A UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA COMMUNITY SERVICE PROJECT

SANITARY SURVEY OF CAMERON HIGHLANDS WATER SUPPLY

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Maketab Mohamed Institute of Environmental and Water Resource Management (IPASA)

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

October 2, 2008

INTRODUCTION Cameron Highlands is the most popular cool clime, mountainous holiday destination in Malaysia. The main attractions are the pleasant climate, flower, vegetable and fruit farms and nature trails. The boon of tourism and agriculture i.e. the flower, vegetable and fruit farms have also proven to be a bane for Cameron Highlands. The water supplies for the communities as well as the hotels for the tourists are compromised in both quality and quantity due to their existence. During weekends, public holidays and school holidays, the amount of potable water produced is not enough while the quantity is compromised due to the raw water contamination by total and fecal coliforms resulting from the locations of the water intakes and new farms upstream of the water intake(s) and the failure of the water supply operators to treat the potable water up to the necessary health standards. OBJECTIVES This sanitary survey is a community service study carried out by the Institute of Environmental and Water Resource Management (IPASA) to assist Regional Environmental Awareness of Cameron Highlands (REACH) and is financed by the Research and Management Center (RMC) of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. The objectives of the survey include, but are not limited to:

a) Carrying out a field survey of the inventory of pollution sources of the important watersheds that supply potable water to Cameron Highlands;

b) Compiling the past data or history of the quality of the water supply of Cameron Highlands;

c) Carrying out the discharge or flow measurements of the important streams in Cameron Highlands;

d) Sampling and analyzing both the raw and treated water of Cameron Highlands;

e) Writing a comprehensive report of the water supply problems in Cameron Highlands, and last but not least;

f) Disseminating the report and information to the relevant authorities including government departments, non-government organizations (NGOs) and the media.

The ultimate objective is for the relevant authorities to sit up, take notice and effectively tackle all pertaining issues related to the water supply in Cameron Highlands. BACKGROUND OF POTABLE WATER Water is essential for sustaining life, and a satisfactory (adequate, safe and accessible) supply must be available to all citizens. Improving access to safe drinking water can result in tangible health benefits. Every effort should be made to achieve a drinking water quality as safe as practicable. Safe drinking water does not represent any significant risk to health over a lifetime of consumption, taking into account the different sensitivities that may occur between life stages. Those at greatest risk of waterborne diseases are infants and young children, people who are debilitated or living under unsanitary conditions, and the elderly. Safe drinking water is suitable for all usual domestic purposes, including personal hygiene. Safe drinking water standards are applicable to packaged water

and ice intended for human consumption (WHO, 2006). Microbial Aspects The most common and widespread health risk associated with drinking water is microbial contamination, and its control must always be of paramount importance. Priority needs to be given to improving and developing the drinking water supplies that represent the greatest public health risk. Securing the microbial safety of drinking water supplies is based on the use of multiple barriers, from watershed to consumer, to prevent the contamination of drinking water or to reduce contamination to levels not injurious to health. Safety is increased if multiple barriers are in place, including protection of water resources within the watershed, proper selection and operation of a series of treatment steps and management of distribution systems (piped or otherwise) to maintain and protect treated water quality. The preferred strategy is a management approach that places the primary emphasis on preventing or reducing the entry of pathogens into water sources (watershed or water resource management) and reducing reliance on treatment processes for removal of pathogens i.e. preventive versus curative. Generally, the greatest microbial risks are associated with ingestion of water that is contaminated with human or animal (including bird) feces. Feces can be a source of pathogenic bacteria, viruses, protozoa and helminths. Fecally derived pathogens are the principal concerns in setting health-based targets for microbial safety. Microbial water quality often varies rapidly and over a wide range. Short-term peaks in pathogen concentration may increase disease risks considerably and may trigger outbreaks of waterborne disease. Furthermore, by the time microbial contamination is detected, many people may have been exposed. For these reasons, reliance cannot be placed solely on end-product testing, even when frequent, to ensure the microbial safety of drinking water. Failure to ensure drinking water safety may expose the community to the risk of outbreaks of intestinal and other infectious diseases. Drinking water-borne outbreaks are particularly to be avoided because of their capacity to result in the simultaneous infection of a large number of persons and potentially a high proportion of the community (WHO, 2006). Disinfection Disinfection is of unquestionable importance in the supply of safe drinking water. The destruction of microbial pathogens is essential and very commonly involves the use of reactive chemical agents such as chlorine. Disinfection is an effective barrier to many pathogens (especially bacteria) during drinking water treatment and should be used for surface waters and for groundwater subject to fecal contamination. Residual disinfection is used to provide a partial safeguard against low-level contamination and growth within the distribution system. Chemical disinfection of a drinking water supply that is fecally contaminated will reduce the overall risk of disease but may not necessarily render the supply safe. For example, chlorine disinfection of drinking water has limitations against the protozoan pathogens – in particular Cryptosporidium – and some viruses. Disinfection efficacy may also be unsatisfactory against pathogens within flocs or particles (water with high turbidity or total suspended solids (TSS)), which protect them from disinfectant

action. High levels of turbidity can protect microorganisms from the effects of disinfection, stimulate the growth of bacteria and give rise to a significant chlorine demand. An effective overall management strategy incorporates multiple barriers, including source water protection and appropriate treatment processes, as well as protection during storage and distribution in conjunction with disinfection to prevent or remove microbial contamination (WHO, 2006). Water Resource Management Water resource management is an integral aspect of the preventive management of drinking water quality. Prevention of microbial and chemical contamination of source water is the first barrier against drinking water contamination of public health concern. Water resource management and potentially polluting human activity in the watershed will influence water quality downstream and in aquifers. This will impact on treatment steps required to ensure safe water, and preventive action may be preferable to upgrading treatment. The influence of land use on water quality should be assessed as part of water resource management. This assessment is not normally undertaken by health authorities or drinking water supply agencies alone and should take into consideration:

! Land cover modification; ! Extraction activities; ! Construction/modification of waterways; ! Application of fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides and other chemicals; ! Livestock presence, density and application of manure; ! Road construction, maintenance and use; ! Various forms of recreation within the watershed; ! Urban or rural residential development, with particular attention to domestic

wastewater disposal, sanitation, landfill and waste disposal; and ! Other potentially polluting human activities, such as location of wastewater from

industrial activities etc. Water resource management may be the responsibility of watershed management agencies and/or other entities controlling or affecting water resources such as industrial, agricultural, navigation and flood control entities. The extent to which the responsibilities of health or drinking water supply agencies include water resource management varies greatly between countries and communities. Regardless of government structures and sector responsibilities, it is important that health authorities liaise and collaborate with sectors managing the water resource and regulating land use in the watershed. Establishing close collaboration between the public health authorities, water supplier and resource management agency assists recognition of the health hazards potentially occurring in the system. It is also important for ensuring that the protection of drinking water resources is considered in decisions for land use or regulations to control contamination of water resources. Depending on the setting, this may include involvement of further sectors, such as agriculture, traffic, tourism or urban development. To ensure the adequate protection of drinking water sources, national authorities will

normally interact with other sectors in formulating national policy for integrated water resource management. Regional and local structures for implementing the policy will be set up, and national authorities will guide regional and local authorities by providing tools (WHO, 2006). Regional environmental or public health authorities have an important task in participating in the preparation of integrated water resource management plans to ensure the best available drinking water source quality. THE WATERSHEDS Arguably, all the critical drinking water resources streams and rivers of Cameron Highlands are within the greater Sg. Pahang watershed. There are three important watersheds for the water supply of Cameron Highlands, namely the Ulu Sg. Bertam, Sg. Burung and Sg. Terla watersheds. The study area is shown in Figure 2, which indicates the locations of the water intakes and water quality sampling sites. Ulu Sg. Bertam Ulu Sg. Bertam originates from the eastern face of Gunung Brinchang and later, as Sg. Bertam, flows through Brinchang, Cameron Highlands’ Nine, Tanah Rata, Robinson’s Falls and through Habu and becomes part of the Sultan Abu Bakar reservoir. Although most of the watershed is forested, there are both legal and illegal farms located upstream of the water intake due to the accessibility of the area via the road to the peak of Gunung Brinchang. Even the intake point and treatment enclosure of Ulu Sg. Bertam are breached by farmers to steal water for their farms downstream (Figure 1). Therefore both the water quantity and water quality of the Ulu Sg. Bertam intake and treatment plant are compromised.

