Groundwater extraction 'should be billed' - EU says
Farmers and bowser operators could soon be forced to pay for groundwater extraction as the European Commission is insisting such water is a precious resource and should be paid for.
For the past decades various governments have shied away from charging for groundwater extraction. This has led to thousands of illegal boreholes being dug directly into the island's aquifer, consequently over-exploiting Malta's already precarious state of its natural water resources.
Environment Commissioner Janez Potocnik made it clear that, according to EU rules, groundwater extraction should be paid for.
"One of the requirements of the Water Framework Directive (article 9) is that the water pricing policy is to provide adequate incentives to users to use water resources efficiently and, thereby, contribute to the environmental objectives of the directive," he said in reply to a parliamentary question tabled by Labour MEP Edward Scicluna.
"In general, this would involve metering and billing of the (ground) water used, unless it can be demonstrated that other schemes are equally effective in providing adequate incentives," Mr Potocnik added.
Until a few years ago, the Maltese authorities did not even know how much groundwater was being extracted as boreholes were not metered. However, following Malta's entry into the EU, a scheme was introduced, together with an amnesty for boreholes to be registered. Over 8,500 were registered under the scheme, the majority of which had been dug out illegally.
However,many believe there are more illegal boreholes still operating and unmetered. Between September 2008 and September 2009, a total of 19.1 million cubic metres of water were extracted from the aquifer for agriculture use, according to figures released by the National Statistics Office.
This "free" water was much more than the 12.7 million cubic metres extracted by theWater Services Corporation during the same period for potable purposes, which consumers had to pay for. Groundwater amounts to 55 per cent of all Malta's potable water needs, the other 45 per cent provided by reverse osmosis plants.
This situation is giving rise to concerns that Malta could end up with a dry water table in just a few years if the level of extraction continues at the current rate.
According to former WSC chairman Tancred Tabone, Malta could be facing a crisis within five years.
"The principle is nothing should be free and although the problem is a national one and for Malta to resolve, the Commission's directive makes it clear groundwater resources should be well managed," a Commission official said. "We are still waiting for Malta's plan on how it is going to manage its water resources. However, it is clear the current status quo is not sustainable."
Only last June, Brussels started infringement procedures against Malta for not submitting a management plan to protect its groundwater on time and was given two months to do so. According to the Commission, the plan has not yet been submitted.
Last August, the government launched a consultation process on a new water policy for the island but the Commission is insisting Malta is late.
According to Mr Potocnik the main tools to achieve the objectives of the Water Framework Directive are the (river/groundwater) basin management plans and the programmes of measures, which had to be adopted by December 2009 and sent to the Commission by March 2010.
"Malta has not yet reported its management plans and programme of measures," he insisted. Mr Potocnik said, once received, "the Commission will assess their contents as regards fulfilment of the directive obligations".
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
53 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Godfrey Camilleri
Sep 11th 2010, 10:53
I fully agree that water extracted from boreholes should be billed. This will make local table water to expensive so that we can get rid of this rubbish and farmers will be induced to use recycled water. This is our only salvation. The other exercise that need be carried out will be a door to door check all over Malta to locate all illegal boreholes.
c.cefai
Sep 10th 2010, 17:50
Water extracted from boreholes should be paid, otherwise there will be no control on volume extracted; by paying for what you are extracting will make everyone more careful knowing that you have to pay for it.
Paul Smith
Sep 10th 2010, 17:49
Michelle Attard said: What a defeatist attitude. We need to find a solution and not run away from the problem. Silly comment Mr Smith. No Michelle I am just telling you the cold hard facts, YOU DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH WATER TO SUSTAIN 400,000 + PEOPLE!
Joe Fenech
Sep 10th 2010, 17:20
Blaming the farmers for lack of water is a governemental excuse for its mismanagement of natural resources! And what happened to that water-friendly house designed by that Mosta engineer some time ago? Did the government support him/ask for advice?
