JAPAN CHINA

HEIGHT 7m high concrete gravity 62m high concrete face rockfill

dam
SITE 4km upstream of MWSS 4km downstream of GUDC
damsite weir
TREATED WATER 550 million L/day 600 million L/day
SUPPLY
LOCATION Tanay, Rizal Tanay, Rizal to Infanta,
Quezon
COST 21 Billion 12.2 Billion (Under ODA
arrangement)
FINANCER Full amount financed by Dam & Tunnel: 85% Chinese
GUDC ODA, 15% PH government
Water treatment Plant: finance
proposed to be made by
concessionaires
WATER DIVERSION 16km long with a diameter of 22.5km long with a diameter of
TUNNEL 3.3m 4m
WATER TREATMENT One plant with a capacity of Two plants with a capacity of
PLANT 550 MLD at Tanay 1200 MLD each at Pantay and
Teresa
INUNDATION None 440 Families

Social and Environmental Impacts

JAPAN CHINA
RELOCATION OF None (Backwater ends at 670m 424 families (Infanta)
RESIDENCE upstream of the water) 4700 People (Daraitan Village)
DAMAGE TO PARK None Inundation of Tini Pak White
Rocks Springs and Caves
RIVER FLOW TO 30.45 m3/sec , an average 27.9 m3/sec, at the dam site
DOWNSTREAM AREA annual inflow at the dam site (100%) minus 6.95 m3/sec
AFTER COMPLETION (100%) minus 6.6 m3/sec (25%) =20.95 m3/sec
(22%) = 23.85%
SILT TRANSPORTATION 297, 160 cm/year without trap 188,800 cm/year
TO DOWNSTREAM AREA volume per year
MEAN MONTHLY 113.3 m3/sec minus 23.85 113.3 m3/sec minus 20.95
DISCHARGE AT THE m3/sec = 89.45 m3/sec m3/sec = 92.35 m3/sec
CONFLUENCE OF
KALIWA AND KANAN
FLOOD FLOW OF 3202 m3/sec (Return period: Danger of man-made flood by
DOWNSTREAM Several hundred years) operation of the gates (if the
gates are fully opened, the
flood flow will reach to more
than 5000 m3/sec)
COLLAPSE OF DAM Small massive concrete weir, Under investigation
no earthquake damages
DAMAGE BY No damage expected Dam will be damage heavily
DRIFTWOOD FLOW
INUNDATION None 440 Families

Advantages of Private Funding (PPP - Japan)

 More rapid turnaround of the award. Many private organizations have a set schedule of
proposal reviews and presenting awards. With fewer levels of review, awards may be
made more rapidly.
 Possibly fewer regulations than federal awards. This can stretch from length and cost
allowability to programmatic reporting of results.
 Fewer applicants in proposal pool. Although the available funds may be much less, there
are normally fewer proposals to consider. A grants management system can be used to
generate reports that measure increased success rates.
 Private sources may focus on emerging issues, new needs, populations emerging as
“special interests” and be more willing to “adapt” by collaborating with other sources,
providing alternative forms of assistance, and considering experimental activities.

Disadvantages of Private Funding

 Awards are often smaller and less likely to cover all project costs, and many do not cover
indirect costs
 Unless the foundation is large, there may be less support for questions,
policies/procedures and fewer opportunities for personal contact and/or site visits
 Areas of focus may change rapidly, so continual funding may be hard to predict
 At some institutions, private funding may not be “prized” as highly as federal funding
because of perceptions that the review isn’t as rigorous as that of federal grants/contracts

Advantages of Government Funding

 Awards are often smaller and less likely to cover all project costs, and many do not cover
indirect costs
 Unless the foundation is large, there may be less support for questions,
policies/procedures and fewer opportunities for personal contact and/or site visits
 Areas of focus may change rapidly, so continual funding may be hard to predict
 At some institutions, private funding may not be “prized” as highly as federal funding
because of perceptions that the review isn’t as rigorous as that of federal grants/contracts

Disadvantages of Government Funding

 Lengthy proposal requirements and complex application, administration and compliance

processes
 Often required institutional cost-sharing. This is becoming less of a federal issue but still
arises frequently with state and other public agencies.
 Reviewers may tend to favor established applicants
 Difficulty in proposing new or high risk approaches to a problem
 Cost to institution may be higher due to complexity of applications and stricter
compliance requirements