Table 2 Advantages and disadvantages of different administrations of water resources
From: Water quality legislation in Palestine over the past century
| Â | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
Ottoman era | Cities: centralized pure water | Only visual inspection, no scientific-based for water quality |
Villages: distribution and protection community decision making | No enforcement and control over water laws | |
Water for social purposes | ||
British Mandate | Detailed and scientific-based legislation (geology and hydrogeology) | No water laws fully endorsed and implemented |
Linking water with health, infrastructure development (strategic thinking and planning) | ||
Penalty | ||
Pricing | ||
Water allocation | ||
Establishing a water law | ||
Municipality laws | ||
Jordanian administration | Adaptation of British water legislation and amendment (water court) | Centralized institution (natural resources authority) |
Definition of pollution | No independent water department | |
Israeli occupation | Efficient institutional building (central): support of civil administration | Centralized and militarized institution and control (linking water department with civil administration and Mekorot water company) |
Regulation of quotas | No improvement of water infrastructure | |
Spring distribution left intact | ||
Palestinian authority | First authority to work for the benefit of the Palestinian people | Laws and articles are characterized as general and lack proper enforcement mechanisms and not thoroughly detailed |
Adaptation of Israeli groundwater quotas | Limited control over the water resources | |
Maintaining the database system | Degradation of water resources increased |