Paul Smith
Sep 10th 2010, 16:28
Here are some facts: By 2019 chindia (thats china and India) will require the combined net oil exports of UAE, Saudi Arabia, Norway, Iran, Russia! All those countries have reached peak oil and are in terminal decline (do some research) We are all on our way to oil independence but not in the way we thought we would. So please tell me how you are going to run RO without Oil, or with very very expensive oil which will desimate the tourist industry? Whom is going to feed you, because you import 90+ % of your food. And lastly you do not get enough annual rainfall for 400,000 + people Now unless you can magic up some way to get water, (impossible) then there is little point in staying on the rock
B.Muscat
Sep 10th 2010, 16:19
Bil parolli kollha li qrajt, xorta wahda ghadhom ma jafux kif jibzew ghal l ilma giri . Il lum stess rajt ilma prezzjus ilma tax xorb jinqered qaddiem ghajnejja, ghax hawn nies li jridu taddi tahhom u ma jinportahom minn hadd , imbasta jamlu dak li qed tejdilhom rashom.
P Brullo
Sep 10th 2010, 15:26
A fee on groundwater extraction will lead to more careful and more responsible consumption of such water. Hasn’t Government started introducing licenses and meters on boreholes – why is this article giving the impression of inaction by the local Government and of us being told off by Brussels?
Albert Bezzina
Sep 10th 2010, 20:35
Recent report said that only a few dozen meters have been installed on boreholes! Several thousands to go!
E Muscat
Sep 10th 2010, 15:01
Il-bdiewa Maltin ghandhom ikunu ezenti li jkunu ntaxxati ghal- konsum ta` l-ilma li jtellghu minn taht l-art, sakemm dawn ikunu qed juzawh ghall prodotti taghhom,u dan bir-ragun,ghaliex hawnhekk ma taghmilx hafna xita,bhal barra minn Malta.Mhux hekk biss,biex ittellghu l-ilma dawn il-bdiewa jrridu juzaw l-eletriku, li llum il-prezz tieghu kwazi rdoppja u dawn qieghdin jonfqu eluf ta` euro fis sena biex ikollhom ir-raba saqwi.Nahseb li l-ahjar li jsirr li l-ilma tax-xita ikun migbur , u dan billi EU taghti l-ghajnuna mehtiega biex dan il-pjan ikun imwettaq.
alfred curmi
Sep 10th 2010, 16:57
Sfortunatament, pero, il-punt importanti hu li, jekk nibqghu sejrin hekk, mhux il-pjanti biss ma jkollhomx ilma IZDA LANQAS AHNA. Imbaghad x'jiswa li jkollna l-haxix x'nixtru u Alla biss jaf kemm jigina gholi l-ilma. M'hemmx triq ohra: jekk il-biedja kif inhi ghaddejja issa mhix sostenibbli trid tinbidel. Fuq kollox suppost li hemm l-ilma tad-drenagg ittrattat li ghandu jigi uzat ghall-Biedja. Meta kont Cipru fix-xitwa ta' tliet snin ilu u ma kienx hemm xita ghat-tielet sena konsekuttiva, niftakar li l-gwida kienet qaltilna li l-Gvern kien qal lill-bdiewa li: jekk m'hemmx ilma, izirghux! Ma nahsibx li hi gusta li jbati l-pajjiz kollu ghall-interessi ta' parti zghira mic-cittadini!
R.Camilleri
Sep 10th 2010, 18:35
Hafna mill- bdiewa gabuhom f'din is-sitwazzjoni t-tmexxija hazina ta' dan l-ahhar li halla lil kulhadd ihafer qiesu ma' qed jigri xejn. Qabel kien hemm xi haga ta' l-ilquh fir-raba u l-wiedin biex jingabar l-ilma u jintuza ghat tisqija, imma thalla kollox ghar rihu. Issa se' jbati l-konsegwenzi kulhadd, specjalment iz-zghir. L-EU ma' kelliex ghalfejn toqghod tghidilna, ghax spiccajna pupazzi go fiha.
