Storm Water Project

1. Storm Water Project ‘Proposed for co-financing under the 2007-2013 Programming Period

2. Structure of the Presentation Part One • Background and Context of “The Project” – originally one project area Part Two • The Project as a National Storm Water Project – rethinking with various components Part Three • Milestones – for submitting the Project Application

3. (Part One)Background and Context • 2004-2006 Originated as the ‘Birkirkara-Msida Flood Relief Project’ and submitted in the OP 1 • 2006-2007 The Storm Water Master Plan focused on it as the Priority Project • 2007-2008 JASPERS assistance identified other options and carried out economic analysis • 2006 to 2008 MEPA – led us to prepare an Environmental Appraisal Report (EAR) • 2008 and on … further liaison with MEPA: rethinking original project in view of all the above

4. 2004-2006‘Birkirkara-Msida Flood Relief Project’ • Major projects for flood relief taken by Government, especially following the September 2003 floods • Projects executed/proposed in Qormi/Marsa and Burmarrad areas while designs were developed for Birkirkara-Msida localities • Underground solution deemed most suitable for the Birkirkara-Msida areas but entailed much higher costs • Project submitted under OP 1 with targets: • Creation of infrastructure with potential of 720,000 cu m reuse • Reduction of flooding from 5 in 1 year to 1 in 5 year events 2006 Birkirkara-Msida Flood Relief Proposal

5. 2006-2007Storm Water Master Plan (SWMP) • Contract was awarded to TAHAL in September 2006 and is still being managed under the lead of WSC • The SWMP consultants were required to harmonise ongoing projects and strategic vision of The Plan together • The SWMP focuses on Birkirkara-Msida as a priority and gives six alternatives, including tunnels and/or culverts • SWMP also makes proposals for other localities and for water conservation at larger geographical scale • SWMP Final Draft completed in November 2007 and review and final revision are also ongoing • The SEA on the SWMP was commenced in 2007 (ongoing) SWMP Birkirkara-Msida Alternatives

6. 2007-2008 JASPERS Assistance • Reviewed TAHAL’s proposals as basis for Birkirkara-Msida project application but remarked on gaps in: • Higher level National Water Policy • SWMP strategic vision (resonating the above) • Concern over economic viability of the earlier SD and TAHAL’s proposals for Birkirkara-Msida • Identified other smaller-scale alternatives. • Options Analysis carried out on a new set of alternatives. • Economically preferred option not same as SWMP proposal • Smaller tunnels under Birkirkara-Msida and discharge to Ta’ Xbiex. Alternatives Identified for Options Analysis

7. 2006 to 2008MEPA and the EAR • October 2006 Submission of a PDS to start EIA of the ‘Birkirkara-Msida Flood Relief Project’ as submitted in OP 1 • April 2007 - Further details with alternatives (by TAHAL) given to MEPA in a bid to obtain EIA TORs • June 2007 – Draft TORs received from MEPA – generic and all inclusive and requiring Environmental Appraisal of Alternatives and a revised PDS prior to the EIA TORs • 2008 – EAR carried out on the range of alternative studied by JASPERS (incl. SD’s and TAHAL’s main proposals): • SD’s (large tunnels) environmentally most preferable • Small tunnels + Ta’ Xbiex discharge, second best

8. 2008 and on … • Issues pertaining to the OP 1 have arisen because of the performance targets and nature of the project vis-à-vis: • Simply resizing of the project to make it feasible brings it far below the original 720,000 cu m target for reuse. • Water conservation from Birkirkara-Msida alone has itself also been shown to be untenable, making the project a flood relief project.

9. Further liaison with the MEPA • Upon completion of the SWMP Final Draft and other alternatives for the Options Analysis: • Environmental implications of all sites concerned were looked into • Other (in some cases more) appropriate sites and forms of development were identified • Preliminary site assessments and draft EIA TORs if works are to be proposed on the sites • Consultative rethinking of the project

10. A rethinking of the original project is aimed to: • Improve Economic Feasibility by: • Limit scale of costly Birkirkara-Msida tunnels component and • Maximise on other flood relief benefits nation-wide and integrate these into water conservation interventions as far as possible • Reinforce Environmental Nature by: • Aiming at OP quantitative targets for water conservation through aquifer recharge, attainable by inter-linking catchment areas • Selecting sites with least environmental issues and best scope for integrating flood relief and water conservation • Improve Environmental Acceptability by: • Avoiding highly problematic sites altogether • Scaling down development in possibly sensitive sites • Scaling up of interventions and rehabilitation of dilapidated sites • Re-Package proposals as a National Storm Water Project

11. (Part Two) The National Storm Water Project ‘To manage storm water away from where it is a hazard to where it is a resource.’

