Journal of Research in Environmental Science and Toxicology

Abstract

Wastewater management was the legal responsibility of municipalities for decades in the state of Israel, resulting in environmental and water resource pollution. The 1990s saw a turnaround in this pattern. This paper explains the paradigm shift and examines how the national regime evolved, as well as how it affected at the municipal level. It turns out that rather than the local authorities, the policies of the central government regarding are to blame for both the paradigm shift and the long-term neglect.

Keywords

Management of waste water, Wastewater management, Change in the regime

INTRODUCTION

People suffer from a severe lack of clean water, with approximately 180 cubic meters (CM) per person per year, and has been facing a real water crisis for some time (Bornmann L et al., 2008)

(Daipha P et al., 2001). Water management has primarily focused on quantity (resource use) rather than quality (resource protection) due to development, despite the fact that one would expect the scarce resources to be well managed and protected. The water resources have significantly deteriorated as a result of excessive pumping and on-going pollution. Surface and groundwater pollution, as well as environmental pollution, became primarily brought about by wastewater that had not been treated at all.

As is the case in numerous nations, the legal responsibility for wastewater management, also known as collection, treatment, and disposal, falls on municipal authorities in the state of Israel. While sewerage systems were constructed by municipalities to eliminate hazards from urban areas at an early stage, the treatment and disposal aspects were frequently overlooked for decades. However, during the 1990s, the majority of municipalities began investing in the construction of advanced wastewater treatment plants (WWTP).

A study on the procedures for establishing WWTPs in Israeli municipalities reveals that the central government's policies and agendas regarding significantly influenced at the municipal level, which can explain both the longterm neglect and the paradigm shift of the 1990s. Since municipalities are legally responsible, the long-term neglect has traditionally been attributed to them. To answer two research questions, the paper examines the regime from the perspective of the central government: i) how did the national regime in Israel change over time, and how did this change affect at the municipal level? Moreover, in what way can the paradigm shift be explained in (ii)? The study only examines municipal within Israel; this paper does not cover cross-border pollution or any other significant issues (Da Silva FC et al., 2011).

DISCUSSION

The ownership of the resource and its uses and users are referred to as property rights. Traditional forms of ownership include state, private, common, and no- property. There are a number of uses and functions for water resources that can be identified; for instance, see. This paper refers to the five components of public governance as defined by Bressers and Kuks as "public policy": scales and levels of government; members of the policy community; perception of problems and goals of policy; instruments and strategy; and the resources necessary to carry them out (Diamond L et al., 2006) (Gill TM et al., 2013).

The "extent" and "coherence" of property rights and public policy are the criteria that are used to define the regime types and phases as well as the transitions between them. The term "extent" refers to the range of uses and users recognized by the regime (the question, "how many uses are regulated and protected by the regime?"). as well as to the scope of the elements of public policy (such as "how many actors, instruments, and resources are involved in resource management?"). The degree of coordination between property rights and the regime's public policy components (such as "Are the different uses and policy elements well coordinated?") is referred to as "coherence." Is there a match between each use and the policy system's target groups?) (Glock CY et al., 1958). Because of this, simple regimes have a low extent because they typically only recognize or regulate a few uses and are single-element regimes: e.g., one problem perception, one governing actor, etc. As a result, the coherence can be described as medium-high. As more uses are regulated and a policy system with multiple components, such as when more actors, instruments, and resources are involved, complex regimes are characterized by increasing extent (Grimmer J et al., 2013). Coherence does not necessarily increase with complexity, and complex but fragmented regimes are common. As a result, higher extent and low coherence are characteristics of complex regimes. The shift toward integrated regimes implies a high degree of extent and coherence (more elements, well-coordinated), but it requires deliberate effort and will only occur when the relevant actors acknowledge that such integration is necessary to prevent further resource degradation. The most sustainable regimes are those that are integrated (Horowitz IL et al., 2013).

However, a transition process can also fail. In this scenario, changes to one component of the regime would not be accompanied by changes to other components, resulting in a failed or partial regime shift. This suggests that for transitions to be successful, favorable conditions are required, despite the significance of triggers. Bressers and co. While Kampa and Bressers and Kuks refer to the institutional context in terms of power distribution, values, and perceptions of water issues in a nation, Kampa and Bressers and Kuks address preconditions as joint problems, joint opportunities, credible alternative threat, and institutional interfaces. Within the theoretical framework of transition theory, this paper examines the transitions that were observed in the evolution of the Israeli WWM and the presence or absence of favorable conditions that could have accounted for them (Lakin JM et al., 2011)( Lamont M et al., 1987).

The transition theory talks about how social systems change. It talks about transitions as a long-term process that happens when cultural, institutional, economic, ecological, and technological changes come together. The positive interaction and mutual reinforcement of several developments in these various fields is a prerequisite. Shortterm events or gradual social shifts can set off transitions. The theory identifies important ideas and tools: multi-stage; multi-level; and multiple shifts. Transition management is addressed by the multi-change concept. The multi-stage and multi-level concepts are relevant to this discussion because they are used to explain transitions.

The management of wastewater as a water resource was the primary policy objective in relation to WWM. Agriculture was a significant part of the economy of the new state, but it also represented Zionistic ideals like the right to work one's own land and own country, among other things. and became a major national target as a result. Water policy and management were heavily influenced by the agricultural lobby, who prioritized strong agriculture over other uses like protecting natural water resources. The Ministry of Agriculture (MINAGR), Israel's highest authority on water management, appointed the Water Commissioner, who was heavily influenced by the agricultural sector at the time, Israel's largest water consumer and most powerful. The primary goal of the MINAGR was to promote agriculture rather than safeguard water resources. As a result, farmers at the time primarily viewed wastewater as an additional free or inexpensive source of water. The majority of other aspects of WWM went unnoticed. To the satisfaction of central authorities, municipalities constructed sewers to address the issue of public health, ignoring the treatment component. However, WWM did not address environmental protection (including water resources). As a result, the focus of this phase's policy objective was on a single element.

CONCLUSION

A cholera outbreak occurred in August 1970. Twenty fatalities were among the nearly 300 reported cases. Consumption of raw vegetables irrigated with low-quality effluent was implicated in the outbreak. The outbreak sparked public outrage and had financial repercussions for the tourism and agricultural industries, putting a significant amount of pressure on the government. The health aspect of WWM received high priority, and urgent meetings were held with the relevant Ministries. Two decisions were made by the government: The World Health Organization (WHO) established a brand-new interministerial committee and, most importantly, requested an urgent loan from the World Bank to construct wastewater infrastructure. In 1972, an agreement was made with the World Bank.

However, the outbreak only had a brief impact because things quickly returned to "business as usual" with little change from the previous phase. The relevant Ministries' Director Generals were on the committee. Although it was only a formal appointment, the Director General of the Ministry of Interior was appointed as Chair. In practice, the committee was run by the Water Commissioner. Additionally, the MINAGR was the only Ministry with two representatives, preserving its control over the matter. It was up to the committee to reach an agreement on related policy. The Water Commissioner established the "National Sewage Project," which was tasked with reviewing municipal plans, allocating budgets if approved, and supervising their implementation in order to carry out its decisions. However, the committee met rarely and did not carry out its duties. Budgets were used by the operative arm to dictate WWM's approach in the absence of guiding policy. The approved technical solutions were impacted as a result of the continued management of wastewater as primarily a water resource. The protection of the environment and water resources was deemed non-existent, and the health issue was once again regarded as secondary.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

None

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

None