Richard Gatt
Sep 10th 2010, 14:41
I invite readers who have contributed to the list of comments to react in a more fruitful manner on this subject by putting forward proposals to the Public Consultation Document, A Proposal for a Water Policy for the Maltese Islands drawn up by the Ministry for Resources and Rural Affairs which may be found on this link:- http://www.mrra.gov.mt/newsitem.asp?id=2444
David Pisani
Sep 10th 2010, 14:33
Żminijietna - Voice of the left comments: The strategy taken by MRA seems to be lenient with those causing damage to the environment, and tough with those households that consume the basic amount of water.
The report fails to give a real solution to this problem, where several companies are extracting an excessive use of underground water at a ridiculous price of 1.75 euro cents per mtr/cube, while households pay 5.50 euro cents per mtr/cube”.
"It is condemnable the fact, that MRA appears to adopt the same method used in the case of the energy tariffs, by increasing drastically the price of the basic consumption of water. We appeal to MRA to change it’s methodology to one that penalizes wasteful practices and not basic consumption."
Żminijietna criticises also the lack of urgency that is being implemented to install water meters on the 8000 registered boreholes. The current rate is of 26 meter installations over a period of six months. This means that the entire process, when it will be completed would take more than a hundred years. Monitoring process with regards use of groundwater will definitely not be completed in the near future.
P Mallia
Sep 10th 2010, 14:32
@ Pierre Zammit you can’t call a fee on groundwater extraction a ‘tax’. It is a fee on a resource which is not infinite, just like we pay for the fossil fuel we consume which is also extracted from underground. As far as I know the situation at the moment is that the extraction is being monitored to work out the fees to be paid by the different users: farmers, pool owners etc.
cbugeja
Sep 10th 2010, 13:24
So is it wise to dig storm water control tunnels and dump the collected water into the sea at Ta Xbiex?The reason I read somewhere is that to clean and purify rain water costs more than RO water.I dont have the figures but somehow that logic does'nt convince me,something does not seem to add up.Can't this water be pumped into some disused quarries and then it will filter naturally through the rock into the aquifier??
J.Tonna
Sep 10th 2010, 14:55
During the last Labor administration some open air reservoirs were dug in order to leave the water seep into the aquifire. Two of them are still near the Addolorata cemetry. This is not an expensive job, I understand, and it keeps the water from running into the sea. So why not continue with this project?
Paul Smith
Sep 10th 2010, 13:14
lets try to be perfectly honest and grown up about this issue, You dont have enough ground water to sustain 400,000 + people and RO will not be an option in the near future. (see)
www.theoildrum.com
If i were a young Maltese with a family, i would be thinking long term survival and sustainability - therefore i would be looking to leave the Island.
Michelle Attard
Sep 10th 2010, 14:03
What a defeatist attitude. We need to find a solution and not run away from the problem. Silly comment Mr Smith.
Evelyn Cassar
Sep 10th 2010, 14:09
Paul Smith and yet the EU still wants us to continue taking in both legal and illegal immigrants in this tiny island without any natural resources including water which is essential for life. This is what the people should start thinking about and not attack those who are against the EU but attack those who are ready to bow their heads to whatever it orders.
Albert Bezzina
Sep 10th 2010, 20:31
Paul's comment is short and factual. Michelle! The problem has been there for several decades. The fact that the situation is critical is the result of the authorities running from the problem because of influence from certain water intensive industries. What is silly is Michelle's belief that a solution will be found soon and at little or no cost. If such a solution is easy and cheap why have the authorities not implemented them earlier? As regards comments against the imposition of payment for the real cost of water: Just think of the waste in water use by the average Joe if water was free. Ergo, the real cost of water must be a prerequisite to increase efficiency in water use. But no exceptions please whether or not the user is an important jobs provider or not. And please put a ceiling on the amount of water (and Electricity) which low income households get paid for by the rest of us.
Joseph Stafrace
Sep 10th 2010, 13:00
We use a lot of water to wash our clothes. Is there a cheap system whereas one can filter this water and use it for flushing purposes. Water containing cleaning powder tends to smell after some time.
cbugeja
Sep 10th 2010, 13:25
a very basic sand and gravel filter should do the trick
Peter Korsten
Sep 10th 2010, 12:42
What some of the commentators below don't seem to understand is that 'precious' is largely an economic phrase. So comparing it with air or sunlight is just plain silly, because those are essentially infinite. Groundwater is very finite indeed.
Also, groundwater in Malta, which has no surface water whatsoever, is a lot more precious and finite than in, say, Finland, with its 190,000 lakes.
The basic problem is not the taking of the water per se, or that nobody is paying for it. The problem is that the government is sitting on its behind and not doing anything about it.
The whole point is that the water extraction must be sustainable. If we have n cubic metres of water today, we should have the same amount on the 10th of September 2011, preferably even a bit more.
So, what steps is the government taking to assure that?
Joe Borg
Sep 10th 2010, 12:18
It's true that many farmers extract water for irrigation, but they are not the culprits to the depletion of our ground water.
No one mentions the water bottling companies, the factories, private residences, hotels, factory farms, and many others that extract far more water and in bigger volumes than all the farmers put together.
The result of this is going so see the end of local agriculture products as the cost of locally grown vegetables will force a sudden and sure death to this sector.
How can we ever estimate how much water is being extracted when we DO NOT have the slightest clue how many pumps are being operated!
The 8500 registered is far from the reality.
I find it very pitiable if this is to happen!
Joseph P.Borg
Sep 10th 2010, 11:18
Tommy Lee,
You stated that we might be paying for the air to breathe .. This could happen if some speculator in collaboration with our administrators could conceive a way to declare air as his private property. Then we would be forced to buy air at his price. This has happened with other natural resources and no one stood up against this vile and legal robbery however immoral it is. Even religious institutions did not utter a word against this outrage , but on the contrary , they used their influence over the great gullible masses so that they took advantage themselves from these immoral actions.
I am referring to the natural resource of land, provided by the Creator to all humans for generation after generation. Land was intended by the Creator as public property- for the enjoyment of all - its economic rent should be contributed by its users to the governing bodies. The result of human exertion on the land was intended to be the private property of the individual- only for a temporary period before its return to its natural place for enjoyment by future generations Private property in land is the curse of present economical difficulties
Ruth Briffa
Sep 10th 2010, 11:18
To eat fruits or vegetables irrigated with boreholes water is very dangerous for diabetics, as water is salinated and it go into the fruits and vegetables,,,,, if you notice food taste salty with out you adding salt.
E. Azzopardi
Sep 10th 2010, 11:12
But did we have to wait for the EU to act? This water belongs to the citizens and not to anybody in particular, so those extracting it and using it should pay for it. They should have been doing so for ages. How complacent can some of us be? Unbelievable.
Joseph P. Borg
Sep 10th 2010, 10:54
Pierre Zammit, All natural resources are the property of all humans and no one should be allowed to take an advantage over others by usurping them. Each individual can make temporary use of them as nature intended. I shall limit my comment to water . Each one of us can contain water in a reservour or well; but as soon as it is used water returns to its original place- the seas, as nature intended, to be available to all for generation after generation. Although we always refer to these events that are happening as naturally, we tend to avoid the proper meaning , i.e. as the Creator's intentions. Water is one of the most valuable necessity needed for life, but no sooner than we have drank it that it returns back to its natural place. Air is more useful to us than water and immediately we beathe in , air goes back to its place. Food could be the third most necessity for continued life so it takes longer in making its return. This all happens in accordance with God's creation.
If we defy nature we have to pay the consequences,as when we stopped providing wells in our buildings.
lgalea
Sep 10th 2010, 10:18
The problem is that the eu does not want anyone to have anything for free. They will in time start charging us to breathe on the pretext that we are depleting the world air oxygen. Do people still want to live in this colonialism under this dictatorial regime called the eu? Let's get out of these petty dictators clutches and dictatorship as we have every right and duty to ourselves, our children and our country to do. www.cnimalta.org
Yes we can. Have a look at this European Parliament video.
http://www.europarltv.europa.eu/YourParliament.aspx?action=viewVideo&packageid=f5077c6b-3b92-4a1f-8271-c7a49c3bc6e8
Michelle Attard
Sep 10th 2010, 11:09
Silly comment....
K.Anastasi
Sep 10th 2010, 11:27
Get your blinkers off Igalea... you can't see further than your nose due to your biased opinion of the EU.
We need the EU because our MALTESE Parliament does not have the backbone to enforce or introduce unpopular measures because they fear loss of votes. I ask you .. Do you want water to be around for your children ? If yes then this measure is in the right direction...there is nothing for free in this world.. someone somewhere always pays, in this case our children.
G.Portelli
Sep 10th 2010, 11:42
How come you're against the EU? Future wars will be fought on water not on other more expensive natural resources as this is going to be the most sought after commodity in years to come. To pay for the water that is extracted from bore holes is a good thing as this invaluable resource will be more efficiently used. And by the way I think that you like me pay for the water you consume unless you have a bore hole!!
Pierre Zammit
Sep 10th 2010, 10:09
These bowsers exist mainly because there are exorbitant water tariffs, on the tourism industry in particular.
If we're going to go down the route of taxing natural resources, then you might as well tax rainwater collection, sunlight that is used by PV & solar systems, the wind that drives turbines or pushes sails.... And while at it, how about taxing the air that we breathe? While it lasts, this is also a very precious resource!
Anthony Formosa
Sep 10th 2010, 11:30
Mr Zammit, who said that you don't pay for the air that you breathe, the polluter pays right? and the polluter breathe, so you're paying for polluted air :)
G.Portelli
Sep 10th 2010, 11:48
First of all your comment does not make sense.
Yes we do pay for the water we collect as to build a well it cost me thousands of euros.
Yes we pay for the sunlight as to build a PV system it costs thousands of euros.
Yes we do pay for collection of wind energy as to build and maintain wind turbines it costs thousands of euros.
But alas some steal potable water which is not an infinite resource like sun and wind and we others have to pay for it. Let them start paying now. This should have been in place decades ago and not now!
Simon Fenech
Sep 10th 2010, 09:49
I stand to be corrected if I am wrong. Is it true that major soft drink producers also get their water for free form the aquifier? I heard someone speaking in the region of 35million litres per year for one particular company. Water is the main ingredient in soft drinks and the only ingredient in bottled water :)
A. Schembri
Sep 10th 2010, 09:46
If...illegal boreholes still operating and unmetered. extracted 19.1 million cubic metres of water ... which is more than the 55% of water required by water services to meet demand. So the 19.1 million cubic metres if metered may be used to subsidise the cost of the 45% produced by the Rev Osmosis. This would also be another benefit apart from the environmental impact that the article talks about.
On the otherhand if these boreholes used in agriculture are to be metered, the cost of farming goes up and prices escalate. Needs careful thinking as it might end up in a six or half a dozen situation?
Michael Zarb
Sep 11th 2010, 12:06
It does not need careful thinking at all. Water is a scares resource. If we do not load its through social cost upon consumption that will lead to a market imperfection and badly allocated resources - i.e people will consume more than they can in fact afford leading to an unsustainable situation that effectively robs future generations.
Farmers already have sufficient subsidies through the single payment system and Europe has plenty of food surplus mountains and lakes driving prices down for the consumer. It is not a matter of protecting the local producer, its about consuming and producing products made through competitive advantage. If cheese in Italy is produced cheaper than in Malta, buy Italian cheese. The Maltese farmers need to adapt and learn how to produce only what will sell at a price that reflects the through cost of the water they consume.
J. Galea
Sep 10th 2010, 09:37
Ghalkemm fair ghax illum ma baqa xejn b'xejn, issa flok Eu20 jibdew johdulna Eu50 biex jimlewlna l-bir!
G.Portelli
Sep 10th 2010, 11:50
Nispera li min kien qed jehodlok Euro 20 kien jghatik ircevuta halli ta' l-inqas ihallas ftit taxxa fuq serq ta rizorsa naturali li minnha kien qed jaghmel qlieh kbir. Altrimenti serqa doppja. Wahda lilek u ohra lil gvern.
R.Camilleri
Sep 10th 2010, 09:37
Mela hekk sewwa, l-ewwel hallejna lill kulhadd jghamel li jrid, b'detriment ta' minhu onest u jhallas it-taxxa, biex issa gejna f-sitwazzjoni li se'jkollna nuqqas ta' ilma m'ghandumux. Nispera\ li gvern jara li kull bore hole li thafret tkun ir-registrata. Dan nahseb jista jghamlu billi jara kemm kien hawn raba bghali u issa sar saqwi. Mhux fair li jbghati minhu onest u ma' kellniex ghalfejn nistennew l-ewropa biex tghidilna. Hlief multi m'ahniex illaqtu. Dan kollu ic-cittadin ma' kienux qalulu bih., bhal tal-kacca din.
gcForte
Sep 10th 2010, 09:32
What I cannot understand in this country is the way of how an information will be transmitted .In this case, for instance, it is said that the farmers and the bowser operators could soon be FORCED to pay for the groundwater. I am sure that the water that they brings up from boreholes is not for their personal consumption, but to give a service to us the citizens. Then they ( the farmers and the bowser operators) will force us to pay such fees, by raising their products.
Peter Bonnici
Sep 10th 2010, 09:59
Water Suppliers charge for the water they extract, but do not pay for it. Thats the problem.
C Ellul
Sep 10th 2010, 10:17
They are stealing what is a national resource and making a personal profit by selling to people that have no intention of using water properly.
Why should I be made to pay high water costs for blended water RO / Bore hole because of high salinity , while very good quality water is being wasted away and profiteered by bowser distributors?
Ground water is to be used ONLY for agriculture , all the rest can use blended water of the maximum saline condition allowed by the World health organisation.
The Government should now consider going for domestic water recycling at source , washing water to toilet flushing water , and giving EU assistance in the same way as for Solar Heating / PV, considering the huge energy requirments to generate water through RO technology. The technolgy exists and is produced locally . WSC should consider using the waste heat from the NEW powerstation in Delimara to use latest technology flash evaporators and produce first class water instead of having all the waste energy heating up the sea around Delimara.
Oliver Gauci
Sep 10th 2010, 09:30
Mr. Potocnik maltese farmers at Ghajn Tuffieha use salt water for their fields. I have my doubts how much salt water is a 'precious resource' in Malta. If it is such a precious resource in other EU countries we can set up some trading agreements.
Of the 8,500 boreholes how much of them extract potable water ?
marco meli
Sep 10th 2010, 09:30
hehe, so the price of a cabbage would be around 4 euro in the future!!!! or else we will be buying from sicily!! bye bye local produce
G.Portelli
Sep 10th 2010, 11:52
I think that the price of a locally grown cabbage is already more than that of an imported one. So why worry. Continue buying imported cabbages but at least you're having more value for money.
Carlos Abela
Sep 10th 2010, 09:28
About Time ! Proset EU !
jvella
Sep 10th 2010, 09:26
Why does it always have to be"because the EU told us so"whenever the country needs enactment and enforcement of potentially unpopular legistlation??The fireworks factories saga will probably end that way too.Might as well scrap our parliament and just follow whatever Brussels dictates.will probaly be cheaper to the taxpayer too
A. Schembri
Sep 10th 2010, 09:52
We can save on the piano new parliament... lol
Tommy Lee
Sep 10th 2010, 09:03
You'll be paying for the air that you breathe next.
Michael Zarb
Sep 11th 2010, 11:47
No we will never pay for the air we breath - but we definitely should be paying for the air we pollute through our commercial activities.
Mark Galea
Sep 10th 2010, 09:02
At last, a sensible decision. If water table is not protected, every body will suffer in the future due to:
higher water bills due to more use of desalination
farmers having their crop damaged due to salty water irrigation
This should encourage people to build water reservoirs for rain water - it would decrease water needs on the country and reduce flooding when it rains.