicino.