Alternatives to the Clean Water Act’s Wastewater Treatment Requirement

29Sep10

(delivered before the plenary in the House of Representatives, September 28, 2010)

Isang maka-kalikasang gabi Mr. Speaker and fellow legislators.

The rapid increase in population, urbanization, and industrialization of the country reduce the quality of Philippine waters, especially in densely populated areas and regions of industrial and agricultural activities. The discharge of domestic and industrial wastewater and agricultural runoff has caused extensive pollution of the receiving water-bodies. This effluent is in the form of raw sewage, detergents, fertilizer, heavy metals, chemical products, oils, and even solid waste. Each of these pollutants has a different noxious effect that influences human livelihood and translates into economic costs.

The adverse impacts of water pollution include:

• costing the economy an estimated Php 67 Billion annually
• killing 25 Filipino, mostly children, each day because diarrhea
• and 1/3 of all diseases is due to bad quality of water

The government continues its fight against worsening water pollution by espousing and including among its priorities, environment policies, legislation, and decrees that address the growing need to control water pollution. In the last few years, the government has employed economic instruments such as pollution fines and environmental taxes.

Access to clean and adequate water remains an acute seasonal problem in urban and coastal areas in the Philippines. The National Capital Region, Central Luzon, Southern Tagalog, and Central Visayas are the four urban critical regions in terms of water quality and quantity. The Government’s monitoring data indicate that:

• Just over a third or 36 % of the country’s river systems are classified as sources of public water supply:
• Up to 58 % of groundwater sampled is contaminated with coliform and needs treatment;
• Approximately 31 % of illness monitored for a five-year period were caused by water-borne sources; and
• Many areas are experiencing a shortage of water supply during the dry season.

Nearly 2.2 million metric tons of organic pollution are produced annually by domestic (48 %), agricultural (37 %), and industrial (15 %) sectors. In the four water-critical regions, water pollution is dominated by domestic and industrial sources. Untreated wastewater affects health by spreading disease-causing bacteria and viruses, makes water unfit for drinking and recreational use, threatens biodiversity, and deteriorates overall quality of life.

Known diseases caused by poor water include gastro-enteritis, diarrhea, typhoid, cholera, dysentery, hepatitis, and more recently, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). The number of water-related health outbreaks including deaths reported in newspapers is going up. However, awareness regarding the need for improved sanitation and water pollution control, reflected by the willingness-to-pay and connection to a sewerage system where they are easily available, is very low.

The annual economic losses caused by water pollution of Php67 Billion include

• Php3 billion for health,
• Php17 billion for fisheries production
• Php47 for tourism.

One of the obvious problems is that when we flush our toilets, the waste is “out of sight and out of mind”. But it does come back to haunt us as diarrhea or any other form of diseases caused by water contamination and bad smell coming from our drains, creeks, and rivers.

With RA9275 or the Clean Water Act of 2004 in place, hopes were high that water pollution can be abated if not permanently stopped.

RA9275 prohibits among others:

• Discharging material that could pollution
• Unauthorized transport or dumping into sea waters of sewage sludge
• Non-compliance of an LGU with the Water Management Quality Area Action Plan

The law also requires:

• That within 5 years all households, commercial centers, and public buildings must be connected to a sewerage system for HUCs.
• Non-HUC shall employ a septage management system
• All subdivisions and commercial establishments must have sewage treatment facilities to get ECC and permit to operate.

Six years after the passage of the Clean Water Act, little has been done:

• 94% of HUCs have no sewerage system to connect to
• In Metro Manila alone, only 7% of the population is connected to piped sewerage system compared to Dhaka with 30% and Phnom Penh with 50%

There is considerable under-investment by the Government in sanitation and sewerage, indicating a low spending priority, though ranked as a high priority in the Philippines Agenda 21 of 1996. Estimates show that over a 10-year period, the country will need to invest Php250 billion in physical infrastructure.

While LGUs recognize emerging water quality problems, they are constrained by

• high investment and operating costs
• limited willingness-to-pay
• restricted space available in the low-income urban areas where sewage is disposed of indiscriminately.

Apparently, a centralized sewerage requires more resources but absence of such poses serious threats to health. But why spend more if alternatives are available? We can opt a decentralized sewerage system as was done by Dumaguete (depicted in the slide).

Some of the Government budget, which is directed mostly towards water supply needs to be diverted to sewerage and sanitation. Individuals are not yet aware and willing to pay for these services and Government incentives are justified in the short-term for the larger community-wide benefits.

To reiterate,  a limited resource must not be an excuse to explore possibilities.

There are local and indigenous products that are available as cheaper alternatives to a more expensive water treatment facility. Bayawan City used reeds or tambo planted in wetlands to filter the wastewater from its settlement area. Calbayog City in Samar, on the other hand used coco-peat to treat wastewater in its area. Allow me to discuss further Calbayog’s ingenuity.

A local orphanage in Calbayog City, Samar is using cocopeat to clean the dirty water coming out of its septic tanks. Cocopeat is the byproduct produced by coconut industries.

The project started in July 15, 2007 at the Save Our Souls Children’s Village. It was assisted by the Local Initiatives for Affordable Wastewater Treatment or LINAW by the USAID.

The cocopeat filter works in a simple manner:

A treatment facility, a compact wooden box with canvass lining, measuring only 4ft high, 4ft wide and 8ft long occupies a small space at the back of the houses in the village. A holding tank collects wastewater from the houses and buildings via drainage pipes.

The box contains cocopeat with washed gravel at the bottom collectively working as filter medium. The water that exits the tank is completely odorless and clear. The key lies with the cocopeat filter that has beneficial bacteria in it that treats water.

To date, the city’s health center, sports complex, and a subdivision has applied the same technology.

While  a centralized wastewater treatment requires an initial capital cost of P50M to P300M, the cocopeat filter has the following advantages:

• it is cheap
• it requires no power or little energy consumption
• it is easily maintained
• it works passively without human hand.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues,

I stand and share before you this technology not only as a member of the Committee on Ecology but as one of those who tirelessly aspire and work for the attainment of our Millennium Development Goals. With the use of local and indigenous products, we can treat wastewater without spending much. Needless to say the abundance of these materials.

I encourage you, my colleagues, as stated in the Clean Water Act of 2004 to:

• support research, enforcement and  monitoring activities
• provide assistance to implementing agencies
• and grant rewards and incentives to similar initiatives that care for the environment.

Muli, isang maka-kalikasang gabi Mr. Speaker and fellow legislators.

Filed under: Uncategorized   |  2 Comments