The Beetham Wastewater Recycling Plant (BWRP)—being constructed by a consortium led by the omnipresent Super Industrial Services—has faced a barrage of criticism since the award of contract.
These criticisms have focused mainly on the issues of possible corruption and NGC’s involvement in a project that is remotely connected to its core business. But, even as the project proceeds apace, I think it is important for us as a nation to question the viability and rationale for this project, as we should with all other mega projects.
Multimedia advertisements financed by NGC, have extolled the many virtues of the BWRP.
“This is just what is required at this time,” “ A most important project,” and “A long overdue project.”
It is estimated that an astonishing $500,000 was spent on advertisements aimed at convincing the general public that BWRP is a worthwhile project and that the benefits to be derived from it will justify the expenditure of approximately $1.1 billion. Interestingly, I cannot recall one of these advertisements presenting in quantitative terms the expected benefits of this project.
From a national perspective, we need to ask a few pertinent questions:
• Does this project represent the best allocation of scare resources?
• What were the alternatives considered and does this project yield the highest net benefit?
• Waste-water recycling is just one of four major methods for winning more water and eliminating any shortage.
• Other methods are harvesting of fresh surface water (from rainfall), drilling for ground water, and desalination of sea water.
According to the World Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) waste water reuse is an option that is being increasingly taken up in regions in the world with water scarcity, growing urban populations and growing demands for irrigation.
It is not surprising that waste water projects are most popular in arid regions such as the Mediterranean, Middle East and desert regions of the USA, to name a few. There is a close correlation between those countries with severe water scarcity and those that are engaged in the reuse of waste water.
Do any of these factors explain the urgency with which NGC/WASA are attaching to this plant?
Globally, water scarcity is measured by the water stress index—defined as the amount of fresh water available to each person. A country is considered to be experiencing water scarcity if the amount of water available in a country is below 1,700 cubic metres per person per year.
World Bank data indicates that 2880 cubic metres of water are available for each person in T&T, placing this country well within the no risk zone on the global water stress index. In this blessed land, climatic conditions ensure there is no shortage of water from nature.
Our annual rainfall is more than adequate to take care of our all water our needs year round. Yet data from WASA suggests that T&T faced an annual water shortfall of about 35 mg/d in 2012. The problem is not water availability but water capture and delivery.
Our failure to capture nature’s water in the rainy season, compounded by an insufficient and leaky infrastructure, create water shortages particularly in the dry season and in remote areas. The Beetham project does not address these problems.
It was evident from the early 1990s that rapid growth in Point Lisas would have created competing demands and therefore strain available supply. It is in response to this threat that the desalination plant in Point Lisas was constructed in 2002 with the primary purpose of serving the needs of the estate. It continues to do so today.
Point Lisas demand is approximately 12 million gallons per day compared with a desalination capacity of 32 million gallons per day. The desal plant is currently undergoing an expansion which would take its production capacity up to 40 million gallons per day.
While this is ongoing, we are told that the Beetham project will provide water to Point Lisas and the supply of the desalination plant will be distributed for domestic use.
The explanations provided by the authorities have been woefully short of what is required. In this period of limited resources and legitimate competing demands, we need to ensure that as a nation, we derive maximum benefit from each dollar spent.
It is reported that the previous government had abandoned this project because it proved economically unfeasible. Has any comparative cost benefit analysis been done to determine whether this scaled-down version is the most cost-effective approach to meeting the shortages in domestic supply?
Has this project been evaluated against other available options including the onsite expansion of the desal plant, expansion of existing fresh water facilities, building of new fresh water facilities?
For example, for over ten years now we have been hearing of the proposed Mamoral Dam.
This is a project that is touted to yield multiple benefits. As recent as 2012, NIDCO president Dr Carsen Charles is quoted as saying, “the new Mamoral Dam will not only prevent flooding but will also allow the Water and Sewage Authority to capture water for domestic use.”
Charles, at that time, also said that a contract was awarded for the” feasibility and design” of the Mamoral Dam. Nothing has been heard of it since that time.
Similarly, the BWRP needs to be assessed against other plans to build small-scale desalination plants in the remote areas thereby creating diversity in supply and bringing the solution closer to the source of the problem.
Two such plants are already in operation in Point Fortin and Moruga.
In the absence of the hard data from such analysis, the current advertising campaign is nothing but raw propaganda. Failure to produce the analysis also means that the Government is paying lip service to the principles of good governance, prudent management of resources and sustainability.
Gregory McGuire is an energy economist and consultant.