Figure 1: Pipes for farm irrigation within the Ulu Sg Bertam water intake and

treatment enclosure

Water Intake Figure 2: Map of Relevant Water Intakes and Sampling Sites Water Quality Sampling Station

Sg Bertam at

Tanah Rata

Sg Burung

Ulu Sg Bertam

Ulu Sg. Terla

Ulu Sg. Telom

Sg. Ikan at Kg. Raja

Sg Telom at Kg. Raja Sg Terla Intake

Kuala Sg. Terla

Sg. Burung Watershed Sg. Burung is a tributary of Sg. Mensun, which joins Sg .Bertam at Kg. Mensun, an Orang Asli community downstream. Part of the Sg. Burung watershed is forested while the other part borders with the Cameron Highlands main road to Kea Farms. The clean raw water from the forested watershed is polluted by stormwater from the road as well as from sullage and wastewater discharge from a restaurant near the road (Figure 3). Due to complaints from the public especially through REACH, a barrier was built to ensure that stormwater from the road and wastewater from the restaurant and other roadside flower and vegetable shops on the way to Kea Farms do not contaminate the raw water for the Sg. Burung treatment plant (Figure 4). The barrier works especially in blocking the wastewater from the stream, draining the roadside watershed, but during heavy rain, the stormwater can still mix with the cleaner water from the forested watershed (REACH, 2008).

Figure 3: Brinchang to Tringkap Main Road near Kea Farms – part of the Sg. Burong

Intake Watershed

Figure 4: Sg Burung Water Intake. Note the barrier/bund within the intake and the

storm drain Sg. Terla Watershed Sg. Terla is a tributary of Sg. Telom, which joins Sg. Bertam at Kg. Tiat, an Orang Asli community downstream. The Sg. Terla water treatment plant provides around 80% of the potable water for Cameron Highlands, therefore the protection of the watershed is of critical importance. There are already several farms upstream of the water intake. These farms are accessible through the road to the water treatment plant just after Pekan Kuala Terla. There are also new farms, which were allowed to be established by the District Office of Cameron Highlands and are now a major threat to the quality of the raw water (Figure 5), especially in the form of TSS (Figures 6 and 7) and both fecal and total coliforms due to the presence of human activities and usage of organic fertilizers from animal sources such as chicken droppings. The new farms also have become the possible source of pesticides (Figure 8) and nutrients (Total N and Total P) from both organic and inorganic fertilizers. The road linking Simpang Pulai to Cameron Highlands and Gua Musang has made the upper catchment of Sg. Terla more easily accessible.

Figure 5: New Farms at Ulu Sg. Terla (upstream of Sg. Terla Water Intake)

Figure 6: Water sampling at Ulu Sg. Terla near former MTD work site. Note the

clarity of the water then

Figure 7: Ulu Sg. Terla near Sg. Terla water intake (photo taken recently). Note the

turbidity of the water even during a dry period and compare it the turbidity of the water in Figure 6

Figure 8: Empty bottles of pesticides used at new farms UPSTREAM of Sg. Terla

water intake. Some of pesticides were banned in Malaysia and the bottles have Thai script written on them

Two other pollution sources nearby are the squatters at the old MTD site office and a cattle rearing operation near the MTD site on the banks of Sg. Terla (Figures 9 and 10). There are cattle sheds below the bridge on both sides of the stream. Non-point source pollution (NPS) in the form of runoff from the cattle pasture during a rainfall will bring pollutants such as nitrate and phosphate into the river. Bacterial and viral pollution also would occur. Specifically, Cryptosporidium contamination could occur, which chlorination at the Sg. Terla Treatment Plant cannot get rid of, as this particular protozoon is immune to chlorination.

Figure 9: Former MTD Site occupied by squatters. Empty space in foreground has

become cattle pasture

Figure 10: Cattle Pasture on the banks of Ulu Sg. Terla near former MTD Site

In 1993, about 400, 000 residents of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA (population: 1.61 million) came down with stomach cramps and diarrhea due to drinking water contamination by Cryptosporidium cysts. PAST INFORMATION Quantity of Treated Water In 2005, an estimated total of 5.8 million litres per day (MLD) of water was abstracted and processed at several water intake points from streams and rivers originating from the local montane forests for drinking water supply (Table ).The main water supply then was from the Sg Burung water plant.

Table 1: Existing Water Supply in Cameron Highlands, 2005 (EPU, Prime Minister’s Dept.)

Existing Water Supply Capacity (MLD)

Sg Burong 2.6

Kg Raja 0.23

Kuala Terla (existing) 0.23

Kea Farm 0.23

Tringkap 0.23

Brinchang 1.5

Habu (existing) 0.02

Lubok Tamang 0.006

Ringlet 0.57

Lembah Bertam 0.23

Total 5.846

Table 2: Past and Present Water Demand for Cameron Highlands (2005)

Year Projected Population

Total (MLD)

Losses (MLD)

Demand (MLD)

2000 28,050 10.9 3.3 14.2

2005 29,627 14.0 4.0 18.0

2010 31,293 16.4 4.3 20.7

2015 32,889 19.3 4.2 23.6

2020 34,567 22.3 4.0 26.3

Source: Pahang Water Resources Study (1999) Based on the estimated demand of 14 MLD of water (Table 1.2) this gives a shortage of around 8.2 MLD. Two new schemes were proposed in 2005 to overcome the water shortage problems. The schemes are the Sg Terla and Habu schemes.

Sg Terla Water Treatment Plant The Sg. Terla Water Treatment Plan is a scheme to yield a total of 43 MLD to be implemented in four stages. Stages I and II were completed yielding 26 MLD and the reminder to be completed by 2020 and 2030. This is the scheme whereby the presence of existing and new farms upstream of the water intake point is compromising the quality of the source water. Habu Water Treatment Plant Meanwhile the Habu scheme was implemented in 2005 yielding another 9 MLD and eventually 23 MLD by 2035. This scheme also faces problems such as farmers siphoning water for irrigating their crops from the catchment areas upstream of the water intake point. Quality of Potable Water Biological Contaminants Based on the latest studies done by REACH in 2005 on treated drinking water there was an alarming increase in the presence of E. coli in samples taken from eight sites compared to those in 2003. At the same time treated water samples taken by the Cameron Highlands’ Health Department indicated gross contamination of E. coli as the results given were written as “too numerous to count” (TNTC). These readings meant the colonies exceeded 200 counts/plate. According to the WHO standards, untreated water supplies should have less than 10 cfu/100 mL, while there should not be any fecal coliform (E. coli) in treated water. E. coli or fecal coliform is an indicator of the presence of faecal matter in the water. It is commonly found in sewage, industrial effluents; and natural waters and soils subject to recent faecal contamination from humans, farm animals, manure, wild animals and birds. Chicken manure is commonly used in farms therefore the most possible source of contamination. Human feces, in areas where there are proper sewage treatment, too form a likely source. The presence of E. coli in water always indicates potentially dangerous contamination requiring immediate action. This is to prevent possible waterborne diseases such as typhoid, cholera, dysentery, gastroenteritis, hepatitis etc. from occurring. Chemical contaminants While chemical contaminants have been found in most rivers in Cameron Highlands it is the contaminants in the water intake points that of utmost concern. a. Sg Burung water treatment plant In April 2005, Kosmo! a Malay language newspaper found banned pesticides including the dreaded DDT (dichloro diphenyl trichoroethane.) in a stream flowing into the intake point for this plant. An accredited laboratory conducted the analytical tests. The concentration is at 0.970 mg/L i.e. 20,000 times higher than the permissible level. Other pesticides found include aldrin and heptachlor. The results

concurred with a recent study carried out by REACH in 2005, which found high levels of pesticides as well as increased values of heavy metals such as arsenic. lead, mercury and cadmium. b. Sg Terla water treatment plant (2005) Even in 205 there were many farms, which are located above the water intake point. This inherent problem needs to be addressed before the situation gets worse. STUDY METHODOLOGY The study involved watershed delineations, pollution sources survey, discharge measurement, in situ water quality measurements and water quality samplings for laboratory analyses. The river water samplings were carried out at various sites as indicated in Figures 2 and 6; and Tables 6 and 7. Raw water at the treatment plants as well as potable water at various consumer points was sampled for two days as indicated in Tables 4 and 5. Discharge measurements, which used the area method using a current meter were taken. The discharge measurements were not required for the sanitary survey, but the need is there for water quality modeling in the future (Figure 11).

Figure 11: Discharge (Q) Measurement at Ulu Sg. Terla

The in situ water quality measurements used Yellow Springs Instruments YSI Model 85 (Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature, Conductivity and Salinity Meter) and HACH Portable Turbidity Meter.

Water samples for laboratory analyses were preserved accordingly i.e. with 1 + 1 sulfuric acid for parameters such as ammoniacal nitrogen, nitrate and reactive phosphate while for organics the samples were preserved in ice (Figure 12). Samples for microbiological examinations were sampled using sterile glass bottles and were also preserved in ice and sent immediately to the laboratory in Ipoh for analysis.

Figure 12: Sample Preservation and in situ Turbidity Measurement at Ulu Sg. Terla

All analytical methods comply with the Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (AWWA, APHA and WEF) RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Past water quality results of the treated water for Cameron Highlands indicate the failure of the treatment plant(s) in the removal of the total and fecal coliforms/E. coli (TC and FC respectively). As seen in Table 3, the presence of TC and FC goes together with the absence of residual chlorine in the treated water. Both the TC and FC were recorded as TNTC (too numerous to count), which means that the number of colonies exceeded 200 colony-forming units (cfu) per 100 mL). The maximum allowable WHO value for free chlorine residual in drinking water is 5 mg/L. The minimum recommended WHO value for free chlorine residual in treated drinking water is 0.2 mg/L. It is recommended not to exceed 2.0 mg/L due to taste concerns.

Table 3: Treated Water Quality for Cameron Highlands, sampled on 28 June 2004

(Department of Chemistry, Malaysia) No. Station

Number Location Residual

Chlorine (mg/L)

Total Coliforms (cfu/100 mL)

Fecal Coliforms (cfu/100 mL)

1. BR/003 TPO (Treatment Plant) 0 TNTC TNTC

2. BR/004 SRO (Pej. Pertanian, Brinchang)

1.0 < 1 < 1

3. BR/005 SRO (Women’s Institute) 0 2 < 1

4. BR/006 Distribution Pipe, Golf Course

0.6 < 1 < 1

5. BR/007 Distribution Pipe, Primary School Brinchang

0 TNTC TNTC

6. BR/008 Distribution Pipe, Buddhist Temple, Brinchang

0.6 < 1 < 1

7. BR/009 Distribution Jasar Valley 0 TNTC TNTC

8. KR/002 TPO Kg Baru 1.0 < 1 < 1

9. TP/002 TPO Dewan Tringkap 1.5 < 1 < 1

Table 4: Microbiological Sampling Results by UTM/REACH (21 Jan. 2008)

No. Sampling Site River

Type of Water

Total Coliforms (Cfu/100ml)

Fecal Coliforms (cfu/100 mL)

1 MTD-Bridge Sg. Terla Raw Water <10 <10

2 MTD-After Housing

Sg. Terla

Raw Water 2.0 X 101 <10

3 Food Stalls at Kg Raja Treated

Water <10 <10

4 Kuala Terla- Spring Water 1

Spring Water (besides the road) Raw Water 2.5 X102 1.0 X102

5 Kuala Terla Intake Sg Terla Raw Water <10 <10

6 Kuala Terla-Temple

Treated Water <10 <10

7 Tringkap Community Hall

Treated Water <10 <10

8 Sg Burung Treatment Plant

Sg. Burung Raw Water 2.0 X 101 <10

9 Ulu Sg Bertam Treatment Plant

Ulu Sg. Bertam Raw Water 6 <10

10 Army camp, Brinchang Treated

Water 3.0 X102 1.0 X102

11 Petronas, Brinchang Treated

Water 1.5 X103 <10

12 KFC, Brinchang Treated

Water 2.5 X102 <10

13 Jasar Valley Distribution (BR/009)

Treated Water <10 <10

14 Chennai Curry House, Tanah Rata

Treated Water <10 <10

15 WI-gerai Treated

Water <10 <10

Table 5: Microbiological Sampling Results by UTM/REACH (22 Jan. 2008)

No. Sampling Site

River

Type of Water

Total Coliforms (cfu/100ml)

Fecal Coliforms (cfu/100 mL)

1 MTD-Bridge Sg. Terla Raw Water 1.0 X102 5.0 X 101

2 MTD-After Housing Sg. Terla Raw Water 2.0 X 101 <10

3 Gerai-Gerai at Kg Raja Treated

Water <10 <10

4 Kuala Terla Intake Sg Terla Raw Water 3.0 X102 <10

5 Kuala Terla-Temple Sg Terla Raw Water <10 <10

6 Kuala Terla- Spring Water 2

Spring Water (besides the road)

Treated Water

<10 <10

7 Tringkap-Dewan Treated

Water <10 <10

8 Sg Burung Treatment Plant

Sg. Burung Raw Water 1.0 X 101 <10

9 Ulu Sg Bertam Treatment Plant

Ulu Sg. Bertam Raw Water 2 <10

10 Sekolah Kebangsaan Brinchang

Treated Water <10 <10

11 Petronas, Brinchang Treated

Water <10 <10

12 KFC, Brinchang Treated

Water <10 <10

13 Jasar Valley Distribution (BR/009)

Treated Water <10 <10

14 Chennai Curry House, Tanah Rata

Treated Water <10 <10

15 WI-gerai Treated

Water <10 <10

Table 6: Water Quality Results – Laboratory Analyses (sampled on 22 Jan. 2008) No. Sampling Sites BOD

(mg/L) COD (mg/L)

TSS (mg/L)

Ammoniacal Nitrogen (mg/L)

Nitrate (mg/L)

Phosphate (mg/L)

1 Hulu Sg. Terla (at MTD, under bridge)

0.95 15 4 0.12 0.23 3.6

2 Hulu Sg. Telom 0.99 10 12 0.07 1.18 0.34

3 Sg. Ikan near junction with Sg. Telom

3.85 8 20 1.16 1.20 1.95

4 Sg. Telom after confluence with Sg Ikan at Kg. Raja

4.02 9 68 0.44 0.65 1.62

5 Sg. Terla near K. Terla 2.80 54 16 0.22 0.39 0.75

6 Sg. Burung at intake 1.85 15 10 0.10 0.12 0.47

7 Ulu Sg. Bertam at intake 0.60 87 6 0.27 0.15 0.38

8 Sg. Bertam after Brinchang and Golf Course

2.64 53 26 0.39 0.34 3.17

9 Sg. Bertam at Tanah Rata 3.11 12 28 0.27 0.41 1.02

10 Sg. Jasar at before Sg. Bertam, at Tanah Rata

11.37 88 18 1.40 0.30 3.9

Table 7: Water Quality Results – In situ samplings (sampled on 22 Jan. 2008) No. Sampling Sites DO

(mg/L) DO sat.

(%) Temp.

(oC) Conductivity

(µS/cm) Salinity

(ppt) Turbidity

(NTU)

1 Hulu Sg. Terla (at MTD, under bridge)

9.31 96.9 17.0 22.5 0.0 3.92

2 Hulu Sg. Telom 8.94 91.2 17.1 17.2 0.0 16.2

3 Sg. Ikan near junction with Sg. Telom

8.74 94.2 19.3 97.9 0.1 21.8

4 Sg. Telom after confluence with Sg Ikan at Kg. Raja

8.66 98.5 18.8 53.8 0.0 32.2

5 Sg. Terla near K. Terla 9.64 103.7 18.7 32.8 0.0 45.9

6 Sg. Burung at intake 9.08 95.0 17.5 20.0 0.0 2.28

7 Ulu Sg. Bertam at intake 8.93 90.6 17.1 13.3 0.0 1.99

8 Sg. Bertam after Brinchang and Golf Course

8.20 97.2 22.3 56.9 0.0 5.64

9 Sg. Bertam at Tanah Rata 8.22 94.4 22.0 52.6 0.0 6.12

10 Sg. Jasar at before Sg. Bertam, at Tanah Rata

4.53 51.7 21.4 81.1 0.0 10.2

Table 4 also indicates non-compliance for the microbiological parameters at the Army Camp in Brinchang, the PETRONAS station at Brinchang and the KFC restaurant at Brinchang.