12. Purpose and Aims A Multi-Pronged Storm Water Project that aims to: • Integrate flood relief and water conservation needs at local and national levels as far as practical • Make interventions for specific needs in seven different urban/rural areas • Develop infrastructure that is suitable for future management of catchments and watercourses • Adopt a catchment-based approach to address issues originating beyond the local level and holistically

13. Concerns in Urban Areas Flooding in Urban Areas • Highest levels of risk to life and property in the most densely populated areas • Need to divert concentrated water run-off efficiently • Flooding is most acute in the most developed areas due to urbanisation of original watercourse and valley beds • Most difficult to construct large storm water infrastructure • Most difficult to retain water for reuse • High levels of investment in flood prone areas • Land is scarce and expensive Urbanisation and Flood Prone Areas Flood Aftermath

14. Concerns in Rural Areas • Need to create and connect larger water bodies • Existing water harvesting infrastructure is scattered and difficult integrate with water reuse • Enhance water storage capacity in rural areas • Coordinate efforts aquifer recharge • Need for rehabilitation of watercourses • Mitigate problems rural and downstream urban areas • Ensure proper management and better water reuse/conservation along the watercourse • Integrated Valley Management:Wider Environmental, Social and Economic Values • Ecological rehabilitation of dilapidated sites • Creation of amenity value • Tourism, Recreation and Cultural heritage • Scientific Importance and education Flooding in non-urban areas Catchment Areas and Water Reuse Infrastructure

15. Project Components Geographic Scope • Focuses mainly on seven large basins: • Includes specific flood relief and water conservation measures depending on locality and catchment conditions • Controls the risks and damages associated with flash floods and storm events of up to 1 in 5 year magnitude with direct benefits to between 4 and 5 % of the population. • Integrates flood relief with water conservation to enhance water harvesting and recharge potential of Malta's largest catchments by more than 2 million cu m per annum.

16. Birkirkara-Msida • Mainly for the protection of life and property in the densely populated Birkirkara, Msida, Balzan and other localities • Also minimise inconvenience and traffic congestion during and after average rain events for the larger population • Provide scope for selective harvesting of runoff, and link to other catchments for aquifer recharge Counted Dependent on other catchments 1200 3,300 150,000 200,000 45,000,000 19,300,000

17. Attard-Qormi • Flood relief in the lower Qormi urban area • Retention and aquifer recharge form Wied Incita Quarries • Rehabilitation, locally distributed water storage and recharge along Wied is-Sewda • Dispersion of runoff from adjacent Birkirkara-Msida catchment Estimated 1740 5,400 10,000 1,052,000 2,088,000 14,650,000 6,300,000

18. Zebbug-Marsa • Eliminate flooding in the Zebbug centre area • Minimise inconvenience and traffic congestion during and after average rain events • Provide scope for water conservation and reuse, and rehabilitate Wied Qirda and Wied il-Kbir Estimated 620 2,200 10,000 51,000 40,000 2,250,000 966,000

19. Mosta-Burmarrad • Reduce the impact of flash floods on the Burmarrad agricultural flood plain of this large catchment • Reinstate the life-supporting and water retaining capacities of the upper water course in Wied il-Qlejgha • Mitigate damages of large storms to infrastructure • Minimise inconvenience and traffic congestion after storm events • Provide greater scope for water conservation and reuse Agricultural 1.5 sq km 250 50,000 45,000 90,000 5,000,000 2,150,000

20. Zabbar-Marsascala • Flood relief of parts of Zabbar and Marsascala • Minimise inconvenience and traffic congestion during and after average rain events • Creation of storage infrastructure in proximity to agricultural areas between Zabbar and Marsascala • Rehabilitation of part of the original valley Estimated Depends on valley rehabilitation 430 3,800 13,000 28,000 2,390,000 1,025,000

21. Gzira • Reduce risks to life and damages to property and infrastructure of Gzira urban areas • Minimise inconvenience and traffic congestion during normal rain events • Connect to Birkirkara-Msida catchment to provide for additional flood relief and scope for water conservation Estimated 530 2,000 30,000 12,000 24,000 1,845,000 792,000

22. Birzebbugia • Reduce frequency of flooding of urban thoroughfare are • Minimise inconvenience and traffic congestion during normal rain events • Provide greater scope for water conservation Estimated 190 900 3,000 10,000 20,000 215,000 19,300,000

23. Benefits and Costs of the Seven Project Components • Flood relief benefits to property and population • Benefits to water conservation • Other social and environmental benefits • Estimated Costs

24. Flood Relief Benefits to Property and Population

25. Benefits to Water Conservation

26. Additional Social and Environmental Benefits

27. Estimated Project Costs

28. Milestones for the Project Application (Part Three) • Project Definition • Project Acceptance • PDS, EIA TORs, and EIA Contract • Technical Input, Feasibility Study, CBA • National Water Policy Framework • First Review of the SWMP

29. Milestones for the Project Application imminent decisions • Project Definition – National LevelFinalise the Country’s Proposal: • Geographical Scope, Purpose and Project Components • Project Acceptance – EU LevelNegotiate Changes to the OP 1 Proposal: • Targets in OP 1 attainable over wider geographic domain • Water reuse targets attainable through aquifer recharge • Wider flood mitigation measures

30. Milestones for the Project Application completion of prerequisite studies • PDS, EIA TORs, and EIA ContractMove on with the MEPA: • Submit a comprehensive PDS covering ALL components • Issue EIA tender and finalise TORs prior to award • Technical Input, Feasibility Study, CBA • Technical refinement of theproposals (parallel with EIA) • Feasibility study and Cost-Benefit Analysis • Finalise proposal with EIA and fill in the application

31. Milestones for the Project Application in tandem with the precedent activities • National Water Policy FrameworkClarify vision and context for execution and operation • Set out strategic goals, objectives, measures and actions • Establish institutional and organisational set-ups • Legal and financial arrangements • First Review of the SWMPResume iterative planning process and coordinate the Plan with: • The Framework of the National Water Policy • Feedback from the SEA • Refinements in project components based on appraisal studies

32. Milestones for Submitting the Project Application Envisaged Targets