The water quality at Ulu Sg. Terla at the MTD site (Sampling Site 1 in Tables 4 - 7) indicates good water quality when the samplings were carried out in January 2008. The dissolved oxygen was high, the TSS and turbidity were very low, and the ammoniacal nitrogen was also low. The TC and FC were 100 and 50 cfu/100 mL, which is relatively good. The presence of the new farms, which cleared the forested lands UPSTREAM of the sampling site and the water intake for the Sg. Terla Treatment Plant very likely compromises the water quality of raw water for the potable water of Cameron Highlands, especially after a rainfall. The TSS and turbidity of Sg. Terla have likely multiplied multiple-fold, which will increase the cost of water treatment. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The raw water of Ulu Sg. Terla has been compromised due to the presence of the newly opened farms upstream of the Sg. Terla Water Treatment Plant. Increased turbidity and TSS incur increased treatment costs. The presence of high TSS also allows for bacteria and viruses to “hide” among the particulate, which causes the bacteria to survive the chlorination and remain in the system even after treatment. Other contamination such as from pesticides and fertilizers used also must be considered. The presence of the cattle-rearing project at the MTD location also compromises the microbiological safety of the drinking water, particularly in the case of protozoa such as Cryptosporidium cysts, which are resistant to chlorination. In line with the general practice of watershed management for the purpose of drinking water supply, there should not be any farms or human habitation within the Sg Terla watershed. The old or new farms, as well as the illegal human settlement at the MTD site and the cattle-rearing operation, should be closed immediately for the good of the people and tourists visiting Cameron Highlands.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks to the Research Management Center (RMC) of UTM for giving the financial backing for this Community Service project. Special thanks to REACH, especially the President, Mr. Ramakrishnan Ramasamy and other REACH members such Dr. Liau Tai Leong, who provided the accommodations and Mr. Rajoo, who provided good food. Thanks are also due to Mr Fazly Azahar, who assisted in samplings and discharge measurements and Mrs. Noraidah Zhwal for analyzing the water samples. REFERENCES REACH, 2007. Personal Communication. USEPA Website, 2008. Guidance for People with Severely Weakened Immune

Systems http://www.epa.gov/safewater. Accessed on 25 Aug 2008. WHO, 2006. Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality FIRST ADDENDUM TO THIRD

EDITION, Volume 1: Recommendations.

APPENDIX 1: Interim National Water Quality Standards for Malaysia (Selected Parameters)

CLASSES PARAMETER

I IIA/IIB III# IV V

Ammoniacal Nitrogen, mg/L

0.1 0.3 0.9 2.7 2.7

BOD5, mg/L 1 3 6 12 12

COD, mg/L 10 25 50 100 100

DO, mg/L ! 7 5 - 7 3 - 5 3 - 1 < 1

pH 6.5 – 8.5 6.5 - 9 5 - 9 5 - 9 -

Electrical Conductivity, µmhos/com

1000 1000 - 6000 -

Salinity, ppt 0.5 1 - 2 -

Total Suspended Solids, mg/L

25 50 150 300 300

Temperature, oC - Normal + 20

oC

Normal + 20 oC

- -

Turbidity, NTU 5 50 50 - -

Fecal Coliforms, counts/100 mL

10 100/400 5000 (20000)

a

5000 (20000)

a

-

Total Coliforms, counts/100 mL

100 5000 50000 50000 > 50000

Zinc, mg/L Natural Levels

5 0.4* 2 Levels

above Class IV

Cadmium, mg/L Natural Levels

0.01 0.01* (0.001) 0.01 Levels

above Class IV

Lead, mg/L Natural Levels

0.05 0.02* (0.01) 5 Levels

above Class IV

Copper, mg/L Natural Levels

0.02 - 0.2 Levels above Class IV

Nitrite (NO2) Natural Levels

0.4 0.4 (0.03) - Levels above Class IV

Nitrate (NO3) Natural Levels

7 - 5 Levels above Class IV

Phosphorus, mg/L Natural Levels

0.2 0.1 - Levels above Class IV

* = At hardness 50 mg/L CaCO3 # = Maximum (unbracketed) and 24-hour average (bracketed) a = Maximum not to be exceeded